Plan B

[Lauren Hynde]

I think that saying this is a good article on how Plan B works is a mistake. It is not. It is well-written, it is clear, but it's not informative, it hides information, and tries to present as conclusions taken from the information that it does give things that contradict those same pieces of information, or at least don't add up from it. For example, the article explains in great detail how Plan B acts: by stopping a woman's ovaries from releasing any eggs for a short while, and only that. "Plan B gives women the ability to control, to a limited extent, when they will expel a gamete. In purely reproductive terms, it's a bit like a male's ability to control when he will ejaculate, or expel his gametes. That's it." That, indeed, is called contraception. But like Shanglan said, that is nowhere near all Plan B does - and if it were, it would make a pretty poor back-up emargency plan, as there would only be a window of little over a day when it would have any effect at all. The article neglects to refer a number of things that only were mentioned in the subsequent comments, like that it also prevents the fertilization of an egg and its attachment to the uterus. And it finishes off with insults.

Interesting article it may be, but good? Only to the other side.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Fair enough. I once believed that life begins at conception myself, so I know that, Shang. But most of this isn't about abortion. It's about opposition to birth control, period. Which is what I consider rather sadistic. Opposition to abortion is a principled thing. I'm still not too keen on abortion myself, though I am weighing all of the evidence before coming to a viewpoint on mid-term abortions. However, I have a hard time seeing Plan B as an "abortion" pill. It's the "morning after" pill, right? Generally, that would suggest it as a primarily contraceptive medication, not an abortion pill, given the length of time that I understand that it takes to even conceive after sex. That's just my take on it.

Right. That's your take on it. I don't argue with your take on it; I doubt either of us would be likely to change our opinions. My point is that that is your individual take on it, and that those who see it differently are not inherently evil, vicious, or sadistic people. They simply happen to have a different take on it. Because they believe it would take a life, they're bound to see it very differently - not out of sadism, but out of quite the opposite impulse.

And facts don't seem to support the anti-abortion viewpoint on first-trimester anyway.

I'd be curious to know to what facts you refer, but I'd hesitate to bring that into this thread. I think the facts stand against you; you think the facts stand against me. That's really not something we're likely to change. Again, my chief point is simply this: I disagree with you. I am not a sadist. I enjoy human freedom, pleasure, and liberty. I simply see the facts quite differently, as many people do. It is neither necessary nor helpful to tar them all as extremists who hate happiness and joy. They simply have a different opinion to you.

So why not leave that to personal opinion and get the law out of the way?

(Note: The entirety of this answer is intended, not to convince people to believe what I believe, but to explain the chain of reasoning involved and demonstrate that it has nothing to do with sadism, hatred of pleasure, or dislike of freedom.)

For the same reason that opponents of slavery were not content to leave that matter to personal opinion. In matters that affect only consenting people of independent ability - sodomy, for instance - I have absolutely no problem with people doing whatever pleases them. I believe that the law has nothing to say to them. However, in matters that involve a third party unwilling or unable to give consent, I believe that the law does bear. If human life begins at conception, then so do constitutional protections and liberties, including the right to life. Given that the right to life has traditionally been interpreted as superceding other rights by reason of primacy, it would logically seem to supercede in this case as well.

Yes, we can definitely disagree on whether we're talking about a living human being. But if one believes it to be a living human being, then even the most passionate supporter of human joy and liberty may feel it unethical to kill it.

Coercion, as I have said before, is an instrument that should be seldom and cautiously employed. And legislation IS coercion. Government is coercion.

Yes, it is. It has also traditionally most commonly and most consistently been employed in the defense of life. The first laws most cultures make are about who gets to kill whom and what penalities are attached. On that point, there's really little legal ground for quibble. It comes down to that question of what is or is not human. I wholly concede that we may never agree on this topic; I only wish to observe that one requires neither sadism, nor a love of power, nor a hatred of humanity, nor a desire to subjugate others in order to oppose the drug.

Shanglan

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I must take issue with this. I have formed my own opinions on careful examination of the facts. Nothing else could possibly convince me to oppose something that would give so much joy and freedom to people everywhere. In fact, what causes me to object to Plan B is, interestingly, something never mentioned in the article cited - which I find intriguing given that the information is freely available on the website for Plan B. I cannot help but think the omission deliberate:



Plan B makers have carefully defined "pregnancy," and I don't dispute that there are many ways in which one might define it. However, it's clear from their own description that it can work by preventing a fertilized egg (post-conception) from attaching to the uterus. This is the source of much of the opposition to its use. For those who believe that conception is the beginning of life, the use of this drug must be seen as at least having the potential of killing an independent living being.

I didn't see this post until I dit the reply button to post the exact same thing. One thing I noticed right off: This article might as well been Bush's campaign ad with the wolves... Save for the government officials would be the wolves and they'd be closing in on women's rights... Equally effective, and every bit as much propaganda. It's not an article, it's a persuasive essay, and it only offers what helps to persuade people in the direction the writer wants them led.

I can't say I agree or disagree with this pill, just as I don't agree or disagree with abortion, but had the writer wanted to educate, they would have left nothing out.

I do think it unfortunate that while I can accept that those who wish to support abortion and related medications and procedures are not murderers, they apparently cannot accept that I too have honest reasons for believing what I believe...

I would, however, be immensely cheered - if also deeply surprised - if we might consider the possibility that others might have differing opinions for honest and sincere reasons, and not out of a satanic desire to inflict misery on others.

Shanglan

Have I told you lately that i love you?

Q_C

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Feel free, of course, to ignore all of the below.



I enjoy making others happy. Human misery gives me no pleasure and much distress. Perhaps you can see that that might lead some people, in good conscience, to be concerned about the prospect of killing a human being. I don't mind that we disagree on what may or may not be a human being; reasonable people can. If they couldn't, this debate would not exist. I do think it unfortunate that while I can accept that those who wish to support abortion and related medications and procedures are not murderers, they apparently cannot accept that I too have honest reasons for believing what I believe.



Or possibly a hesitancy to kill. Does that appear thoroughly impossible to you?



And there are many of both genders who are not fundamentalists at all.



I must take issue with this. I have formed my own opinions on careful examination of the facts. Nothing else could possibly convince me to oppose something that would give so much joy and freedom to people everywhere. In fact, what causes me to object to Plan B is, interestingly, something never mentioned in the article cited - which I find intriguing given that the information is freely available on the website for Plan B. I cannot help but think the omission deliberate:



Plan B makers have carefully defined "pregnancy," and I don't dispute that there are many ways in which one might define it. However, it's clear from their own description that it can work by preventing a fertilized egg (post-conception) from attaching to the uterus. This is the source of much of the opposition to its use. For those who believe that conception is the beginning of life, the use of this drug must be seen as at least having the potential of killing an independent living being.

I recognize that many do not believe that life begins at conception. I'm not really trying to convince anyone that it does. I would, however, be immensely cheered - if also deeply surprised - if we might consider the possibility that others might have differing opinions for honest and sincere reasons, and not out of a satanic desire to inflict misery on others.

Shanglan

Horsey,

I did not mean to imply anyone who was anti abortion was a fundy. That's not a supportable conclusion. I wouldn't ridicule anyone who has made an informed decision to oppose plan B or even to oppose abortion in general.

In terms of voters, however, the najority are not informed. They are part of a block of voters who loosely banded together favor a whole slate of changes to the basic way ur system works that I oppose categorically.

I intentionally applied the religious rightest appelations to my examples to differentiate between that particular ethos and the wide variety of folks who don't follow it chapter and verse, but have arrived at the same conclusions.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Right. That's your take on it. I don't argue with your take on it; I doubt either of us would be likely to change our opinions. My point is that that is your individual take on it, and that those who see it differently are not inherently evil, vicious, or sadistic people. They simply happen to have a different take on it. Because they believe it would take a life, they're bound to see it very differently - not out of sadism, but out of quite the opposite impulse.



I'd be curious to know to what facts you refer, but I'd hesitate to bring that into this thread. I think the facts stand against you; you think the facts stand about me. That's really not something we're likely to change. Again, my chief point is simply this: I disagree with you. I am not a sadist. I enjoy human freedom, pleasure, and liberty. I simply see the facts quite differently, as many people do. It is neither necessary nor helpful to tar them all as extremists who hate happiness and joy. They simply have a different opinion to you.



(Note: The entirety of this answer is intended, not to convince people to believe what I believe, but to explain the chain of reasoning involved and demonstrate that it has nothing to do with sadism, hatred of pleasure, or dislike of freedom.)

For the same reason that opponents of slavery were not content to leave that matter to personal opinion. In matters that affect only consenting people of independent ability - sodomy, for instance - I have absolutely no problem with people doing whatever pleases them. I believe that the law has nothing to say to them. However, in matters that involve a third party unwilling or unable to give consent, I believe that the law does bear. If human life begins at conception, then so do constitutional protections and liberties, including the right to life. Given that the right to life has traditionally been interpreted as superceding other rights by reason of primacy, it would logically seem to supercede in this case as well.

Yes, we can definitely disagree on whether we're talking about a living human being. But if one believes it to be a living human being, then even the most passionate supporter of human joy and liberty may feel it unethical to kill it.



Yes, it is. It has also traditionally most commonly and most consistently been employed in the defense of life. The first laws most cultures make are about who gets to kill whom and what penalities are attached. On that point, there's really little legal ground for quibble. It comes down to that question of what is or is not human. I wholly concede that we may never agree on this topic; I only wish to observe that one requires neither sadism, nor a love of power, nor a hatred of humanity, nor a desire to subjugate others in order to oppose the drug.

Shanglan

Well, I certainly never meant to accuse YOU of being a sadist. I apologize for doing so.

I simply uttered my view of a possible motivation of the religious right in general. However, you're right that is a principled stand based on the belief that this is life that is being endangered and needs to be protected. Having had that belief in the past, I respect it as a strong conviction. I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise. But I still think that Plan B needs to be legal, and it is generally NOT an abortion pill so much as a regular contraceptive.

There we will have to differ, I guess. And, no, I don't mistake you for a member of the religious right. Just to clarify.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Horsey,

I did not mean to imply anyone who was anti abortion was a fundy. That's not a supportable conclusion. I wouldn't ridicule anyone who has made an informed decision to oppose plan B or even to oppose abortion in general.

In terms of voters, however, the najority are not informed. They are part of a block of voters who loosely banded together favor a whole slate of changes to the basic way ur system works that I oppose categorically.

I intentionally applied the religious rightest appelations to my examples to differentiate between that particular ethos and the wide variety of folks who don't follow it chapter and verse, but have arrived at the same conclusions.

*nuzzles*

You're always kind, Colly. Sorry if I seemed snappish. Ending up stuck with rabid extremists theoretically "on one's side" is an unpleasant position to be in. It's tiresome being lumped in with them so often and having the loudest, most idiotic, and often least representative voices heard most. It did lead me to assume you wished to designate them as the representatives of the opposing viewpoint, but I see now that that wasn't your intention, and really if I'd thought for a second I would have know that that could not have been the case. Please do accept my apologies; I'm a fool to have read it that way.

I will add this, however. While I agree with your comments on voters working as blocks and without information, that does cut both ways. I think that the article we're discussing is a good example of it. Those who wish to believe its thrust never questioned for a moment the quality of its information, but in truth it is at best incomplete and at worst deliberately stacked. The chief purpose of my own post was to ask that an informed position on each side be considered, and more broadly, that the possibility that an informed position exists on each side might be considered.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

I simply uttered my view of a possible motivation of the religious right in general. However, you're right that is a principled stand based on the belief that this is life that is being endangered and needs to be protected.

Why assume that large groups of people disagree with you for vicious, stupid, or wicked reasons when there are principled, honest, and sincere reasons for doing so? I'm not denying that there are vicious, stupid, and wicked people in the world, but I think it both unfair to others and ultimately unfair to oneself to assume that the chief reason people disgree with one's opinions is that they are poor excuses for human beings. It teaches us contempt for others; it also teaches us not to examine our own principles or question the consistency of our beliefs. It teaches us to lump together large groups of people who may have little in common and label them all as fools or enemies.

If one must oppose their goals, by all means oppose them; I support to the utmost your right to believe as you like on the topic and to take any ethical action to attempt to secure the rights that you honestly believe are vital. But would it not be best to recognize real concerns and address them rather than dismissing the opposition as a vast, amorphous, ignorant and vicious blob from which only those individuals who both meet you personally and are willing to set forth their ideas will ever be permitted to differentiate themselves? Yes, there are knee-jerk voters and believers on both sides of the fence; it's the nature of human beings. But surely the chief way in which one avoids becoming a knee-jerk believer oneself is by carefully examining the opposing side and recognizing that they are thinking people as well.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

*nuzzles*

You're always kind, Colly. Sorry if I seemed snappish. Ending up stuck with rabid extremists theoretically "on one's side" is an unpleasant position to be in. It's tiresome being lumped in with them so often and having the loudest, most idiotic, and often least representative voices heard most. It did lead me to assume you wished to designate them as the representatives of the opposing viewpoint, but I see now that that wasn't your intention, and really if I'd thought for a second I would have know that that could not have been the case. Please do accept my apologies; I'm a fool to have read it that way.

I will add this, however. While I agree with your comments on voters working as blocks and without information, that does cut both ways. I think that the article we're discussing is a good example of it. Those who wish to believe its thrust never questioned for a moment the quality of its information, but in truth it is at best incomplete and at worst deliberately stacked. The chief purpose of my own post was to ask that an informed position on each side be considered, and more broadly, that the possibility that an informed position exists on each side might be considered.

Shanglan

It has to work both ways. You couldn't get such a vicious divide if the majority were made up of informed citizens taking a rational view and making informed decisions. That would move everyone towards the center, as both sides have valid points to make.

No need to apologize. I should have been more emphatic in stateting I was adressing only a specific sub group with my comments.

*HUGS*

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Why assume that large groups of people disagree with you for vicious, stupid, or wicked reasons when there are principled, honest, and sincere reasons for doing so? I'm not denying that there are vicious, stupid, and wicked people in the world, but I think it both unfair to others and ultimately unfair to oneself to assume that the chief reason people disgree with one's opinions is that they are poor excuses for human beings. It teaches us contempt for others; it also teaches us not to examine our own principles or question the consistency of our beliefs. It teaches us to lump together large groups of people who may have little in common and label them all as fools or enemies.

If one must oppose their goals, by all means oppose them; I support to the utmost your right to believe as you like on the topic and to take any ethical action to attempt to secure the rights that you honestly believe are vital. But would it not be best to recognize real concerns and address them rather than dismissing the opposition as a vast, amorphous, ignorant and vicious blob from which only those individuals who both meet you personally and are willing to set forth their ideas will ever be permitted to differentiate themselves? Yes, there are knee-jerk voters and believers on both sides of the fence; it's the nature of human beings. But surely the chief way in which one avoids becoming a knee-jerk believer oneself is by carefully examining the opposing side and recognizing that they are thinking people as well.

Shanglan

Actually, I was referring to a possible theory of subconscious motives. But you're right that they honestly believe that they are correct. I know from experience. I have seen both the best and worst of that political/religious bloc. I was an insider. I was a member. I know about both people who simply want to protect life as they define it (like my sister) and people out to hang the "sodomites", like my old college Government prof at Liberty. I am familiar with both. It's the latter that really stick in my craw.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It has to work both ways. You couldn't get such a vicious divide if the majority were made up of informed citizens taking a rational view and making informed decisions. That would move everyone towards the center, as both sides have valid points to make.

No need to apologize. I should have been more emphatic in stateting I was adressing only a specific sub group with my comments.

*HUGS*

I admire you more every day.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I know about both people who simply want to protect life as they define it (like my sister) and people out to hang the "sodomites", like my old college Government prof at Liberty. I am familiar with both. It's the latter that really stick in my craw.

Those we both have trouble swallowing - which of course is an amusing image given the general references to sexuality.

Actually, I was referring to a possible theory of subconscious motives.

I have deeply ambiguous feelings about reading for subconscious motivations in others. On the one hand, I wholly acknowledge that subconscious motivations exist. On the other hand, an allegation of subconscious motivation is a dangerously swift and reductive rhetorical tool. It allows one to wholly dismiss anything someone else says - "Oh, he thinks he means that, but really he means what I think he means."

That sort of complete de-voicing is very dangerous territory. Every time I see Max Nordau use it - e.g., loose paraphrase, "the degenerate artist honestly convinces himself that his view is correct, and blinds himself to his own degeneracy by inventing arguments that he claims to believe; he cannot help himself" - I hear jackboots marching in the background. That's where it leads, eventually - to the belief that people are not what they think they are, but what I think they are. It makes me very hesitant to use that approach unless I have very strong evidence that it is so.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

I beg your pardon, Shang.

There are indeed many people who believe life begins at conception and will try very hard to bring others around to their way of thinking. But they will draw the line at forcing their conscience on others through the force of law. Just as many on the other side will not force people to use contraception.

However to my mind, many of the people opposing all forms of contraception are not doing so from honest conscience, but from fanaticism. They are not merely believers in a particular good, but holy warriors in a battle against evil. And evil cannot be compromised with.

And let's face it, smiting evil is fun.

I certainly didn't mean to lump you in with the holy warriors. I again beg your pardon.

In fairness, there's some fanaticism on the pro-contraception side of the debate. But so far they aren't proposing laws limiting family sizes, blowing up churches or killing priests. That I know of.

 

[BlackShanglan]

However to my mind, many of the people opposing all forms of contraception are not doing so from honest conscience, but from fanaticism. They are not merely believers in a particular good, but holy warriors in a battle against evil. And evil cannot be compromised with.

I agree with you on this general principle. However, I think that the article under discussion is disingenous in attempting to claim that this is about a blanket objection to contraception. The author appears deliberately to have left out factual information indicating that this specific form of contraception does create issues that condoms, for instance, do not. I agree that those who favor a blanket ban on all contraception regardless of its mechanism or effect are attempting to dictate the morality of others without a strong supporting reason. However, in the case of this specific contraceptive, there is reasonable debate about whether the drug takes a human life, and that I think is substantially different territory - territory differentiated by concern for a specific third party.

I certainly didn't mean to lump you in with the holy warriors. I again beg your pardon.

Thank you, Rob - it's very much appreciated.

I recognize that I can speak only for myself, but I also did wish we might consider that I am not the only person in my position. Much as I appreciate being distinguished from the image many have of the opposition, I would be immensely more gratified if the image of that opposition was to change even a tiny bit. Yes, there are zealots who work against all joy in the lives of others - but they inhabit many walks of life and robe themselves in many guises, and they are generally poor (if vocal) representatives of their causes. I've met many people on both sides of this debate; I've met equally ugly zealots from each extreme. I've also met many, many people, by far the majority, who have good and honest reasons for their beliefs and don't wish to be unjust to anyone.

And yes, I make the same argument to people who want to scream "baby-killer!" at their opponents or claim that they hate children and want to destroy the family as we know it for some vague, shadowy purpose of their own. (I've never quite figured out what that might be.)

In fairness, there's some fanaticism on the pro-contraception side of the debate. But so far they aren't proposing laws limiting family sizes, blowing up churches or killing priests. That I know of.

Other than in China. But that's a very extreme position on the other end - and in many ways I think antithetical to the freedom-based arguments in the States. It's the same tool, but a different application. I think to me the more unsettling extremes of the freedom-based arguments are those arguing that beating a pregnant woman to the point of miscarriage entails no greater crime than a simple assault, or that no person should ever be required to pay child support in a country in which abortion is legal (i.e., there was a choice), or that it's a fine plan to use selective abortion to cull out the "wrong" gender. But then, I suppose that extremes do at least make one examine the basis of one's decisions. I find the anti-all-contraception folk do that for me; they help me see more clearly where my principles lie, and how they differ. Unfortunately they have a way of shouting loudest and making anyone standing near them look bad.

Shanglan

 

[Lauren Hynde]

There are indeed many people who believe life begins at conception and will try very hard to bring others around to their way of thinking. But they will draw the line at forcing their conscience on others through the force of law.

Rob, I know this won't make a difference and maybe you won't even understand my point, but please try to see the fault in that reasoning.

You're talking to people who believe life begins at conception, and therefore you know what represents to them any attempt to deliberately interrupt that life. Knowing this, how can you - as you are doing - put in a higher moral stance those that while believe lives are being terminated choose not to do anything about it? If you believe lives are being wrongfully terminated and you don't do anything about it, if you don't try to force my conscience on others through the force of law, and instead turn a blind eye to the loss of life and leave it to the criteria of those doing the killing, so to speak, what does that make of you? Because I sure as hell have trouble conciliating that position with any high moral stance. Please try to remember that those people trying to force their conscience through the force of law are doing it primarily to protect the lives of others who can't protect themselves - not to change your mind or fuck with your rights for the sake of it.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I agree with Lauren. I can quite understand the position of "it's not human and therefore has no rights to be protected." I can, obviously, also understand the positon of "it's a human and therefore must be protected." The position I really cannot find moral or ethical is "it's a human, and one not guilty of any crime, but it's all right for it to be killed if someone else wants it dead."

That shot a lot of my interest in Kerry down. I could have respected the man for taking either of the first two positions and having the courage to stick to his principles. His decision to go for the third, however, suggested to me that he didn't have any. In matters that apply only to consenting individuals, certainly, everyone minding his or her own business works very well. But once one believes that a third party is being injured or killed, the response cannot be the same, no more than it was in the example of slavery that I used above.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Rob, I know this won't make a difference and maybe you won't even understand my point, but please try to see the fault in that reasoning.

You're talking to people who believe life begins at conception, and therefore you know what represents to them any attempt to deliberately interrupt that life. Knowing this, how can you - as you are doing - put in a higher moral stance those that while believe lives are being terminated choose not to do anything about it? If you believe lives are being wrongfully terminated and you don't do anything about it, if you don't try to force my conscience on others through the force of law, and instead turn a blind eye to the loss of life and leave it to the criteria of those doing the killing, so to speak, what does that make of you? Because I sure as hell have trouble conciliating that position with any high moral stance. Please try to remember that those people trying to force their conscience through the force of law are doing it primarily to protect the lives of others who can't protect themselves - not to change your mind or fuck with your rights for the sake of it.

They also, through force of law, seek to make a pregnant woman a second class citizen. She no longer has freedom to make medical decisions for herself in consulation with her phsysician, she no longer has the freedom to choose not to be a mother. She is, in effect, a state regulated brood mare. Her rights, are sublimated to the rights of what they see as another human being.

The position then rests on the idea that they are the ultimate arbiter in what is a human. Without any empirical proof that commands a concensus, they wish to enforce their concicene via the law.

And that's where you walk into the muddled ranks of belief. Some muslims belive a woman who marries against her parent's wishes has commited a grave sin and must be killed to preserve the family's honor. They have no empirical proof of this belief, but the believe it every bit as strongly as you believe an embryo is a life. I seriously doubt you would be in favor of them enforcing that particular moral belief via legislative fiat.

While we are at it, a lot of people hold antihical beliefs. They are both as qualified as you or I, to opine on those beliefs. Should we pass laws to make both of their beliefs law? So everyone is a criminal, to sooth their conciences?

A system of law has to have some rationality to it and it has to have some relevance, or it's useless. I don't really favor seeing anyone's moral beliefes given the support of the state. That smacks too much to me of a state church, where by temporal authority is conscripted to enforce cannon law and spiritual authority is invested in the decisions of the state.

In basic, I can assure you that their moral outrage that human lives are being taken is no stronger than my moral outrage that the state is trying to enforce second class citizenship on pregnant women. To sooth their concience by weight of law is to guarentee my moral outrage. To sooth mine, is to guarentee their moral outrage. The state then, is placed in a position where it cannot enforce their morals and mine at once. Their belief is no greater than mine. Their empirical proofs are no greater than mine. And neither of us can claim concensus or either medical professionals or the populace in general.

The problem with abortion is, we are both arguing a position on abortion, but we aren't arguing the same thing. Your argument is centered on life and death, and moral authority. Mine is based on freedom and rights. To someone not familiar with the sittuation, they might well conclude we are arguing apples and oranges, so divergant is the argument.

In relation to Rob's point, it's still pretty strong. Your position is that individuals should have no freedom to follow their own concience, they should be compelled to adopt a course of action that is soothing to yours. To a person who does not accept that an embryo is a human, it's a lot easier to see malicious intent in your position. You are trying, by force of law, to compell them to adopt your moral view, a view you cannot prove has any more validity than their own moral view. Following that line of reasoning, your only motivation then, would seem to be to exert control over the decisions of others. Coercive power, then, is what you seek, in their minds.


This is not meant to belittle your argument in any way or to ridicule your position. It is to say, in adopting a moral, life/death stance to argue your position, you trample all over my right's based position. The converse is absolutely the same. In adopiting a right's based argument, I trample all over your life and death moral concerns. One reason why the debate is so vitrupritive is beacuse the major "sides" aren't arguing the same points. It becomes a lot easier to simply vilify your opponent, when he isn't responding to your charges. He/she seems to be deliberately dissembling. A lot of the rancor comes from this intellectual divide, in my opinion.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The problem with abortion is, we are both arguing a position on abortion, but we aren't arguing the same thing. Your argument is centered on life and death, and moral authority. Mine is based on freedom and rights. To someone not familiar with the sittuation, they might well conclude we are arguing apples and oranges, so divergant is the argument.

I have to disagree here. My own position - I can't speak for Lauren's - is based on freedom and rights as well. We differ only in our opinion of whether there is one person with rights and freedoms present or two. If there is only one (your position), then her freedoms are indeed being usurped. But if there are two (my position), then that second person also has rights, and every reasonable legal precedent grants the right of life first and other rights after it. That divergence leads to not to a religious or moral argument, but to a constitutional one.

This is, at heart, really an argument about definition - what is a person - because each side is trying to defend freedoms and rights. If a fetus is a person, it has rights and freedoms as well. Ruling that its rights supercede the mother's does not make her a second class citizen any more than ruling that my right to move freely in my car is superceded by your right not to be run over makes me a second class citizen. No one's rights are absolute and unabrogated in a civil society; the bulk of our legal system involves sorting out whose rights take precedence when rights conflict. To assert that one person's right to live takes precedence over another person's right to liberty of action is not inherently an attack on liberty of action or on that second person's status as a citizen; it is only a recognition that when two people's rights conflict, someone's rights will have to give way, and that the right to life cannot be put into temporary abeyance, while the right to liberty can.

In relation to Rob's point, it's still pretty strong. Your position is that individuals should have no freedom to follow their own concience, they should be compelled to adopt a course of action that is soothing to yours. To a person who does not accept that an embryo is a human, it's a lot easier to see malicious intent in your position. You are trying, by force of law, to compell them to adopt your moral view, a view you cannot prove has any more validity than their own moral view. Following that line of reasoning, your only motivation then, would seem to be to exert control over the decisions of others. Coercive power, then, is what you seek, in their minds.

No, no more than you seek it. What I wish is that no individual person shall be killed, having all rights and freedoms terminated, without just cause. It's not about telling people what they can or cannot believe; it's about defending the rights of a human being about to killed. While I recognize that your position does not see this as a human being, my point is that the primary goal is not control or coercive power. It is the defense of human rights and freedoms. I don't mind what opinions people hold, but I would like to stop them from killing other people.

I would add that the belief that a fetus is a human being need not be a "moral" view at all; in my own case, it's science rather than the church that convinced me it is a living human being. I'm not trying to enforce my morals on others for the sheer joy of it; I am attempting to protect the right of a fellow human being to live.

This is not meant to belittle your argument in any way or to ridicule your position. It is to say, in adopting a moral, life/death stance to argue your position, you trample all over my right's based position. The converse is absolutely the same. In adopiting a right's based argument, I trample all over your life and death moral concerns. One reason why the debate is so vitrupritive is beacuse the major "sides" aren't arguing the same points. It becomes a lot easier to simply vilify your opponent, when he isn't responding to your charges. He/she seems to be deliberately dissembling. A lot of the rancor comes from this intellectual divide, in my opinion.

In this I agree. I think that much of the rancor probably comes from the fact that there is no satisfactory single answer from any perspective - even, I would argue, a rights-based one. There is no simple definition of "living human being" that both sides will agree to - and to answer the claim that one side is using an essentially moral argument based on religion, I will point out that it's the presence of unique DNA that really convinced me, not the word from the Holy See. So long as we can't resolve that issue of definition, we can't resolve this even from a rights-based position. If it's human, it has rights. If it's not human, it doesn't. Before morals even enter into the argument, there's that divide at the bottom of it, and thus far no good answer to it.

Shanglan

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Thanks, Shanglan. Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Guest]

bumped to preserve the discussion

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I have to disagree here. My own position - I can't speak for Lauren's - is based on freedom and rights as well. We differ only in our opinion of whether there is one person with rights and freedoms present or two. If there is only one (your position), then her freedoms are indeed being usurped. But if there are two (my position), then that second person also has rights, and every reasonable legal precedent grants the right of life first and other rights after it. That divergence leads to not to a religious or moral argument, but to a constitutional one.


Your position though, that an embryo or fetus is entitled to the same rights as the mother carrying them, isn't proveable by empirical measures. So extending the full rights of a person, indeed, curtailing the rights of the woman, is on the same rational grounds as extending human rights to a sperm. It has potential to become a human being, but it's ptential is, arguably, not realized at this point. Objectively, there is only one person involved who is undeinable or unarguably a person. That's the mother.



This is, at heart, really an argument about definition - what is a person - because each side is trying to defend freedoms and rights. If a fetus is a person, it has rights and freedoms as well. Ruling that its rights supercede the mother's does not make her a second class citizen any more than ruling that my right to move freely in my car is superceded by your right not to be run over makes me a second class citizen. No one's rights are absolute and unabrogated in a civil society; the bulk of our legal system involves sorting out whose rights take precedence when rights conflict. To assert that one person's right to live takes precedence over another person's right to liberty of action is not inherently an attack on liberty of action or on that second person's status as a citizen; it is only a recognition that when two people's rights conflict, someone's rights will have to give way, and that the right to life cannot be put into temporary abeyance, while the right to liberty can.

Except, you again, cannot prove the fetus or embryo is a person. Your argument of your use of a car isn't fair, because we are both unarguable persons. We both have certain rights. It's very debateable that an embryo is a person. But you are willing to curtail a pregnant woman's rights as a person, on the chance that it is, where I am not willing to curtail a pregnant woman's rights on that supposition.



No, no more than you seek it. What I wish is that no individual person shall be killed, having all rights and freedoms terminated, without just cause. It's not about telling people what they can or cannot believe; it's about defending the rights of a human being about to killed. While I recognize that your position does not see this as a human being, my point is that the primary goal is not control or coercive power. It is the defense of human rights and freedoms. I don't mind what opinions people hold, but I would like to stop them from killing other people.

I would add that the belief that a fetus is a human being need not be a "moral" view at all; in my own case, it's science rather than the church that convinced me it is a living human being. I'm not trying to enforce my morals on others for the sheer joy of it; I am attempting to protect the right of a fellow human being to live.

My position isn't trying to enforce my moral choice or beliefs Shang. I'm willing to let the law stay neutral and allow each person to make those choices of concience based on thier own beliefs. My view is that it's your bussiness, if you got pregnant, to decide where your beliefs lie, irrespective of mine. Conversely, your position is that if I get pregnant, I have no choice, I will conform to your judgements on it and I have no say in the matter. Your position, no matter how heartfelt, is on no firmer ground than mine, but you wish your position to carry the weight of law despite the fact that it isn't proveable.



In this I agree. I think that much of the rancor probably comes from the fact that there is no satisfactory single answer from any perspective - even, I would argue, a rights-based one. There is no simple definition of "living human being" that both sides will agree to - and to answer the claim that one side is using an essentially moral argument based on religion, I will point out that it's the presence of unique DNA that really convinced me, not the word from the Holy See. So long as we can't resolve that issue of definition, we can't resolve this even from a rights-based position. If it's human, it has rights. If it's not human, it doesn't. Before morals even enter into the argument, there's that divide at the bottom of it, and thus far no good answer to it.

On this I just want to say to you and Lauren, when I say moral choice, I am in no way implying that it's a religious choice. A person can make a moral choice based on a lot of things that have nothing to do with religion. It could be based on an ethical judgement, or based on empirical proofs that satisfy that person's threshold for preponderance of evidence. At no point here have I indicated that I believe any of you are exercising theological or religiously doctrinaire positions. Your positions are, however, moral positions. They conform to an internally applied system of value judgements on right and wrong that can't be expressed in empirical terms.

I can express my argument in empirical terms. A woman who is pregnant, would not exercise the smae rights as a woman who was not. Her medical decisions would now be subject to government control. Her freedom to exercise her own religious/moral/ethical views would be crutailed.


It's not an argument of definition, it's an argument of assumption. You say abortion is murder. I say prove it. And you can't.

No proof of your position exits. The preponderance of evidence, isn't even strong, if applied to a zygote or embryo, while it is fairly strong when applied to a late term fetus. There is not enough solid, incontrovertable evidence to even garner a concensus on the matter.

I can prove that the legislation of your position impinges upon the rights of a pregnant woman. From her right to exercise freedom in her own medical decisions to her freedom to exercise her own moral/ehtical/religious judgements to her right to the pursit of happiness.

Your argument to me, boils down to a totally moral one. Killing is wrong and in your judgement, the possibility that an embryo or fetus is a person is significant enough to curtail the rights of another.

Mine eschews a moral component. I hold that a pregnant woman did not abrogate any of her rights in getting pregnant and, in leiu of convincing evidence that her embryo is a person, I am not willing to curtail her rights.

I'll add to this that my religious indoctrination teaches Abortion is murder and morally, I find the idea of abortion as birth control repellant. But I am not willing to demand that my moral concerns be given the force of law any more than I would be wiling to deamnd my view that all terrorists should be boiled in oil, then flayed alive should be the law of the land.

This is what i meant by not arguing the same thing. Your argument is based on the assertion that abortion is murder and murder is bad. It makes sense then, that if I were to argue with you, my position, prima force, would be that abortion is not murder or murder isn't bad. So my argument, that you are trampling the freedoms of a pregnant woman seems to be dissembling. Not addressing your argument at all. It works the same the other way. My argument that you are trampling the mother's rights and that is bad would seem to demand you adopt the position her rights aren't being trampled or that trampling them isn't bad.

It would be very easy, if you were of simpler mind, to walk away in disgust and declare your arguments were so strong I wouldn't even address them. While I could well, walk off to my freinds and declare the same. We would both then feel justified in belitteling our opponent. But the fact is, we would both be wrong.

You're making good points. I believe I am too. Your points, however, aren't counter points to mine. While my points, aren't counter points to yours. It's almost as if I am arguing that the Yankees are the best baseball team in history and you're arguing that Wilde is the best poet in history.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

They also, through force of law, seek to make a pregnant woman a second class citizen. She no longer has freedom to make medical decisions for herself in consulation with her phsysician, she no longer has the freedom to choose not to be a mother. She is, in effect, a state regulated brood mare. Her rights, are sublimated to the rights of what they see as another human being.

Yep, she is. The simple fact is, if that is a human life, and as Shang stated before, the right to life traditionally supercedes other rights, why is it that a woman's right to make aforementioned medical decisions should be considered equal to another's right to live?

The position then rests on the idea that they are the ultimate arbiter in what is a human. Without any empirical proof that commands a concensus, they wish to enforce their concicene via the law.

True, but isn't the current situation, that abortion is legal in certain circumstances (and often not regulated in other circumstances) pretty much the same deal? The Supreme Court decided that, regardless of a lack of real evidence (in fact, having less evidence than we have today, and the issue is more than mildly undecided, it's a juggling act, with half the balls representing either side, and none of those balls even close to truly enforcing the points they represent, any could be dropped at any time and the argument doesn't become all that much weaker, just less impressive to those who choose to be spectators) the fetus is a part of the woman's body and not a life in and of itself, and it therefore should be legal. If there's a difference here, by all means, tell me what it is. Truth be told, this isn't something that suddenly popped up when Roe faced Wade in front of the courts. It's been an issue for years.

A system of law has to have some rationality to it and it has to have some relevance, or it's useless. I don't really favor seeing anyone's moral beliefes given the support of the state. That smacks too much to me of a state church, where by temporal authority is conscripted to enforce cannon law and spiritual authority is invested in the decisions of the state.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Sounds pretty religious to me, and pretty moral, and that's why it's been made into law. Pretty much everything of note, meaning the major laws, not parking violations and speeding tickets but the things that represent our culture's values more specifically, have become laws in the same way. Stealing, killing... Hell, freedom of Speech and freedom of Religion are both based on religion and morality, they're simply more of a counter-culture movement of what was common at the time. These tings are moral based, but what we have is general agreeance by the populace, while here we don't. I know it seems unfair to have our country not decide, to take a stance of "who knows? So we'll leave things as they are," but let's face it. We've been discussing back and forth our educated stances on the topic, but it isn't exactly wise to make a decision for the future of your country, and everyone within, based on the Price is Right style ideal of "will you keep the dining room set, or will you risk it all for what's behind the mystery door?".

The problem with abortion is, we are both arguing a position on abortion, but we aren't arguing the same thing.... It is to say, in adopting a moral, life/death stance to argue your position, you trample all over my right's based position. The converse is absolutely the same. In adopiting a right's based argument, I trample all over your life and death moral concerns. One reason why the debate is so vitrupritive is beacuse the major "sides" aren't arguing the same points. It becomes a lot easier to simply vilify your opponent, when he isn't responding to your charges. He/she seems to be deliberately dissembling. A lot of the rancor comes from this intellectual divide, in my opinion.

Trample all over? I read her posts and yours, and I don't recall (in this thread in general, in fact, thus far) much trampling, if any. You've stated opposing viewpoints, and done so mostly with thoughtful intentions, and unlike many people, you've responded to one another's points, instead of namecalling and twisting statements to make them more defendable. This is the process to some sort of solution, or would be if there was one, not the attacking of one another's viewpoints.

To a person who does not accept that an embryo is a human, it's a lot easier to see malicious intent in your position.

This represents a major issue in our society, not related immediately to this topic, but in our attitudes. Easy generally has nothing to do with right. It's simply that: Easy. It's right to explain to your husband that the situation isn't working and to attempt to part ways on the best possible terms; it's easy to write a Dear John letter. It's right to stick by your wife and child, even when times are tough and money's tight; it's easy to say you're going to the store for cigarettes and never come hame. Sad, but true. Easy, nowadays, has taken precedent over right to the point that right hardly seems to matter. Throw selfishness on top of that... Well, let's just say this is a long road with a dead-end, and we're starting to sprint toward it. Personally, this attitude is what truly scares me, not the ideals of either side of any given debate, but the idea that the outcome means nothing if our ways continue to focus more intently on the selfish, easy cop-outs they tend to. Praise God for excuses? I don't think so. I don't currently praise any God for anything, least of all something as weak as excuses tend to be, or the weak state I'm in when I rely on them (and I do, far too often).

I'll get back to what I've been building up to here. The problem in this debate is this: We've been discussing back and forth the educated views we have on abortion, from both sides. We've (not necessarily just here, but everywhere abortion is discussed) been discussing the facts that support each side, these facts that we're educated in prior to discussion. These facts are few and far between, and none of them, nor all of them together, come even close to summing up are arguments for and against the topic of abortion, and therefore the topic of Plan B and it's possible affects on implanted embryos. Bottom line: There isn't much evidence on either side of the table. What we have here, intelligent as most of us here in the AH are, is several uneducated people stating what they think based on a few obscure facts and mostly (primarily to an extent that most likely peaks above 90% of our arguments) perspective. We're hypothesizing and caring greatly about each of the hypotheses being represented, but we're as all-knowing on the issue as those who argued the world was flat and were willing to kill those who disagreed.

I'm not necessarily done on this thread, since it is, so far, an adult discussion of ideas and not the mud-slinging that often occurs on controversial issues, but I think I made my overall point as clear as ever here.

Q_C

 

[Colleen Thomas]

QC:

Trample all over? I read her posts and yours, and I don't recall (in this thread in general, in fact, thus far) much trampling, if any. You've stated opposing viewpoints, and done so mostly with thoughtful intentions, and unlike many people, you've responded to one another's points, instead of namecalling and twisting statements to make them more defendable. This is the process to some sort of solution, or would be if there was one, not the attacking of one another's viewpoints.


If you have been following then you know I respect both of the people I am speaking with. And the debate has not been one of personal insults or affronts. I don't feel the neccissity of postscripting every comment with by you here I mean the indefinte plural.

Simply put, I wasn't personalizing and I resent the implication in your post I was.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

If you have been following then you know I respect both of the people I am speaking with. And the debate has not been one of personal insults or affronts. I don't feel the neccissity of postscripting every comment with by you here I mean the indefinte plural.

Simply put, I wasn't personalizing and I resent the implication in your post I was.

It was while I was replying to this that I realized that I let my personal bias affect my response (okay, if I'd just replied and got it over with, I wouldn't have realized, at least not in time, but I happened to be draining the water from my macaroni and adding the powdered cheese and other ingredients while thinking about what I wanted to say that it hit me--yet another reason why macaroni and cheese out of the box is the perfect food). I was, to be honest, and still am, both impressed and amazed at how civil this thread is considering those I've partaken of in the past and how in person discussions seem to unravel in mere seconds. I read your words, and let my own bias toward those who've posted here affect my interpretation. Beneath the surface I was aware of your intent, but on the surface, I was far too focused on the adult-like manner being used, as opposed to the childish name-calling and stone-throwing that too often takes place. Normally, someone would have gotten their house toilet-papereed by now.

Flaw seen, I sincerely apologize.

Q_C

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It was while I was replying to this that I realized that I let my personal bias affect my response (okay, if I'd just replied and got it over with, I wouldn't have realized, at least not in time, but I happened to be draining the water from my macaroni and adding the powdered cheese and other ingredients while thinking about what I wanted to say that it hit me--yet another reason why macaroni and cheese out of the box is the perfect food). I was, to be honest, and still am, both impressed and amazed at how civil this thread is considering those I've partaken of in the past and how in person discussions seem to unravel in mere seconds. I read your words, and let my own bias toward those who've posted here affect my interpretation. Beneath the surface I was aware of your intent, but on the surface, I was far too focused on the adult-like manner being used, as opposed to the childish name-calling and stone-throwing that too often takes place. Normally, someone would have gotten their house toilet-papereed by now.

Flaw seen, I sincerely apologize.

Q_C

Apology wholly accepted.

I don't think you can really be human and not occasionally let your biase sneak out on this subject. It's too personal and hits too close to home and god knows I've been in the forefront with my flamthrower on numerous occasions.

 

[BlackShanglan]

(Apologies - this got ridiculously long while I was writing it.)

Your position though, that an embryo or fetus is entitled to the same rights as the mother carrying them, isn't proveable by empirical measures. So extending the full rights of a person, indeed, curtailing the rights of the woman, is on the same rational grounds as extending human rights to a sperm. It has potential to become a human being, but it's ptential is, arguably, not realized at this point. Objectively, there is only one person involved who is undeinable or unarguably a person. That's the mother.

Yes, my belief that it is a human being is not empirically provable. However, and again I think this the key point, your position that it's not is also not empirically provable. Without meaning offense by this, you end in reiterating your position, but I do not see that you have proven in. I accept the divergence, but do not believe that your position is the default one in the absence of better evidence.

I think that's important because it does seem in this paragraph as if you wish to suggest that a fetus is not human by default and must be proven human in order for any action to be taken. While I recognize that this would be useful to your side of this debate, I think it equally reasonable to work the other way around. There is, I think, just as much logic in saying "if you're not sure whether an action kills a person or not, it's best not to take that action."

Your argument of your use of a car isn't fair, because we are both unarguable persons. We both have certain rights. It's very debateable that an embryo is a person. But you are willing to curtail a pregnant woman's rights as a person, on the chance that it is, where I am not willing to curtail a pregnant woman's rights on that supposition.

Yes. We agree here. This is why I think it perfectly right in a civil society for you to support your position and for me to support mine. I don't wish either of us to be prevented from doing so. I only wished to argue that the position I hold is neither one of oppression nor of a desire to legislate the morals of others; it is only a position that attempts to defend the freedoms and rights of other humans.

My position isn't trying to enforce my moral choice or beliefs Shang. I'm willing to let the law stay neutral and allow each person to make those choices of concience based on thier own beliefs. My view is that it's your bussiness, if you got pregnant, to decide where your beliefs lie, irrespective of mine. Conversely, your position is that if I get pregnant, I have no choice, I will conform to your judgements on it and I have no say in the matter. Your position, no matter how heartfelt, is on no firmer ground than mine, but you wish your position to carry the weight of law despite the fact that it isn't proveable.

I agree that the laws I would support would constrain your choices. However, the laws you support would restrain, not my choices, but the choices of an innocent third party. They would also carry the weight of law - in this case a death sentence - despite also being unprovable.

I use slavery as my example not in order to tar anyone with its negative connotations, but because it is the closest comparable circumstance I can give. It's the only other time I can think of when a group of people's humanity appeared to be in doubt other than the Holocaust, which is an even worse connotation to bring in. Essentially, I'm in the complete abolitionist position; I believe that the people being held as slaves are real people and deserve the rights of real people. In that metaphor - and again, only a metaphor, not intended to convey anything about the morality of your position - your stance would be anomalous with the Missouri Compromise; let some people treat this group as human, and let others treat them as less than human and not deserving the same rights. I do not see this as a reasonable compromise for the same reason that many abolitionists did not see the Missouri Compromise as a reasonable agreement; each of the opposing groups of "recognized humans" is leaving the other in peace, but there is a vast third group of actual people, the slaves, suffering for it, and they were given no voice in the decision. Yes, there were rights of individual states involved, and rights of individual slave-owners who would suffer if slavery were abolished, but in the opinion of those who felt that slaves were humans and endued with the same inalienable rights as other humans, their right not to be slaves was a fundamental right of humanity that could not be set aside by other people.

Essentially, this is the situation on abortion as well, and it's just as intractable because it comes down to the same issue, one that is ultimately incapable of compromise. If a fetus is a human being, one cannot simply make abortion a matter of individual choice any more than one could make slavery or murder matters of individual choice - not because one hates the idea of choice or freedom, but because it involves sacrificing the rights of another human being. It would be wonderful if there was a simple compromise available in letting each person do as he or she saw fit, but there is no real middle position. If it's human a life, it has rights that must be defended.

On this I just want to say to you and Lauren, when I say moral choice, I am in no way implying that it's a religious choice. A person can make a moral choice based on a lot of things that have nothing to do with religion. It could be based on an ethical judgement, or based on empirical proofs that satisfy that person's threshold for preponderance of evidence. At no point here have I indicated that I believe any of you are exercising theological or religiously doctrinaire positions. Your positions are, however, moral positions. They conform to an internally applied system of value judgements on right and wrong that can't be expressed in empirical terms.

Ah, thank you for the clarification. However, that also places your argument's grounds in morality, if I am reading your comments correctly. That is, you too have an internally applied system of value judgements that can't be expressed in empirical terms; you believe that it is more important that the woman's freedom be upheld than that the possibility of the fetus being a human life be upheld. I think that goes back to the first paragraph; it seems to me (and forgive me if I am wrong, for I don't wish to put words in your mouth) that you believe that the "default" position should be in favor of the woman's rights and freedoms, and any potential challenge to them bears the burden of evidence. Thus, when neither side is capable of producing inarguable evidence of whether a fetus is human or not, you wish us to err on the side of the woman's liberties. No?

I can express my argument in empirical terms. A woman who is pregnant, would not exercise the smae rights as a woman who was not. Her medical decisions would now be subject to government control. Her freedom to exercise her own religious/moral/ethical views would be crutailed.

Yes. I can do the same. A human who is aborted will not be able to exercise the same rights and freedoms as a human who was not. That person will be permanently deprived of all rights and liberties, as all of them are irrelevent once life has been taken. Each individual human life - clearly distinguished from its mothers from the moment of conception by the presence of its own DNA - would now be subject to the most absolute control, the control of life itself, from its mother. That person's ability to exercise any view on anything would be permanently destroyed at the moment of his or her death.

And yes, I know. That brings us back to whether that's a person or not. This is my point. Neither of us can prove this. If that's a moral choice, it is one on both sides.

It's not an argument of definition, it's an argument of assumption. You say abortion is murder. I say prove it. And you can't.

This is an ad ignorantium argument. "Prove me wrong." Of course I can't - but you can't prove me wrong either. If either of us was able to prove what is a human being, this issue would be very simple to resolve. The question of what to do when no one can prove whether that is a human or not is the thorny bit, and it's one that has no simple solution.

That's why I call it an argument of definition. You define the fetus as "not human"; I define it as "human." I do you the justice of believing that you did not simply assume this, but derived your opinion from facts and reasoning; I have derived my opinion through similar means. I've never said that I can prove to you that a fetus is human; I have only said that a person who believes it to be human has no ethical or moral choice other than to support its rights - just as you feel that someone who believes it is not human has no ethical or moral choice but to support the mother's right to terminate it.

If we go back to the Missouri Compromise/slavery example, there were many arguments about whether people of African descent were inherently equal to persons of Caucasian descent. No one was ever able to prove conclusively that they were or were not, because the nature of the question - "define what you mean by 'equal'" - was so slippery that there were always arguments to be made on each side. Either side could just as easily have said "You say slaves are equal/unequal. I say prove it. And you can't." It would not have changed the correctness of either view, and it would not have made it any more reasonable to ask those who felt slaves were humans with the same rights as other humans to just let whites decide to keep slaves or not on an individual basis.

No proof of your position exits. The preponderance of evidence, isn't even strong, if applied to a zygote or embryo, while it is fairly strong when applied to a late term fetus. There is not enough solid, incontrovertable evidence to even garner a concensus on the matter.

Precisely the same is true of your own position, and again, that's my point - that it's this definition that has not been resolved that is at the root of this, and not hatred of freedom or desire to subjugate or even privilege of moral over empirical thinking. Obviously, of what evidence does exist, you see more in support of your point of view and I see more in support of mine, but if either view had clear and absolute proof, we wouldn't be having this debate.

I can prove that the legislation of your position impinges upon the rights of a pregnant woman. From her right to exercise freedom in her own medical decisions to her freedom to exercise her own moral/ehtical/religious judgements to her right to the pursit of happiness.

Your argument to me, boils down to a totally moral one. Killing is wrong and in your judgement, the possibility that an embryo or fetus is a person is significant enough to curtail the rights of another.

Mine eschews a moral component. I hold that a pregnant woman did not abrogate any of her rights in getting pregnant and, in leiu of convincing evidence that her embryo is a person, I am not willing to curtail her rights.

I think I addressed this above. In a nutshell, I can offer precisely as empirical and objective terms and arguments as you can. I hold that a fetus did not abrogate any of its rights in being conceived through circumstances over which it had no control, and in lieu of convincing evidence that it is not a person, I am not willing to curtail its rights. You position also boils down to a moral assertion: killing still seems to me to be wrong in your opinion, but in your judgement, the possibility that an embryo or fetus is a person is not significant enough to curtail the rights of another.

We're both making non-empirical judgement calls there; you just happen to favor individual rights of the woman in case of doubt, and I happen to favor individual rights of the person being killed in case of doubt. I make that distinction because to me the question is really not "whose rights are more important, the mother's or the child's?" but rather "which right is more important to uphold, the right to liberty of choice and movement or the right to life?" Because life is the root of all other rights, and because it is impossible to take it away temporarily and restore it later, I come down on the side of life. At its core, it's really mostly about what seems to me likely to deprive the fewest people of the fewest liberties.

I don't mind acknowledging that we're not likely to agree on this topic, but I strongly dispute the theory that my own position is any less empirical, or yours any less moral. We're both doing the same thing: making the best call we can on the definition issue, then following the logical chain of reasoning from there in accordance with the laws of our society.

This is what i meant by not arguing the same thing. Your argument is based on the assertion that abortion is murder and murder is bad. It makes sense then, that if I were to argue with you, my position, prima force, would be that abortion is not murder or murder isn't bad. So my argument, that you are trampling the freedoms of a pregnant woman seems to be dissembling. Not addressing your argument at all. It works the same the other way. My argument that you are trampling the mother's rights and that is bad would seem to demand you adopt the position her rights aren't being trampled or that trampling them isn't bad.

...

You're making good points. I believe I am too. Your points, however, aren't counter points to mine. While my points, aren't counter points to yours. It's almost as if I am arguing that the Yankees are the best baseball team in history and you're arguing that Wilde is the best poet in history.

I see what you mean here, but I don't think you at all dissembling or refusing to address my comments. Rather, I think that we are in many ways saying the same thing; my point is only that the thing that makes me see this as a muder/not murder issue and you see it as a rights/no rights issue is that definition of what is human. It's what decides which of those things we are talking about, and because we don't agree on the definition, we don't agree on which of those concerns should take precedence. The real root of it is not either of the obvious arguments - muder/not murder or choice/no choice - but a different pair of questions: "is it human?" and, perhaps more to the point in this last exchange, "what is the proper legal status of something that may or may not be human?"

I think that those are the central questions that really must be addressed, but I also think that they are the questions least capable of a straightforward answer. I'm not so much suggesting that we should debate them as observing that this is the real ground of difference, and that when such debates are held, it would be well to recognize that in order to avoid the position of your last example - you arguing for the Yankees, and me for Wilde. It may be a painful realization to recognize that the real ground of debate is whether baseball or poetry is the better pursuit, and that there will never be an answer to that question on which we can agree, as it is by its nature not answerable in any absolute way. However, I think that better than assuming that all baseball fans are philistines, or that all poets hate sport and wish to destroy the joy of the pastime.

To put it back into the terms of the original debate, I think it better to recognize that each side has applied both empirical and moral judgements, and that each wishes to defend human liberties it holds dear. I don't believe that the majority of people on either side hold their opinions out of a wish to spite others or to dicatate their lives to them; I think that they are each doing their best with a very difficult question to which there is no forthright answer. Yes, they are passionate - because both sides see a terrible loss of life and liberty if they do not prevail. It's a wretched position to be in, where no matter what happens a very large number of people will feel that a terrible injustice has been done. I think that that is why it is so important to me to argue for an understanding of the grounds of difference - because whatever the results, the decision will be extremely painful to many people and deeply divisive for society as a whole. That would only be made worse if people assumed the worst of each other rather than seeing the situation for what it is: a wretched, thorny, and at heart almost impossible to resolve question, and one on which no real middle ground is possible.

Shanglan