Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

This is ironic, because . . .

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is ironic, because . . .



. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.



This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"



Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

QFC

(Quoted For Co-sign-worthiness)

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is ironic, because . . .



. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.

Nope. The appeal to authority is not a fallacy, because we are discussing the legal right to abortion, so appealing to federal law is not the same as appealing to the Bible, which would indeed qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority. The false dilemma is only false if you accept the idea that throughout the 40 weeks of pregnancy there is only one life - the mother's - in question. To do that would be begging the question. As you know, (sic) is used when the writer does not wish to have a mistake in a quote mistaken for one of his/her own. That is how I used it - how, pray tell, should (sic) be used? An ad hominem attack would be my attacking the poster instead of her ideas, which I don't do. QED


This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

The difference between the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" and "at what point does a 'fetus" constitute a 'person' in a legal sense" is so minor that I don't mind at all changing the question to that - so, at what point DO you think a 'fetus" constitutes a 'person" in a legal sense?



Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

I was careful to say that IF you believe there is a limit to abortion on demand THEREFORE you believe that there is a point at which the fetus is a person. If that is the case, then we ARE indeed on the same boat - we believe that there is a point before birth at which the fetus is a person with rights. I believe it is quite obvious that I'm not worried about being alone in my beliefs - but IF the above syllogism is true, then we do have at least some minor point of agreement from which we can have a productive discussion. If you don't believe that there is no point at which the fetus has rights, then you are correct. We have no beliefs in common. It is the failure of both sides to recognize possible areas of agreement that causes so much in the way of over-blown hyperbole, which does nothing to help anyone.

The legal reason? Because a fetus can never be anything but human. It cannot be a tree, or a puppy, or anything other than a human. Society believes that humans have certain rights - as Jefferson stated, life is one of those. If there is any question as to whether or not a human life is in jeopardy, I believe that the law should err on the side of conservation.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

The legal reason? Because a fetus can never be anything but human. It cannot be a tree, or a puppy, or anything other than a human. Society believes that humans have certain rights - as Jefferson stated, life is one of those. If there is any question as to whether or not a human life is in jeopardy, I believe that the law should err on the side of conservation.

This is where I think your logic falls apart. Not everyone would agree with the presumption that "a fetus can never be anything but a human." Some would say it is a potential human, but until viability/birth/some other identifiable time, it is not yet a human. That's what KSig RC was getting at when he said: "Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

This is where I think your logic falls apart. Not everyone would agree with the presumption that "a fetus can never be anything but a human." Some would say it is a potential human, but until viability/birth/some other identifiable time, it is not yet a human. That's what KSig RC was getting at when he said: "Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh? A potential human - is still human, is it not? I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun), how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did? Obviously, the results are far different here on our beloved GC. Also, is the point moot because fewer doctors are being trained in abortions, and there is less access to abortion in many parts of the country than there was 20 years ago? One point brought up with Tiller's murder was that it would have a major impact on the ability for women to have late term abortions.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh?A potential human - is still human, is it not? I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one.

It's only as harsh as telling someone they are going based on emotion and not logic and reasoning.

We've already discussed what a "potential human" can become.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun), how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did? Also, is the point moot because fewer doctors are being trained in abortions, and there is less access to abortion in many parts of the country than there was 20 years ago? One point brought up with Tiller's murder was that it would have a major impact on the ability for women to have late term abortions.

This is funny.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun),

Disagreeing does not equal piling on - you've staked out a position on what you think is rational/logical, especially in regards with when a fetus becomes a human, and people are disagreeing with portions of that argument.

That's a big part of the legal argument, and a big part of the various court opinions (and personal opinions, for that matter) that have shaped the issue. Is the fetus a person at x number of weeks? If so, does that mean that the mother should have a right to abort after that time? Where do the state's interests come in? Those are all questions that, at least in part, go back to the issue of the fetus/human distinction.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

As I said when this thread first began, it was a peaceful discourse because it was a surface level discourse about a poll. The tone changed when depth was added to the discourse.

And when people start acting like their backgrounds (legal, medical, logical, etc.) give them an intellectual "leg up" on everyone else in the discussion. It's an issue that touches so many different types of backgrounds that it can be easy for someone to claim an expertise that gives them more insight into the issue. At the end of the day, though, a person's expertise just gives perspective on one piece of the discussion.

I think AOIIAlum and MC went about it in a correct ways - she's a doctor (IIRC) and he's an attorney, and they could honestly have tried to own us all in this discussion. But, they gave their views, and didn't try to force their own experiences or viewpoints on anyone.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh?

If we're talking religious beliefs, quite possibly. If we're talking in term of legal definitions, no.

A potential human - is still human, is it not?

Again, from a legal standpoint I would have to say no; otherwise the word "potential" is surplusage It is a potential human, meaning it is capable of becoming human, but is not yet human.

I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it?

As I understand it, the Talmud would say it is an appendage of the mother and a being of "doubtful viability."

I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.

I think that what others have been saying is not that they disagree necessarily, but that given the fact that various religious or ethical perspectives can disagree on this (one traditional Hindu opinion is that a fetus becomes a person at 3 months), the law must rely on neutral/legal definitions of human. The question, then, is how is such a neutral principle to be decided on without appeal to religious or ethical authority. Many here have essentially expressed the opinion that viability provides that neutral principle. Why do you think it's more "rational" to say earlier? Simply saying "the fetus is a human" doesn't work -- the traditional Hindu view cited above would disagree, as, I think, would Exodus 21:22-23 and the Talmud. (Not that I mean to suggest that the Talmud supports abortion except in limited circumstances. It does not, but the position of traditional Judaism is not, as I understand it, based on the proposition that the fetus is a person prior to birth.)

ETA: Yes, I know I cited religious rather than neutral authority. I did so on purpose, because the reality is it is very hard to set one aside and focus on the other.

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun),

I thought we were discussing legal understandings, which is what you wanted, not piling on.

how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did?

I have. Twice.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did?

I haven't speculated on why the Gallup poll results came out the way they did because it would be just that - speculation.

Maybe it came out that way because the poll went from Thursday through Sunday, and the people polled had just been to church Wednesday night or Sunday morning when they received the call.

Maybe people who participated in tho poll had someone else in the room and, for fear of starting an argument with a loved one, said "Pro-life" instead of "pro-choice."

Maybe it came out the way it did because, for the first time in eight years, there is now a pro-choice POTUS, and pro-lifers feel the need to be more vocal than they had before.

Maybe it's because they had tacos for dinner.

Maybe it's just because they thought it'd be fun to press '1' for everything.

Who knows.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

A potential human - is still human, is it not? If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.

is a seed a tree? no. a fetus is not a human. it's a parasite. a potential human is something that is not yet human and thus not human.

[KSig RC]

Please learn how to quote properly; embeddding your responses is a massive pain in the ass to work with. Thanks!

Nope. The appeal to authority is not a fallacy, because we are discussing the legal right to abortion, so appealing to federal law is not the same as appealing to the Bible, which would indeed qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority. The false dilemma is only false if you accept the idea that throughout the 40 weeks of pregnancy there is only one life - the mother's - in question. To do that would be begging the question. As you know, (sic) is used when the writer does not wish to have a mistake in a quote mistaken for one of his/her own. That is how I used it - how, pray tell, should (sic) be used? An ad hominem attack would be my attacking the poster instead of her ideas, which I don't do. QED

This is exactly the OPPOSITE of QED. Wow.

OK - that's not at all how an appeal to authority works. You are appealing to authority by declaring an incorrect predicate for a "womens' rights" argument, then twisting the law into the argument even though it really doesn't address the argument in the slightest. You are appealing to authority by saying that a fetus must deserve rights because there is currently a Federal law on the books. This is not at all true, and even if we take it at face value, the causation connection should (at the least) run in the opposite direction - and, indeed, it sets up your false dilemma: the connection between 'dependent' and 'has rights' is fallacious, and the law itself makes distinctions and indicates multiple shades of gray. You are conflating issues that are not specifically or logically connected, then whitewashing it by saying "but we're talking about the law!" I can go into more detail if you'd like, but you are certainly going beyond the actual authority of Federal laws when making your claims, and they are not objectively true as a result.


You were (technically) using (sic) properly; you were, however, highlighting his typos, likely in an effort to discredit him as a result, which is a form of ad hominem attack. Attack the ideas, not the spelling - for real.

The difference between the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" and "at what point does a 'fetus" constitute a 'person' in a legal sense" is so minor that I don't mind at all changing the question to that - so, at what point DO you think a 'fetus" constitutes a 'person" in a legal sense?

It's not minor at all - you are improperly defining terms to suit your argument, and narrowing the focus makes the terminology (and thus discussion) less accurate.

I was careful to say that IF you believe there is a limit to abortion on demand THEREFORE you believe that there is a point at which the fetus is a person.

You did not say this. You should have.

The legal reason? Because a fetus can never be anything but human.

This is not specifically true. An egg is not a chicken. A tadpole is not a frog. A fetus becomes a human being at a certain point - that's the entire discussion.

If there is any question as to whether or not a human life is in jeopardy, I believe that the law should err on the side of conservation.

That's fine - it's just not a sound basis for law, I don't think.

I'll expound on this for you - you want to err on the side of caution in the law? Fine - but caution cannot come at the risk of unnecessarily limiting the options and rights of the population at large without a compelling interest.

The compelling interest here, as far as I can see, is "saving lives" - which requires you to determine that a fetus is a "human life" before it is medically viable, in order to fit your views. Why would a non-viable fetus be considered a human life? The only definitions that would allow this (that I can think of) are religion-based, or spiritual - that it has a "soul" or some other imbued property from conception. Since that is a craptacular basis for law, you have to use the best-available allowed standard: viability.

Now, come up with a compelling reason to use your definition of "life" (with evidence to support it) and I'm more than willing to consider it.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

OK - that's not at all how an appeal to authority works.

You were (technically) using (sic) properly;

This is an appeal to authority from a rhetorical standpoint:http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.htm

Perhaps we are using two totally different definitions, which would explain the problems in communication. I teach rhetoric - so that's my basis for using the term. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

We were discussing the legal status of unaborted fetuses/babies/collection of cells - my point is that the federal government has already, through the passage of law, determined that there are SOME rights which an unborn fetus has. They are limited, they are still subject to interpretation, and they fall into the "grey" area you reference, but still - it's not a twisting of the idea of women's rights, or a begging of the question. The statement was made that the whatever-you-wish-to-call-the-potential human has no "rights", and I was addressing that. And, of course, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is the ultimate word on the matter - we'd hardly have the interest in the appointment of Supreme Court justices if that were the case.

A chicken egg is not a good analogy - it needs only warmth and occasional turning to become a full-fledged chicken. Although the tadpole makes for a better one, the tadpole is a living thing, right? It's not quite a full-fledged frog, but it's certainly alive, so I don't know that it is an analogy which you really wish to use. Kill a tadpole and you have undoubtly killed something. I think (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that the argument for abortion on demand before viability is based on the idea that you are not "killing" a being seperate from the mother. Argument by analogy is always a little lacking, I think. The best analogy would be one using a mammal, and we hit the same wall - you regard viability as the determining factor for "mammalhood", and I still regard it as a mammal from the time of implantation.

Please note that I have not referenced a soul, or any religious belief in my discussion of my personal beliefs, although they form a part in my changing from pro-choice to pro-life. If you want a strictly medical take on my beliefs, I'd have to say that for me, if it has a heart beat, it is alive. If it is alive, it has to be SOMETHING; therefore, it must be determined what it is. AOIIAngel has correctly stated that the problem comes about when we use two different definitions for "human". For me, it is a human. Therefore, as a human, it has a right to live without anyone, not even the mother, taking away its life. I realize that this simply narrows it down the point of "humanhood" to about 6 weeks - before that, yes, as I've said, we've tread into far murkier ground.
As I've said, I believe that a pregnancy which will result in the loss of the life of the mother would be a valid excuse for abortion. I am still not happy at the idea of abortion at any time, but will admit that before there is a heartbeat it is much less clear-cut.

I've changed my mind once, and while I'm pretty sure I won't go back, I do have an honest and sincere interest in the thinking behind those who hold different views.

eta - and as an aside, I'd be perfectly happy to leave the subject up to the states to determine. But that a whole 'nother political discussion.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

And, of course, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is the ultimate word on the matter - we'd hardly have the interest in the appointment of Supreme Court justices if that were the case.

I think this is a slightly different issue, and for a number of reasons, I don't think the abortion question has any place in the debate over a SCOTUS justice (despite the fact that it's one of the most talked about issues). But, again, that's a whole other issue.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

A chicken egg is not a good analogy - it needs only warmth and occasional turning to become a full-fledged chicken. Although the tadpole makes for a better one, the tadpole is a living thing, right? It's not quite a full-fledged frog, but it's certainly alive, so I don't know that it is an analogy which you really wish to use. Kill a tadpole and you have undoubtly killed something. I think (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that the argument for abortion on demand before viability is based on the idea that you are not "killing" a being seperate from the mother. Argument by analogy is always a little lacking, I think. The best analogy would be one using a mammal, and we hit the same wall - you regard viability as the determining factor for "mammalhood", and I still regard it as a mammal from the time of implantation.

You are taking the analogy too far.

Is killing a tadpole, frog, etc. the same thing, from a legal standpoint, the same as killing a person? You're taking the comparison too far - in fact, that's kind of a running theme in this discussion to date. I'm not using "killing" as part of the analogy at all - the argument, put more simply, is this:

1. You introduced "potential human" as an analog for "actual human"
2. You claim that a fetus is a "potential" human, thus it is a "human"
3. There are multiple examples of transformations that help to illustrate that a "potential" human is not the same as a "human".

Don't read anything more into it.

Besides this, you haven't at all addressed the key issue here, although you touch on it here:

Please note that I have not referenced a soul, or any religious belief in my discussion of my personal beliefs, although they form a part in my changing from pro-choice to pro-life.

I'm not 'accusing' you of doing this, I'm simply saying that it is basically implicit in using any definition other than medical viability (yes, even using your "heartbeat" standard below).

If you want a strictly medical take on my beliefs, I'd have to say that for me, if it has a heart beat, it is alive. If it is alive, it has to be SOMETHING; therefore, it must be determined what it is. AOIIAngel has correctly stated that the problem comes about when we use two different definitions for "human". For me, it is a human. Therefore, as a human, it has a right to live without anyone, not even the mother, taking away its life. I realize that this simply narrows it down the point of "humanhood" to about 6 weeks - before that, yes, as I've said, we've tread into far murkier ground.
As I've said, I believe that a pregnancy which will result in the loss of the life of the mother would be a valid excuse for abortion. I am still not happy at the idea of abortion at any time, but will admit that before there is a heartbeat it is much less clear-cut.

OK - you've selected an incredibly arbitrary standard, but that's no different than any other completely arbitrary standard (including medical viability). I can definitely respect the choice, even if I completely disagree with it ("It has a heartbeat! People have heartbeats! It's a person!" seems very loose to me - almost reductive - but I don't really have an issue with it if that's what you want to use).

That's one of the key problems with any real substantive abortion discussion, and that's the impasse.