Carliss Chatman raises some very interesting questions about the logical consequences of fetal personhood. To which I would like to add: if life begins at conception, and hence an embryo is a person, can I adopt a frozen embryo and write them off as a dependent on my taxes? No, seriously, I want to know. This could be very lucrative.
These kinds of "arguments" are very stupid.
ReplyDeleteHere is why they are stupid: the law is flexible. Different laws apply to people at different ages in their lives. It can be the same for fetuses.
In addition, while logical construction is generally desirable for the law, it is not required. Law does not have to be logical. Hence trying to generate logical absurdities by extrapolating current law to fetuses is stupid.
The first point raised by Chatman is as follows:
ReplyDelete>> For example, should child support start at conception? Every state permits the custodial parent — who has primary physical custody of the child and is primarily responsible for his or her day-to-day care — to receive child support from the noncustodial parent. Since a fetus resides in its mother, and receives all nutrition and care from its mother’s body, the mother should be eligible for child support as soon as the fetus is declared a person — at conception in Alabama, at six weeks in states that declare personhood at a fetal heartbeat, at eight weeks in Missouri, which was on the way to passing its law on Friday, but at birth in states that have not banned abortion. (If a fetus is a person, it should get child support, due process and citizenship)
Why is that such a bad thing? I am told that being pregnant is neither easy nor cheap.
> Why is that such a bad thing?
ReplyDeleteWho said it would be bad? I think it would be *awesome* if I could adopt a dozen frozen embryos and write them off as dependents on my taxes.
The point is not that these things are *bad*, the point is that that proponents of embryonic personhood don't have answers to these questions because they haven't really thought things through.
As long as all the business owners who serve you know that you are gaming the system to take tax dollars from them, I'm ok with you taking advantage of such a loophole. :-D
ReplyDeleteWhat business? I'm going to buy a cryogenic freezer and keep the little darlings in my home. They will, after all, be my children.
ReplyDeleteAlways so callous of human life?
ReplyDelete> > As long as all the business owners who serve you know …
ReplyDelete> What business?
Every single business which provides you with anything in life. Coffee shops, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. As long as they know that you, with your given economic situation, are gaming the system and taking taxes away from those who could make better use of the economic redistribution, I approve of your proposed course of action. This is because I know you are not part of a protected class wrt discrimination law. :-)
> As long as they know that you, with your given economic situation, are gaming the system
ReplyDeleteHow am I gaming the system? Embryos are people. I have adopted them. I have to pay the electricity bill to keep them alive. I don't see any difference between that and any other parenting situation. Don't I have the right as a parent to choose how to raise my own children?
> How am I gaming the system?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I was guessing that said business owners would interpret your actions as "gaming the system". The very structure of my argument is that I want them to make the choice of how to interpret your actions, and whether to refuse service to you, give you substandard service, not care, or even give you better service than average.
> I have to pay the electricity bill to keep them alive.
Of course. What's the difference between that cost and how much $$$ the government would be sending your way? I'm simply suggesting that those who can choose to refuse to serve you be made aware of that difference.
So let me be sure I understand what you're calling for here: you think that people should be obligated to expose the details of how they choose to raise their children to public scrutiny so that businesses can discriminate against them if the business does not approve of their choices. Have I got that right?
ReplyDelete> > What's the difference between that cost and how much $$$ the government would be sending your way? I'm simply suggesting that those who can choose to refuse to serve you be made aware of that difference.
ReplyDelete> So let me be sure I understand what you're calling for here: you think that people should be obligated to expose the details of how they choose to raise their children to public scrutiny …
Do you really think that "cost – government payout" constitutes "the details of how they choose to raise their children"? I should think that the government has an interest in not paying you more than it costs you. But we know that the government cannot always get these things right. So I'm suggesting that citizens do some of the enforcement—all through 100% legal means. After all, this is what culture has always done.
Let's review. You wrote:
ReplyDelete> As long as all the business owners who serve you know that you are gaming the system to take tax dollars from them...
Can you explain to me exactly how you expect the process of informing business owners of my alleged gaming of the system to work if it does not include revealing details about how I am choosing to raise my children?
I think my proposal is about as realistic as your proposal, so I don't see any need to explicate further.
ReplyDelete> I don't see any need to explicate further.
ReplyDeleteThe last refuge of the defender of the untenable position.
> > I think my proposal is about as realistic as your proposal, so I don't see any need to explicate further.
ReplyDelete> The last refuge of the defender of the untenable position.
In that case, why don't you tell us how you're going to adopt frozen embryos? Can you point to any adoption agency which does this, today? Since you have questioned whether my situation is realistic, I question whether your situation is realistic. (That was the point of the text you omitted, which I have re-included.)
> Can you point to any adoption agency which does this, today?
ReplyDeleteOf course not. Today an embryo is still not a legal person. But if conservatives have their way, that could change.
Maybe you need to re-read the title of this post?
I did read the title of your blog post, as well as Publius' first comment. I think the scenario you've described is as "realistic" as is the scenario I've described. You haven't provided any reason to think otherwise, although you have offered an insult. I generally find that those who stoop to insults are the ones who have abandoned evidence, experiment, & reason. Generally.
ReplyDeleteInsult? What insult?
ReplyDeleteBTW, I certainly hope you're right and that embryonic personhood will not be enshrined into law. I do not share your optimism that this is "unrealistic". Anti-choice factions have been very much emboldened by Donald Trump and his judicial appointments.
> Insult? What insult?
ReplyDelete"The last refuge of the defender of the untenable position."
> BTW, I certainly hope you're right and that embryonic personhood will not be enshrined into law. I do not share your optimism that this is "unrealistic".
You are equivocating with "this", between the kind of thing I excerpted from the article you linked, and your example of gaming the system. I was only calling the latter "unrealistic". I think I need to re-quote Publius' comment:
> Publius: These kinds of "arguments" are very stupid.
>
> Here is why they are stupid: the law is flexible. Different laws apply to people at different ages in their lives. It can be the same for fetuses.
>
> In addition, while logical construction is generally desirable for the law, it is not required. Law does not have to be logical. Hence trying to generate logical absurdities by extrapolating current law to fetuses is stupid.
Those involved in law-making and law-enforcing are well-aware of those who would violate the spirit of the law by taking advantage of the current letter of the law. This often requires changes to the law to close loopholes that reasonable people interested in human flourishing would never take advantage of, as well as discernment on the part of police officers, investigators, prosecutors, juries, and judges.
> Anti-choice factions have been very much emboldened by Donald Trump and his judicial appointments.
It is always an inconvenience when members of homo sapiens are moved from the "property" category to the "person" category. That being said, I'm happy to admit that plenty of behavior which is labeled "pro-life" appears to be more accurately described as "pro-certain-life". Similarly, plenty in the free North made lots of money on the backs of slaves—there was just a little indirection. I suggest we all work toward "pro-more-life", iterating on the "more".
Anti-choice factions have been very much emboldened by Donald Trump and his judicial appointments.
ReplyDeleteThey've also been emboldened by the recent Democratic push for late term abortion. I frankly can't understand what the Democrats are thinking on this one. If you want to uphold Roe v. Wade, that's one thing. But Roe v. Wade jurisprudence always drew a line after which the right to choose had to give way; as of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, that line was viability (before that the line was vague, but amounted to about the same thing). Viability now is about 24 weeks. It certainly isn't "just before birth", and hasn't been for longer than Roe v. Wade has been the governing law. So Democrats are now pushing to overturn Roe v. Wade just as much as Republicans are.
(Also, if a woman can't make up her mind about having an abortion by 24 weeks into the pregnancy, IMO she's forfeited the right to choose anyway. Rights bring responsibilities with them.)
@Peter Donis
ReplyDelete> … the recent Democratic push for late term abortion.
What are some good examples of this?
@Luke:
ReplyDelete> > I don't see any need to explicate further.
> The last refuge of the defender of the untenable position.
You declined to defend your position, and I opined that this is because your position is indefensible. If you want to call that an insult, I suppose that's your prerogative. I call it a plausible explanation of the observed data.
> Those involved in law-making and law-enforcing are well-aware of those who would violate the spirit of the law
And what exactly is the "spirit of the law" here? Is it that embryos actually are people, fully entitled to all the rights and privileges of other entities legally recognized as people, including being counted in the census, being adopted, and being considered dependents for tax purposes? Or is it the subjugation of women and punishing them for being sexually active and self-actualized? Because allowing me to adopt frozen embryos clearly serves the former "spirit of the law" but not the latter.
> Luke: I think my proposal is about as realistic as your proposal, so I don't see any need to explicate further.
ReplyDelete> Ron: The last refuge of the defender of the untenable position.
⋮
> You declined to defend your position …
Actually, I declined to defend my position more than you have defended your own position. You have repeatedly quoted what I said out of the context (that is, you sliced out a fragment of a sentence from a whole sentence), which is what has allowed you to insult me. The possibility that in fact my position is no less tenable than yours is hidden by your tactics.
> And what exactly is the "spirit of the law" here?
The spirit of the law for giving money to people with children who don't have money to raise them is what you are blatantly violating—in two ways. First, you have the money. Second, you are banking on the redistribution amount being much greater than the refrigeration costs.
> Is it that embryos actually are people, fully entitled to all the rights and privileges of other entities legally recognized as people, including being counted in the census, being adopted, and being considered dependents for tax purposes?
You have once again ignored what @Publius wrote:
> Publius: Different laws apply to people at different ages in their lives. It can be the same for fetuses.
For example, five-year-olds do not have the right to vote. As to the "tax purposes", that is precisely what I addressed in my first comment. I think it's a good thing to redistribute money to a pregnant woman if she needs it to best raise a healthy child! What I think is a bad thing is someone gaming the system like you've proposed. And you know you're doing it, so I have no idea what the purpose of this discussion has been.
> Or is it the subjugation of women and punishing them for being sexually active and self-actualized?
Unfortunately, I think this model fits way too much of the data. But there are two approaches you can make:
(I) Take pro-life people at their word and pressure them to be fully pro-life, instead of pro-some-life.
(II) Practice the hermeneutic of suspicion, encouraging everyone to do so, and thus bringing about the disintegration of civil society.
If you don't believe me on (II), then wait a few more decades. I say that doing (I) allows one to better distinguish the non-hypocrites from the hypocrites, so that when you attack with the kind of model you describe, you don't mistakenly target those for whom it is a false, insulting, unjust model. One of the things I've observed among humans is that true injustice creates an incredible wellspring of psychological motivation to push back. Why give such ammunition to those you would like to lose the societal battle? That's just terrible, terrible tactics.
> Because allowing me to adopt frozen embryos clearly serves the former "spirit of the law" but not the latter.
Actually, it's more expensive for you to refrigerate a few embryos than for large facilities to take advantage of economies of scale. Were you to propose facilities located in extremely cold climates, that might be the best option—balancing transportation costs and such.
What are some good examples of this?
ReplyDeleteUm, pretty much every Democrat that's running for President? Not to mention the positions Democrats have taken on recent bills, such as the one in Virginia.
@Luke:
ReplyDelete> I declined to defend my position more than you have defended your own position.
If you go back and read carefully you will see that I have not actually taken a position, I merely asked a question.
> Unfortunately, I think this model fits way too much of the data.
Then we agree.
> Take pro-life people at their word and pressure them to be fully pro-life, instead of pro-some-life.
Isn't that exactly what I'm doing?
@Peter:
> pretty much every Democrat that's running for President
Can you point me to even one candidate's actually policy statement that "push[es] for late term abortion"? I share Luke's skepticism about this.
> If you go back and read carefully you will see that I have not actually taken a position, I merely asked a question.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't look like "a question": "I'm going to buy a cryogenic freezer and keep the little darlings in my home. They will, after all, be my children." But the most important matter is this: you were presenting a hypothetical and I responded with a hypothetical. Somehow, my hypothetical needs to be defended in ways that yours does not. I find this asymmetric; do you not?
> > Unfortunately, I think this model fits way too much of the data.
> Then we agree.
But what do we do with this? Here's another scenario, oriented toward the other side: if I model the Democratic Party as wanting to keep its constituents from learning how politics really operates (to keep them a stable voting bloc), does the "model [fit] way too much of the data"? There is a danger when using the hermeneutic of suspicion—where you paint *ALL* of the Other as acting according to said model—I say it is threatens civility and liberal democracy.
> > Take pro-life people at their word and pressure them to be fully pro-life, instead of pro-some-life.
> Isn't that exactly what I'm doing?
No, I don't think your "I'm going to buy a cryogenic freezer and keep the little darlings in my home. They will, after all, be my children." does this in the slightest. I took that as obvious mockery. In contrast, the very first example picked out by the article you linked, which I excerpted, is fully in-line with said "pressure them to be fully pro-life". All along in this conversation, I've taken you to understand a deep difference between these two applications of an embryo is a person". Was I incorrect—do you truly see them as equivalent with regard to "spirit of the law"? If I was wrong, I request an answer to this:
> Luke: Actually, it's more expensive for you to refrigerate a few embryos than for large facilities to take advantage of economies of scale. Were you to propose facilities located in extremely cold climates, that might be the best option—balancing transportation costs and such.
That you did not optimize for the best use of resources to take care of frozen embryos (which will stay frozen) indicates that you were not actually interested in best caring for them, but were instead making a rhetorical point which I see as illegitimate in two ways. (Both of which I have now explained.)
Can you point me to even one candidate's actually policy statement that "push[es] for late term abortion"?
ReplyDeleteThey have framed the late term abortion issue as an issue of the woman's choice. But according to Roe v. Wade (and later follow-on decisions like Planned Parenthood v. Casey), it is no longer a matter of the woman's choice after a certain point (viability according to current jurisprudence); it's a matter of abortion no longer being allowed unless it's a matter of the life or health of the mother. So framing late term abortion as an issue of the woman's choice is not consistent with Roe v. Wade jurisprudence, which has previously been what the Democrats have said is their position.
Some examples:
Sanders: "it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body"
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/bernie-sanders-condones-late-term-abortions-thats-my-view/
Buttigieg: "I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line, that we’ve gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line, and I trust women to draw the line when it’s their life"
https://www.westernjournal.com/pete-buttigieg-says-third-trimester-abortions-legal/
(To be fair, Buttigieg at least recognizes in further discussion in that interview that he is thinking of it in terms of the woman having to make a very difficult choice because of a risk to her life or health.)
Harris: "I think it’s up to a woman to make that decision, and I will always stand by that...I think she needs to make that decision with her doctor, with her priest, with her spouse. I would leave that decision up to them."
https://www.dailywire.com/news/44087/kamala-harris-defends-abortion-birth-woman-should-paul-bois
if life begins at conception
ReplyDeleteI can't resist pointing out that if these new laws had adopted the alternative I gave an argument for in previous discussions--that the bright line should be at implantation, not conception--it would have neatly avoided the issue you raise in this post. :-)
@Luke:
ReplyDelete> This doesn't look like "a question"
Context, dude. Re-read the OP.
> you were presenting a hypothetical and I responded with a hypothetical
Yes. You're response was, essentially, "I think that's a stupid idea, and to illustrate just how stupid I think this idea is, here's a stupid idea of my own."
The problem is that you never actually *defended* your (implied) position that my proposal was a stupid idea. And you want to know why you didn't? Because you can't. But not because it's not a stupid idea -- it is a stupid idea. But the *reason* it's a stupid idea is that declaring embryos to be people is a stupid idea. My stupid idea is simply a logical consequence of that stupid idea.
@Peter:
> They have framed the late term abortion issue as an issue of the woman's choice.
That's true, but I don't think any of them advocate expanding on the right to choose beyond the standards set down in Roe. There is no dispute that the mother's rights have to be balanced against the child's. The only disagreement is exactly when and how that balance should occur.
The anti-choice side wants to strike that balance entirely in favor of the child from the moment of conception. That is an extreme position and leads to all manner of absurd consequences if you really take their position seriously. The fact of the matter is that no one, not even the self-styled "pro-lifers", takes it seriously, as my rhetorical question in the OP was designed to illustrate. "Pro-life" is just a rhetorical smokescreen to cover up the fact that their position is really about punishing women for being self-actualized sexual beings with minds of their own.
I don't think any of them advocate expanding on the right to choose beyond the standards set down in Roe.
ReplyDeleteThe quotes I gave are advocating precisely that. Past viability, there is no right to choose; abortion is only allowed if it's necessary to save the life or health of the mother, and the woman doesn't make that determination, a doctor does. That's what the current law is.
The anti-choice side wants to strike that balance entirely in favor of the child from the moment of conception. That is an extreme position and leads to all manner of absurd consequences if you really take their position seriously.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but suppose that they shifted their ground to put the bright line at implantation, instead of conception? As I noted in a previous post, that would avoid the absurd consequences.
"Pro-life" is just a rhetorical smokescreen to cover up the fact that their position is really about punishing women for being self-actualized sexual beings with minds of their own.
I think this is way too broad as an accusation against all pro-life people.
In our previous discussion, I described two possible pro-choice positions, permissive and strict. The permissive position is something like what Sanders said in the quote I gave: the woman has an unrestricted right to do what she wants "with her own body", and that's all there is to it. As I said in the previous discussion, I don't think this position is reasonable because it gives no weight at all to any possible interest that the fetus might have.
The strict pro-choice position is that, while abortion should be rare and should only be done for a very good reason, whether or not that is true is going to depend strongly on the details of each individual case. So the person most familiar with those details, and who has the most at stake in the decision, namely the woman, should be the one to make the choice.
We could also distinguish two possible pro-life positions, which I'll similarly call permissive and strict. The permissive position is basically what you describe: life begins at conception, the woman has no right to choose at that point, and that's all there is to it. Even if we move the bright line to implantation, this kind of position would still say the woman has no right to choose at that point, and that's all there is to it. I don't think this position is reasonable either, at least not as a matter of public policy, because it gives no weight at all to the woman's interest.
The strict pro-life position is that, while there might be cases where a woman has a legitimate reason to have an abortion, the woman should not be the sole judge of what constitutes a legitimate reason. Society should be able to say, for example, that the woman's mere convenience--she doesn't want to raise a child even though she has the resources to do so--should not be a legitimate reason.
One of the big problems with the abortion debate in the US is that the only viewpoints we ever see in the media are the "permissive" ones on both sides. I suspect that a majority of people in the US on either side actually hold beliefs that are much closer to the "strict" viewpoints I have described. But we never hear about them in the media, so it seems like those viewpoints don't exist.
"Pro-life" is just a rhetorical smokescreen to cover up the fact that their position is really about punishing women for being self-actualized sexual beings with minds of their own.
ReplyDeleteBtw, this would seem to be more appropriate as a criticism of opposition to contraception. Uncoupling sex from procreation is the key enabler for people who want to be "self-actualized sexual beings".
@Ron:
ReplyDelete> Context, dude. Re-read the OP.
Except that question vs. statement was an irrelevant distinction; what was relevant was that they were both hypotheticals.
> Yes. You're response was, essentially, "I think that's a stupid idea, and to illustrate just how stupid I think this idea is, here's a stupid idea of my own."
I have repeatedly seen respectable people use this rhetorical strategy. Are you implying that you never use it? I mean to include "you never actually *defended* your (implied) position …"—or if you do, that it is wrong for you to do so?
> The problem is that you never actually *defended* your (implied) position that my proposal was a stupid idea. And you want to know why you didn't? Because you can't. But not because it's not a stupid idea -- it is a stupid idea. But the *reason* it's a stupid idea is that declaring embryos to be people is a stupid idea. My stupid idea is simply a logical consequence of that stupid idea.
Erm, it's a stupidy idea because:
(1) It does not benefit the frozen embryo in the slightest. In fact, it almost certainly endangers the frozen embryo because the risk of defrost is probably going to be higher in your house than in a facility dedicated to the purpose with trained personnel available 24/7.
(2) It looks awfully like you working to get government subsidies and thereby extract tax dollars which could be better used actually improving human flourishing. Let the embryos be frozen en masse, efficiently.
In contrast, the first example given in the article you cited is a great idea—IMO. It actually increases human flourishing. If the embryo/zygote/fetus is merely "protoplasm" or a "parasite" (two words just used by people talking to me over at Tippling Philosopher), then it makes no sense to force the father to send funds to the mother. If she wants to carry the homo sapiens to term she can shoulder the cost; if she doesn't then she has sole discretion to exterminate it and do whatever she wants with the residue.
Yes, definitely a "stupidly idea". 100%
ReplyDelete@Peter:
ReplyDelete> The quotes I gave are advocating precisely that.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
> that would avoid the absurd consequences
That would help a lot, yes. But you have apparently not fully taken on board the fact that the pro-life faction has no interest whatsoever in being reasonable.
> I think this is way too broad as an accusation against all pro-life people.
Let any group of people become large enough and there is no statement you can make that will apply to every single last one of them. But, as Jesus said, "by their fruits ye shall know them." If pro-lifers were really interested in reducing the number of abortions, they would be advocating to make birth control more readily available. But they aren't. Instead they are advocating to defund Planned Parenthood despite the fact that PP is *mainly* in the business of providing birth control. (There is no limit to pro-life hypocrisy. Pro-lifers overwhelmingly support the death penalty, they overwhelmingly oppose social welfare. They are not pro-life, they are pro-enforced-birth. Once a baby is born, if they give a rat's ass about it that sentiment is not reflected in the public policies they advocate.)
> We could also distinguish two possible pro-life positions
We could, but what would be the point? There is only one pro-life position that is having an impact on today's politics, and that is the position that a fertilized egg is a fully-fledged person (from which all manner of absurdities follow). When the pro-lifers change their rhetoric we can have a different conversation. But until then I'm going to deal with the argument that has actually been put on the table.
Nonetheless, I will make this observation:
> The permissive position is basically what you describe: life begins at conception, the woman has no right to choose at that point, and that's all there is to it.
You and I have very different ideas of what the word "permissive" means.
> this would seem to be more appropriate as a criticism of opposition to contraception.
Indeed. You need to read this
@Luke:
> Are you implying that you never use it?
If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb? in your own conscience, now?
(William Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 4, Scene 1)
@Ron:
ReplyDelete> > I have repeatedly seen respectable people use this rhetorical strategy. Are you implying that you never use it?
> If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb? in your own conscience, now?
>
> (William Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 4, Scene 1)
Hey thanks, I'll make use of that in my "we are the instruments with which we measure reality" guest blog post I'm writing up for you as what I believe / why I believe / my "theory of the world". In some sense Jesus got it in one—
>> “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1–5)
—but we repeatedly refuse to take that fully seriously. We're always exceptions to the rule; we're always righteous—at least, more righteous than the Other. One of the reasons I spend so much time talking to people with very different viewpoints than me is to get any sense that I'm better beaten out of me. I've had my being roto-rooted by plenty an atheist and while it hurt like a motherfucker, I think I've come out better as a result. Perhaps you disagree? Perhaps strongly? (Also: something that smells better than shit can still smell pretty bad.)
Now, I am a bit confused about your particular use of the Shakespeare quote; are you suggesting that what I was deploying is *NOT* an acceptable rhetorical strategy? Or is it somehow the case that when others deploy it that is ok, but when Luke deploys it, it is not? Something else? It's at precisely this point that I generally find my interlocutor refuses to spell out the details. Maybe it's just because I'm "an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb"—I sometimes wonder how many of my interlocutors would prefer I disappear from existence (or get the equivalent of a mindwipe)—but occasionally I wonder if it's because they're actually trying to make a distinction without a difference.
If you never employ that rhetorical strategy or have shown clear regret whenever you have, it would be false to say that I was interacting with you in a symmetric fashion. But is it possible I was interacting with you in a symmetric fashion, imitating your rhetorical style? A tenured faculty member at one of the world's top research institutions has told me that in his experience, the kinds of people who get to be faculty at such places tend to know better when "the bad thing" is done to them, than when they do "the bad thing" to others. I wonder how general this phenomenon is among humans, but especially among people of sufficiently high IQ. Finally, what counts as "the bad thing" in rhetorical strategy can be changed if all participants agree.
Let any group of people become large enough and there is no statement you can make that will apply to every single last one of them.
ReplyDeleteYes, which is why we shouldn't be making such statements.
If you want to talk about the particular subset of pro-lifers that is the most vocal and is therefore driving the current policy positions of many Republicans, that's fine. But that just underscores my point that what is currently driving policy positions is very different from what a majority of people actually believe.
You and I have very different ideas of what the word "permissive" means.
I only used those labels because they're the ones I used in the previous discussion. I agree they're lousy labels and I'm open to suggestions for better ones. They're just labels.
You need to read this
Yes, It's always nice when statistical evidence confirms the obvious. :-)
(Btw, I love that Henry V quote--it's one of my favorite lines in the whole play.)
@Peter:
ReplyDelete> If you want to talk about the particular subset of pro-lifers
Well, this post was specifically addressed to those tho deploy the argument that abortion should be illegal because "life begins at conception" and hence a fetus (or an embryo or a blastocyst or a fertilized egg) is a person. (Look again at the title of the post.) I daresay that's a substantial majority of those who self-identify as "pro-life."
BTW, your implantation criterion does solve the "problem" of frozen embryos, but it does not solve the problem that most people on the pro-life side are emotionally invested in the left-begins-at-conception rhetoric. "Life begins at implantation" is a much less catchy slogan. It is also plainly false. The only reason it's appealing at all is that it seems less arbitrary than trimesters. But there are lots of other un-arbitrary-seeming places to draw the line. The one that is currently fashionable is having a detectable heartbeat, but that is just a reflection of a mistake made by the ancients in believing that the heart and not the brain was the seat of the soul.
In a way, the fetal-heartbeat crowd has the Right Answer, they're just focused on the wrong organ.
your implantation criterion does solve the "problem" of frozen embryos, but it does not solve the problem that most people on the pro-life side are emotionally invested in the left-begins-at-conception rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteTrue.
In a way, the fetal-heartbeat crowd has the Right Answer, they're just focused on the wrong organ.
It seems like the time frames are fairly similar (6 to 8 weeks or so). Either one is well before viability.
@Ron:
ReplyDelete> Can you point me to even one candidate's actually policy statement that "push[es] for late term abortion"?
To add to what's already been provided on this issue, here's an overall summary by Jeremy W. Peters at the NYT:
>> In the Democratic Party, where politicians could once straddle the abortion divide by airing personal misgivings while also promoting supportive policies, holding a gradated view is no longer the norm. The debate on the left today is far less modulated than it was a decade ago when Barack Obama, then the party’s presidential nominee, spoke of how Americans wrestled with the issue in good faith, saying that “anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention.”
>>
>> By contrast, Democrats running for president today often characterize abortion rights as absolute. And they steer clear of saying what polls have repeatedly shown about Americans’ views since Roe v. Wade made abortion a constitutionally protected right in 1973: It’s complicated.
>>
>> “Nonnegotiable,” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has said. “There is no middle ground,” Senator Bernie Sanders declared.
>>
>> Even on the issue of abortions later in pregnancy, which causes the most consternation among Americans, candidates are reluctant to go on record about where they would set limits. “I trust women to draw the line,” said Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., when asked about third-trimester terminations. (NYT: As Passions Flare in Abortion Debate, Many Americans Say ‘It’s Complicated’)