The Aristophrenium has written an article in direct response to my comments on the matter of "How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric"
Aristophrenium Article
It seems like I'm wasting my time making these articles, as they just go round and round ad infinitum. I wish I had the literary ability to make all my rebuttals terse, unfortunately I have a knack of trying to be as transparent as possible, which leads to a text wall-type scenario.
Although it is written by one of the more astute and well-versed members of the site, "ryft", it still suffers from the same weak assertions and assumptions that plagued the first article. This will be my last reply on this matter, as the dialogue quickly turns into an exercise in futility and I don't care about it that much to continually rebut arguments I don't find coherent.
The article's text is in bold, my replies are non-bold.
1.a. “Pro-choice is not pro-abortion or pro-death.”
I’m willing to concede that “pro-death” is rhetorical flourish intended to make a strong statement, but the term “pro-abortion” simply reflects accurately the state of affairs, because it is not ‘choice’ in itself that is advocated but a very specific choice: abortion. Through information, advocacy and access to abortion services, what they advocate is the woman’s right to access abortion, pressure governments to change laws and policies that restrict access to abortion, condemn political or social barriers to abortion, etc.The context of ‘choice’ which Tavarish presents is likewise abortion. When elective abortions were illegal, women did have choices. But the so-called ‘pro-choice’ sector was not at all satisfied, because they wanted a very specific choice: abortion. The paper trail history of their fight is not without a wealth of evidence for this.
So your argument that pro-choice is somehow lacking because it strives to provide more choices for the woman, rather than omitting ones you find morally abhorrent? Do you not understand that choice is also realized in whether or not the mother wants to opt out of the pregnancy?
Pro-choice is necessarily presenting all the options available, not necessarily pushing abortion. Though the topic can get hung up on this issue, the actual term refers to allowing the woman to come to an informed decision with all of her options open. I am pro-choice, but I think the abortion rate should be reduced and limits should be put on the time frame in which elective abortions are to occur.
Pro-abortion is simply what they are, and it makes very little sense why they should be so opposed to the term. Since they view abortion as simply a specific medical procedure and the unborn as just an astonishing collection of biological matter, they have no real reason to shy away from labelling themselves ‘pro-abortion’.
I thought this was a discussion between me and you, not between you and a caricature of what you think pro-choicers hold as a common ideology. I have never illustrated abortion as simple, or that the unborn is simply "biological matter".
Their side does not think abortion is morally wrong. Our side does.
I find it morally wrong, but I don't impose my ideology on those who don't share it. That's what "your" side does - but I digress.
Why are they so willing to concede to our side the moral high ground, by protesting that the term ‘pro-abortion’ is injurious? Why do they in one breath characterize the unborn as a biological clump, while in the next breath claim that the decision to have an abortion is one that is difficult and distressing for a woman to make? (The existence of this dissonance makes very little sense when looked at from their own frame of reference. On the Christian view, their dissonance actually makes a lot of sense, in that their inconsistency proves that their God-given conscience is still functioning as it was designed to; on some level which they are loath to acknowledge, they actually know better.)
Whoa there. I don't claim a moral high ground, as the name of the game is relativism. What may be moral to me may be immoral to another - so let's make that clear. Your assertion that somehow a dissonance occurs in the "pro-choice, anti-abortion" camp and that individuals with such ideology necessarily borrow from a Christian worldview is so ridiculously cheap that it doesn't command a response. However, being the glutton for punishment that I am, I'll entertain it just like any other self-refuting claim some theists put forth when trying to spread their personal feelings as gospel to the rest of us.
Agreeing that a woman should have all the choices available to her doesn't mean that I agree with all the choices that are presented. By your reasoning, a person who agrees with certain legislation (example: healthcare reform) will necessarily need to agree with everything proposed by that legislation. This does not follow. Dissonance isn't a product of borrowed ideology, or subconscious load-bearing guilt, it's the product of a functioning mind that places values based on life experience and societal norms and takes every claim and tenet on its own merit, rather than just blindly accepting things under the umbrella of general ideological banter.
1.b. “It’s for the woman’s right to choose what she does with her body.”
And the pro-life view does not dispute that. However, we happen to go one step further by stating that in civilized society, grounded in moral sense and the rule of law, her right “to choose what she does with her body” is no longer unfettered when that choice directly affects another human being. No one disputes that her unborn child is inside her body. Let’s not construct straw-filled canards over that point. But there is something else that is beyond dispute: it’s in her body, but it isn’t her body.
When you said straw filled canards, I got a mental image of a stuffed duck and it made me giggle.
Back on topic.
Let's try to understand your point here. The unborn fetus is entirely dependent on the mother (it cannot survive outside the mother's body and cannot develop any other way), resides inside her body alone for the entire gestation period, she is solely responsible for its development, safeguarding and nourishment, yet somehow she is detached from it.
What you're essentially describing is that if for some reason, the mother gets pregnant, it's tough titties for her, as she has no control over what goes on next. She has absolutely no say in the matter, because it's an independent entity growing in her, simply taking up residence in her body until it's ready to be born - all of which she must endure, as her rights are voided. Does that make any sense?
If life is of such intrinsic importance, why not condemn those who take antibiotics and kill thousands of bacteria? Conversely, they are actually independent entities and can have the ability to reside outside our bodies, but tend to set up shop inside from time to time. Why not let a developing organism, with its own unique DNA flourish, as the woman is merely a vessel? It's because the organisms that depend necessarily on us for their vitals have no rights and how we deal with them is ultimately up to our discretion. Simply put, you can't assign rights to something that isn't an independent entity yet, especially in this regard.
Now, I know what you're thinking - you place value on human life above all others, so let's repeat a question I've been asking for a while now. This is an excerpt from my last comment on this topic:
"By the way, you never answered the question of when the fetus is alive and when it dies. If a fetus develops without a brain, at what point is that fetus dead? When was it alive? If the mother knew beforehand that the baby would develop without a brain, would elective abortion be appropriate? "
So, let's hear it.
When a woman makes choices about her own body that jeopardizes or harms her child, she is morally and sometimes criminally liable for that and the child can be removed from her care and placed somewhere safe. How much greater is her culpability when the health and safety of that child is entirely dependent on her, such that it cannot be removed and placed somewhere safe when her choices endanger the child? It is in her body, yes, but it isn’t her body. Her freedom to choose what to do with her body stops at her body, when those choices come up against another human body.
Here's where you're getting a bit off track here. A woman doing something with her own body (like using drugs or alcohol) that puts her child in a dangerous environment can have that child taken away, as the child is not dependent on the mother alone. There's a bit of difference here. When the mother is carrying the unborn, she cannot delegate this responsibility.
Her decisions ALONE influence the fetus, but they remain her decisions, since the entity isn't independent of the womb yet. Do you understand? Only she is accountable for bringing that fetus to term. The fetus has no rights until it is ex-utero.
It is plainly evident that my argument against elective abortions is a moral one, which renders his rebuttal on a legal point remarkably irrelevant. He might raise the point about to whom protected rights are extended, but that has nothing to do with what is morally right or morally wrong. As demonstrated by the Dred Scott decision in 1857 by the U.S. Supreme Court (which ruled that blacks “had no rights” that anyone was bound to respect), what is moral and to whom rights extend are two different questions.
And how is slavery relevant to our discussion? Please realize that we, as a civilized society, have changing values, striving to promote freedom and social advancement rather a certain ideology, because people are vastly different. I'd like to also remind you that we don't live in 1857 and the situation in the country is such that not only embraces black individuals and culture, but the President of the United States is of African-American descent. This is a digression, but please realize that society changes, and the values within that society changes. Would you like me to quote you Bible verses in which slavery is morally just and permitted? Let's not get off on a tangent here.
Morality is relative. You can say you operate by a higher, absolute standard, but that still does nothing to address the issue at hand, nor demonstrate the truth of your assertions.
If we decide that blacks have no rights, does that mean it is moral to kill them? Legal, certainly, and yet still immoral. Ergo, because we know that to whom rights extend can be an immoral decision, that angle is simply irrelevant for responding to a moral argument like above. It’s not about who has rights, but about what is moral.
Killing blacks is moral if you believe it to be moral, the same way that killing infidels is a moral action justified by some believing in the Qur'an. People will find justifications for just about anything if you give them enough drive and indoctrination. If the issue is solely moral, I don't understand why you're so up in arms about it and trying to push your beliefs down others' throats. Recognize that not everyone thinks the way you do and there is no objective "ought to", there is just a "can" and "can't", which has a far greater effect within society.
3.a. “Abortion is a multi-faceted issue …”
The pro-life view recognizes that as well. One would have to be frightfully ignorant to think that is a contested point. No pro-life advocate pretends that abortion is an issue with only a single facet. Even elective abortion is multi-faceted. And morally wrong.
You effectively said "Abortion is not a black and white issue, but abortion is obviously black"Good job.
3.b. “… [insofar] as morality is relative and heavily dependent on the society administering it. What you think is wrong may not be so for [someone else].”
Tavarish is simply assuming the truth of his moral view in this response to my moral argument. If all it takes to defeat your opponent’s argument is to simply assume the truth of your own view, then I can defeat his argument by assuming the truth of my view. It either works both ways or it does not work at all. Insofar as the Special Pleading fallacy indicates that it works both ways, his tactic here was quite inept.
So let's get this straight. You proclaim that this is a moral issue, knowing well that I don't wish to take a moral approach on the grounds that different people views morality differently, then say that my view is invalid because I recognize this? I don't operate under religious guidelines, and neither do a lot of women that legislation dealing with this issue would directly affect. You say it isn't a legal issue, but would be in favor of banning such an action based on your moral criteria. Tell me now, who's assuming the truth of their view in order to further their point? I don't assume the truth of my moral view, as this isn't a moral issue - it's a legal one dealing with human rights. I have my own moral qualms with it, but they are IRRELEVANT.He is certainly free to reject any of the premises of my argument, but he should not be so foolish as to think that rejecting a premise establishes its falsehood. An argument is said to be valid when the conclusion follows logically from the premises, such that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, and an argument is said to be sound when it is valid and the premises are true. My argument is self-evidently valid, so the question is whether or not it is sound. In order to claim that it is unsound, Tavarish would shoulder the burden of proving that at least one of its premises is false, which is not done by simply presupposing it to be. The burden of proof takes more work than that.
Here's your argument.
- The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong.
- Elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human.
- Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong.
Stemming from that, the rest does not follow. If this has anything to do with moral absolutes, you have the burden of proof in demonstrating that these things actually exist objectively. In addition, you have to demonstrate exactly how moral absolutes apply in this particular situation, especially to someone who does not share your ideology.
However, me granting your premises for the sake of argument doesn't mean that you can shift the burden of proof. You still have all your work ahead of you if you want to weigh the truth value of a "right" and "wrong" action that affects everyone necessarily and absolutely.
3.c. “Telling people what they must do according to your ideology is pandering and imposing a belief system.”
What Tavarish doesn’t appear to recognize is that his comment here turns around and roundly bites the pro-choice side, too, for they engage in precisely the same advocacy and lobbying activities that the pro-life side does. They advocate the pro-choice agenda in reproductive health clinics, public school curriculum where they can, the highest courts in the land, and lobbying for legislation domestically and internationally. As a matter of fact, they are actually far more guilty of the above charge than the pro-life side is, which is constantly playing catch-up.
Are you serious? Since when are more options grounds for pushing an agenda? You want to keep the child with respect to your religious background? Fine, go ahead. No one's stopping you. They're just not stopping anyone who views the matter differently and may reach a different conclusion within similar situational framework.
Let's not mince words. The pro-life movement is riding the coattails of religious doctrine and political influence and actively suppressing a woman's choice in the matter, while pro-choice advocates a woman's right to choose what she does with her body on the premise that she is ultimately responsible for the consequences, morally, physically, and legally - whatever the outcome may be.
Name one pro-life campaign or organization that isn't backed by a religious, right-wing organization.
Banning something doesn't magically make the problem go away, no matter how many scare tactic campaigns you throw at it.It just makes it more dangerous to obtain, relying on questionable methods for its acquisition. Be realistic.
I also notice you're using the Tu quoque fallacy here and not addressing the actual issue I presented.
4. “I don’t agree with the methods and actions of abortion. I find it needless. But I won’t condemn someone else for their decision to have it done …”
This is biographical detail that is quite irrelevant, aside from Tavarish telling us a bit about himself. I have no idea why this is even a point for us to address. When it comes to the moral question about abortion, why should anyone care what Tavarish happens to think or not do, etc.? It is entirely irrelevant.
This is to run a parallel between my view and your view, and to illustrate clearly where we differ, since it is a dialogue. I would think that my views in this matter are at least somewhat relevant to this dialogue and backs up the fact that this issue is far from black and white, right or wrong, especially since you so clearly demonstrated your moral standings in the previous paragraphs. Though I agree - to the issue as a whole, my views are irrelevant.
5.a. “People will have abortions. You can’t stop it.”
People will commit rape. You can’t stop it. And so therefore… what? I mean, just where exactly is this line of reasoning supposed to go? If we cannot stop people from doing X, then we should legislate their freedom to do X? Or might this perhaps be a case where the Special Pleading fallacy gets invoked?
You actually made my point for me with that somewhat broken analogy. "People will commit rape" doesn't mean that we should make rape legal. It means that rape, like abortion is a problem that will not go away just because we can outlaw it.
The most effective method of abortion prevention is to educate the public about contraception and to outline ALL of their options in case a pregnancy does happen. The key here is not to limit the scope of the issue, as an individual that feels trapped will often act irrationally and do things that may harm themselves, such as get a "back alley" abortion and risk their own lives without knowing what other options there are out there.
Just as the rape case you presented, we must take measures to prevent it and safeguard against it. The only way to do this is a more educated and more well-prepared public. However, the action of rape and abortion is certainly not a good analogy - one is an elective procedure terminating a pregnancy, and the other is the act of forced sex and submission of an unwilling person.
5.b. “Banning it will only make women resort to questionable means for these procedures.”
First of all, I am not aware of anyone who is calling for a ban on all abortions entirely. The dominant call is for banning all elective abortions; if we banned all abortions but those for reasons of rape, incest, the health of the mother or the health of the unborn, that would ban an incredible 93% of all abortions.
Banning most abortions wouldn't make the issue disappear. I think that's the fundamental issue you're not considering. Making something illegal will not stop people from doing it, it just creates bigger problems for those that do. If the basis on which to ban abortion is moral, what ground do the lawmakers have to impose their morality on those who aren't asking for it?
Third, if this is a veiled attempt by Tavarish to suggest that making abortions illegal would throw us back to a time when “back alley abortions” posed a dangerous health risk to women who require an abortion, it is an extraordinary failure: (i) if a woman required an abortion for some reason due to rape, incest, her own health or that of her unborn, that would be a legal abortion in our scenario, performed by qualified medical doctors; (ii) the dangerous health risk to women formerly experienced was not due to abortions being illegal but rather the tools and techniques that were available at that time (e.g., the medical use of penicillin in the forties, the vacuum aspiration method introduced in the sixties, etc.). One has to go back to the pre-penicillin era in order to find the significant rates of death due to abortions. From the 1950s until Roe v. Wade, there were exponentially fewer maternal deaths due to illegal and legal abortions. The dots are not difficult to connect.
So we've established the fact that you granted elective abortion to be justifiable in a certain context (rape, incest, medical emergency), the question separating the action from being moral or immoral is intent. This is sort of a case in which you want to have your cake and eat it too, in which you try to argue to absolute moral stance of something, only to say that there are exceptions to such an endeavor.
While I do agree that this is a multifaceted issue, I don't agree that putting a ban on abortions that don't have a certain qualifier is effective at all. The only thing that will happen as a result when you assign legality to abortion in case of rape and incest is the increase of alleged rapes and incestuous situations. Like I've said before, women will continue to get abortions, whether you find it morally repugnant or not.
5.c. “Making an appeal to emotion doesn’t work …”
Actually, it works very well. But it is not rational, nor is it what our argument does.
When you refer to "our" argument, I will assume you mean the pro-life point of view. Let's try to look at this realistically. Pro-life advocates are the ones showing videos intended to shock and scare those into believing their ideology, as evidenced by the video posted in the previous article, where they show a montage of rather humorous aborted fetuses being prodded with tweezers next to quarters.
Pro-life advocates are the ones funding Crisis Pregnancy centers, which have the exact same aim - to scare those contemplating abortion into conforming to a certain ideology.
I agree is it's irrational, but it's exactly what advocates on your side do.
If I've misunderstood your use of the word "our", please elaborate.
5.d. “The best method to reduce abortions is an outline of the options available to women who don’t wish to keep the pregnancy.”
And we can see how effective that has been at reducing abortions.
Actually, we can. The countries that offer programs which outline all the choices that pregnant women have, rather than prohibiting certain decisions, are among those with the least abortions, despite having the highest sexually active adolescent population.
Consider a far more effective method: ban all abortions except for those related to rape, incest, the health of the mother or that of her unborn; according to the Guttmacher Institute, those comprise only 7% of all abortions.
We're brought back to the same broken point that you tried to assume earlier. It's fine if it falls into the criteria that you presented, but morally abhorrent in any other context. Not only that, you attempt to put forth that banning an action solves the problem that the action creates.
For example, smoking weed is illegal in most of the country, however, that does not stop people from doing it on a daily basis. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by banning 93% of abortions? Will that get rid of 93% of the problem?
No comments:
Post a Comment