Amazing! A baby survives being born at 22 weeks.

[dazzlingamy]

I've been away a few days, so its taken me a while to read up on everything, but there is this line of thought that i seriously think a lot of "pro lifers" are wrong about and taking up from Angela Harlems post, most (if not all!) people who support a womans right to choose is just that - we support a womans right to CHOOSE. We acknowledge that surprise! peoples situations differ, things happen in other peoples lives that you have no right over. Not every person who has an abortion is some whore who slutted herself around and uses it as a form of birth control. We arn't these glinting murderous witches cackling in our glee at the "murder" of babies, but women who care for other women (and men) and understand that sometimes situations are dire enough to not be a great position for a baby to be born in. We don't live in a uniform world where people live exactly alike. No one has any idea about every single circumstance to be able to broadly paint the whole picture.

Do you actually understand the consequences of making abortion illegal? No only will backyard abortions take place, but there is no proper support structure in place to help with these unwanted babies. Adoption isn't an "easy" solution a lot of pain and hurt happens with adopted people and their families, a lot of emotions to deal with etc, that its not the happy easy flippant remark people seem to think it is, and for the people who cannot give a child up for adoption - where is their help? The us has a horrible welfare program, some countries don't even have welfare - and in this world where the gap between the have and the have nots grows wider - what is going to become of all these extra children born into a world where they are a financial strain etc. Where are the answers to this?

The world isn't black and white, and neither is this argument.

 

[AEON]

The world isn't black and white, and neither is this argument.

Yet, you are black and white about the "right" to choose.

Choice, in and of itself, is not a right. For instance, I have no legal right to choose to blow my neigbor's brains out, even if he is annoying (which he is not, this is just an example).

 

[pgv]

Yet, you are black and white about the "right" to choose.

But the whole point is with the right to choose, you have the right to choose which decision is best for the circumstances.

dazzlingamy, I agreed 100% with your post

 

[Irvine511]

Yet, you are black and white about the "right" to choose.

Choice, in and of itself, is not a right. For instance, I have no legal right to choose to blow my neigbor's brains out, even if he is annoying (which he is not, this is just an example).

its far more black-and-white to think that a zygote is the same thing as a 45 year old man.

 

[AEON]

its far more black-and-white to think that a zygote is the same thing as a 45 year old man.

Sort of like:

If the baby hasn't been born - no human rights
If the baby has been born - then human rights

 

[pgv]

Sort of like:

If the baby hasn't been born - no human rights
If the baby has been born - then human rights

I wouldn't say that a foetus that hasn't been born has no human rights, its just when it is still inside the mother her rights over ride the rights of the foetus.

 

[BVS]

Sort of like:

If the baby hasn't been born - no human rights
If the baby has been born - then human rights

And if you're a Republican it's the complete opposite.

 

[maycocksean]

Have you ever seen a Pro-Choice Parade? They are usually part of larger parades - like Women's Rights. These women (mostly women) are very adamant on their stance of "my body, my choice."

It is also on many bumper stickers here in the SF Bay Area. The attitude is very hostile about preserving this "right to privacy."

My point is this - it is a lie. It is not a matter of a right to privacy and it is not a matter of a cute little slogan "my body, my choice." It is a matter of life and death and it is serious.

Sean, you have your own style of persuasion and I have mine. While I know I sometimes offend those entirely opposed to my views, I also know that my extreme examples that display flaws in thinking have helped people "come off the fence" on several different issues, this one included. I know this because of PM's, e-mails, and the people I've met and had discussions with my entire life.

Am I master spreaker/writer? No. By no means. I admit that you, Yolland, Melon, A_W and most others are far more gifted writers than I am. But I do think I have a somewhat decent ability to expose social lunacy - and marching for the right to have an abortion is social lunacy.

A lie indicates that someone knows the truth but is intentionally misleading people away from the truth. To state that the "right to privacy" is a lie is to assume that those who support it are knowingly supporting murder. Reading this thread and the previous one it should be quite clear that those who oppose banning abortion are not knowingly supporting murder. Either they don't believe they are actually killing a human being and/or they feel that the life and health of the mother should come before that of the child.

My post was not a referendum on your writing/speaking ability. You articulate your positions quite well.

However, I do have an issue with your persuasion style as you call it. The "extreme rhetoric" as you describe it, does indeed pull people off the fence, but in a way, that I believe is disingenous. For example calling women who have abortions "murderers." Such terminology hits you in the gut, and yes, can be very persuasive. It is sympotmatic of a type of hyperbolic, confrontational discourse that is becoming more and more common on both the left and right. It's about people being swayed because something "feels true" rather than whether it is. "Truthiness" I think they call it?

There's a line in the movie "Thank You For Smoking" where the main character tells his son, "You don't have to be right, you just have to have a better argument than the other guy." I think you're an intelligent enough guy that you don't have to resort to this kind of arguing to make your case.

 

[AEON]

There's a line in the movie "Thank You For Smoking" where the main character tells his son, "You don't have to be right, you just have to have a better argument than the other guy." I think you're an intelligent enough guy that you don't have to resort to this kind of arguing to make your case.

Dictionary.com

LIE - noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

In my opinion, any of these definitions fit the Pro-Choice movement. Especially #3.

And as far your line from the movie, while it sounds witty and convincing - I'd rather be right than simply have a better argument. My goal in these forums is to try and put the truth out there in simple logic (sometimes with extreme conclusions) and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Angela Harlem]

You're not right.

 

[trevster2k]

AEON, what gives you the right to tell others who think the personal choice of choosing an abortion is a right to privacy or agree with the concept of "my body, my choice" is a lie? You think it is a lie. This view is not by your definition from the dictionary a lie. Because you don't agree with the position of these people doesn't mean they are liars. I don't agree with religious people of most stripes but I don't think they are liars. They believe what they believe, it is a personal thing.

Regarding cutesy slogans, I don't think people would like the slogan "Mind Your Own Fucking Business" and it might not fit on a bumper sticker.

 

[maycocksean]

Dictionary.com

LIE - noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

In my opinion, any of these definitions fit the Pro-Choice movement. Especially #3.

Based on the discussion thus far, the most you could argue for is definition number three, but the reality is that most people, especially those fence sitters you mentioned earlier will assume you mean definition one or two when you call pro-choice people "liars." Because those are the definitons we're generally referring to when we call someone as a liar. And as Trevster ably pointed out, calling someone a liar just because they don't arrive at the same conclusions as you is unfair.

And as far your line from the movie, while it sounds witty and convincing - I'd rather be right than simply have a better argument. My goal in these forums is to try and put the truth out there in simple logic (sometimes with extreme conclusions) and let the chips fall where they may.

But that's just it. You are taking the "better argument" route, i.e. using heavily loaded (and inaccurate, but never mind that) words like "murderer" and "liar" that are emotionally persuasive (but not necessarily true,but never mind that) at the gut level, knocking them "off the fence." I'm not saying it's not effective. It is. But I just think you're better than that. In fact, I know you are.

 

[AEON]

Based on the discussion thus far, the most you could argue for is definition number three, but the reality is that most people, especially those fence sitters you mentioned earlier will assume you mean definition one or two when you call pro-choice people "liars." Because those are the definitons we're generally referring to when we call someone as a liar. And as Trevster ably pointed out, calling someone a liar just because they don't arrive at the same conclusions as you is unfair.



But that's just it. You are taking the "better argument" route, i.e. using heavily loaded (and inaccurate, but never mind that) words like "murderer" and "liar" that are emotionally persuasive (but not necessarily true,but never mind that) at the gut level, knocking them "off the fence." I'm not saying it's not effective. It is. But I just think you're better than that. In fact, I know you are.

I suppose we just have to respectfully agree to disagree. We have different opinions of what is true and what is effective.

 

[anitram]

I'm not saying it's not effective. It is.

No, it isn't.

The only people who will be swayed by these outrageous statements are other like-minded folks who already agree with his view.

Nobody else will even want to enter a discussion.

 

[maycocksean]

No, it isn't.

The only people who will be swayed by these outrageous statements are other like-minded folks who already agree with his view.

Nobody else will even want to enter a discussion.

I disagree. And AEON himself provides the evidence of that. Fence sitters, especially those who don't want to think too hard, who haven't "made up their minds" can be swayed by these tactics.

It's no accident that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and all the rest are so successful. A lot of people hear what they say, and think "wow, that sounds really true." And they buy it.

 

[anitram]

These are people who were pre-disposed to believing it in the first place.

It depends on your definition of a fence-sitter. If you are "undecided" but everything about you, your personality and your beliefs indicates you will sway AEON's way, of course his words can push you. These people will just be hearing what they've wanted to hear in the first place.

For everyone else, they won't. They'll only make the person more hostile.

 

[maycocksean]

I suppose we just have to respectfully agree to disagree. We have different opinions of what is true and what is effective.

Yes, we have different opinions about what is true, but that's not what you're saying in your arguments. Your arguments imply that pro-choice people actually agree with you on what is true, but choose to lie about it so they can go on their nefarious way.

We do agree on what is effective. We both agree that the tactics you're using ARE effective. Hitting below the belt, after all, is very effective. It's just low.

 

[trevster2k]

These are people who were pre-disposed to believing it in the first place.

It depends on your definition of a fence-sitter. If you are "undecided" but everything about you, your personality and your beliefs indicates you will sway AEON's way, of course his words can push you. These people will just be hearing what they've wanted to hear in the first place.

For everyone else, they won't. They'll only make the person more hostile.

Are you learning this in law school? Dirty lawyer tricks!!

 

[maycocksean]

These are people who were pre-disposed to believing it in the first place.

It depends on your definition of a fence-sitter. If you are "undecided" but everything about you, your personality and your beliefs indicates you will sway AEON's way, of course his words can push you. These people will just be hearing what they've wanted to hear in the first place.

For everyone else, they won't. They'll only make the person more hostile.

Mmmmm. . .maybe. I'm not fully convinced. But I see how that could be true.

I still think the tactics encourage lazy thinking.

 

[AEON]

I disagree. And AEON himself provides the evidence of that. Fence sitters, especially those who don't want to think too hard, who haven't "made up their minds" can be swayed by these tactics.

It's no accident that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and all the rest are so successful. A lot of people hear what they say, and think "wow, that sounds really true." And they buy it.

Not everyone who agrees with Pro-Life arguments is a drone or is someone refusing to think hard. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. The extreme examples are meant to make you think - to shake up preconceptions.

In all of the responses to my posts, I didn't see one that successfully refuted the logic in my arguments.

 

[maycocksean]

Not everyone who agrees with Pro-Life arguments is a drone or is someone refusing to think hard. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. The extreme examples are meant to make you think - to shake up preconceptions.

In all of the responses to my posts, I didn't see one that successfully refuted the logic in my arguments.

AEON, AEON. . .it's not your logic I take issue with.

And I certainly don't think that all pro-lifers are refusing to think hard or are drones. You're clearly a smart guy and so are the other posters who are representing a pro-life stance.

My issue is with tactics. . .these tactics could be--and have been--used just as well by the left. For example framing all opponents of abortion as "wanting to take away women's control over their own bodies" is just as disingenous and I disagree with that too.

My issue is with using hot-button words like "murder" and "liar" that automatically frame the issue in a way that is advantageous to you.

Maybe anitram is right. . .maybe it is that fence-sitters where jump over to whichever side they're already inclined towards, and maybe that's the problem in the abortion debate. Both sides are aiming squarely at the fence-sitters, trying to get them over to their side rather than engaging in genuine discussion with their "dyed in the wool" opponents--a discussion that could begin with something as simple as this--"Can we all agree that we don't want abortions to happen."

But this common ground seems to avoided like the plague by both sides.

Why?

 

[AEON]

But this common ground seems to avoided like the plague by both sides.

Why?

Not sure. I think stories like the one that started this thread puts a real human face on "the right to choose." I'm not sure why the Women's Rights groups are so ardently Pro Choice. It seems this baby girl would certainly benefit from a few rights thrown her way.

The bottom line of this issue is this - if you are someone who truly believes this is the murder of innocent life - then there isn't much room for compromise. Yet, even I am willing to compromise (allowing morning after pill for instance) if it means saving millions of lives.

 

[Liesje]

It seems this baby girl would certainly benefit from a few rights thrown her way.

How so? I don't remember reading that the mom was planning on aborting her or refusing her treatment.

I don't think this baby really helps your cause at all because abortion was never in the picture. However, I DO know of a true story that you might like. A biology prof at my college/work wrote an article for a Christmas edition of the news part of our website. The story went like this, it was actually because a student had given him a letter after a unit on embryos and fetuses. The letter explained that years ago, her mom had been in the same class with him, studying the same unit. At the time, she was pregnant and fearing the stigma of being unwed and still in college, had already decided to abort the baby. Then, during biology lab, the professor showed the class his collection of preserved embryos and fetuses at various stages of development. She could see what the baby inside her looked like at that time and right then decided she would not have an abortion. The letter was from the girl (the baby), thanking the professor for doing this lesson because otherwise she would not be there to learn it.

 

[Irvine511]

Not sure. I think stories like the one that started this thread puts a real human face on "the right to choose." I'm not sure why the Women's Rights groups are so ardently Pro Choice. It seems this baby girl would certainly benefit from a few rights thrown her way.

\

i can't say this any more clearly.

this is a BORN, VIABLE infant. how did it achieve that status? it was BORN because her mother wanted her to be BORN her mother didn't terminate the pregnancy in the first trimester when she was a zygote, read: NOT born, not a baby, not a person.

now, we can argue all we want about what a zygote is, what rights it gets, how those rights may or may not trump the rights of the breathing mother, but let's not say that a 22 week old BORN baby is the same thing as a zygote.

 

[AEON]

but let's not say that a 22 week old BORN baby is the same thing as a zygote.

What about a 22 week old unborn baby? Is that the same as a zygote?

 

[Angela Harlem]

oh my god.

 

[pgv]

oh my god.

I second that.


Aeon, first you say 'let's agree to disagree' and then you accuse all pro-choice of not 'thinking hard enough.'
I really can't bear to read any of your posts anymore, this thread is going nowhere.

 

[AEON]

I second that.


Aeon, first you say 'let's agree to disagree' and then you accuse all pro-choice of not 'thinking hard enough.'
I really can't bear to read any of your posts anymore, this thread is going nowhere.

I don't think you read the discussion between maycocksean and I close enough.

And while I disagree with many of the posts in many of threads - I still read them and, believe it or not, try to understand why they take the stance they do - even if I consider it false or illogical. I am not ashamed to say that I've had my mind changed a few times in here.

I think the question I posed to Irvine is a valid one. I think it deserves more than a "Oh My God" and a "I second that and I can't stand reading your posts." The best answer I seem to get is "22 week abortions don't happen that often so stop worrying about it." Yolland suggested a compromise that abortions should be illegal after 12 weeks. Again, it seems that others still take the stance "it doesn't happen that often so stop worrying about it." Well, there are a lot of horrible things in this world that don't happen that often and yet remain illegal. Infrequency isn't a valid reason to keep something legal. That's one point I’m trying to make.

Irvine also states that a baby only achieves "status" after she is born, regardless of age. Does that mean someone could have a legal, non-medical-emergency abortion at nine months? I'm not asking how often this happens – I’m asking should it be legal to have it happen at all, even if only once? Does the “right to privacy” extend all the way until the very second before birth? These are valid questions.

 

[Butterscotch]

Where is the 'right to privacy' in the constitution, and if it's there, why doesn't it include things like consuming illegal drugs in your own home, or sex with minors, or donkeys? If that's all Roe V. Wade stands on, it's hard to believe it was ever approved. What it comes down to is that people want to get rid of babies and people want to let them, all political, legal and religious stuff aside. That has to be what it is, it doesn't make sense otherwise.

 

[Irvine511]

I think the question I posed to Irvine is a valid one. I think it deserves more than a "Oh My God" and a "I second that and I can't stand reading your posts." The best answer I seem to get is "22 week abortions don't happen that often so stop worrying about it." Yolland suggested a compromise that abortions should be illegal after 12 weeks. Again, it seems that others still take the stance "it doesn't happen that often so stop worrying about it." Well, there are a lot of horrible things in this world that don't happen that often and yet remain illegal. Infrequency isn't a valid reason to keep something legal. That's one point I’m trying to make.

for fuck's sake AEON. it's been stated OVER AND OVER that nearly all abortions that happen in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters are done for MEDICAL REASONS which is why it remains legal.

Irvine also states that a baby only achieves "status" after she is born, regardless of age. Does that mean someone could have a legal, non-medical-emergency abortion at nine months? I'm not asking how often this happens – I’m asking should it be legal to have it happen at all, even if only once? Does the “right to privacy” extend all the way until the very second before birth? These are valid questions.

yes, someone does retain that legal right, and this is an area where some common ground could be achieved, HOWEVER, how the stated agenda of pro-life groups has always been to chip away at abortion rights, a classic "give an inch, take a mile" example, which is why pro-choice people dig their heels in, even at the theoretical 9 months and no medical necessity situation. it is here where we could indeed reach some agreement.

and if you say, "well, what's the difference between 9 months and 7 months, between 7 months and 5 months, between 5 months and 3 months, between 3 months and 3 weeks," then you've precisely validated the pro-choice conerns.

basically, the loudest elements of the pro-life/anti-choice movements have shown no willingness to compromise, so you get intransigence on the other side.