Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Strange? Eh. Maybe. But too often everything is painted in terms of black and white that leave no room for the grey areas - and that's where I want to start. Not "NO ABORTIONS EVER!", nor "ABORTIONS WHENEVER!" but at "This is the point beyond which we can agree to no abortion on demand." (If we introduce the whole life of the mother/rape/incest thing, we'll derail again). Having established a point of agreement, then it's easier (I would hope) to work on things like helping each group work towards eliminating much of the NEED for abortion - something I hope everyone would get behind and support.

This discussion is circular now.

While some people believe in a NEVER and a WHENEVER with no exceptions, most people realize that life is much more complex than that. ETA: Even if they won't admit it because they want to present themselves in a particular light.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

eta - and I'm missing the humor in referencing the original point of the thread, and whether or not there is a de facto limitation of abortion access. Ha ha? I've also somehow missed what it is that a fetus/potential human can become other than a human.

I find your attempts to direct the discussion funny.

Yeah, it wasn't fetus, but we discussed what happens if the embryo does not develop into a fetus. Is an embryo also a potential human? When does potential human begin?

Those are rhetoricals.

[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.

[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.

[SWTXBelle]

It's not recognizing my message, so here goes -

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This discussion is circular now.

While some people believe in a NEVER and a WHENEVER with no exceptions, most people realize that life is much more complex than that.
That was my point, which I've made several times, to no avail. YES of course it is - and that's why trying to paint me into a corner with NEVER, or assuming that those who consider themselves pro-choice are in another corner with WHENEVER is counter productive.



I find your attempts to direct the discussion funny. As the op, I felt I had a right to try and get back to something closer to the original purpose of the thread. I realize there is a certain irony to my doing so due to the fact that the derailing came about to a certain extent because I clarified and tried to defend my beliefs when asked and/or challenged. I certainly didn't intend to become the pro-life poster child. I responded because I hate the fact that often the two most extreme sides are the ones which get media attention, and that as someone who is "pro-life" but not an extremist I am sometimes the only one to explain why the many who think like I do have the opinions we do. Because I was once "pro-choice", I think I am more sympathetic to that whole belief system than some, and can recognize that they are usually not absolutists, but instead are on a spectrum of support for legal abortion. (A point I have tried but fear I have failed to make.)

But I'm glad to have amused you.

Yeah, it wasn't fetus, but we discussed what happens if the embryo does not develop into a fetus. Is an embryo also a potential human? When does potential human begin?

Those are rhetoricals.

eta - just saw your response, MC. Yes, you have - sorry not to have recognized that.
And KSig - "piling on" was used as a bit of hyperbole- see, I need that tongue in cheek smiley again!

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I believe "partial birth" is a particular procedure used for late term abortions, but that there are other methods (depending on how late we are talking).

Even the use of the term "partial-birth" is a term created for political purposes and doesn't reflect what happens medically; in fact, the term has been used to describe several types of late-term abortion.

[SWTXBelle]

Okay, "pro-choicers" - are you at all concerned that this shift in thinking (the fact that many more label themselves "pro-life" than in the past) will result in a de facto limitation of access to abortion? If so, what if anything do you think should be done?

[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

Once more into the breech -



So you DO believe that the right to abortion should only extend until the point of viability - 24 weeks on? Again, that's a starting point for rational discussion.

it is really a parasite until it's born. the fetus cannot live without the mother and that is the text book definition of what a parasite is. yes, the woman's rights will and should outweigh to a degree those of that which is living off of her.

i'll err on the side of the medical profession. 24 weeks sounds good to me.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Okay, "pro-choicers" - are you at all concerned that this shift in thinking (the fact that many more label themselves "pro-life" than in the past) will result in a de facto limitation of access to abortion? If so, what if anything do you think should be done?

no. because for the last 10 years, the majority of this "poll" has been pro-choice. this could be a valid "shift" or it could be an aberration and/or faulty sample. i wouldn't get excited over the results of one poll. and no, i wouldn't worry about it even if it was a valid shift, because i'd prefer the woman i'm dealing with to not have an abortion, anyway.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

Originally Posted by SydneyK

For most unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, I would agree with this statement. In the case of pregnancies where birth defects aren't detected until the second or third trimester, however, I can't really blame the woman for not "getting it together" enough to have had an abortion earlier.

It's easy, in conversations like this, to forget that it isn't just unwed young women who are having abortions. (General observation - not directed at you, AOII Angel.)

I think you missed the part of my post that I quoted above, Sydney K.

[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.

[AOII Angel]

I think the problem with the "human" or "potential human" debate is that people are using two definitions of what is "human." If you mean a "human" as in the species, then yes, a fetus is a human and can only become a human. If, however, you mean that a fetus is human because it has the traits one associates with "humanity," i.e. a more esoteric definition, then "potential human" is accurate. In the end, whether or not the fetus is part of the human species does not change the fact that it cannot survive outside the mother before the point of viability (and even then is just a parasite of a ventilator until 28-29 weeks.)

[KSig RC]

Also, polling on this issue is notoriously shitty - in one classic survey, 54% of the population noted they were "pro-life" while 60% said they were against limiting first-trimester abortions. The lobbying terminology (the equally-douchey "pro-life" and "pro-choice") serve to confuse the issue, as well.

I wouldn't consider this at all a solid indicator of overall views, nor the population's leaning, nor would I even begin to consider it as a basis for current abortion policies.