Pro-choice distortion

[Cow Poke]

First - horse crap. I communicate for a living....

I've already heard this speech.

[Cow Poke]

Again you clearly don't want this sector of healthcare to exist -

Actually, it's not "healthcare" if it has, as its singular goal, to end a human life.

and you see it as a life.

So does science.

The pro-choice people generally do not believe it is a life - and see abortion as one of a range of healthcare options available to a woman in the midst of a pregnancy. When you take a moment to see the argument from the perspective of the other side - there is no animosity or ill will or hatred or evil involved - no death - no killing - just a woman making a decision about her healthcare.

Carpe, it is not at all unusual for somebody in a jam to rationalize and justify a bad decision.

When you decide it is an individuated human person (which is as much a philosophical issue as a scientific one), then suddenly it all looks awful and what you are saying follows naturally.

When fertilization occurs, a brand new being with its own unique HUMAN DNA - the map for EVERYTHING that person will become - exists. That's science.

It is the inability/unwillingness of either side to see the argument as framed from the opposite side that has resulted in the polarized/intransigent situation we find today and have had now for 50+ years.

I totally see the argument as framed by the other person -- I deal with it on a weekly basis! I just believe they're every bit as wrong as the alcoholic who claims he doesn't have a problem. He either genuinely believes it, or he's rationalizing and justifying to excuse his poor choice.

[carpedm9587]

You did.

Then stop calling it a blob of tissue.

No. For the first few weeks of life, the human fetus is an unidentifiable (except possibly to a trained eye) blob of tissue. It's a perfectly apt description. That you are getting your knickers in a knot because you don't like the words is not my problem. I can recognize it as a "blob of tissue" and a "human person" at the same time without contradiction.

Carpe - look at what you said -- "The people I know who are pro-choice and work in the woman's health industry are not evil, baby-killing, nazi-like, atrocity mongers." That, my friend, is not the same as "the pro-choice advocate". A very important distinction.

What?

Someone who is "pro-choice" is synonymous to me with "a pro-choice advocate." If you think otherwise, then you are splitting hairs I do not split. And these people can and do work in the world of woman's healthcare.

So I have no clue what "distinction" you are trying to draw.

[Sparko]

Again you clearly don't want this sector of healthcare to exist - and you see it as a life. The pro-choice people generally do not believe it is a life - and see abortion as one of a range of healthcare options available to a woman in the midst of a pregnancy. When you take a moment to see the argument from the perspective of the other side - there is no animosity or ill will or hatred or evil involved - no death - no killing - just a woman making a decision about her healthcare.

"they don't think of it as a life - it is just healthcare for the woman" - that is why I said "pregnancy is not a disease"

If they are treating the fetus as a tumor or 'blob of tissue' to be removed for the "health" of the woman, then they are treating pregnancy as a disorder or disease to be cured.

[carpedm9587]

Actually, it's not "healthcare" if it has, as its singular goal, to end a human life.

...From your perspective.

So does science.

Science sees my thumb as "human life" CP. It sees the brain-dead adult that is about to be harvested for organs as "human life." It is not in the realm of science to tell us when we have a distinct, individuated human person. On that, there is room for disagreement. And we can agree without being evil, killers, nazis, and so forth.

Carpe, it is not at all unusual for somebody in a jam to rationalize and justify a bad decision.

And I'm sure some do. And then there are all of those who are NOT pregnant (like my wife and best friend), who are not in a jam, who firmly believe life begins at a later point than conception/implantation, and that the woman's right to make decisions about her own body should not be transgressed.

You know - there actually IS another side to the argument. They actually have points. They actually have concerns and fears. They actually are trying to do the right thing. They are as firmly convinced that what YOU are doing is evil - and an injustice - and a denial of fundamental rights.

If you start from their assumptions - you end up at their conclusions without contradiction and without evil. And you are not likely to agree on your assumptions! 50+ years has taught us this. Hence my observation - if you insist on NOT seeing the argument from the other side - and perpetuating the war - then you are part of the problem - not the solution.

When fertilization occurs, a brand new being with its own unique HUMAN DNA - the map for EVERYTHING that person will become - exists. That's science.

You're preaching to the choir (though I accept the start at fertilization AND implantation). But the issue is not just "human life" it is "human person." You can ignore the latter if you wish t perpetuate the war.

I totally see the argument as framed by the other person -- I deal with it on a weekly basis! I just believe they're every bit as wrong as the alcoholic who claims he doesn't have a problem. He either genuinely believes it, or he's rationalizing and justifying to excuse his poor choice.

And they believe you are every bit as wrong as the alcoholic who won't admit they have a problem. That you are every as much in denial that you are inappropriately imposing the government on the medical decisions of a non-criminal, rational adult.

So you can keep fighting...or....

[carpedm9587]

"they don't think of it as a life - it is just healthcare for the woman" - that is why I said "pregnancy is not a disease"

If they are treating the fetus as a tumor or 'blob of tissue' to be removed for the "health" of the woman, then they are treating pregnancy as a disorder or disease to be cured.

At no point have I suggested or said or thought "pregnancy is a disease."

The rest I leave to you.

[Sparko]

At no point have I suggested or said or thought "pregnancy is a disease."

The rest I leave to you.

I didn't say YOU said it or thought it. I said:

If they (the prochoice doctors) are treating the fetus as a tumor or 'blob of tissue' to be removed for the "health" of the woman, then they are treating pregnancy as a disorder or disease to be cured.

How about YOU actually reading what someone says for once instead of just seeing what you want to see and complaining about others not reading what YOU said?

[Cow Poke]

No. For the first few weeks of life, the human fetus is an unidentifiable (except possibly to a trained eye) blob of tissue. It's a perfectly apt description. That you are getting your knickers in a knot because you don't like the words is not my problem. I can recognize it as a "blob of tissue" and a "human person" at the same time without contradiction.

I had to laugh at "knickers in a knot". You are delusional, my friend. I'm sitting here laughing at you.

Carpe, this line of "logic" is just goofy.

A) Science proves that at fertilization, the result is a new living being with its own unique DNA
2) What it "looks like" to anybody is totally beside the point.
C) The ONLY reason to keep insisting it is a "blob" is to justify its termination.

What?

Someone who is "pro-choice" is synonymous to me with "a pro-choice advocate." If you think otherwise, then you are splitting hairs I do not split. And these people can and do work in the world of woman's healthcare.

So I have no clue what "distinction" you are trying to draw.

Somebody can be "pro-choice" personally, and not be a "pro-choice advocate", Carpe. Surely you must know that. And if a person works in an abortion mill, they certainly have to at least pretend to be pro-choice (though they probably are, or they wouldn't be working there).

I feel sorry for people who work in the abortion mills -- I think they're ignorant of what that business is all about.

[Cow Poke]

Science sees my thumb as "human life" CP.

And, hence, would never suggest cutting it off unless it was a threat to your health.

EGGcellent point, Carpe!

In FACT, cutting it off without a good cause would be called mutilation!

[carpedm9587]

I had to laugh at "knickers in a knot". You are delusional, my friend. I'm sitting here laughing at you.

Carpe, this line of "logic" is just goofy.

CP, this line of "logic" is just goofy. (do you guys find this way of starting a response useful?)

A) Science proves that at fertilization, the result is a new living being with its own unique DNA

Science proves that a unique human life with its own DNA exists. The term "human being" and "human person" are philosophical terms as much as they are scientific ones. When does a human life become a human being or human person? Some say when it has a heartbeat. Some say when it has a discernible brainwave. Some say when it can live independently outside the womb. The philosophical argument will rage on without abatement. For most of human history, it was considered perfectly acceptable to abort a fetus up until the moment of "quickening." Then we gained the technological ability to look into the womb and the great debate began.

2) What it "looks like" to anybody is totally beside the point.

I have made no claim that what it looks like in any way impacts what it is. When someone calls a kitten a "ball of fur," it does not negate that fact that it is a living kitten. You're amazingly hung up on the language. If you don't want to use those terms - don't use them. I have no such problem - and can see the collection of cells that is a 4-day fetus as the "blob of tissue" that it is while simultaneously affirming that it is a human being.

C) The ONLY reason to keep insisting it is a "blob" is to justify its termination.

I stand against abortion - and have no problem calling it a "blob of tissue" in those first few weeks - so clearly your "only" is not correct. I call it a blob of tissue because that is basically what it is. No problem - and I don't think it should be aborted. This is what I mean by "perpetuating the war." This entire discussion tells me you're more concerned about either making people stop using words you don't want them to use, or painting them as evil if they do, then you are about actually finding common ground and looking for solutions.

Hence - part of the problem....

Somebody can be "pro-choice" personally, and not be a "pro-choice advocate", Carpe. Surely you must know that. And if a person works in an abortion mill, they certainly have to at least pretend to be pro-choice (though they probably are, or they wouldn't be working there).

So first - I don't make that distinction, but if you do I'll try to be aware of it. I don't make the distinction because I don't know a single person who is pro-choice who does not advocate for that position in their lives - by how they vote - by what they say when the discussion comes up - etc. In this age of polarization - there are few neutral people.

I feel sorry for people who work in the abortion mills -- I think they're ignorant of what that business is all about.

And you are very sensitive to language like "blob of tissue" but see nothing wrong with "abortion mill" and all of the other terms you use to imply that abortion is an industry bent on the destruction of children. So inflammatory/dismissive language is a bad thing when coming from the pro-choice side - but OK when coming from the pro-life side?

Hence my position...part of the problem.

[carpedm9587]

And, hence, would never suggest cutting it off unless it was a threat to your health.

EGGcellent point, Carpe!

In FACT, cutting it off without a good cause would be called mutilation!

And we take out perfectly healthy tonsils, and wisdom teeth, as a preventative measure. We go into the abdomen and remove large sections of stomach so the person will eat less. Woman have mastectomies of perfectly healthy breasts because they carry a gene that increases their probability of breast cancer. None of these things is considered "mutilation."

As I said - when you start from their assumptions - you end up at their conclusions without contradiction. When you start with your assumptions - you end up at your conclusions - without contradiction. You have not agreed on the assumptions for 50+ years now - and are not likely to start tomorrow.

So what would you like to do? Keep arguing "I'm right?!!" Or perhaps find the places where you actually DO agree and see if it can be built on....


If you're not part of the solution...

[Sparko]

And we take out perfectly healthy tonsils, and wisdom teeth, as a preventative measure. We go into the abdomen and remove large sections of stomach so the person will eat less. Woman have mastectomies of perfectly healthy breasts because they carry a gene that increases their probability of breast cancer. None of these things is considered "mutilation."

As I said - when you start from their assumptions - you end up at their conclusions without contradiction. When you start with your assumptions - you end up at your conclusions - without contradiction. You have not agreed on the assumptions for 50+ years now - and are not likely to start tomorrow.

So what would you like to do? Keep arguing "I'm right?!!" Or perhaps find the places where you actually DO agree and see if it can be built on....


If you're not part of the solution...

Those are all done to cure or prevent a disease or disorder. Are you now saying pregnancy is a disease? I am confused.

[Cow Poke]

And we take out perfectly healthy tonsils, and wisdom teeth, as a preventative measure. We go into the abdomen and remove large sections of stomach so the person will eat less. Woman have mastectomies of perfectly healthy breasts because they carry a gene that increases their probability of breast cancer. None of these things is considered "mutilation."

As I said - when you start from their assumptions - you end up at their conclusions without contradiction. When you start with your assumptions - you end up at your conclusions - without contradiction. You have not agreed on the assumptions for 50+ years now - and are not likely to start tomorrow.

Lemme do a google search and find where tonsils or wisdom teeth or sections of stomach or breasts become unique human beings with their own unique DNA....

So what would you like to do? Keep arguing "I'm right?!!" Or perhaps find the places where you actually DO agree and see if it can be built on....

hold on, still searching....

If you're not part of the solution...

Actually, I'm a very active part of an organization that has prevented the destruction of hundreds of lives in my own area. You, on the other hand, blog.

[carpedm9587]

Those are all done to cure or prevent a disease or disorder. Are you now saying pregnancy is a disease? I am confused.

No. At no point.

And yes - you are confused.

[carpedm9587]

Lemme do a google search and find where tonsils or wisdom teeth or sections of stomach or breasts become unique human beings with their own unique DNA....

hold on, still searching....

• So I say "my thumb is "human life" and you agreed.
• You cite that cutting it off is mutillation, and I agree.
• I cite examples of other things that are perfectly healthy that we cut off for various reasons - and now that "human life" has to have a distinct, unique genome?

CP - you're moving the goal posts. Any living cell with a complete set of human chromosomes is "human life." There is a difference between "human life" and "a human life" or "a human being" or "a human person." We all agree on what the human genome is - and when a cell is "human or not." Science tells us this.

We do not all agree on when there is a "human person." For you - it is when a completely new human genome is created. So for you the fertilized egg in a petri dish is "a human person." For me it is not. For both of us, that fertilized egg is a human person when it is implanted. For my wife it is not. For all three of us, it is a human person when it has a distinct brainwave pattern, for my friend it is not. For all four of us, it is a distinct human person when it has quickened.

When the "human person" begins will differ based on what it means to be a "human person" to you. On this we can and do have difference, and what is then ethical and not ethical will flow. There is no intent to be evil on anyone's part. And the basis for these beliefs has not changed for 50 years. So build on the commonalities...or continue to wage the war with divisive language?

If you're not part of the solution...

Actually, I'm a very active part of an organization that has prevented the destruction of hundreds of lives in my own area. You, on the other hand, blog.

Actually, I'm a very active part of an organization that has prevented the destruction of hundreds of lives in my own area - AND I blog - your presumption notwithstanding. Oh yes - AND I advocate for a cessation to the hostilities, and a wider effort to create systemic solutions to the problem, rather than just "hundreds of lives in my own area."

You see - you can save a few hundred lives while perpetuating a war that kills millions. Which do you think needs a bit of attention and correction?