tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post8036923735043679447..comments2023-09-11T08:30:08.843-07:00Comments on Life Training Institute Blog: Pro-Life Answers to Silly Pro-Abortion Choice Questions [Serge]SKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-49878935472854542252011-05-10T13:42:42.217-07:002011-05-10T13:42:42.217-07:00Serge, under #1, you wrote: “The only "right&...Serge, under #1, you wrote: “The only "right" that a prenatal human being is seeking is the right not to be dismembered on the order of their mother.”<br /><br />Who is doing the seeking here? Who are the moral actors again? Fetuses do not have wishes or make choices. How about: “The only benefit that we are looking for on behalf of prenatal human beings is that they should not be intentionally killed in their mothers’ wombs.”<br /><br />Sorry to rain on your parade, because I know what you’re saying, but I think that all of us, on both sides, have to watch out when we say that our actions are meant to benefit someone who actually doesn’t have anything to say on the matter -- who doesn’t even have the ability to have anything to say on the matter -- lest our construal of their “benefit” or “wishes” become a cipher for our own. So in one sense I think that pro-choice thinking, insofar as it explicitly bases a “right to choose” on the priority of a mother’s rights over those of an unborn child, is a little more upfront on the matter, because it acknowledges where one person’s rights are being evaluated as of a lesser priority than someone else’s -- even though that evaluation is perfectly justified. A lot of us are made uneasy by the fact that the pro-life movement -- coincidentally or however -- seeks things that fit right into age-old patterns of abuse of human rights vis-à-vis women. All the more so when its proponents claim to be acting entirely not in their own interest but in the interest of people who are completely innocent -- and who happen not to have any opinion of their own that their “protectors” have to take into account.<br /><br />Under #2: “Our "death rate" is presently 100%. In other words, 100% of the human beings conceived will die at some point in time.”<br /><br />Serge, this is kind of funny, but you are being really obtuse here. You know what a death rate is and that it is a common statistic used in describing public health. You don’t think it would be interesting to know -- and a matter of public concern -- if women in a certain area experienced much lower rates of implantation, so that maybe we could figure out what risks factors they were being subjected to -- or what made women in a certain other area experience higher rates of implantation? If you would like to argue, on the other hand, that a death rate is a useless statistic, have at it.<br /><br />Under #4: “However, anyone with even a basic knowledge of human physiology can see that there is no foreseeable way to prevent all natural deaths from humans regardless of their stage of development.”<br /><br />Again with the obtuseness, I think -- and settling for the status quo? I don’t want to get too mystical here about medical science, but haven’t we produced a lot of “miraculous” treatments and cures where before we thought there was no question of doing anything about it?lapidarionhttp://lapidarion.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-46127769671961185352008-01-04T14:42:00.000-08:002008-01-04T14:42:00.000-08:00Great answers! It makes them look a little despar...Great answers! It makes them look a little desparate to come up with such tortured arguments.Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01351286913547309232noreply@blogger.com