The new billboards, soon to be 30 strong in Chicago, feature an image of President Obama next to the words, “Every 21 minutes, our next possible leader is aborted.”
The campaign has pro-abortion advocates in full attack. “Racist Anti-Abortion Billboards Hit Chicago” declared the Today’s Chicago Woman blog. Hmmm. Racist, eh? Would the billboard still be racist if we had a white president? If the same billboard was displayed in an all-white neighborhood? How is that message racist?
It isn’t. But if there’s one lesson the past few years have taught, it is that crying racism is as effective a way of stifling open debate as ever was.
“The billboards have been placed in the black community with a picture of the first black president stating that black women are murderers of potential black leaders,” says Cherisse Scott, a health educator and campaigns coordinator with Black Women for Reproductive Justice. Actually, the billboard doesn’t accuse black women of doing anything at all, nor does it say anything derogatory about women generally. It doesn’t accuse women of doing anything illegal, either: since abortion is legal, it certainly isn’t the equivalent of murder.
Guilty conscience, Cherisse? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the position of abortion advocates, intellectually dishonest though it is, has always been that an aborted fetus is not a human being at all. Why are you interpreting “abortion” as “murder”?
I am puzzled.
Cherisse continues: “The billboards vilify black women for making the very hard decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. To say that a black child is not safe in his or her mother’s womb is not only racist, but heinous.”
Not heinous. True….depending on the mother, of course.
Since the argument that there is anything false or insulting about the billboard is clearly unsustainable, more prudent critics have moved on to vilifying the motives behind the message. The Daily Beast was shocked to find that the billboard was funded by <gasp!> religious Republicans, and of course, nothing they say could possibly be fair or persuasive. “The sponsors of these billboards are using race as a wedge issue to deny women the ability to make important personal medical decisions,” claimed Carole Brite, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Illinois. “These billboards are offensive and disturbing. This is harmful to women in every community who need quality, affordable health care.”
This is all desperately, pathetically, dishonest and cowardly. Here is what is “wrong” with the billboard: it raises an aspect of abortion that complicates the lock-step, unyielding pro-abortion position that a woman’s decision to abort need not involve any consideration of what the (potential-theoretical-pseudo) child, the mother, and the world might be losing. The same kind of protests follow attempts to show mothers considering abortion what a second trimester fetus looks like, or to explain the actual abortion procedure. Winning a cultural argument is oh so much easier when you can censor the other side’s most powerful arguments and bury annoying facts.
Abortion is the epitome of a complex issue that requires ethical balancing. One aspect of the balance in the abortion debate is that a disproportionate number of African-American pregnancies are terminated by abortion; another is that every baby aborted is a potential American of distinction and importance lost. Barack Obama is an ideal public figure with which to make the point, for the circumstances leading to his birth often lead mothers to seek abortions.
The pro-abortion community should stop trying to stifle debate, hide legitimate issues and vilify its opponents, and deal honestly, fairly and responsibly with some of the inconvenient truths of the procedure it champions. Women should think about a lot of things before deciding on an abortion, and the potential life, career, and accomplishments of the (potential-theoretical-pseudo) human being who is about to be plucked from existence is just one of them.
Ethics Alarms 
I don’t understand the premise of this post. Nobody is “pro-abortion”.
Sophistry. Pro-abortion is more accurate and honest than “pro-choice”…it is not unfair to cahracterize those who want to protect the laws making abortion legal as Pro-abortion, just as those who want to fight incursions on the 2nd Ammendment are “pro-gun”, as described in the press more often than not. Advocates of the death penalty are “pro-death penalty”; that doesn’t mean they are eager for it to be used.
And some, too many, abortion rights advocates ARE “pro-abortion”—witness the criticism from some quarters that Sarah Palin should have aborted her mentally challenged son.
When discussing whether or not abortion should be legal, making a distinction between those who are “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” is sophistry. The use of the word “pro-abortion” in this case means “pro-abortion-should-be-legal”.
When discussing the ethics of having an abortion, I think the distinction serves a useful purpose. One could be pro-choice because they believe that, ultimately, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and yet be anti-abortion in the sense that they believe that a woman who chooses to have an abortion is unethical. This is analogous to someone being pro-free-speech but anti-certain-kinds-of-speech (for example, I could think someone unethical for swearing, but I could believe that they have a right to do so).
No, I won’t grant any waiver to “pro-choice”, which is a cowardly, intentionally vague euphemism intended to deceive. Nobody is “anti-choice”—but when the “choice” involves taking a life, the choice can’t be discussed without the life as well. Pro-life is exactly the same…misleading, designed to only evoke the most positive spin on the issue. Neither description mentions or obviously alludes to abortion, allowing supporters to avoid dealing with the real problems with each position. I regard any politician who uses the term “pro-choice’ as a presumed liar. If you want to allow women to kill babies in the wonb for conveneinece as well as health, have the guts to say so. If you want some aspect of women’s control over their own bodies and destiny to be limited in the interests of the unborn, say that. The two sides are arguing over one issue—abortion— not “choice” and “life”—get on with it, and stop the weasel words.
But you’re talking about laws, not ethics. One could easily believe that a foetus has some inherent dignity that is less than that the dignity of full personhood such that it is unethical to have an abortion under most circumstances. (I will not use the word “right” in this context because that makes the debate into a legal one, rather than a debate about ethics). For example, someone who holds that belief might believe that it is unethical to abort a baby that was conceived during consensual relations but that a mother’s interest in not having to bear a baby that is the consequence of sexual assault outweighs the damage to the inherent dignity of the foetus after an abortion (whether or not this is an ethically consistent I leave as an exercise for the reader). That person could then be pro-choice (in the legal sense) because they believe that it would be wrong to submit pregnant women to a tribunal that would inquire as to the circumstances surrounding the foetus’s conception, but anti-abortion in that they believe that it is unethical for a woman to have one in most circumstances.
I think if the crux of the issue is determined to be the humanity of the unborn child, the circumstances of his creation are irrelevant. If the child is a human life, then it shouldn’t matter if he is the spawn of Satan. The “choice” in “pro choice” really refers to pwer: she with the power, gets to choose—I’m pretty sure 99.999% of all fetuses would choose to live, given the alternative. I think the best way to spot a phony abortion opponent is if he is willing to make an exception for rape and incest.
These integrity deficits infuse both sides of teh debate—Clinton’s pledge that he wnated to make abortion available, safe, and rare. Why “rare,” if he accepted NARAL position that the baby has no standing as a human being at all?
It’s a complex issue, and thus unfair and dishonest to try to simplify it through false labels. Having had many discussions about the
matter, I am convinced that even zealots on the two sides have failed to give the whole problem adequate thought.
Reminds me of the debate between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Supposedly they debated whether it is better for humans to have been created or better for humans not to have been created. Apparently the not-to-have-been-created side won.
Charlie Sheen’s audience probably agrees with that verdict.
I don’t think the billboards are unethical. They are making a legitimate point. What exactly the point goes to show is not exactly clear to me, however.
You claim that considerations of what the world loses when a woman chooses to abort a foetus complicate the issue of whether that woman should have that abortion. I cannot see why. Either a foetus is an entity deserving of rights, including the right to life or it is not. If a foetus is entitled to such rights, why does it matter whether the foetus will become a great leader some day, mentally handicapped individual or a criminal. If a foetus has such rights then it deserves protection, full stop (subject perhaps to limits where the right of the woman carrying it to live must be balanced with the foetus’s right to live in a high risk pregnancy).
On the other hand, if foetuses have no such rights, then having an abortion becomes a matter of utilitarian calculations. If the possibility that a foetus will grow up to make a positive contribution to society should be considered in this calculus, then so should the possibility that that foetus could grow up to make a negative contribution to society. I can see no reason to believe that any given foetus would be a great leader than a criminal, indeed, research by the economist Steven Levitt has shown that the availably of abortions correlates to a decrease in crime.
A position between the two poles that I mentioned would be possible, but would lead to some incoherence. One could say that foetuses have some right to life, but not enough to override a woman’s right to choose to abort her foetus. In this case, the addition of the possibility that the child could become a great leader or contributor to humanity, when added to the foetus’s inherent rights, could tip the scales such that an abortion would become unethical. But this would lead to the result that it would not be unethical to abort, say, a foetus with a very low IQ (if an in utero test for IQ existed) whereas it would be unethical to abort a foetus with a very high IQ.
Great Comment.
I agree that the core issue is whether a fetus is a human being with all the rights of human beings. SBut the calculus suggested by the billboard leads to a humanization of the fetus, rights or not, and I strongly believe that that should at least be considered.
Nor can you we say that an abortion isn’t more likely to stop a successful life in some situations rather than others. Sure, I think the billboard is aimed at non-crack addict mothers, employed mothers, mothers who know that they will probably raise a non-criminal child.
But again, I don’t want to get drawn into a side issue. The point of the post is that the message should be censored or dishonestly characterized, whether it is persuasive to you or not.
I agree. There is nothing objectionable about the signs (unless, of course, they are so big that they block the Sun, or something). They create debate and that is good.
The plus-side to the billboards is that they may make a couple of women stop and THINK before having an abortion. In many communities (and countries, for that matter), abortion has become a form of birth control: in the US, this is in large part thanks to Federal funding of Planned Parenthood, which IS pro-abortion and provides them free for women who want them.
There are options other than abortion. If the billboards enable just a few women to consider those other options, then they’re doing their job. And to pull race into it, and/or have long discourses about when a fetus is viable or would “choose life if given the chance” only dilutes the real importance of the message.
Agreed, Elizabeth.
Jack: I think one of the most powerful reasons that liberal black pundits are yelling their heads off about this is because it also illustrates a terrible truth that reflects on them. By a conservative estimate, 1/3 of all children of African descent die in their mother’s womb from an abortion. That’s a frightening and savage statistic… when you consider that up to 60 million babies have been aborted since the inception of legalized abortion. But black, white or whatever, those are children who are dying . As Mother Teresa so well put it, “There can be no peace in a world that slaughters its innocents.”
Jack, you have Elizabeth and SMP agreeing with you, that should make you pause a second.
You have littered your post with bad arguments, misinterpretations, and appeals to emotion instead of reason. For example
Guilty conscience, Cherisse? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the position of abortion advocates, intellectually dishonest though it is, has always been that an aborted fetus is not a human being at all. Why are you interpreting “abortion” as “murder”?
I am puzzled.
What Cherisse is saying is that billboards equate abortion to murder, not that abortion is equivalent to murder. She’s attacking the very thing you are blaming her for using. You have good critical thinking skills, but you have a blind spot when it comes to abortion.
Abortion is the epitome of a complex issue that requires ethical balancing. One aspect of the balance in the abortion debate is that a disproportionate number of African-American pregnancies are terminated by abortion;
And a disproportionate number of African-American pregnancies are in circcumstances that lead to abortion.
another is that every baby aborted is a potential American of distinction and importance lost.
…like Charles Manson.
Barack Obama is an ideal public figure with which to make the point, for the circumstances leading to his birth often lead mothers to seek abortions.
My equivalent argument: Poor black women, even if you can’t feed them well or take care of them, you should have as many kids as possible to have the largest chance that one of them is really smart or really athletic.
While the bilboards are a powerful argument (You’re going to abort a genius! Or a president!), they are not a valid one. Should I put a billboard up next to it that says “Everytime you don’t sleep with me, our next possible leader ceases to exist.” It’s a stupid argument that only works by praying on people’s emotional irrationality. Maybe my billboard should read: ” Everytime you use a condom, you kill millions of possible great people.”
While I agree with almost every part of your post, I have to nit pick this part:
What Cherisse is saying is that billboards equate abortion to murder, not that abortion is equivalent to murder.
The billboards don’t equate abortion to murder. Cherisse interpreted the billboard to equate abortion to murder. She could have accepted what the billboard said and moved on, but she’s the one that went out and said the billboard said something that it didn’t.
Hence, I have to say that Jack’s comment: Guilty conscience Cherisse?, is actually correct.
I’m always up for nit picking. So lets look at the bilboard critically:
* The billboard directly links aborting fetuses with removing people from earth, specifically Obama.
* Obama is an innocent, great man to the target audience.
* Removing a living human being from the face of the earth is killing.
* Killing an innocent, great man is unjustified.
* Unjustified killings are murder.
Is there anything wrong with my premises or do they not lead where I think they do? If you want we can carp upon murder vs. “bad killing”, but that’s about it.
You read too much into the billboard. Yes, that’s what they wanted you to do, but you had to do that yourself. The billboard is what it is, and nothing more. Any interpretation, which you did above, came from you.
I didn’t read too much into the billboard. I read the billboard itself and its intended message. That’s what Cherisse (and I) are complaining about.
Jack happens to agree with the message that abortion is murder, and he’s attacking Cherisse for noting this billboard gives off that exact message. If you understand our conclusions and tactics, you must secretly agree that they are valid!
This isn’t complicated. It’s not like we’re playing records backwards or debating what pronouns with nonexistent antecedents are supposed to refer to (Is Rocky Mountain High about doing drugs?) We’re not debating allegory and metaphor.
Billboard: X.
Cherisse: Billboard says X, and that is wrong.
Jack: Hahaha! You said billboard says X, so you have a guilty conscience!
TGT: Seriously?
Tim: Sure, billboard says X, but only if you read it. It’s really just some letters on a background.
The close italics tag does not like me. italics. If this sentence is in italics, it’s the tag, not me.
I think you kind of missed the main point of the post; Jack’s not so much claiming that the billboards necessarily make a good argument (though he does kind of do that), but simply that, contrary to what some of their detractors like Cherrise claim, they weren’t constructed with the intent to be deliberately racist nor to claim that women who abort are evil at heart. Even though I agree that the billboards don’t make a particularly good argument for the anti-abortion side (and Jack seems to acknowledge this somewhat in the conversation with Eric), Cherrise should have been like tgt and logically broke down why the argument presented was bad, instead of instantly resorting to the race card.
Also, if I recall correctly, Jack’s actually fairly agnostic about abortion, and he’s also criticized anti-abortion advocates as well before. (I hope I didn’t come off as white-knighting too much; I have my disagreements with this man myself).
I got the main point, but I didn’t enjoy his proffering of bad arguments and poor attacks. I rarely disagree with the main threads, just the ways Jack justifies it.
You can’t lie your way out of this one.
Billboard: “Every 21 minutes, our next possible leader is aborted.”
Cherisse: “…black women are murderers of potential black leaders.”
Tim: “I interpret this billboard to say ‘Women abort unwanted pregnancies, though the potential life could have been a leader.’ ”
tgt: “I can only interpret this billboard to mean one thing. Anytime someone uses the word ‘Abort’, they really mean ‘Murder’. ”
Guilty conscience, tgt?
Yes, the creators of the billboard wanted you to interpret it as murder. That doesn’t mean that you have to interpret it as murder. You could do as I do and interpret it as… well…
abortion.
Just to be clear:
Cherisse said: “…black women are murderers of potential black leaders.”
When she could have easily said:
“…black women are aborters of potential black leaders.”
See the difference? Because she shifted the debate from abortion to murder, you get an insight to what she is thinking about.
Hence the “Guilty Conscience” remark.
The billboard has a picture of a human being, a black leader. By putting up that picture, they are immediately linking fetuses to fully grown people. That’s the whole point of it. That’s why it’s effective.
You agreed that was the intent, right? You said “Yes, that’s what they wanted you to do…” What was that in reference to if it wasn’t linking aborting a baby to murdering an adult?
You can’t defend the billboard by saying “Yes, it has a horrible message, but only if you pay attention to the whole thing. Ignore the context, and it’s message is possibly palatable.”
Exactly. One has to notice when an abortion rights advocate who denied that abortion is even a killing, equates the word with murder. What does that tell us?
This is a big “Duh.” The billboard makes the true but uncomfortable observation that unaborted fetuses have an overwhelming tendency to turn into human adults. A violent reaction to such an obviously factual observation can only mean 1) the reacter wants to obscure the truth, or 2) the reacter wants to deny the unavoidable implications of the truth, or 3) the reacter doesn’t know the truth.
Every 21 minutes, our next possible leader is aborted.
True or not?
A picture of Barack Obama in the black communities of Chicago is a picture of hope, possibility, and inspiration.
Put the two together and you should have a message that says “Great people that you like and that have inspired you are at risk of being aborted every 21 minutes.”
But no. You and Cherisse put the two together and you come up with this:
“…black women are murderers of potential black leaders.”
Obama wasn’t aborted, murdered, or assassinated. In no way would I say that aborting a fetus is comparable to murdering an adult. Murder is a specific term used to describe the ending of a life.
Cherisse, as an advocate of abortion rights, is incompetent to use the word “murder” when talking about fetuses (which the ethical and legal ground advocates of abortion stand upon is that a fetus does not have life).
The billboard has a powerful but horrible message, for the reason you articulated earlier, and I never said the message was palatable. I said the message didn’t equate abortions to murder. Neither did your argument:
While the billboards are a powerful argument (You’re going to abort a genius! Or a president!), they are not a valid one. Should I put a billboard up next to it that says “Everytime you don’t sleep with me, our next possible leader ceases to exist.” It’s a stupid argument that only works by praying on people’s emotional irrationality. Maybe my billboard should read: ” Everytime you use a condom, you kill millions of possible great people.”
Put the two together and you should have a message that says “Great people that you like and that have inspired you are at risk of being aborted every 21 minutes.”
Great people are not at risk of being aborted. Fetuses are at risk of being aborted. By talking about aborting real live adults, you’re making my case for me.
Cherisse, as an advocate of abortion rights, is incompetent to use the word “murder” when talking about fetuses (which the ethical and legal ground advocates of abortion stand upon is that a fetus does not have life). I 100% disagree with Cherisse’s incompetency. She’s attacking the billboards for conflating abortion and murder. She’s not attacking the billboards for being against murdering fetuses. Switch your frame of reference.
The billboard has a powerful but horrible message, for the reason you articulated earlier, and I never said the message was palatable. I said the message didn’t equate abortions to murder. Neither did your argument:…
No, my first post didn’t go into depth about equating abortions to murder. That’s because I thought that pointing out that that was the sentiment behind Cherisse’s statement was clear enough. I followed up with other reasons to believe the billboard was duplicitous, further supporting Cherisse’s negativity and attacking Jack’s defense of the billboard.
Great people are not at risk of being aborted. Fetuses are at risk of being aborted.
And you make my point. Fetuses aren’t great people because they don’t have life. You can’t murder what doesn’t have life. Since the billboard didn’t mention murder, you have to look to who entered it into the discussion. Cherisse. #winning
By talking about aborting real live adults, you’re making my case for me.
No one’s talking about aborting real live adults. That’s murder. The billboard isn’t suggesting that the women of Chicago go out and use a vacuum cleaner to take out the president of the United States.
Though, that is a great visual. 🙂 Thanks for that. #winningharder
Because I missed my flight out of Maui and other flights were full, I’ve been off the blog (and awake, and in airports, and waiting, and flying) for 36 hours. Clearly, you all do great without me. Keep it up.
And you make my point. Fetuses aren’t great people because they don’t have life. You can’t murder what doesn’t have life. Since the billboard didn’t mention murder, you have to look to who entered it into the discussion. Cherisse. #winning
Now you’re just being intentionally contradictory right? The billboard directly implied murder. As you agreed, that was the point of it. Cherisse attacked that message.
No one’s talking about aborting real live adults. That’s murder. The billboard isn’t suggesting that the women of Chicago go out and use a vacuum cleaner to take out the president of the United States.
What I was referring to:
“Great people that you like and that have inspired you are at risk of being aborted every 21 minutes.”
Of course the billboard is not suggesting peopal should kill adults, it’s suggesting that aborting a baby is tantamount to killing an adult.
Now you’re just being intentionally contradictory right? The billboard directly implied murder. As you agreed, that was the point of it. Cherisse attacked that message.
The billboard didn’t directly imply anything, it’s an inanimate object. Though the goals of the creators of the billboard would love for you to associate murder to abortion because “Murder” as a term implies 1) Life, 2) Humans, and 3) Illegal Action. Unjust Termination of a Human Life.
Of course the billboard is not suggesting people should kill adults, it’s suggesting that aborting a baby is tantamount to killing an adult.
It takes a person with a guilty conscience to make that interpretation. I don’t, so I interpreted it to mean that if you abort a baby, your killing the abstract “potential”.
Whereas “potential” is dreams, products, vaccines, speeches, hope, change, etc, etc, yada yada yada…
1) Words also don’t imply anything. They’re inantimate ideas. They’re not even objects.
Though the goals of the creators of the billboard would love for you to associate murder to abortion…
So attacking interpretation as intended means reading to much into something.
It takes a person with a guilty conscience to make that interpretation. I don’t, so I interpreted it to mean that if you abort a baby, your killing the abstract “potential”.
No, it takes a person who understands the english language to make the interpretation. The billboard’s message is supposed to lead to guilt, not guilt leading to understanding the message.
Your interpretation means the creators of the billboard while wanting you to make the connection between abortion and murder, can’t have made that connection themselves unless they feel guilt. It’s self contradictory.
Weak.
1) The billboard does not equate abortion with murder. It says nothing about murder at all. A pro abortion rights advocate of fairness could (and should) ask the same question.
2) The fact that an aborted fetus may also be the next Ted Bundy is irrelevant to the issue. Let a pro-abortion advocate try THAT billboard—abort the next Ted, or just another street thug perhaps. Sounds like eugenics to me.
3) Abortion isn’t murder, since murder is defined by law. It is a killing; the arguments that it isn’t are intellectually disgraceful. Something is being killed, and that something could conceivably be a great leader if not killed. What’s the problem?
4) Your “equivalent” argument isn’t, because it doesn’t deal with abortion. It is also perfectly valid—The more kids you have, the better your chances of having one who grows up to be successful. Ben Franklin proves that…he was one pf 17, and the rest were duds. Other matters and considerations come into play, of course, but there is nothing wrong with that statement, True, and good to know.
5) Your reductio ad absurdum arguments don’t wash. Nobody and nothing is harmed in the transactions you describe…the status quo will not produce a great man of woman. The status quo involving a live fetus has a potentiality if left alone, and if something isn’t killed. That’s a material difference. There’s nothing wrong with the argument “if you have sex with me our kid may be Copernicus,” but it is attenuated and has pretty persuasive rebuttals available. The billboard’s is much more valid, and is something every mother should think about. I have two childless close friends who 30 years after an abortion still find themselves wondering what their child might be today if left alone. I’m sure they are not unique. Why not make sure they thing about that when they still have that ever so important “choice” before them?
Jack,
For sanity’s sake, I’m responding to all your responses here.
1) The billboard doesn’t use the word murder. It implies murder (unjustified killing) by equating removing an adult role model from earth with abortion. This isn’t really up for debate. It’s there in black and white for anyone that is at a middle school reading level.
2) That the next fetus could become John Wilkes Booth shows the stupidity of the argument. I bet I have a sperm in me that could become the next Louie Armstrong, but I have no reason to believe that any given sperm will be him. Since my sperm aren’t alive (much like a fetus), this means nothing. Also, I’m not bringing eugenics into play because I’m not assigning relative likelihoods of these possibilities that differ for different people. The possible result is not a reason to abort (or not abort).
3) Whoa, you again are making Cherisse’s argument for her. You say that abortion is killing, with the idea that it is unjustified killing. It’s not legal murder, but that seems to be the layman’s definition and use of murder. Again, she didn’t say abortion was murder, she said the argument made from the billboard was equating abortion with murder, just like you’re saying…but also not using murder, just unjustified killing.
Now, to attack your point directly. You say that something is being killed during abortion. You need to have life to have killing, so where do you draw the line? Is a just fertilized egg life? It’s been shown that an egg + some dna can be incubated into a fetus (and many reptiles and some mammals can do this with their own dna), so how about an egg on it’s own? Are women killing future humans every month for 40 years of their life? Your position that a fetus is life is indefensible. We went over this. You couldn’t come up with a biological difference that makes a clump of cells all of a sudden life.
4) My equivalent argument doesn’t deal with aborting a fetus. No. But it does deal with the idea that women have the potential to have kids (parallel to the fetus and the logic behind the billboard). Each month they don’t get pregnant, they are wiping another potential human off the face of the earth.
Also, do you realize that you just argued that it’s a good idea idea for single, teenage, poor kids to have as many babies as possible? Ugh. Do you see the invalidity of argument now? How it’s an appeal to emotion, and supports objectively harmful behaviors?
5) Status quo? Seriously? The status quo of a pregnancy does not create a kid. The status quo involves death due to malnutrition. The possible mother to be needs to change her dieting habits and likely her physical routine to further the development of the fetus. It’s not like a baby just pops out 9 months later.
You follow up this lunacy by claiming my invalid argument is valid. The whole point was that it was an appeal to emotion. I also don’t see a single rebuttal to “My sperm and your egg could be copernicus” that doesn’t apply to “My sperm and your egg already in your body could be copernicus.
And then you top it off with more emotional appeals that are invalid arguments.
Exactly. One has to notice when an abortion rights advocate who denied that abortion is even a killing, equates the word with murder. What does that tell us?
As I keep noting, Cherisse didn’t equate the word abortion with murder. She pointed out that the billboard directly implies abortion is commonsense murder.
This is a big “Duh.” The billboard makes the true but uncomfortable observation that unaborted fetuses have an overwhelming tendency to turn into human adults.
I’ve already responded to your belief that pregnancy directly leads to a baby, so I’m going to go with “Fornicating people also have an overwhelming tendency to create human adults. Therefore, killing a fornicating person is mass murder.” Stupid, no?
A violent reaction to such an obviously factual observation can only mean 1) the reacter wants to obscure the truth, or 2) the reacter wants to deny the unavoidable implications of the truth, or 3) the reacter doesn’t know the truth.
or 4) The reactor didn’t deny that most pregnancies (with work) turn into babies and then adults, but, as noted, that has nothing to do with pretty much anything. Practicing the guitar as a kid tends to lead to good guitar players. A mother refusing to let their kid have a guitar does not kill Jimi Hendrix.
TGT..
1) The billboard doesn’t use the word murder. It implies murder (unjustified killing) by equating removing an adult role model from earth with abortion. This isn’t really up for debate. It’s there in black and white for anyone that is at a middle school reading level.
You are denying the basics of communication here. There’s no debate, all right, but you are he one claiming otherwise. The billboard doesn’t call abortion murder, it calls it abortion. Nobody can correctly call abortion murder, because the law of the land says it is not. The statement has to be read based on what it says. It neither says nor implies what you and Cherisse say it does. It makes no more sense than you and Cherisse saying that when the billboard says “leader” it means bandleader and the picture of Barack Obama means Hawaiians or Kenyans.
2) That the next fetus could become John Wilkes Booth shows the stupidity of the argument. I bet I have a sperm in me that could become the next Louie Armstrong, but I have no reason to believe that any given sperm will be him. Since my sperm aren’t alive (much like a fetus), this means nothing.
That’s right, because the sperm comparison is 100% bogus and intended as a distraction. A sperm isn’t alive. At some point after fertilization, a fetus is. Drop the sperm comparison—it’s intellectually dishonest and beneath you.
3) Whoa, you again are making Cherisse’s argument for her. You say that abortion is killing, with the idea that it is unjustified killing. It’s not legal murder, but that seems to be the layman’s definition and use of murder. Again, she didn’t say abortion was murder, she said the argument made from the billboard was equating abortion with murder, just like you’re saying…but also not using murder, just unjustified killing.
Please don’t put words in my mouth, especially words that I don’t think and would never say. I said abortion was killing something, and 99% of all bioethicists agree with that statement. The only questions are what is being killed, when, and how it balances other considerations. I said nothing about “justified’ anything. An abortion could be killing—hell, it could even be murder under different laws—and still be justifiable ethically. Many crimes are justifiable; they just aren’t legal. It’s justifiable for a husband to unplug his wife’s life support when the doctor’s out of the room when the hospital says it doesn’t have proper authorization to unplug it; it may even be justifiable for him to suffocate her with a pillow. It’s still a killing; it’s still illegal; it’s still murder.
3 a….You say that something is being killed during abortion. You need to have life to have killing, so where do you draw the line? Is a just fertilized egg life?…bla bla etc…
Oh, please. The argument that a fetus isn’t alive is Orwellian, nothing more, because pro-abortion advocates don’t have the guts to allow both parts of the abortion equation to be discussed openly and balanced, because they know they would lose—and I’m not even saying they should lose. Peter Singer is right to point out that even drawing your line at birth is artificial, but we have to draw it. A fetus is alive, and individual who will grow and eventually become a fully developed human being. A sperm or an egg don’t qualify. “Your” argument (meaning this standard pro-abortion “Who’s on First?” tap dance) is,and has always been, desperate.
4) My equivalent argument doesn’t deal with aborting a fetus. No. But it does deal with the idea that women have the potential to have kids (parallel to the fetus and the logic behind the billboard). Each month they don’t get pregnant, they are wiping another potential human off the face of the earth.
Yup, fine. Just because that’s a pointless argument doesn’t mean it isn’t true…and the billboard’s argument is true, using the language to mean what the language means.
4 a “…do you realize that you just argued that it’s a good idea idea for single, teenage, poor kids to have as many babies as possible? Ugh. Do you see the invalidity of argument now? How it’s an appeal to emotion, and supports objectively harmful behaviors?”
I did not argue that it was a “good idea,” and I don’t think it is a good idea. Who lives their life in order to produce one optimum offspring? It’s a consideration; it’ something that can be considered, something that should not be attacked if someone makes the observation.
5) Status quo? Seriously? The status quo of a pregnancy does not create a kid. The status quo involves death due to malnutrition. The possible mother to be needs to change her dieting habits and likely her physical routine to further the development of the fetus. It’s not like a baby just pops out 9 months later.
I’m going to ignore this, because it’s an absurd retort. Status quo does not presume that nothing happens and the world stops…it presumes that a situation continues in the predictable way. Status quo for an organism being nourished is that it continues to be nourished.
I’m bored with the exchange, frankly, and I don’t get the objection at all. A statement can be made to express a fact and be an appeal to emotion without being invalid. “Our bombing Gaddafi will kill civilians” is both true and an appeal to emotions. The answer, “Thanks for the reminder—I don’t care; there is still a good reason to bomb Gaddafy” is valid. Your and Cherisse’s equivalent answer—-“Horrors! When you say bomb, you mean burn horribly until their eyeball’s melt, when you say “civilians” you mean helpless pink babies and future Libyan Nobel winners, and when you say Gaddafi you really mean all cruel despots no matter how heinous including Saddam, Hitler, and Ming the Merciless, and when you say “our” you really are calling us racists who want to kill brown-skinned innocents!”—is just an elaborate way of ducking the issue rather than dealing with it honestly.
1) I think you’re missing basic communication. The billboard is directly comparing aborting a baby to wiping the president of the united states out of existence. To do the latter requires killing, common language murder. Murder, as a legal term, is a red herring. I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.
2) That only works by defining life as a fetus. You have a circular argument.
3) I thought you had made your position on abortionclear. Was I wrong in thinking that you believe abortion is unjustified killing of a human?
3a) Basically: “I have no reason for deciding when something’s alive, so I’m drawing this arbitrary line in the sand, and you must follow it.” I refuse. How about we draw the arbirtrary line at birth? Then we have a completely different discussion.
4) A true statement does not a valid argument make.
4a) A possible consideration does not a valid argument make. You also seem to want to have it both ways. You’re arguing that supporting possible considerations (however ridiculous) is a good idea, while saying that following the ridiculous considerations that don’t support your position is a bad idea.
5) So, if undesired abortions were more frequent, the status quo would be that undesired pregnancy leads to abortion. You are equivocating on status quo. Status quo as the usual result is not the same as status quo as behavior without action. If based on the former, your position is useless. Who cares what normally results based on the actions people more often than not take? If based on the latter, your position is invalid (as I noted previously).
summation) That’s not at all a parallel example, We’re not arguing over what “Our bombing Gaddafi will kill civilians” means. We’re arguing if they actually said that, or if they just said that “We are bombing Gaddafi” and “there are civilians somewhere”. Also, If you notice, I didn’t defend any racial comments. I simply attacked your ridiculous attack on one of cherisse’s comments and your poor arguments in support of the billboard.
No, TGT. A man is what he makes of himself. But he deserves the opportunity to do so. This is a question about the validity of human life, which is a gift of God. It’s ultimately up to that person to decide how to use that gift; whether for good or evil. It’s NOT the province of others to destroy that life at its beginning just because of what it might become… or because it’s deemed inconvenient at the moment.
Throw out the “gift of God” nonsense and the “for good or evil” false dichotomy, and I 100% agree with you. Fortunately, that has nothing to do with aborting a blastocyst.
So now an unborn baby is reduced to the level of a “blastocyst”? In other words, a (maybe) non-malignant tumor? Is that what your respect for human life has devolved to? When I hear that from abortionist press releases, it’s difficult to believe. But now I’m hearing it from you.
Look, Tiggy; you can’t just dismiss the issue by redefining babies in such a manner as to dehumanize them and, perhaps, to assuage your own conscience as well. And “aborted blastocyst” is a dead baby who never got a chance at life. That’s it in black and white. Deal with it.
Jack,
You hate “pro-choice” and yet you still refused to be swayed on the incorrectness of “Ground Zero Mosque” (meant to convey the worst aspects of the project. 1) Not at ground zero / 2) Not a “Mosque” in the sense that most people assume). I don’t get it.
-Neil
You really think those are parallel? I don’t, and I see the complaints about the use of “Ground Zero Mosque” as fair shorthand that describes the reason for the controversy as semantic gamesmanship. It explains a damn sight more than “Cordoba House,” wouldn’t you say? The point is, really and truly, that the project upsets people because it will be a high-profile Islamic center near enough to the site of the 9/11 bombings and the neighborhood immediately affected to be considered intentionally insensitive, provocative and in bad taste—a big Terry Jones, in reverse. I can’t blame anyone for not calling it the “Within Two Blocks of Ground Zero In-Your-Face Gratuitously Divisive Islamic Center”—seems clumsy— but if you want me too, I’ll use that instead, or maybe just WTBGZIYFGDIC. I agree that’s it’s more accurate.
“The billboards have been placed in the black community with a picture of the first black president stating that black women are murderers of potential black leaders,” – Cherisse Scott
“Every 21 minutes, our next possible LEADER is ABORTED.” – thatsabortion.com
This is my 8th or 9th time going back to the source article to re-examine the billboard and the quote. This time, I take something of interest out of my visit. Cherisse believes that “American Communities” don’t exist and this is evidenced by her determination that there are such things as black communities…as though segregation wasn’t dead.
Knowing her frame of reference sort of helps us understand why she takes an innocuous statement about “our next possible LEADER” and comes up with “potential black leaders”. She must truly believe that President Obama is not the President of the United States, but President of the Black People. She doesn’t believe Obama is my president because I’m white.
She then goes on to skew what the sign actually says (leaders are aborted) into what she wants to vilify it as (black women are murderers). Let’s not forget that Obama’s mother is white, so I don’t know why her argument isn’t (white women are murderers). I guess since the location of the billboard is in a Black Community (though there are probably white people, Hispanics, and Asians within the community) the sign was accusatory toward the black members of the community.
Another interpretation might be that the sign was calling members from an exemplary community to go forth into other communities of ill repute and campaign for an end of those atrocities. After all, it’s not like the sign read: “Every 21 minutes, our next possible LEADER is ABORTED in THIS COMMUNITY.”
But alas, she’s certain (…and I have it on good authority that if you speak English, there’s only ONE interpretation permitted…) the sign is directed at her “community” for the direct purpose of making accusations about murder.
Oh, and speaking of “murder”, how can you “murder” something that’s not a human being? The people that consider abortion to be murder because they believe a fetus is a human being, restrained themselves to using the vernacular of the abortion advocates. By avoiding the use of the word “murder”, the sign’s creators were accepting that abortion is not murder and yet abortion had similar consequences as murder.
What did the billboard creators get for their restraint and concession? Their opponents, the abortion advocates, trotted out the old saying for them! “Abortion is Murder!”
But we already knew that, right tgt? Anytime you see the word abortion and the picture of a person, we should know that “Abortion is Murder!”, right? After all, there’s only one interpretation.
As I said…
Guilty conscience.
And by the way, I believe many abortion advocates, especially women, are uncomfortable with their own position, feeling it is the position they “should” have, but actually feeling that the position is somehow wrong. Cherisse’s response accurately reflects that ambivalence—which means, of course, the the billboard accomplished its goal…ethically.
You know what, I believe that many anti-choice advocates, especially men, just want to put women in their place, feeling that they are the superior sex. Your response to Cherisse’s comments accurately reflects that belief.
You are using circular reasoning.
Both your statement and my statement are completely silly and unsupported.
1) I am not an anti-choice advocate (and the term anti-choice is intellectually dishonest) in any way.
2) Cherisse’s comments are illogical, self-contradictory and unfair, and reflect inferior reasoning and communication skills. It could have been said by an equally intellectuality muddled male—you, for example.
3) What’s circular?
1) How about this choice quote. Emphasis is mine.
The law draws the line before birth in most cases, after birth in all cases. Yes, I would draw the line much earlier, but my analysis presumes the current lines. Your line makes neither legal nor ethical sense. Why is a day-old child more “feeling” than a newborn? Two days? Ten? As with Peter Singer’s argument, this one leads to societal rejection of abortion entirely….which is fine with me. Keep it up!
No, you are not going out in the streets, but, I think advocate, in the weak sense, is perfectly accurate.
2) Again, I am not defending Cherisse wholesale. I’m defending her from some of your improper attacks. Particularly, this:
Guilty conscience, Cherisse? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the position of abortion advocates, intellectually dishonest though it is, has always been that an aborted fetus is not a human being at all. Why are you interpreting “abortion” as “murder”?
Even without the random shot at people who define human like biologists, that comment is atrocious.
3) Your guilt argument is circular. You averred that many women feel guilt about what they believe, but blamed Cherisse’s reading of the billboard on her guilt.
1) You lose me. I know what I advocate: an honest debate, not constrained by the courts, with open discussion of all issues and dilemmas, on how to balance the legitimate interest a woman has in personal autonomy and control over her own destiny with the right of a human being not to be snuffed out. Until the abortion advocates acknowledge the humanity of the fetus and that it is a “killing,” though perhaps a societally necessary one in some cases, this is impossible; ditto with anti-abortion advocates who refuse to believe that one mistake should have to warp a woman’s whole life. Whose quote was that? Not mine.
2. What biologists deny the humanity of fetuses? The cant of pro-abortion advocates is that a baby is like a tumor or a wart, nothing more. If you suddenly resort to “murder” as the meaning behind abortion, then you obviously don’t believe what you are saying. Nothing atrocious about it.
3. You’re getting sloppy again. That isn’t what I said at all. I said the women were guilty because they supported gender-correct positions that were, in fact, contrary to their real beliefs.
1) That quote was you on the last abortion related post you had. Also note that in that thread, you call abortion murder, despite your repeated mention in this thread that it is improper to call abortion murder. You were using it then in the same vein as I am using it in this one.
2) Other than pretty much all of them? We’ll start with P.Z. Myers and Jerry Coyne. And I’m not going to be tricked by equivocation on humanity. A human being fetus is not a human being.
3) True, that was a sloppy explanation. Yours is much more accurate and shows my point more clearly. Supporting postions they didn’t believe -> guilt. Cherrise’s understanding of the argument shows that she’s guilty, And her guilt shows that she’s supporting this position without believing it.
Here’s a link to your quote:
https://ethicsalarms.com/2011/01/21/abortion-ethics-the-delusions-of-p-z-myers/comment-page-1/#comment-9784
Racial comments = bad. I gave no argument to that.
Saying a sign that links abortion to murder actually links abortion to murder = not bad.\
By avoiding the use of the word “murder”, the sign’s creators were accepting that abortion is not murder and yet abortion had similar consequences as murder.
So, they are trying to link abortion to murder, but being sneaky about it. Got it. Isn’t that what I’ve been saying?
The difference is between
The Goal of the Sign
and
Unintended Benefits
You think they are one and the same.
I’m saying they are different.
Whereas you are saying that both are to link abortion to murder,
I’m saying the goal of the sign was not to link abortion to murder. It was to get potential patients to consider the true loss if they decided to opt for an abortion.
I’m saying the goal of the sign was not to link abortion to murder. It was to get potential patients to consider the true loss if they decided to opt for an abortion.
Even if I grant that (which I don’t), the way they chose to implement their goal was by linking abortion to murder. Whether it was the end goal or just the method, it’s noxious.
Mine is certainly supported—I have had plenty of conversations with women that feel exactly this way, usually expressing it after they have flipped to “the dark side.”
On the other hand, good luck finding anyone who will confirm your statement, which is just political offense as defense designed to stifle the opinions of anti-abortion men.
So what you have is anti-abortion people who were uncomfortable being pro-abortion. There are also atheists who still practice religion because they think that’s what they should do.
No argument with that. Unfortunately, you attempted to assign that belief to Cherisse in an attempt to denigrate her accurate depiction of the billboard. Yes, her comment would be consistent with that position, but it’s also compliant with a face value reading of the billboard.
Instead of engaging with the criticism, you are attacking her character. Bad Jack.
You can’t call it a “face value reading” if it involves interpretation. A face value reading is this:
“Every 21 minutes, our next possible LEADER is ABORTED.”
Maybe that was the wrong term. How about basic, blatant, or obvious?
As a side note, I don’t even think the billboard is true. “our next possible leader” is not being aborted, but a “possible next leader of us” is being aborted. There’s a huge semantic change.
It’s still a horrible sign. I mean, chances of winning “Mega Millions” is 1 to 195 million.
The chances that someone becomes a leader are at least 1 to 250 million, and the chances that someone comes from the downtrodden to become leader I’d have to think are worse. Let alone, the chances that said person is aborted are probably 1 in 600 million.
If you’re age 40 and above, chances are that someone born today won’t be a leader while you’re still alive, so depending on your age, the sign’s chances range from ZERO to 1 in 100 Million.
We all have a better chance of winning Mega Millions than aborting someone important.
Well, at least we agree on the important part.
Christ, Tim, you jumped the rails completely.
1) It doesn’t say president, it says “leader.”
2) Where does anything talk about “downtrodden”, and by what standards are 21st century American African-Americans “downtrodden”?
3) An important leader could be a pastor, a journalist, a police chief, an educator….there are leaders in every community, and they are all important.
4) If we substitute “poor” or “lower socio-economic status” and restrict the pool to just presidents, we have had (let’s see) at least 7 out of 44 who came from humble enough origins to meet the (supposed) target group for the ad.
5) There will be about 4.5 million babies aborted in the US in 2011-2013. It is fair to assume that in this group would have come millions of productive Americans, who among them would have had families, written books, inspired children, run for office, filed patents, set sports records, entertained audiences, and in may ways made valuable contributions to our society. And even those who became criminals would have contributed something positive at some point.
6) The billboard mentioned leaders, but its overall point was more basic and definitely not “horrible”: every aborted fetus represents a human life that never has a chance to do any of those things, and that is a price to society and to each of us individually. It might be a fair price, but we should at least know what we are paying.
7) And if that thought leads just .1 % of those 4.5 mil. would-be abortions to be converted to adoptions, the billboard accomplished something valuable.
1) With a picture of the president. “Our next leader” not “a next leader.”
2) One aspect of the balance in the abortion debate is that a disproportionate number of African-American pregnancies are terminated by abortion; another is that every baby aborted is a potential American of distinction and importance lost. Barack Obama is an ideal public figure with which to make the point, for the circumstances leading to his birth often lead mothers to seek abortions.
Sounds like you agree the billboard is aimed at the lower rung of society. These are also the people who more likely should get abortions, but that, apparently, is neither here nor there.
3) This is your same point as 1.
4) That statistic is worthless. You should be comparing the ratios, not the total amounts. There are alot more lower class people than upper class people. Also, that 1 in 250 million is actually accurate.
5) This has nothing to do with Tim’s point. Also, there are 1 billion eggs unfertilized in the us each year…
6) Every unfertilized egg…
7) Translation: “And if emotional appeals with bad logic convert sheep to my side, that’s good.” Just like religion. The end justifies the means, even though the end is not necessarily better.
Foundering, floundering…
1) I do not concur that “African Americans” is synonymous with “lower rung of society”…the only people who really believe that are bigots and professional grievance-mongers like the NAACP. I know you are not either…the third category is people desperate for points in losing arguments.
2) The billboard is in Chicago, not Catfish Row.
3) If every poor family aborted its fetuses since 1800, at least 7 out of the 44 U.S, Presidents would not have made it to the White House. That’s not irrelevant.
4) Sperms and eggs are not living organisms. The fact that you keep running to this silly comparison shows me how desperate your arguments are.
5. Actually, tgt, your argument sound like blind religion to me. You reject obvious fact in order to hold on to a predetermined article of faith, that killing fetuses is inherently justifiable because they have the biological status of warts. That is nonsense, and in a politically neutral environment absolutely no one would maintain such a position, because it would be laughable. It makes exactly as much sense, and exists for the same reason, as the fundamentalist position that evolution is a lie because the earth is only 10,000 years old. (The reason: it makes an uncomfortable fact deniable.)
6. Emotion and factual appeals are not mutually exclusive, as you know, but pretend not to.
7. I have written what my position on abortion is, and you keep misrepresenting it, because it suits your line of argument.
These numbers no longer line up.
Against your current list:
1) No one said that African Americans = Lower rung of society. But the African Americans who have more abortions are in the lower run of society (where people have more abortions in general).
2) So, you agreed who it was aimed at.
3) Every poor family doesn’t abort their kids, and you have no knowledge that any of those 7 came from specific situations that would have been aborted. This is why people don’t trust statistics: the rampant misuse.
4) You keep making this claim, but you don’t have any evidence for it. I’d say we’ve been round and round on this, but we haven’t gone round. You simply stop responding when you’re painted into a corner and shown that your position is not supported by reality, only emotion and instinct.
5) I don’t have faith. I’m not simply stating a fetus is not alive. I’m relying on biology to make that determination. That’s evidence -> conclusion. You, on the other hand, have no evidence for your belief the other way. You simply state it as if it’s a given that a human fetus is a human, despite it being contradictory to established science. You are the one being the creationist in this picture, not me.
6) Argh. And emotional appeals and fact based appeals are not necessarily valid. The billboard uses facts to make an emotional attack, instead of a logical attack. It’s not valid.
7) No, I keep quoting you and interpretting your words. You can say your position is X, but when all your comments define your position as Y, your actual position is Y. You didn’t even recognize your own quotes on the matter! In this specific thread and this specific number (7), you made the case that stopping any abortions is valuable. That pretty clearly puts you in the anti-abortion camp, no matter how much you want to give off the impression of impartiality.
Apologies…I’m going to address these piecemeal, because I’m on the run:
1) No one said that African Americans = Lower rung of society. But the African Americans who have more abortions are in the lower run of society (where people have more abortions in general).
But the more likely origin for leaders, and thus aborted potential leaders, as you agree, is the upper levels of society. So the billboard is aimed at that audience, not lower socio-economic group blacks.
(cont)
“this specific number (7), you made the case that stopping any abortions is valuable. That pretty clearly puts you in the anti-abortion camp, no matter how much you want to give off the impression of impartiality.”
What? That’s Bill Clinton’s position exactly—make abortions rare. He’s regarded as “pro choice.” How does my statement, that the fewer abortions the better, essentially, make me anti-abortion? I am anti-the pro abortion position, which is something very different.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth, a tactic I know you can avoid when you actually have a valid argument. Unlike now.
Of course, her comment does not follow from the text of the message at all. And by asking if she has a guilty conscience, I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise she’s just race-baiting and cynical.
Your words:
Guilty conscience, Cherisse? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the position of abortion advocates, intellectually dishonest though it is, has always been that an aborted fetus is not a human being at all. Why are you interpreting “abortion” as “murder”?
and
And by the way, I believe many abortion advocates, especially women, are uncomfortable with their own position, feeling it is the position they “should” have, but actually feeling that the position is somehow wrong. Cherisse’s response accurately reflects that ambivalence—which means, of course, the the billboard accomplished its goal…ethically.
Maybe I misinterpretted them, but that looks circular to me. Can you rephrase one or both?
Of course, her comment does not follow from the text of the message at all.
The conflation or abortion with murder is there in black and white.
We hit the nesting limit, and it’s going to be confusing to intermix responses, so I’m starting over.
1) You said this.
Abortion is the epitome of a complex issue that requires ethical balancing. One aspect of the balance in the abortion debate is that a disproportionate number of African-American pregnancies are terminated by abortion; another is that every baby aborted is a potential American of distinction and importance lost. Barack Obama is an ideal public figure with which to make the point, for the circumstances leading to his birth often lead mothers to seek abortions.
It sounds pretty clear that this billboard is directed to the people who are more likely to have abortions, which is the lower class. You seem to be sweeping that under the rug.
7) Wanting abortions to be rare is not at all the same as saying that any lessening of abortions is good. I want abortion to be rare too, but only by lessening the circumstances that lead to abortions.
I want abortion to be rare too, but only by lessening the circumstances that lead to abortions.
It took 69 posts, and though I doubt we have our “Comment of the Day”, I think we at least have our “Quote of the Day”.
Is this surprising? The people that are supposedly “pro-abortion” tend to be pro-birth-control, pro-sex-education, pro-prenatal-care, and pro-helping-the-poor. All things that limit unwanted and unmanagable pregnancies.
I have had a number of discussions with “pro-choice” advocates and it seems to me that we are having two different conversations. Their position tends to be that a woman has a right of choice over her own body. I have heard it stated like, “What right do you have to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her own body?” as if having an abortion was equivalent with clipping a fingernail or cutting off an extra appendage. This same person will be adamantly opposed to murder, however.
I actually agree with the position that a woman has a right of choice over her own body, even if it involves personal mutilation. However, this is where I say we are having two different conversations. If the baby (fetus) is a part of the woman’s own body, they may have a valid point. But isn’t it quite obvious that this is not the case. The one thing that every cell in the woman’s body has in common is the DNA code. But the baby’s is distinctly different. Therefore, I maintain that the life in the womb is not part of the woman’s body at all. Although it depends on her for protection and sustenance, it is distinctly and structurally different than all the other cells in her body.
So it stands to reason that the baby is a distinct human being, separate from the mother, and that ending its life is murder. Now the argument shifts to whether or not the baby enjoys “human” status or is somewhat sub-human and can be killed or denied other rights us real-humans enjoy. This is the same argument that has been used throughout the ages to justify slavery and genocide.
In that case, the question becomes at what point does the “fetus” become a baby? Medically speaking, its becoming tougher and tougher to say. Viability outside of the womb is a moving target as technology advances. The only event that can decisively determine life is when the sperm and the egg unite to form a new and unique DNA fingerprint. So, I have to fall on the side that life begins at conception…
Ray Nash
http://www.PoliceDynamicsMedia.com
That’s a really good, clear, concise, and fairly thorough summary of the ethical issues, Ray. The fact that the “less than human” argument has been used illicitly in the past doesn’t necessarily dictate that it is invalid in relation to fetuses, but it does suggest that the argument should be treated with skepticism.
My problem with the extreme “it’s just part of my body”—like a fingernail—argument is that I think it is disingenuous, an argument of convenience. Most states will prosecute someone who kills a pregnant woman’s unborn child, and women who want their child refer to the unborn as a separate individual. I do not understand a line of argument that holds that if the woman chooses to regard the unborn as an individual, it has rights, and if she chooses to regard it as a fingernail, it doesn’t.
Either an unborn child has rights or it doesn’t; either it is a human being, or it isn’t. A mother can’t alter what it is by declaration either way.
You do realize that if you rip off my fingernail, it’s assault, but if I do it, it’s grooming, right?
So it stands to reason that the baby is a distinct human being, separate from the mother, and that ending its life is murder.
That doesn’t follow at all. You skipped the part where the fetus became a human being. You made it distinct life (entertainingly, the exact definition of a parasite), but you didn’t make it a human being.
In that case, the question becomes at what point does the “fetus” become a baby? Medically speaking, its becoming tougher and tougher to say. Viability outside of the womb is a moving target as technology advances. The only event that can decisively determine life is when the sperm and the egg unite to form a new and unique DNA fingerprint. So, I have to fall on the side that life begins at conception…
Granting you your facts, you still haven’t shown how this life is a human being with rights. Your hole still exists. I also don’t agree with your facts.
You don’t need two DNA fingerprints for life to exist. See reptiles, plants, fungus, etc… By your logic, asexual reproduction does not create life. This is patently wrong.
Secondly, an egg and a sperm, while necessary conditions for current human life, do not decisively create it. There’s this little thing about how that egg and sperm need to get implanted in a uterus and incubated for months on end. Why don’t we push it back to ovulation and sperm production? Or what about possible parents entering puberty? I’d put the inappropriate term “conception” in the middle of the chain of reproduction, not the beginning.
The problem is that there is no black and white line that people can point to, but people need lines for things like laws. I use birth with intent as my ethical line, as at that point there are 2 separate and independent entities, and an outside party could care for the offspring without affecting the host. You use conception because… you don’t understand necessary causes vs terminal causes? Because the possible life is only directly dependent on one other specific person instead of two? I don’t get it.
Even though we may disagree on our conclusions, you have helped me make my case in one area: it is impossible to draw a clear line as to when life begins. Since the development of the baby begins at conception, and it is an uninterrupted line until birth, the only logical place that I can conclude that a separate life begins is at conception. When we are dealing with something as precious as life, I will certainly want to err on the side of caution rather than convenience.
You raise some good points about whether or not the uniqueness of the DNA establishes life, but that isn’t really the point I was trying to make. My point was that the uniqueness of the DNA proves that the baby is not part of the mother’s body. Therefore she cannot argue that she has a right to abort since it is her body.
The comparison of a human baby (or fetus) to a parasite is an interesting one. I think I would argue that the conception of the child is a natural part of human reproduction and the baby could not be considered a parasite in that sense. But an interesting analogy nonetheless…
Even though we may disagree on our conclusions, you have helped me make my case in one area: it is impossible to draw a clear line as to when life begins.
Hmm…this is what the pro-choice side has said as long as I remember, so how could this help you?
Since the development of the baby begins at conception, and it is an uninterrupted line until birth, the only logical place that I can conclude that a separate life begins is at conception.
First, didn’t you just say you can’t draw a clear line at where life begins? Let’s let that go for now. Onward!
Premise 1: Development begins at conception.
Premise 2: Development is uninterupted until birth.
Premise 3: There is a line that defines separate life.
Therefore: Life beigns at conception.
Your argument is invalid. For your conclusion, you need the premise that life begins before birth. Oops, that’s what you were trying to conclude. We call that begging the question. It’s an easy trap to fall into, but it makes your argument pointless.
Even if your argument was logically sound, I don’t agree with all your premises. Premise 1 is not true. Development begins with ovulation and semen production, if not sooner… unless you are equivocating to make your argument seem stronger than it is. Also, since you’ve already agreed that Premise 3 is not necessarily true (actually impossible!), you can’t assume it.
When we are dealing with something as precious as life, I will certainly want to err on the side of caution rather than convenience.
I hate this logic. This is the same logic that says that noone can ever own a gun. It normally translates to “I’m going to err on the side of my biases and existing belief rather than pay attention to collective knowledge.” It’s not a reason. It’s an excuse.
You raise some good points about whether or not the uniqueness of the DNA establishes life, but that isn’t really the point I was trying to make. My point was that the uniqueness of the DNA proves that the baby is not part of the mother’s body. Therefore she cannot argue that she has a right to abort since it is her body.
My sperm has DNA that is different from my DNA. Is it not part of my body while it’s inside me? Even granting something is different life, I don’t think autonomity or separateness can be argued. What about all the microorganisms that life in my body and allow me to do such basic things as digest food and breathe? Despite being separate life, they are considered part of me. The inseverability of the fetus also goes against the claim of having its own rights.
The comparison of a human baby (or fetus) to a parasite is an interesting one. I think I would argue that the conception of the child is a natural part of human reproduction and the baby could not be considered a parasite in that sense. But an interesting analogy nonetheless…
The only reasons I see you list for why the fetus is not a parasite:
1) it’s natural and
2) it’s party of reproduction.
Considering that parasites are natural and species have used parasitic behavior to reproduce, I’m gonna have to go out on a limb and say you didn’t list a valid reason. I’d also like to know in which sense you think a fetus is not a parasite. I guess you could argue a mutually beneficial relationship, but that would be dependent on the host’s feelings.
Actually, I may use this as an example of the irrational and tortured logic otherwise rational pro abortion advocates will go to to avoid dealing with the real ethical problems in their position. Your reverence for the sperm as a baby equivalent is a rare one—no reputable bioethicist that I’ve ever encountered has the gall to try that one. What a hoot. It’s like arguing that some hydrogen and some oxygen is the same as a drink of water. Embryo as parasite—love it. 100 years from now, historians will read that like they regard slavery advocates’ claims in the 19th century that blacks are the missing links.
It’s a dirty trick of biology that women have to bear children, and finding a way to give then maximum autonomy despite this is an important social goal. But designating living human beings as warts and pretending living human cells are “beings” does not seem to a rational way to proceed. If you like comforting myths so much, why are you so hostile to religion?
Is a puzzlement!
Actually, I may use this as an example of the irrational and tortured logic otherwise rational pro abortion advocates will go to to avoid dealing with the real ethical problems in their position.
What was irrational logic? I only see one example in your post, and I’m going to show the flaw in your argument below.
Your reverence for the sperm as a baby equivalent is a rare one—no reputable bioethicist that I’ve ever encountered has the gall to try that one. It’s like arguing that some hydrogen and some oxygen is the same as a drink of water.
In no way did I compare a sperm to a baby. That’s a straw man. I did compare sperm having unique DNA to impregnated eggs having unique DNA to show that unique DNA isn’t the point at which a human being is created. It’s misrepresentations like yours that give “pro-life” people a bad name. Sadly, that was your best point.
Embryo as parasite—love it. 100 years from now, historians will read that like they regard slavery advocates’ claims in the 19th century that blacks are the missing links.
Um… what? We have the biology to understand embryos, and they do match up to parasites. Often necessary parasites, but that doesn’t change their nature. Meanwhile, aside from the missing link idea only possibly coming into play in the 1860s, pretty late in the slavery advocate game, it was the result of people not understanding the science and misinterpeting it… That’s more like you than me.
But designating living human beings as warts and pretending living human cells are “beings” does not seem to a rational way to proceed.
You express two ideas here. “[D]esignating living human beings as warts… does not seem to [be] a rational way to proceed” and “[P]retending living human cells are “beings” does not seem to [be] a rational way to proceed.” I believe I parsed that accurately, but let me know if there was a misrepresentation.
Let’s take the second claim first, as it’s simpler. Why is it simpler? Because it is exactly the opposite of my position. Living human cells are not necessarily human beings.
Onto the first claim, I have not argued that living human beings are no more than cells. I am arguing that cells are no more than cells. What’s the difference between a sperm and egg just prior to conception and just after conception? What’s the difference between a blastocyst prior to it’s imbedation in the uterine walls and after this occurs? Nowhere have I argued that a human being is just cells. What I have argued is that your definition of human being is unsupported by biology. What I have argued is that I make a moral case for personhood at birth with intent to create a person. Is that supported by biology? As I noted, slightly. I’ll take slightly over not at all.
If you like comforting myths so much, why are you so hostile to religion?
Please state one myth I wrote. I don’t see that you referenced any.
Query: what’s your position on very late term abortions, given that the baby/fetus at this point is often at the same/similar point of development as one that was birthed prematurely?
On my end, I don’t think abortions are justified just because the fetus isn’t independent life (hell, newborn babies could be considered parasites, considering that they can’t really take care of themselves at all); I do think that fetuses in the earlier stages of development lack the capacity to even slightly enjoy life in the way even a prematurely birthed baby would, and that is the reason that I would, apart from other more ‘pragmatic’ considerations, support the right to early term abortions. I suppose tgt is probably in part arguing this, but I’ll help out a bit by saying that a fetus is probably not sentient in the way a human being, even a retarded one, is. It’s definitely life though, (just not necessarily one of equal value), and that would be why we would want the circumstances to be rare in the first place, in the same way we tolerate killing animals for our food, but not just for sadistic pleasure.
Come on. Fetus as non-human, non-living parasite is a myth. Baby=non human thing 30 seconds before birth, Baby= fully vested human being 30 second after birth is a myth. Sperm cells and eggs as co-equal with unborn babies as individual human organisms is a myth. But they support the super-structure of abortion advocates’ intellectually dishonest but pragmatic position
And you use “pro-choice,” which is both intentionally misleading and a half-truth.
Wait, were you responding to me?; I actually kind of agreed with you there; that’s why I questioned tgt’s parasite logic is a rationale for abortion, asked him about late-term abortions, and even referred to the fetus as ‘life’, of a sort.
Personally, Julian, I honestly get the chills when I hear someone refer to an unborn baby like TGT did. A “blastocyst”? That’s what I had growing out of my back until my doctor cut it out. It wasn’t a future human being. As a military historian, I’m aware of how, in wartime, a nation tends to depict its enemies as less than human to make it easier for the populace to handle the taking of life. I see a parallel here. Only it’s now babies who are the enemy… and for the cause of political expediency.
Baby has a biological meaning. Attempts by anti-legal-abortion advocates to redefine a fetus as a baby are both invalid and powerful. It is the worst kind of misrepresentation.
As I asked above, what is the real difference between a sperm and egg just prior to fertilization and just after fertilization? Please try to limit your discussion to reality. Religious beliefs about the soul are unsubstantiated and have no bearing on any sane discussion.
I’ve also granted life, but not LIFE. My blood cells are alive, but they aren’t a human being life. Unfortunately, despite that distinction, life gets equivocated to mean both, leading to completely invalid arguments looking correct.
Fetus as non-human, non-living parasite is a myth.
A just fertilized egg is not a human being. This isn’t myth. This is biology. Your statement that it is is based on religious dogma, not biology.
Baby=non human thing 30 seconds before birth, Baby= fully vested human being 30 second after birth is a myth.
I never claimed this. It’s a continuum. I put the line of allowed abortion vs. murder based on secondary factors not related to full human status. Please do not misrepresent me like this.
Sperm cells and eggs as co-equal with unborn babies as individual human organisms is a myth.
I suggested that sperm cells and eggs just before fertilaztion are co-equal with just after fertilization. I asked for how you differentiate them. Again, you’re twising my position to make it seem worth than it is.
But they support the super-structure of abortion advocates’ intellectually dishonest but pragmatic position
My actual position are not intellectually dishonest while also supporting abortion. Maybe you should aim for the arguments instead of the strawmen.
And you use “pro-choice,” which is both intentionally misleading and a half-truth.
Argh. Pro-abortion is a worse half truth. I am anti-abortion, but anti-abortion by keeping them from occurring, not anti-abortion by making them illegal. How about we label the positions “pro-legal-abortion” and “anti-legal-abortion.”
I’ve actually answered this question a couple times. I believe that late term abortions are ethical and should be legal (even though I find them personally icky). I base the line, not because the lifeform becomes a human being at birth, but on the lack of requirement for the host to be involved anymore. This is both because another person can physically take care of the lifeform, and we have institutions set up to do exactly that.
Icky?? You first dismiss an unborn baby as a non-human tissue growth, then you defend the process of drawing out a viable baby’s head from the womb, breaking its little head open and sucking out its brains. Not “icky”, TGT. It’s cold, cruel infanticide… and one of the most monstrous crimes imaginable.
That sounds icky to me. I find slaughtering cattle icky, too. That doesn’t mean that my tasty steak was a human being, or that the slaughtering of it was inethical.
It’s cold, cruel infanticide… and one of the most monstrous crimes imaginable.
We’ve covered this. First, it’s not an infant. It’s a fetus. Second, there’s no pre-birth biological point that supports the life becoming a human being.
And now children are compared to cattle! Even Alfred Hitchcock would have rolled his eyes at that one. But to state that a “fetus” or “embyro” is less than human is merely to use semantics as a justification for dehumanization. Why not, indeed, extend the definition to a helpless baby who is newborn? Or to a toddler, for that matter? All of them, in whatever of those stages of life, is utterly dependent on the love and support of its parents. As we all once were. When, then, is a child to be safe from being “culled” by adults for the crime of being inconvenient at the moment? This is a nightmare scenario worthy of Himmler, Mengele or, for that matter, George Bernard Shaw. When you lower the worth of human children to nothing, TGT, you likewise lower the entire human race to a herd of animals. Lower, in fact.
Translation:
1) Misrepresentation of TGT’s position.
3) Lie about biology.
3) Repeat TGT’s argument, except with a religious twist, with no concept that that’s why I’m doing.
4) Ignore TGT’s stated comments.
5) Talk about Nazis.
6) Conclusion.
That was actually quite impressive.
Only in your own mind, TGT. Talk about Nazis, indeed. I think even Himmler would have quailed before your own previous words. You’ve said what you’ve said… and now it’s on record. You’re stuck with it. Your response here amounts to a casual elitist wave of the hand and a “whatever”. In other words, no response.
Right, I forgot my rule. Instead of breaking down your post to show how insane it is, I should just refer to the previous discussions where you admitted you don’t care about reality and that you argue in bad faith.
Again; only in your own mind, Tiggy.
If it makes you feel any better, tgt, there’s a relatively well-liked guy in my college that everybody calls “Tiggy” as well (because his first name is too common and his Danish surname sounds even sillier).
Erm, even if the host is no longer needed, the baby still needs someone else to take care of it; I see the distinction you make, but I don’t consider it a valid justification for validating late term abortions while still maintaining that killing premature newborns is unethical. But I doubt we’ll change each other’s minds anytime soon; I suppose we’ll just have to agree with each other in our support of early term abortions.
Ah, come on. “Agreeing to disagree” means no progress in any direction. We all know everybody has a right to their opinions, but opinions need to be challenged regularly, strongly, and well.
Heh, true, but I meant that we should probably call the argument off for just a little bit; honestly, I think most of us here have used up our best arguments, and really have nothing left to do other than either read up more on the issue or consider what the other commentators have already said.
Basically, while it’s good to continually argue/advocate for something, there is a point where doing too much of so in a given time-span simply makes everyone dig in their heels just because they feel the other side is simply being obnoxious (even if they really aren’t).
Now YOU’RE being obnoxious. We must fight to the death!
I think Jack mentioned being tired of me 50 posts ago, and this topic is just frustrating, so I’m up for letting it go until something else stupid comes up.
Hey, maybe we can continue it on the ridiculous Arizona bill thread. SMP could get a medical degree, then start working at a clinic at an abortion clinic to perform abortions. Once he’s hired, he could note that it’s against his religion.
It’s already against my religion, morals and obligations as a man to murder children, TGT. Regardless of how you label them.
I can’t tell you how it does my heart good to have you two boys talking again.
Heat??
A cross between “head” and “heart.” Better than “heard,” I think.
Are you sure you haven’t been reading too many of that teacher’s erotic novels?
I keep ’em in a cabinet beside the commode. Where they belong, I guess…