Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)

What about a single father? Why is it always single mothers that get special treatment? I have primary placement of my son from my first marriage. The only reason I am able to hold the good job I have is due to my current girlfriend. If something happens between her and I, I am a single father that needs to go through the same hardships as a single mother.A mother can just as easily abandon a child as a father can. Being a father, I take high offense to people that assume men "have it easy" when it comes to child rearing. It is MY responsibility to make sure food is on the table, the lights are on and the kids have clothes.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Bull-hickey. I'm not pro-abortion, I don't want more abortions - I want women to have the moral right to control their own body, and people generally to have reproductive rights. The abortion bit is a merely a means to an end.

Let's not be coy. The only choice is about whether you fundamentally agree with abortion or not. That means the sole qualifier here is abortion, not choice itself. We're only taking about two choices, and both relate directly to abortion and nothing else. It is a poor name, agreed, but so is pro-choice.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Bullshit.It has nothing to do with whether abortion is "okay."It has everything to do with whether I or society as a whle has the right to make choices for women. That is the only issue. Whether the State has the right to fore a woman to undergo pregnancy, with all of the emotional and mental trauma that implies, the physical risks which include injury, death, and extreme pain, regardless of whether the woman wants to or not.Should I be able to choose for you whether you get to keep a kidney? Do I have the right to force you to give it up, even to save a life? Should society be able to force you to take medication, even if you would choose not to? That's what we're talking about here - a woman's right to be able to choose what to do with her own goddamned body. Whether abortion counts as murder or anything else is secondary to that question.I do not "support" abortion. In a perfect world, they wouldn't be necessary.I do support a woman's right to be able to decide whether to remain pregnant or not, whether to accept medical treatment or not, whether they should be forced to undergo surgery for the sake of a fetus, etc.Don't try to tell me what I do or do not support.

Sure, but just keep that monster in your pants The baby doesn't get a choice, the choice is made for them. The father doesn't get a choice, the choice is made for him.

quote:

---

I assume that you are on some level outraged when someone is murdered.

---

So you only want to protect your family against murder? Lets assume you're a woman (but still with a huge penis). Does the premise still stand that you only want to protect your own DNA when it is your very DNA that would be destroyed? With abortion it directly involves the individual getting an abortion, no? You say if it doesn't personally affect you, you don't care. But is that entirely true? If you watched a man kill someone and found out they let him go, would you really not care? Would there not be some shred of humanity that cried out for justice regardless of whether or not it was committed against a family member of yours? Okay, well then we'll make it a little more personal. Lets say that ungodly ginormous member between your legs (I'm having fun with this, just go with it) impregnated your wife. For the sake of the argument, lets suppose it is your last chance to have kids. She wants the abortion. You protest, you plead, but to no avail. It affects you personally. And by all rights that child is at least half yours. Are you entitled to anything? It's not fake sincerity just because it did not personally happen to us. The O.J. trial didn't really personally affect us, but the world watched and waited for justice. Was that insincere concern for the outcome?The Iraq War didn't happen to you. The Palestinians attacked by Israelis didn't happen to you. There are many things that didn't happen to you that I;ve seen you express concern over. The abortion debate is no different. Well, you and I are pretty much eye to eye. The only real argument is whether or not a fetus (child) has any inalienable rights, as in someone's personal freedoms affecting or invalidating other peoples rights. If not, why not? Who gets to arbitrate such a decision? Does having a vagina and a uterus give you the right to choose whether or not to kill your own progeny? If so, why? If not, why not?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Okay, and the opposite side asks why a child doesn't have the moral right to have dominion over its own body. The fundamental question is why one life trumps another?See, we're dealing with a body within a body, except the first body is the reason why the 2nd body is inside that body. The body within the body did not create itself. It took the first body to make that happen.In a strange twist of irony, the right for the mother to be pro-choice invalidates the baby's right to be pro-anything.And so the crux of the matter still exists.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Sure it does. In fact that is the only point of the debate. They are moral questions. Is it right to take away a woman's right to choose, and is it right to take away a baby's right to life? Those are the deep moral questions that exist, everything else is just details. That is one half of the issue, certainly. The other half is whether or not a new life has a right to life. That's immaterial since the kidney was there since the mother's own gestational period. The baby (remember: it's a body within a body) is a separate being from its mother.Secondly, the whole my body, my choice mantra is not entirely true. It is illegal to kill yourself. Imagine that. You cannot opt to die if you want. People will try and stop you and force you to live. We do not have full control over our bodies. I'm not agreeing with that, I'm just saying that is the reality of the situation.And something more applicable to the conversation, women cannot generally opt to have a hysterectomy if they want if a doctors sees no need for it. Imagine that! The one surefire way a woman would never even get pregnant, thus nullifying the need for abortions to ever occur, is NOT the woman's choice! Her uterus, her choice? Nope. Only when there is another life involved does the my body my choice mantra come out. I'm not, I'm getting this information from you. You support abortion, bottom line. You can try and dress it up real fancy if you want, but the underlying message is that you support abortion.You may not like the need for abortions, but you still support them. You may say that in a perfect world you would never want to see an abortion. But so what? That quickly dissolves when looking at it from another perspective.Most supporters of execution don't like having to execute anyone! They say, in a perfect world, there would be no need for death row or executions. But we don't live in a perfect world and never have, so it's useless to even bring it up. It's just a distraction. The reality is they are pro-execution. They aren't pro-choice of executions, they are pro-execution, regardless of whether or not they like them. They like them enough to allow them. So it is with pro-abortionists.All people like life and all people like choosing things. But if you don't narrow down that huge topic, anything less in disingenuous. We are talking about abortion. You therefore are pro or anti-abortion.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

First, I'd like to point out that you caimed to be having fun with my member. Well (1) no one said anything about the dad not getting a choice, you're assuming that. I was part of a decision to abort, I got a choice in the matter. So lets not focus on the dad and assume, at least for this conversation, that everyone gets a choice.So it leaves the (what you chose to call) baby, but lets call it a fetus, make me and my huge penis happy.Fact is, the fetus gets no choice. It gets no choice in anything. And you don't care about it either, you go all day not even thinking about it the poor thing.I argue for real human beings, living life here on earth with the rest of us, who suffer under tyranny and oppression - it's the oppressive measure and tyranical control that concerns me, because, that kind of shit can spread and hurt me as well. I've seen you argue against them in some threads, where is your humanity then? Or is it just the fetus' that warm your heart?What I'm saying is, just like you don't care about the Iraqi who lost his life an hour ago, or the Palestinian woman who lost her life and was pregnant a month ago, lets not care about a fetus in some random persons womb that's getting aborted.Why show sincerity for one thing but not the other? There are ways to get through this logically and I'll address them further in the post. You missed my point. It's the whole package (no pun intended ).I like living in a society where murder is not ok, because I can be murdered in a society that allows it. Also, my kids can be murdered as well. I like measures to be taken to prevent this. The plus side is that the laws also protect everyone else because curiously enough, most, if not everyone I've ever met, likes living in this type of society too. It's like we're all trying to protect our own. I wouldn't destroy my DNA at this point in my life. I would not have an abortion. That would be my choice. However, I wouldn't expect you to care about my fetus whether I did or didn't choose to abort it. But can't you see how this type of a society would affect me? I would be concerned with my family and myself before anyone else. This concern for my family and self is also shared by everyone else. So, since we all live together in this society, it covers everyone within it even though the reasons for it are selfish. Yes. But I don't share this same concern for a fetus in someones womb. I don't see them as anything until they're born. I can't experience them till then. However, for my own fetus in my ladies womb, I am connected to it and would consider it something because I am experiencing it. That's what she said! - Michael Scott Yeah of course I'm entitled to something - an opinion on the matter. But I recognize that the woman's opinion is the deciding factor. I'm not carrying the fetus, it's not my body that it will use to incubate, I don't have to give birth - if it affects me to a lesser degree wouldn't her opinion be the one that matters a bit more?When it's out and I'm physically with the child then all opinions are equal. No. White people watched and waited for justice. Black people watched and waited for OJ to go free. Everyone took it personally. I think it's different. We're talking about a fetus in a womb and people living on earth (and here's the key factor) independent of a life support.The fetus is subject to the wishes of the host, we the people are not subject to the wishes of anyone else, we are true individuals. Exactly. This has nothing to do with abortion, this has to do with establishing what an "individual" is.For this I'll send you to Stile's post where he gives the definition for "alive". Message 4

quote:

---

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF (human) LIFE (rev 1):
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who experiences both...
(1) the continued operation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) the continued operation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem,
...is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

---

And I agree with the conditions Stile gives:

quote:

---

This allows possible abortions for the following reasons:
-it is early in the pregnancy and you do not want to go through child-birth for whatever reason
-you were raped, regardless of how far along the pregnancy is
-the baby's birth will place a significant risk on the life of the mother, regardless of how far along the pregnancy is

​

This allows for possible refusal of abortions for the following reasons:
-it is late in the pregnancy and birthing the baby will not cause any significant risk to the mother's health

​

No doctor would be allowed to refuse to do an abortion because "they don't want to" (or "for religious reasons"... if you prefer). The would have to document the reasons why they refuse an abortion in exactly the same way they are required to document the reasons they saved Person A over Person B in a triage situation.

---

That covers your concern of "someone's freedom." If we don't legally have a "someone" then no freedoms are violated.But again, lets not make this a concern for a fetus because we don't care about that. We care about the freedoms that we value. Yes. Because of the reasons I state above, and under the conditions that Stile set up. I thought he had the best post in this thread.- Oni

Hi Gran I wasn't really intending my comments to be a direct argument, just thinking out loud to generate some ideas and opinions.I've never really been able to wrap my head around the subject of abortion. I find it a difficult subject to make precise judgements on. That's why I found the very clinical and dogmatic tone of Dawkins' article difficult to accept readily (on this occasion - normally I lap it up!).Thanks to you and the others for your comments and I'll ponder it over the next few days.

Do you think a women should be allowed to use drugs/alcohol or sidewalk-bellyflops, or whatever, to cause herself to no longer be pregnant?

I think that those are particularly stupid methods for abortion, and are in fact some of the unfortunate results when abortion is made illegal (along with the ever-famous coat hangar, and the steak-knife street-surgeon).I also think that it's rather difficult to maintain ethical consistency regarding the possession of one's own self and simultaneously not supporting the ability of the individual to choose to consume alcohol or other drugs. Or to do "sidewalk belly flops."The behavior of an expectant mother is a very fuzzy subject, as I hinted at earlier. Would it be reasonable to charge a woman with manslaughter if she falls down the stairs and inadvertently terminates her pregnancy? Should she be charged with murder for allowing herself to menstruate, terminating the "potential life" of her unfertilized egg?There is a difference between what I personally think is reprehensible (or even just stupid) and what I think I have an ethical right to enforce on others. I think a pregnant woman who smokes or drinks or shoots up heroin while pregnant is ethically repugnant if she actually intends to carry the pregnancy to term. I also think that I have no ethical right to enforce my judgment on her, as that would require stripping away her right to decide what to do with her own body.Of course, shooting heroin is already illegal whether she's pregnant or not, so that point is rather moot.Nothing on the subject of abortion is black and white - it's all shades of gray. Denying the choice of whether a woman must suffer through the pain, trauma, and risk of pregnancy and childbirth is an ethical negative. Knowingly taking actions that will result in harming an actual human being (like drinking while pregnant while intending to carry the pregnancy to term) is also an ethical negative.Which negative is worse is a subjective assessment.Is it worse to allow abortion legally, or make it illegal and return to the days of back alley abortions?Is it worse to force a woman to undergo a cesarean section, a surgical procedure that carries significant risk, or to allow her to terminate the pregnancy?Does a fetus carry the same value as a baby? When? Do sperm have human value? Does a freshly fertilized egg? Should we mourn an egg that is fertilized but never implants on the uterine wall? Are a few dozen cells a human life? A few hundred? A few thousand? What defines a human life, as opposed to an organ? What gives human life its value? Is it a "soul?" Is it sentience? Is it viability outside the womb?These aren't questions that can be objectively answered because they all depend entirely on subjective value assessments.Perhaps the largest factor in my position on abortion is the acknowledgment that my values are not shared by everyone else, that this is a very gray area, and as such I don't believe that I have a moral right to impose my own subjective values and choices onto others who may not share them.Personally, CS, I think a pregnant woman who intends to give birth and uses drugs and alcohol should be held responsible if the child is born and it can be proven that her actions directly resulted in harm to the child, and that she knew or should have known the results of her actions. Note that this does not apply if no child is actually born.I think a woman who does "sidewalk belly-flops" is just an idiot, because that's going to hurt and isn't a very effective method for aborting a pregnancy. Call Planned Parenthood, seriously.

It is? When? What factor distinguishes a fetus from its mother that would not equally apply to a kidney - or better yet, a tumor? The fetus received blood, nutrients, and oxygen directly from the mother. it is contained within the woman's body. Part of it (the original egg) has been in the woman's body since she was born.Is a freshly implanted egg on the uterine wall a distinct and separate organism? A cluster of a few dozen cells? A few hundred? A few thousand? False.

quote:

---

Historically, various states listed the act as a felony, but all were reluctant to enforce it. By 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime (North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma, which repealed its law in 1976). By the early 1990s only two US states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification. In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries. (So held the Virginia Supreme Court in Wackwitz v. Roy in 1992.) As a common law crime, suicide can bar recovery for the family of the suicidal person in a lawsuit unless the suicidal person can be proven to have been "of unsound mind." That is, the suicide must be proven to have been an involuntary, not voluntary, act of the victim in order for the family to be awarded money damages by the court. This can occur when the family of the deceased sues the caregiver (perhaps a jail or hospital) for negligence in failing to provide appropriate care.[5] Some legal scholars look at the issue as one of personal liberty. According to Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU, "The idea of government making determinations about how you end your life, forcing you...could be considered cruel and unusual punishment in certain circumstances, and Justice Stevens in a very interesting opinion in a right-to-die [case] raised the analogy."

---

From Wiki.Suicide is not illegal in the US. Only doctor-assisted suicide is, and not even in every state. The woman can opt to get her tubes tied.And surgery isn't only about the woman's body - it's also about medical ethics and the willingness of a doctor to participate. You can choose to have your arm amputated, but doctors are unlikely to perform such an operation, not because they think you lack the right to self-determination, but simply because they don't want to accept the risksinherent with a surgical procedure when there is no benefit to be gained.Your analogy is blatantly false. As usual. I'm going to be blunt:You are a presumptuous dick. Your presumption to tell another person what they do or do not support, particularly when that person has explicitly stated that your statements are incorrect, is tantamount to lying. The English language allows for many, many degrees of accuracy. I have made very specific statement regarding what I do and do not actually support, and you are in effect turning those specific statements into broad generalized half-truths to suit your own argument. This is dishonest debate. And I don't consider them to be "pro-execution," which means that your analogy once again falls on its face. I simply wouldn't classify a supporter of the death penalty as pro-life. Perhaps the complexities of language elude you, but those are different concepts.

Thanks for the reply, I was just wondering.I don't see anything to argue against.

Wtf?! - Oni

For the record, while I find abortion to be immoral, I don't think it should be illegal. I'm not a very good Catholic...I think that taking matters into her own hands, like sidewalk bellyflops, could be criminalized but I don't hvae a good enough case for that to bring it forward.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.