It is nice to see a video not made by the fetus-fetish crowd. Who thought that bodily autonomy for women would be such a radical idea?
Your opinions…
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- 'Too much regulation, not enough action': Carney rebuffs Trudeau's climate policies
- ‘No respect for anything’: Life in the shadows of a Mexican cartel war
- In the trades, apprentices are increasing, but not enough are making it to certification
- Winter blues got you down? Here’s what experts say could help
- Rage-baiting the slop: Why are the words of the year so weird?
- Air Canada court battle and the sky high price of RAM: CBC's Marketplace cheat sheet
- These grocery items are on the naughty list as food prices keep climbing
- Somalis say foreign ships are stealing their fish, and it's fuelling a piracy resurgence
- Thousands gather at Bondi Beach to mourn victims of antisemitic attack
- ‘The Nazis were right': What the leaders of Canada’s biggest ‘nationalist’ group really want
Posts I Like
Blogs I Follow
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
22 comments
December 28, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Neil
Fetus fetish? How does wanting to protect innocent human beings from being crushed and dismembered qualify as a fetish? Seems like a noble thing to me.
You must be one of those anti-science people. After all, it is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq . Their location is irrelevant to their value.
And since you’ll probably try the “pro-women” card next, keep in mind that virtually all gender selection abortions are done to kill females for the sole reason that they are female. Seems kinda misogynistic to me. And go research how many women are pressured into having abortions. Some choice.
And if you agree with the canard that pro-lifers don’t care about the unborn after they are born, answer me this: If the gov’t wanted to reduce homelessness by destroying homeless people, would you have a “homeless fetish” and be a raging hypocrite if you protested that but weren’t willing to house them all yourself? More here — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/pro-lifrs-dont-care-about-kids-after-they-are-born/
Cheers!
LikeLike
December 28, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Neil
P.S. To state what should be obvious, how about some bodily autonomy for the unborn? Remember, it is a scientific fact that they are human beings. All the pro-abort arguments about “personhood” are philosophical, not scientific, and would justify infanticide as well.
LikeLike
December 28, 2010 at 2:33 pm
The Arbourist
Remember, it is a scientific fact that they are human beings.
Yep, that’s nice. Human beings in a specific situation that certainly they are human, but no they do not have personhood since well, they are not born. Therefore, like any dependent free-rider, it is only on the largess of the host that they survive.
LikeLike
December 28, 2010 at 2:43 pm
The Arbourist
How does wanting to protect innocent human beings from being crushed and dismembered qualify as a fetish?
Oh but we’re all evil at birth Neil. No innocence allowed. Anyhow, the state has nothing to say about women’s choice when it comes to their body.
virtually all gender selection abortions are done to kill females for the sole reason that they are female. Seems kinda misogynistic to me.
Duh… Welcome to the Patriarchy. But hey, please continue to campaign to take reproductive rights away from females under the banner of ‘pushing back misogyny’.
If the gov’t wanted to reduce homelessness by destroying homeless people
Foetuses are not equivalent to the homeless. Analogy fail.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 8:02 am
Neil
“Personhood” = elusive philosophical concept, not a scientific fact. Pro-choice “ethicist” Peter Singer from Princeton thinks it begins at 6 months and that you should be able to kill infants until then. Not sure why he picked 6 months. Do you agree with him? According to your definition, they are dependent free riders.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 8:09 am
Neil
LOL. So you are conflating original sin with capital crimes? You obviously don’t believe in original sin, but even if you did do you think that would justify killing people outside the womb? Wow, you must be super-duper pro-capital punishment.
“the state has nothing to say about women’s choice when it comes to their body.”
Try to go one sentence without begging the question. As with nearly 100% of pro-abort arguments, you ignore the other body in the equation (sometimes male, sometimes female). Seriously, go round up all your sound bites and see what I mean. Try to find one that doesn’t ignore the humanity of the unborn. How about giving the unborn an opportunity to control his / her body?
“Duh… Welcome to the Patriarchy”
You say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is bad, of course, but in your “they aren’t persons” philosophy you can’t even pretend it is a bad thing.
“campaign to take reproductive rights away”
I don’t follow. That sounds like you think I’m keeping women from being able to reproduce. What they do with their reproduction is their business. I’m just about protecting the human beings they have already reproduced. I repeat: They have already reproduced. The unborn are human beings, albeit small ones.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 8:15 am
Neil
“If the gov’t wanted to reduce homelessness by destroying homeless people
Foetuses are not equivalent to the homeless. Analogy fail.”
Nice try, but let’s not leave that topic just yet. If they were equivalent to the homeless an analogy wouldn’t be necessary. For this illustration they are similar. Pro-aborts claim that we have a “fetus fetish” or some similar pejorative as if we don’t care about those outside the womb.
My illustration simply addresses the consistency argument: Do you have to be willing to take complete responsibility for human beings you are trying to protect? Can you protest the abuse of the homeless, spouses, children or pets without having to care for them all? (As noted in the link, pro-lifers do a great deal with their own time and money to help women and families in need. I’m just pointed out how fallacious the pro-abort argument is).
Again I ask a simple question: If the gov’t wanted to reduce homelessness by destroying homeless people, would you have a “homeless fetish” and be a raging hypocrite if you protested that but weren’t willing to house them all yourself?
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 8:27 am
Neil
Scanning your site is interesting. You seem to reflexively use two self-defeating arguments:
“Bodily autonomy” — it ignores the bodily autonomy of the human being that is going to be crushed and dismembered. Your argument would only work if it wasn’t a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from conception. (The personhood argument is a heaping does of philosophical FAIL, but even if it wasn’t you commit another fallacy by equivocating between body and personhood).
“Reproductive rights” — uh, they already reproduced a human being (there’s that pesky scientific fact again).
If you are going to stay with your pro-abort views you should try some new arguments. Every time you use those it is an act of self-parody.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 11:46 am
The Arbourist
Your argument would only work if it wasn’t a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from conception.
They are potential human beings. You get a lot of mileage out of a unrealistic interpretation of scientific fact, which you wave about attempting to make your case against women. Considering your other views of scientific facts; evolution, abiogenesis etc. I would propose that you have cherry-picked this particular “fact” out of realistic context and have used it to bastion your own particular set of beliefs.
So, hey that is great that human cells produce human offspring. But calling a blastocyst or an embryo a human being is inaccurate, which you deliberately and continuously overlook in your argumentation. Whether out of intellectual dishonesty or fervent belief or whatever is tickling your cerebral cortex; it is a flawed line of reasoning that is less than useful when it comes to this particular debate.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 12:15 pm
The Arbourist
Pro-aborts claim that we have a “fetus fetish” or some similar pejorative as if we don’t care about those outside the womb.
My interpretation of the fetus fetish label is that the focus of your attention and care is on the fetus, as opposed to the fully formed and functional woman who may or may not have made the choice to get pregnant in the first place. So as to this other bit about caring for the baby once it is born, a significant risk to the mother, seems to be another way you could interpret that particular label.
Do you have to be willing to take complete responsibility for human beings you are trying to protect?
What you seem to be focusing on is the idea that the pro-choice side highlights their conception of the pro-life argumentation that the pro-life argument is all about the fetus, and once being born drops away to nothing, mission accomplished. How many pro-life rallies take place at adoption clinics? The focus is primarily, at least on the other sides point of view, on shaming and scaring women out of having abortions or other reproductive services. So one can see where choice advocates could get that particular idea that you are arguing against.
Again, homelessness and abortion do not fit well together one is a social ill and the other is dealing with the rights of women, making inaccurate comparisons does not gain points for either side.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 12:36 pm
The Arbourist
They have already reproduced. The unborn are human beings, albeit small ones.
And that is where we differ. We do not treat acorns like oak trees, just like we do not treat blastocysts like adult human beings. I can see where you argue about consistent treatment of human beings in whatever generative state they are in, I get that. The argument though, does not resonate with me, as I do not like trying to bask in the shade of acorns as it is rather time consuming (and lumpy).
Women are responsible for their body and its contents, their right to choose what goes on their body supersedes any claims by the contents of her body.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Neil
“we do not treat blastocysts like adult human beings.”
If it is a human blastocyst then it is a human being (human zygote, human embryo, human baby, human teen, etc.).
We also don’t treat toddlers like adults. The question is whether human beings at any stage of development deserve protection from being killed for the reasons given for 99% of abortions (unwanted, wrong sex, can’t afford her, etc.).
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Neil
“They are potential human beings.”
Then have a potential abortion. Seriously, you are on the wrong side of science. They aren’t potential, they exist. They are just at a particular stage of development.
“You get a lot of mileage out of a unrealistic interpretation of scientific fact, which you wave about attempting to make your case against women.”
What is unrealistic about noting that they are human beings at a particular stage of development?
Notice how you are using an unfounded personal attack in claiming that I’m anti-women. I know that gets a lot of mileage in pro-abort circles but I can spot it from a mile away. I am on the board of a crisis pregnancy center. All the employees and most of the volunteers are women. I suppose you think they are self-hating?
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Neil
“I would propose that you have cherry-picked this particular “fact” out of realistic context and have used it to bastion your own particular set of beliefs.”
Please explain how a completely accurate scientific description of the object in question wouldn’t be central to the discussion.
“But calling a blastocyst or an embryo a human being is inaccurate, which you deliberately and continuously overlook in your argumentation.”
That’s not what those pesky embryology textbooks say — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq (not to mention many pro-abort leaders who concede that point).
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Neil
“My interpretation of the fetus fetish label is that the focus of your attention and care is on the fetus, as opposed to the fully formed and functional woman who may or may not have made the choice to get pregnant in the first place.”
But why the pejorative about it being a fetish, unless you aren’t dealing with facts and just want to use personal attacks to advance your agenda?
I do lots of ministries, but I don’t look down on other people who choose different causes to support. We can’t do everything because we have limited time and funds. But I don’t say that “save the rainforest” people have a “forest fetish” just because I’d rather be doing prison ministry or something else.
Again, the focus is on the fetus in this discussion because she is the one who gets destroyed.
“How many pro-life rallies take place at adoption clinics?”
I’m not sure. If you protests then I’d say they would be superfluous. We partner with them to help save lives.
“Again, homelessness and abortion do not fit well together one is a social ill and the other is dealing with the rights of women, making inaccurate comparisons does not gain points for either side.”
Again, my question is whether one can protest a social ill without having to take full responsibility for it.
And again, I’ll point out that pro-lifers want to save lives of the unborn and help the women. I’d love for you to have a tour of a crisis pregnancy center. For no cost, women get free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, diapers, formula, life skills classes, clothes and more. We share the gospel if they wish to hear it but they get the same care regardless (we just had a Muslim couple come in who really appreciated the help).
There are more pregnancy centers than abortion clinics. Ours is run 100% on donations.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Neil
“Women are responsible for their body and its contents, their right to choose what goes on their body supersedes any claims by the contents of her body.”
Legally, that is currently true. But morally? Do you really think that until the cord is cut that any child should be able to be destroyed for any reason? All your claims of bodily autonomy should apply to any body, anywhere. Why is the location different?
Sorry for the deluge of comments! Thanks for the charitable discussion.
Peace,
Neil
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Neil
P.S. And we provide post-abortion trauma counseling, for a very real and very serious problem. It has done amazing, life transforming things for countless people.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Pro-life responses: Easier than you think. « Eternity Matters
[…] responses: Easier than you think. Posted on December 29, 2010 by Neil This pro-abortion site reflexively used three transparently false arguments. You’ll hear them from many pro-choicers, […]
LikeLike
December 31, 2010 at 3:03 am
Mystro
Neil, look at every argument you’ve made at why you figure a blastocyst is a full human being(morally that is). Consider what people have said to refute those arguments and how you have a response for each of those refutations.
Now replace ‘blastocyst’ with ‘sperm’.
According to your reasoning, every time you ejaculate, you are committing about 80 million murders.
“But sperm don’t have a full set of chromosomes” is exactly the same as “But blastocysts don’t have brains”. According to you, that is just a developmental point, not a moral one.
Read a more in-depth look at this reductio ad absurdum here.
So have you been right all along and we should imprison every male who has gone through puberty for atrocious crimes 10 times worse than the holocaust? Or is that, and your arguments for the blastocyst being fully human, really quite silly?
LikeLike
December 31, 2010 at 8:44 am
Neil
“Now replace ‘blastocyst’ with ‘sperm’.”
Bad science. A sperm is not a unique human being. Really, read that link with the quotes from about a dozen mainstream embryology textbooks: A new human being is created at conception.
“According to your reasoning, every time you ejaculate, you are committing about 80 million murders.”
I’m trying to take you seriously but comments like that make it very difficult.
““But sperm don’t have a full set of chromosomes” is exactly the same as “But blastocysts don’t have brains”. According to you, that is just a developmental point, not a moral one.”
No, my claim is that after conception a new human being has been created. Yes, the human is small at the early stages but size doesn’t confer more of a right to life (i.e., you have the same right to protection as Shaquille O’Neal). From there anything that kills her needs to have proper justification just as it would be required outside the womb.
Re. the reductio argument — I am familiar with that fallacy but you didn’t identify a case of that fallacy. When you say, “Now you could point out that each of the gametes only have half the required chromosomes that ‘actual’ people have, but the response is the same as when its pointed out that blastocysts have no brain,” you have cheated. Pointing out that each gamete has half the chromosomes is a scientific fact, so you can’t just waive that away. The claim you are trying to refute is that abortion kills a human being. You are trying to ignore scientific facts.
If you want to argue the pro-abortion position, go ahead, but if you think anti-science scenarios like that advance your case with the middle ground then I think you are mistaken.
I know that some pro-aborts will never change their minds (note those who are still pro-abortion after conceding that it kills an innocent human being — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq). But I’m not trying to persuade them, I’m trying to persuade those in the middle who haven’t thought carefully about the issue. I love it when they read debates like this, because I am very confident that they won’t equate every ejaculation as equivalent to 80 million abortions.
I encourage you to look at every argument you’ve made and note how it ignores the scientific fact that abortions kill human beings.
LikeLike
December 31, 2010 at 8:51 am
Neil
“So have you been right all along and we should imprison every male who has gone through puberty for atrocious crimes 10 times worse than the holocaust? Or is that, and your arguments for the blastocyst being fully human, really quite silly?”
I would love for any middle ground person to read what you said and then decide who is being silly. I like my chances.
Note your equivocation on “fully human.” If you mean “full-grown human,” then of course that isn’t my claim. But if you would have just said “human” then we both know I am right.
And we both know that most abortions don’t destroy blastocysts, they destroy beating hearts with brain activity.
Remember, everyone has to draw a line somewhere. On one side is a morally neutral or morally good procedure, on the other side an innocent human being is destroyed. Peter Singer draws the line at 6 months after birth, I believe. As twisted as that sounds at least he is consistent with his pro-abortion “personhood” philosophy. But even he has to point to a very particular point in time when the newborn goes from being fair game for consequence-free destruction to murder.
Your philosophical arguments would seem to at least justify destroying a completely delivered baby whose cord hasn’t been cut, as she would still be leeching off the mother at that point. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, though, so please feel free to clarify.
LikeLike
December 31, 2010 at 8:58 am
Neil
One more thought on “fully human” — I obviously mean fully human as in a unique human being at a particular stage of development. She isn’t part of another human being (as in the common fallacious sperm / hangnail analogies.). She isn’t part human, part canine. She isn’t “not human.” She isn’t a “potential” human, she is a human. Babies are human, not partially human just because they are smaller than toddlers or teens or adults.
LikeLike