An article written on Everyday Feminism by Erin McKelle has been brought to my attention. Ordinarily I wouldn't take the time to respond to an article like this, but a friend asked for my thoughts on it. So I decided to write this in an article and share my thoughts with everyone who would care to read. The article is called 6 Abortion Myths Debunked. Needless to say her responses are less than impressive, and many result in simple red herrings and misunderstandings of science. I guess you could call this Six Abortion Myths Debunked Debunked.
Myth #1: Abortion is baby-killing.
I rarely frame abortion as baby killing because "baby" is an imprecise term. I can argue from the facts of science that the unborn are human beings from fertilization and that it is wrong and should be illegal to kill innocent human beings, whether or not they are babies.
So let's look at her arguments as to why the unborn don't qualify as babies.
1) A fetus is a developing mammal; a fetus develops at the second month of fertilization.
This is just misleading. It's true the developing human becomes a fetus after the second month of gestation, but she is an embryo before that. Zygote, embryo, and fetus are just stages of development of the same developing entity. So telling us that a fetus develops after the second month of gestation doesn't tell us anything about whether it's right or wrong to kill it. Once the fetus is born, she becomes a newborn, then a toddler, adolescent, etc. All stages of development of the same entity.
2) A baby is a human offspring that has already been born.
Sure it is, but it's not only that. The author of the article pointed us to the dictionary definition of fetus because it suited her purposes, but why didn't she point us to the dictionary definition of baby? Probably because the dictionary definition of baby proves her wrong. How is baby defined? As a human fetus.
There is only one drastic point in a human being's life at which we can point to her going from non-humanity to humanity -- at fertilization. Before you have the sperm and the egg, but when they fuse a new human being comes into existence. Every embryology textbook will tell you this. Once that event occurs, the human being begins a path of development that starts at fertilization and doesn't end at birth. In fact, development continues well into adulthood.
3) A zygote...is not the same thing as a human life that has already come into being.
Yes it is, for the reasons I outlined above. A human zygote is a human being. If she doesn't believe me, why doesn't she pick up an embryology textbook and read it from the experts?
4) Therefore, a fetus is a part of its mother.
This really goes without saying, but if this was supposed to be an argument, it's clearly a non sequitur. Even if the zygote isn't a human life, she hasn't shown why we should consider it a part of the mother. In fact, for a week or so before the zygote implants in the mother's uterus, she is a free-floating individual. She is not connected to the mother at all, but is conceived in the fallopian tube and pushed toward the uterus by tiny hairs called cilia.
But never mind this -- what does the child have to do to be considered not part of the mother? The fetus is just connected by the umbilical cord. In fact, the mother can die and her body kept alive until the child can survive alone, then the child can be born. No other part of her can do this. We can't keep her body alive, then remove her kidney and let it live out the rest of its life. If the kidney doesn't get implanted into another woman's body, it will "die," too.
Additionally, according to the law of transitivity, if A is a part of B, and B is a part of C, then A is a part of C. For example, if your finger is a part of your hand, and your hand is a part of your body, then your finger is a part of your body. So if the fetus is really just a "part of the mother," then you would have to say that every pregnant woman has four arms, four legs, two heads, four eyes, two noses, and roughly half the time, male genitalia.
In fact, she tries to argue that the baby is an autonomous being. I would disagree. When is the last time you've seen a baby feed himself, or change his own diaper, or drive himself to the store to pick up more formula? The only difference between a human fetus and a human newborn is that one is inside the mother, connected to the umbilical cord, and one is not. But this is not a morally relevant difference, nor does it make the baby autonomous just because he is no longer connected to the mother.
In no relevant sense of the term can the unborn be considered part of the mother.
The author of the article also alleges that fetal pain is a result of phony science. It's not based on phony science. Pro-choice people would love to think that all pro-life arguments are phony, but considering that the nervous system and the brain develop in the womb, there must be a point during pregnancy at which the unborn actually feels pain. The pain receptors aren't magically turned on by the act of birth. However, this is a red herring and has no bearing on whether or not the unborn are human (since some human beings, like Gabby Gingras, are born with a congenital inability to feel pain), so I don't feel obligated to support the science of fetal pain at this moment.
Needless to say, this first myth is not a myth at all, and McKelle has done a poor job of supporting her arguments.
Myth #2: Abortion is used as a form of birth control.
This one seems pretty straightforward. Abortion is used as a last resort. If contraception fails, a woman goes in to have an abortion to prevent the child from being born. Abortion is birth control. And it differs from contraceptives because contraceptives are meant to prevent conception.
McKelle's second paragraph actually refutes her own claim of this being a myth. She admits that most people don't use abortion as birth control. But if some people do, then this clearly isn't a myth. However, I still think that's a specious claim because all abortions are used for birth control. Her specific reason may not be "I'm getting an abortion because it's birth control," but since every woman goes in to have an abortion because she doesn't want the child being born (she feels like she's not ready to be a mother, she doesn't think she can afford it, wants to finish college, fears getting fired, etc.), it's clearly being used as birth control.
She argues that this doesn't make logical sense, but I think I have shown that it does. She says that this assumes that abortion is easier to access than contraceptives, but that has no bearing whatsoever on her argument. Expensive or difficult to access birth control is still birth control.
Myth #3: People who have abortions regret it or experience intense grief.
This one is again straightforward. Pro-choice people have a tendency to take pro-life claims and blow them way out of proportion. Pro-life people don't say that all post-abortive women regret their abortions or experience intense grief. But this obviously does happen, as there are organizations that are formed specifically to help women who are feeling grief about their abortions, such as The Silent No More Awareness Campaign and the IRMA Network (IRMA stands for I Regret My Abortion). You can find testimonies from post-abortive women at those websites. Denying these women exist shows that many pro-choice people are more interested in their ideology than in actually helping women. There are many negative aspects to abortion and by denying them, the pro-choice crowd are doing a disservice to the women they claim to want to help.
McKelle claims that Post-Abortion Syndrome doesn't exist, but Post Traumatic Stress Disorder does. And if a woman's abortion was traumatic, she could certainly become intensely depressed, even to the point of taking her own life.
So McKelle's claim that most women (75%) who get abortions felt the benefit outweighed the harm is irrelevant in trying to wave this away as a myth. I don't know if this is accurate, as I'm not going to investigate the studies she's drawing from (studies, especially in contentious cases like abortion, can be greatly skewed by those with an agenda). But the argument is not that all do, or even that most do (though there may be some uninformed pro-life people who make that claim). But the reality is that many women do regret their abortion.
Whether or not women regret their abortion says nothing about its moral permissibility, so pro-choice people are doing a grave disservice by pretending it doesn't happen.
Myth #4: Only selfish women have abortions.
I personally don't like to make claims about a woman's state of mind when she goes in for an abortion. Again, a woman's state of mind says nothing about its moral permissibility or impermissibility. But considering that a mother is supposed to place her children's well-being above her own, I can see why people would think abortion is (if not always, then usually) a selfish decision.
Let's look at a recent case regarding Megan Huntsman, a woman who got pregnant seven times and killed six of the seven children after they were born (one was stillborn). Now, she could have gone in for an abortion while she was pregnant and had those children legally killed by abortion (and in many places in the United States, you can have the child legally killed up to the point of birth). I'm assuming that McKelle is morally opposed to infanticide, based on a statement she made early in her article. So why is abortion not a selfish decision, but these six cases of infanticide are? Should a mother not be held responsible to care for her children while pregnant with them? Why do her obligations only begin at birth?
McKelle makes the statement that those who choose to remain childless are choosing themselves. But if you choose your own welfare over the welfare of others, that is, by its very definition, selfishness. There is nothing wrong with choosing to remain childless -- the wrong obtains when you kill your own children in order to do it.
McKelle also quoted a girl who was young and scared during a pregnancy, and decided the best decision for her baby was to have the baby killed rather than grow up in poverty. But to see why this line of thinking is morally bankrupt, all one has to do is ask, if she had given birth and decided to kill her child when the child was two years old, would we have allowed her to get away with saying "this was the best decision a mother could make for her child"? Would we even agree with this line of thinking if it was a toddler, and not a human fetus, whose life was hanging in the balance?
Myth #5: If abortion becomes illegal, abortion will end.
Absolutely nobody thinks this. Abortion numbers will go down, because I believe people are generally law-abiding citizens. But obviously people still rape, steal, and murder despite it being illegal. Does that mean we should legalize it to make rape, theft, or murder "safe and rare?" Of course not. Whether or not making abortion illegal would reduce the instances of it, murder of a human being is the kind of act we make illegal because there must be consequences for those who choose to do it.
She assumes, as many pro-choice people do, that making abortion illegal only changes the safety of it. This is completely bogus. What made abortion safer for the woman was not legalizing it, it was advances in medical technology. In 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, according to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics Center for Disease Control, as cited in Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Wilke, Abortion Questions and Answers, rev. ed., the number of women who died in illegal abortions was 39. Medical advancements, not legalization, have made abortion safer for the woman (though it's almost always fatal for the child).
Myth #6: Only women get abortions.
This objection is just silly. I'm not convinced that transsexualism is a real thing (I'm open to being wrong and have been recommended books on the issue that I will be studying), and "cissexualism" is certainly not. But the reality is that only people with female hardware get abortions. If McKelle wants to complain about this, she should talk to pro-choice people. They use arguments that make this assumption much more than pro-life people do, such as with their argument that "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
This is just another red herring, apparently because the gay rights issue is so important to her that she's willing to homosexual-juke the abortion conversation. But the reality is that the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality is a separate issue from the abortion issue, because pro-life people believe that all human beings, homosexuals included, have natural rights such as the right to life. The pro-choice side is the exclusive side because they believe that unless you fit some prerequisites, you aren't "one of us."
McKelle claims to be interested in human rights, but I don't think she has a clear grasp of them. Human rights means that all human beings, unborn included, have natural rights like the right to life. And having a right to choose does not mean that all choices are equal, or that all choices are "right" to make. The unborn are human from fertilization, so the unborn have human rights from fertilization.
These arguments are silly, and responses are pretty simple and straightforward, but it's nice to see a somewhat fresh take on them. I often find a lot of great refinements to make to the way I talk about abortion when I read your articles, and this one is no exception.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Charles. :)
Delete"A human zygote is a human being."
ReplyDeleteBiblically, we don't have knowledge of anything like "cells" or "zygotes". However, the Bible clearly tells us that children are a blessing, and that should give us serious pause over the question of birth control. From a secular and purely naturalistic point of view, the other side will point out that zygotes can divide into two. Or two embryos an combine to form one. And then they ask if this is a case of 2 human beings becoming one? What happened to the other human being? At some point, we must trust what God tells us without relying on science, which is fickle.
I actually disagree here. The Bible doesn't speak to when human life begins, though we can infer it from several passages. However, the science of embryology is clear that human life begins at fertilization. The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be one. But that doesn't mean that science is unreliable -- far from it. Before the 1900's, most scientists were practicing Christians and believed that God wanted us to study and learn about his creation, which is why modern science began with and was fostered by Christianity.
DeleteEmbryologists, both pro-life and pro-choice, tell us that human life begins at fertilization. The only ones who disagree are those with an agenda, but it really shows that the pro-choice side, not the pro-life one, is anti-science. Embryologists tell us that human life begins at fertilization, and I'm sure they're well aware of the possibility of twinning or recombining. But the possibility of twinning or recombining tells us nothing about biological humanity. First, not every zygote can twin. But second, even if a zygote twins, it doesn't follow that it wasn't one individual human being before the split, and vice versa with recombining. It doesn't follow that there weren't two human beings before the recombining. Scott uses the example of a flatworm (which I think he got from someone else). If you cut a flatworm in half, you get two flatworms. It doesn't follow that you didn't have one individual flatworm before the split.
A thought experiment I've heard regarding this is imagine a possible world in which human beings, on their sixteenth birthday, split into two human beings. Would it follow from that that we're not really human until we're 16?
If i could take a cell from you and make a clone, would it mean that you didn't exist as an individual before i made the clone?
DeleteImagine if the we didn't lose our ability to twin until the age of ten, would that mean we weren't human persons until after that age? The claim is nonsense, it simply functions as an excuse for the permissible practice of embryo destructive research
DeleteClinton, that is a fascinating thought experiment! I've never heard it before. Let me give you one. Let us suppose that you and I could somehow combine to form 1 person. And by that I don't mean we'd be attached physically, as if handcuffed together or something. I mean we'd physically and *mentally* be the same person. What exactly would this mean? Did both of us die? Is somebody new created? Did one of us die and the other live? Would this me-you person be married to your wife? Married to my wife? Married to both of our wives? Dad to your kids? Dad to mine?
ReplyDeleteI would argue that in such fantasy worlds as the ones we discuss, that the concept of "person" would be completely and utterly foreign to us. And Drew doesn't get it. He is imagining cloning, where a totally new person exists, but the old person still exists -- just a deviation of normal child birth. What we're imagining is far different.
Moreover, this isn't the biggest problem when relying on science instead of the Word of God. How can science simply declare a magic point in biological development of where something becomes valuable? Conception is actually a process that lasts hours. Like any biological process, it's not instant. When's the magic moment? when the sperm touches the egg, or when the chromosomes are all lined up, or when exactly? I would also point out that there is a growing field called epigenetics which shows that the environment of the embryo plays a tremendous role in genes. What if we discover that an embryo with non-human genes can be put in some alternative environment and be developed to look like a human? Or the reverse? We must stop pretending that science has all the answers.
Clinton, you parse and make fine distinctions when it's to your benefit, and you cite scientific findings, again when they support you, but you don't address those well known issues that argue against your supposedly airtight convictions. Yes, an embryo or a zygote has a strong potential of becoming a human, but just because a human must pass through these stages on the way to becoming a fully formed, functioning creature does not make the converse true that all human embryos and zygotes will become humans and must be regarded as such, even excluding the possibility of elective abortion. It's estimated that 50% of human embryos and zygotes are spontaneously aborted. Many studies have confirmed that 15-20% of verified pregnancies will end in spontaneous abortion. If we are to take your bold assertion that we, as sentient and moral beings, must treat these organisms in these phases of human development the same as in all other phases, why does society not hold funerals for these lost human souls? Are not all humans deserving of such rites? Because we make a distinction, whether you can acknowledge it or not, that is why. And therefore it is either disingenuous, or duplicitous, of you to belittle Ms. McElle for delineating a distinction about these early stages of pregnancy that we, as a whole society, observe in our everyday life and likewise for you to attempt to bolster your religiously biased opinion with supposedly irrefutable science.
ReplyDeleteYour argument about whether the fetus and the mother are inseparable is also specious. The fetus, once implanted and in the placenta, is a parasite. There can be no argument about this, because the fetus relies on its existence for all support from the host mother and the mother derives no life-sustaining benefit from the organism inside her womb. Once outside the vagina, a baby, if it is going to survive, does not require that particular woman any longer for its existence. It doesn't even require a woman; it just requires another human willing to cater to all its needs for continued survival. Your argument against McKelle's assertion that a baby once born is then autonomous is a curious bit of failed misdirection. Your sleight-of-hand attempt is embarrassingly transparent. She was talking about one particular woman in regard to the infant's now autonomous status and you either knew, or should have known, it.
You argue, from the Wilkes' statistics, that medical advancement since Roe all but assures if there is a rise in women's attempts to secure illegal abortions when access to legal ones is curtailed that no great increase in morbidity and mortality will occur. How about this? Guttmacher Institute found that in the period of 1972-1974, after your Wilke study, poor women and women of color were 12 times more likely to die from illegal abortion procedures than affluent white women. You constantly harp on the morality of your position and the rights of an unborn fetus, but anyone who can blithely ignore statistics such as these, and you've been well known to issue statements with just such callousness, really has little claim either to the moral high ground or a comprehensive understanding of human rights.
Anonymous (ironic that someone so sure of themselves has to post anonymously), you seem to assume that just because you hold this position, that it must be the correct one. It is possible that *you* are the one who is mistaken here, and I will now point out exactly how you are mistaken.
DeleteFirst, my position is not based on a religious opinion. It’s easy to dismiss an argument by waving it away as “religious,” but I never once mentioned religion.
It's very difficult to rely on studies in the first place, since there are many factors that can go in to a study that would make it unreliable (e.g. Guttmacher Institute is a pro-choice institute, and has a lot to gain by “showing” that illegal abortions are more dangerous than legal abortions). But consider the words of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder and past NARAL president who later became pro-life: “The practice of abortion was revolutionized at virtually the same moment that the laws were revolutionized, through the widespread introduction of suction curettage in 1970. (Even before this, antibiotics and other advances had already dramatically lowered the abortion death rate.)...Though it is preferable that this be done by a licensed physician, one can expect that if abortion is ever driven underground again, even non-physicians will be able to perform this procedure with remarkable safety. No woman need die if she chooses to abort during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy...As for the self-induced abortion, by thrusting a coathanger or other dangerous object into the womb, this will also be a thing of the past. Compounds known as prostaglandins can now be used to bring on contractions and expel [the human embryo/fetus] and would readily be available for do-it-yourself abortions in vaginal suppository form” (Aborting America, New York: Doubleday, 1979, p. 194).
In short, we can go back and forth in a statistic war, but the reality is that legalizing abortion did not make it safer -- medical advancements have made it safer. In fact, according to Mary S. Calederone, M.D., in her essay “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” in the American Journal of Public Health, July 1960 ed., even before Roe v. Wade, women, for the most part, weren’t having “back alley” abortions and using coat hangers. Doctor Calederon wrote, thirteen years before Roe v. Wade, that “the [Planned Parenthood] conference estimated that 90 per cent of all illegal abortions are done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such, and many of them are in good standing in their communities.”
Just because something is well known does not make it good science, good statistics, or a good argument. For example, the 50% statistic is specious, since there’s really no possible way to know it. I’ve seen studies suggesting that it’s lower. The problem is that this argument fails for at least two reasons. First, even if it’s true that 50% of conceived embryos die spontaneously, this doesn’t justify our taking their lives *intentionally*, any more than the fact that people die of natural causes justifies murder, or that people die en masse in natural disasters justify our nuking cities. Second, it’s simply not true that all of the entities spontaneously aborted are human embryos.
Human embryos are not the only entities that can be conceived by the sperm/egg fusion. There are also entities like choriocarcinomas, hydatidiform moles, and or a “blighted ovum,” none of which are actual human entities. But human entities are human from the start, which is why they continue developing into a more mature human (e.g. a fetus, newborn, infant, etc.).
(part 2)
DeleteBut what society does is irrelevant. Did you know that in some Asian countries they consider your age from conception? When you are born, you start at age one. So should we consider the unborn human from fertilization based on that fact? I’m guessing you would say no. So why is the fact that our society doesn’t hold funerals for miscarried children an argument against their humanity? You’re pointing to a cultural ritual as evidence against a scientific claim (and one that all embryologists, pro-life and pro-choice, agree on -- that the unborn are human beings biologically). And I do believe that all humans are deserving of all rites. But just because they don’t get them doesn’t prove anything. A homeless person may not have anyone grieving at his death, but that doesn’t prove he’s not a human being. Besides, many women actually *do* have funerals for their miscarried children. I personally know some who have.
I am not belittling Ms. Elle, and I’ll never understand why some people can’t separate a view from the person. I am critiquing her views, not the person, herself.
Your statement that the unborn is a parasite is just ridiculous nonsense. I would say that your convictions on this matter are the religious ones -- I am sticking to science. The unborn, in no sense, is a parasite. All unborn children are biologically human, yet parasites are always of a different species than its host. Plus, a parasite relation is unnatural, whereas this is exactly how all human beings reproduce and how all human beings begin life. Plus, the relation is not even parasitic, it’s symbiotic -- not only does the mother bond with the child to prepare the child for life, but the child and mother exchange cells which helps the mother stave off illness and can even help prevent cancer -- this is a process called microchimerism.
Your statement that there can be no argument about this shows that you’re not really interested in truth, just in showing (by whatever unscientific means necessary) that abortion is not immoral. But as I have just shown, the argument that the unborn is a parasite is just wrong. It belies a lack of understanding of human biology.
Now, my argument regarding the baby was not misdirection -- it was following McKelle’s argument to its logical conclusion. The baby is not an autonomous being, so infanticide would be permissible. The baby cannot survive outside the womb. You even concede as much: “Once outside the vagina, a baby, if it is going to survive, does not require that particular woman any longer for its existence. It doesn't even require a woman; it just requires another human willing to cater to all its needs for continued survival.” But this is irrelevant. Why is it impermissible to kill the toddler, who needs someone to cater to its every needs, yet permissible to kill the unborn human embryo/fetus, who needs someone to cater to its every needs? This argument either doesn’t work, or it permits infanticide, as well.
(Part 3)
DeleteEdit:
Unfortunately it seems we can't edit comments on this website. I said the baby can't survive outside the womb, but what I meant is that a baby can't survive *on its own* outside the womb, without anyone else caring for her every need.
PART 1
ReplyDeleteTalk about irony. I posted anonymously because I have a reasonable apprehension that I, or others that I love, might be in danger were I to do otherwise. For you see, there is a well known tendency among some in the “pro-life” community for committing violence and at times even murder in the name of their cause. I’m in no way suggesting that I would fear for my life because I posted here under my name, but threats to the physical safety and integrity of my family are very real concerns.
You start off by drawing a conclusion that is supported by nothing. Why would you do so? You state that I assume that “just because [I] hold this position, it must be the correct one.” You imply that I delude myself with an idiosyncratic viewpoint. I contend that you are the one making assumptions. The positions I hold I arrived at after decades of informing myself on this issue. I have listened to or read the voices of physicians, clerics, ethicists, philosophers, and many others, including numerous everyday women and men whose personal experiences are more dispositive than any esoteric philosophical inquiry could ever hope to be. Of course I believe in what I say. Are you prepared to state that somehow your expressed opinions are on an entirely different plane?
I pointed out where there are flaws in your reasoning and the evidence that establishes the errors. You spent a great deal of verbiage in your blog reciting with great certitude why you are correct and Ms. McKelle is abysmally wrong. How is your belief in your correctness different from mine? If you are going to reply that you are a philosopher with great skills of logic and that you rely solely on scientific or fact-based evidence, forgive me if I am less than convinced. In the end, you state your biases. You can argue from your evidence, but you do not prove your contentions conclusively, not in a scientific or logical sense.
This is why I bring up your religious underpinnings. You are indeed a Christian. It is easy to look behind the veil and see that your views derive in no small measure from your faith, despite your attempt to bury these under the guise of “secular pro-life apology.” You say that your statements on abortion eschew religious references because it is too easy to wave them away if tagged religious. Your insistence on the absolute morality of your positions is only thinly divided from the opinions of those who cite biblical or other similar authorities for their beliefs. By your own admission of the ease with which appeals to religious tenets can be dismissed, you place yourself on shaky ground.
I don’t know whether to believe you are deliberately and evasively obtuse or just simply obtuse in addressing my points with your counterarguments. For example, you cite studies that you believe prove the points you wish to make, but then say that when it comes right down to it, citing studies is just a game of swapping numbers and who can believe studies anyway, so let’s just state the facts (conveniently couched as the truth that you wish to establish.) Facts derive from research and studies and those studies can be criticized and weighed for their probative value, but to summarily dismiss them when it suits your purposes is a game I would think even you would be ashamed to engage in.
Threats regarding safety in the abortion issue come from both sides, yet I post with my real name because I stand behind everything that I say and if possible, I am willing to give my life in service of the pro-life cause. It's not a "well known" fact. In fact, only eight people (to my knowledge) have been murdered by "pro-life" people (and I put pro-life in quotes because someone who would commit murder is not really pro-life). There is much violence from the pro-choice side, too, even if we set aside the unborn children killed through abortion.
DeleteI have made no assumptions. In fact, all of my statements are supported by evidence and sound reasoning. If you're not going to be able to recognize my arguments as arguments, then there's really not much more to be said. You didn't support any of your claims, which is why I made the statement about how it seems you think that you are right for the simple fact that you hold this distinction. I have spent several years now (not decades, but about four years) studying ethicists, biologists, embryologists, philosophers, and many others on the issue. The difference between you and me is that I support my statements by citing experts and evidence and you do not.
A second line of evidence is that you provide no further evidence or arguments in your comments, you just spend long periods of time acting insulted that I am confident in my position and am calling you out for your lack of evidence or sound arguments.
Yes, I am a Christian. But I also don't hide this fact. You assert (that is, state without evidence) that my secular arguments have religious underpinnings, but you did not cite a single statement and explain why it has religious underpinnings. When I say these are "secular" arguments, I mean they are arguments in which I don't appeal to religious texts and appeal to intuitions and arguments that the non-religious can (and do) agree with. So I'm afraid until you can point out one statement that falls under this critique of yours, it's just a baseless assertion.
You have missed the point entirely of my statement about statistics. I am not entirely convinced that statistics are the way to go because statistics can be skewed by those with an agenda. I don't have the time or energy to sort through your studies (in fact, you never even cited a study, you just alluded to the Guttmacher Institute without sourcing it), so instead I cited experts on the issue.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteYou completely ignored the question of disparity in the safe outcomes for women of different ethnic and social circumstances. Be that as it may, why are you discussing safety of illegal abortions anyway? Elective abortions should be banned. Period. Your unequivocal position. If your viewpoint were to become the law that you want, how would women obtain the safe abortions that you tout, without the slightest suggestion of embarrassment, even though your discussion is transparently paradoxical, that they would still have access to? If what these women are doing is exactly the same as murder, as you argue, then any concern for their safety—any concern—is not only counterintuitive, it is as repugnant as the vile act that they without conscience are prepared to commit. If you argue against me on this in the name of compassion or just general humane concern, you are beginning down that slippery slope of relativism that you deny can exist when discussing the abomination known as elective abortion.
How about your trying to actually read what I said about your criticism of Ms. McKelle’s statement again? I have long known the difference between an ad hominem attack and ad rem argument. You betray your own inability to distinguish the difference if you bemoan this as my inability. I said that you took Ms. McKelle to task for making distinctions—that is, you criticized her argument, not her personally. I didn’t say that you called her names, smeared her character, or leveled a general denigration. I said that you dismissed one of her arguments as without any merit. I said that society can and does make the same distinction that she makes about different stages of pregnancy and human development. You glossed over that whole argument by citing some irrelevant tradition in some Asian societies and then followed that up, as you’re wont to do, by dismissing the whole argument as irrelevant because you’ve decided to categorically reject it and thereby declaring no further need to address it because you have so decreed it. Furthermore you would hold funerals for all spontaneously aborted zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, I guess, in your best of all possible worlds, and would that our society only realized how wrong they are and how right you always are.
I figured you’d go to a statement about how a fetus and its host mother have a symbiotic relationship. That’s why I said a fetus is a parasite. Of course you’re correct that the fetus is not a parasite in the sense that biologists define a true parasite but neither would biologists call the fetal/maternal relationship symbiosis. With statistical certainty some fetuses will kill their host mothers, as just one fact, among many that prevents the relationship as being characterized as symbiotic. If you’re going to hold me to a strictly correct biological definition of parasitic, at least have enough intellectual integrity to remain consistent yourself.
You and I disagree and I imagine we always will. I could argue more points with you, but I’ve exposed enough of your inconsistencies to stop here and say that anyone who toasts you as the final authority on this issue hasn’t really given enough thought to it.
Well, if we're looking for a solid case of sophistry, it looks like we have a winner. Let's break this down a bit though, from part 1 and 2.
Delete"Talk about irony. I posted anonymously because I have a reasonable apprehension that I, or others that I love, might be in danger were I to do otherwise. For you see, there is a well known tendency among some in the “pro-life” community for committing violence and at times even murder in the name of their cause. "
If it were a "well known tendency", then we'd see it every day, on every channel. It would have its own news channel, if it were that pervasive. You can take a small handful of people in the world who have committed heinous acts and apply that logic to approximately 50% of the US population (the usual split of pro-abortion vs pro life camps, but..feel free to adjust that for accuracy)...and you expect us to believe it's not just a basic case of paranoia. You start your own rebuttal with what amounts to nothing more than pejorative views to demonize those who disagree with you. Of course, you then say this:
" I’m in no way suggesting that I would fear for my life because I posted here under my name, but threats to the physical safety and integrity of my family are very real concerns."
Which is completely contradictory to your opening statement. You're in no way suggesting a thing that you, in fact, suggested not a few sentences before, but still believe it to be a real concern? You didn't even get past the first paragraph without a problem.
"You start off by drawing a conclusion that is supported by nothing."
Except in cases where he, in fact, made such a case. You've mentioned out of hand dismissals and the like, yet do so here brazenly while expecting no one to notice. Even a cursory reading of his replies to you would net the basis of his rebuttal, and yet somehow you manage to miss it.
You then state:
"You imply that I delude myself with an idiosyncratic viewpoint."
To which you follow up immediately with:
"The positions I hold I arrived at after decades of informing myself on this issue."
2 paragraphs, i'm barely getting started, and it's just this easy. But lets move on.
Next, you state:
"I have listened to or read the voices of physicians, clerics, ethicists, philosophers, and many others, including numerous everyday women and men whose personal experiences are more dispositive than any esoteric philosophical inquiry could ever hope to be."
Without a full listing of such an august body of knowledge, it's hard to know if listening to a cleric is your own, or a book you've read, or that the physician you've talked to was an abortion doctor, or any other number of caveats and distinctions. The fact that you then (or, continue to) inject anecdotal stories of all these people you've talked to really doesn't translate into being correct, having the better argument, or having facts on your side. It could be easily argued that the "everyday people" you talk to are friends, and like any social network, we as a people tend to associate with those in whom we find a like-minded nature. Would it then be such a surprise that "8 out of 10 of my friends agree!" would (if not suddenly, then with a certainty) never work as an argument? It doesn't. If you've spent as much time educating yourself on the particulars of the argument, you wouldn't have to cite anecdotal evidence as the basis for reaching such a laudable and important view.
Part 2:
Delete"I pointed out where there are flaws in your reasoning and the evidence that establishes the errors."
Actually, you basically just told him he was wrong, and pontificated about it at length. You were a bit light on the factual end of the discussion.
"How is your belief in your correctness different from mine?"
Likely, he arrived at it from a logical process, which in the midst of your sophistry seems to be absent.
" In the end, you state your biases. You can argue from your evidence, but you do not prove your contentions conclusively, not in a scientific or logical sense."
In the end, Clint stated his conclusions. Just a bit of a difference there. He did argue from the evidence he presented, and your out of hand dismissal once again comes into play. I want you to remember your statement about arguing from "scientific or logical sense", because that becomes important later.
"This is why I bring up your religious underpinnings. You are indeed a Christian. It is easy to look behind the veil and see that your views derive in no small measure from your faith, despite your attempt to bury these under the guise of “secular pro-life apology.”
Yet, religion is only mentioned by you. Perhaps the clerics you consulted, as stated earlier, weren't savvy on the arguments. Perhaps they forgot to tell you that one can argue independent of a religious source and still argue morality. Otherwise, we should let every agnostic and atheist in the world know right now that they cannot form a morally solid basis or reason for anything they do. Somehow, you've missed that making arguments based on just facts, science, and logic are secular in nature, and that these line up with his beliefs. Or, you can try and conflate them as one big strawman and then knock them down. The rest of the paragraph there is just hot air, and nothing more.
"I don’t know whether to believe you are deliberately and evasively obtuse or just simply obtuse in addressing my points with your counterarguments."
It's not obtuse when he answers them directly to you, and directly in the sense of doing them one point at a time. His answers were straightforward and made sense. Yours are...less so, sadly.
" Facts derive from research and studies and those studies can be criticized and weighed for their probative value, but to summarily dismiss them when it suits your purposes is a game I would think even you would be ashamed to engage in."
Yet, the pendulum swings both ways. Physician, heal thyself?
Now, Part 2 of yours.
"You completely ignored the question of disparity in the safe outcomes for women of different ethnic and social circumstances."
Likely because, as a moral or ethical question, there's no distinction between human beings in these respects. Unless you subscribe to the idea that poor people are less human than their more affluent counterparts, or that people of one nationality have greater worth than another, then this argument is merely using relative privation (a lovely red herring, if i do say so myself) as an excuse to bypass the actual argument. You get no points here. Your next argument is pretty silly, but fun to read as a "what not to say" when trying to make a logical argument in context.
Part 3:
Delete"Be that as it may, why are you discussing safety of illegal abortions anyway? Elective abortions should be banned. Period. Your unequivocal position. If your viewpoint were to become the law that you want, how would women obtain the safe abortions that you tout, without the slightest suggestion of embarrassment, even though your discussion is transparently paradoxical, that they would still have access to?"
Virtually every pro-lifer (you're welcome to find the random exceptions, but I promise they're *vastly* outweighed by what comes next) believes that in cases where the mothers life is in jeopardy, that abortions are a viable option. The very simple idea that for purely life and death reasons it's a viable option flies in the face of rationale. Safe abortions, which are for that reason, suffice for Clint to maintain such a viewpoint without being contradictory. Notice...no embarrassment, no need to drag it out much more than this. Very simple to process. The bulk of the argument revolves around on-demand abortion, not life and death surgical procedures. These are not difficult to distinguish.
"If what these women are doing is exactly the same as murder, as you argue, then any concern for their safety—any concern—is not only counterintuitive, it is as repugnant as the vile act that they without conscience are prepared to commit."
Except when banked against what I have put here. Suddenly, your "counter-intuitive" item falls to the wayside, much like the entirety of your argument.
" If you argue against me on this in the name of compassion or just general humane concern, you are beginning down that slippery slope of relativism that you deny can exist when discussing the abomination known as elective abortion".
Again, except when banked against the above. Notice there's no slippery slope. There's a definable limit and designation (life of the mother). Glad to clear that up for you.
I'm skipping the "how about you re-read" it bit, since clearly you don't take your own advice. To the next point...
"I said that society can and does make the same distinction that she makes about different stages of pregnancy and human development."
Two things. One I could point out where just because society believes something doesn't make it correct, morally relevant or right, or scientific. In times past, society believed the earth was flat, and that everything revolved around us. Some people, clearly, still believe everything revolves around them. People believed that blacks were 3/5th of a person. People believed that using leeches was the de facto means of treating just about anything. People believe(d) all sorts of things, which may (and didn't in our examples) have a single grounding in being factually correct, morally correct or scientifically correct as it applies in those examples. Secondly, it could easily be pointed out that "society" is a relative term, hence a possible reason why he referenced a different one than the one you live in. If they do it one way, and we do it another, does that not show itself to be an example, in context, for the discussion? But, then you make this statement:
"Furthermore you would hold funerals for all spontaneously aborted zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, I guess, in your best of all possible worlds, and would that our society only realized how wrong they are and how right you always are."
DeleteHe's made the distinction between a spontaneous aborted fetus(SAF) and the purposely destroyed one, here and elsewhere. People do mourn lost unborn children, unless you believe no one can want a child until the moment after birth. Also, it's borderline (or is, if you prefer) straw man to conflate a SAF (as many pro aborts mention, happens when a woman wouldn't even know she was pregnant) versus the purposed act of destroying a fetus. An easy comparison:
Person accidentally shooting themselves while cleaning a gun versus them getting in their car, driving along and committing a drive by. As the song goes "one of these things...isn't like the other".
You start to wrap up your sophistry laced tripe with this absolutely lovely gem. I did remind you earlier about remembering something, yes?
"I figured you’d go to a statement about how a fetus and its host mother have a symbiotic relationship. That’s why I said a fetus is a parasite. Of course you’re correct that the fetus is not a parasite......."
I'll finish your thought, but let's be very clear. You *knew* the statement was false, but made it anyway? Do you typically lie, obfuscate, or mislead when you talk, or just in conversations where you don't want to be wrong? Because you were. You were corrected, then argued against it only to come back and admit that you were wrong and used it dishonestly. I mean, it's nice you can admit when you're intellectually and factually dishonest....but the better policy is to be honest *up* *front* rather than do it at some point later only after having tried to make someone else look foolish.
" in the sense that biologists define a true parasite but neither would biologists call the fetal/maternal relationship symbiosis."
Finally, something that might actually be fair and worth talking about! We only had to carve through a page or more of lies and outright misdirections (that you've admitted to) to get to a possible point of discussion. Of course, you immediately use this language:
"With statistical certainty some fetuses will kill their host mothers, as just one fact, among many that prevents the relationship as being characterized as symbiotic."
So, you immediately go back to the language which would make things sound like you're referencing the "parasite" bit again without actually doing so, which may seem subtle but isn't. The idea that symbiotic relationships dont, or can't cause the death of one or the other, however...well, we could debate that too, but "host mother" is certainly used in a pejorative manner in this case.
Since you believe we're inconsistent in terms though, if you'd be so kind as to actually use the proper term or set of scientific terms that apply. I believe using "symbiotic" is a more correct description than "parasite", given that it shares more commonality than does your assessment. Perhaps one of those many people you've talked to have a better term.
"You and I disagree and I imagine we always will. I could argue more points with you, but I’ve exposed enough of your inconsistencies to stop here and say that anyone who toasts you as the final authority on this issue hasn’t really given enough thought to it."
There is no "final authority" here. It's odd that you pat yourself on the back for pointing out someone else being inconsistent...*immediately* after admitting that you yourself lied/mislead/misconstrued immediately beforehand. In fact, I'd find it laughable, disingenuous, and downright offensive to think you had done such refuting when i need 4 pages of posts to show you so many errors in just TWO of your own.
I didn't ignore the question of the disparity of safe outcomes. I addressed it but it's not relevant to the question of whether or not abortion should be illegal. Not everything that is dangerous should be outlawed (e.g. skydiving), and my purpose for discussing the question of the safety or lack thereof of illegal abortions is because it's a pro-choice talking point. But it's simply incorrect to say that making abortions legal have made them safer -- advances in medical technology have made them safer. I already mentioned an expert who said how women would obtain illegal abortions. I don't understand your question about how they would do it without being embarrassed, as I'm not sure one should break the law without being embarrassed about it. Murders and rapes are committed in private because not only are they immoral, but they are illegal. Abortions should also be made illegal, so I would expect women to try to keep them private. I don't think you're making an honest effort to truly understand what I'm writing. I am concerned with women's safety, but I am not responsible if someone wants to commit a dangerous and illegal act to murder innocent people. You might as well argue that we should make bank robbery legal to make it safer to rob banks.
DeleteMy statement about Asian cultures was not irrelevant -- it was very relevant to your point. It doesn't matter whether or not our society has "birthdays" instead of "conception days," recognizes the unborn on a census, or anything of that nature. What matters is what the unborn are, and they are full human beings. Your argument was that our culture makes a distinction, because we don't all hold funerals for miscarried unborn children. My response was that this is irrelevant, as irrelevant as it would be in the case of Asian cultures who start counting from conception, not birth. What our culture does is irrelevant to whether or not the unborn deserve respect as human beings. I honestly don't know what else to say if you can't recognize a supporting argument or piece of evidence. You can continue saying "you are just asserting this" but that doesn't make it so.
I could also mention the arguments I made that you dropped, as you seem to want to nitpick everything I say with irrelevancies, but I don't find that conducive to discussion.
(Part 2)
DeleteOkay, so you tried to pre-empt my statement about the symbiotic relationship by stating that the fetus is a parasite. That's all well and good, but the only reason I mentioned it's a symbiotic relationship is because you made the statement that it's a parasite. I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise. And you can't pre-empt an argument by saying "there can be no argument," because that just makes you look arrogant. But there can obviously be an argument because you are incorrect. Biologists might not call the relationship symbiotic (I don't know, as I've never seen them talk about it). But as your own statement shows biologists also wouldn't call the unborn a parasite. So this isn't relevant. If you're meaning that the relationship is parasitic, then I have every right to object and argue that it's symbiotic, not parasitic. There is no statistical certainty that the unborn will kill their mother. The unborn will never kill their mother. Only if the pregnancy goes wrong will the unborn present a threat to the mother, but it's through no fault of the fetus. Some embryos implant outside the uterus, but this is due to a defect in the mother's fallopian tubes. And sometimes the woman has a fatal ailment that needs to be corrected, but an abortion is never necessary in this case. The fetus is treated as a second patient, prematurely delivered, and the doctors attempt to save the fetus as well as the mother. I am holding you to the correct definition of parasite because you are making the argument. You can't make the argument that the unborn is a parasite if the unborn is not a parasite. That's intellectually disingenuous, and your stating I have a lack of intellectual integrity for questioning your argument is just silly. It's up to you to support your argument, not me.
"Myth #5: If abortion becomes illegal, abortion will end.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely nobody thinks this. Abortion numbers will go down, because I believe people are generally law-abiding citizens. But obviously people still rape, steal, and murder despite it being illegal. Does that mean we should legalize it to make rape, theft, or murder "safe and rare?" Of course not. Whether or not making abortion illegal would reduce the instances of it, murder of a human being is the kind of act we make illegal because there must be consequences for those who choose to do it."
I agree with you. This "safe and rare" nonsense is obviously false. Obviously, I want to work toward making all these harmful acts become rare (preferably never happening at all) for the very reason that they are never safe.
You did a good job at making your point in a funny way. My favorite part was
"Additionally, according to the law of transitivity, if A is a part of B, and B is a part of C, then A is a part of C. For example, if your finger is a part of your hand, and your hand is a part of your body, then your finger is a part of your body. So if the fetus is really just a "part of the mother," then you would have to say that every pregnant woman has four arms, four legs, two heads, four eyes, two noses, and roughly half the time, male genitalia."
It gets even better in the case of twins, triplets, etc. It sounds like those creatures mentioned in the book of Revelation or something from the Chronicles of Narnia.
Thanks. I should make it clear that the part regarding "four arms, legs, etc.", Peter Kreeft as well as Justice for All respond in the same way.
Delete