The Power of Words: terms for the abortion debate

[Hemel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
well you are against abortion and against capital punishment. I would think that’s pretty much the definition of being “pro� “life�. Wouldn’t you?

Ah, it's only that I hadn't applied that label to myself, or any particular label really, so it just felt unfamiliar. Though, now I've thought about it, I think that if I were to apply a label on these issues, it'd be 'anti-taking life'. Which I suppose is slightly different

[Lizra]

Hmmm, "anti-taking of life"....I called that "Anti-killing"! Do you think there is a difference Hemel?

I am anti-killing for "life/potential life" (zygotes, fetuses) but for some reason, have no problem (well there is always *some* problem with killing, ) with killing "well" convicted pre-meditated, multiple and/or particularly gruesome murderers. I see that "life-taking" (or killing) as deserved punishment. I know, I know...who decides, and all that....but anyway, I realize I am not consistent on my anti-killing stance. It is intentional.

The killing of a new, ("potential" in the fact that it needs to be "grown") unique, ripe with promise combination of human chromosones, that is actively dividing and growing at breakneck speed, seems somehow unfair. On the side of the potential new human...what has it done any differently than other humans to lose its chance at life? The stopping of the moving life force seems like killing, and if done for convenience (the mother or father simply don't want it) I feel bad, and want to say DON'T. Of course, I then say, use birth control, don't "start" life, then stop it.

Anyway..."anti-life taking" ......use of words to sound *less* sad/shocking. "Anti-killing" ......use of words (for the same idea ...right?) to sound *more* sad/shocking....so there you go!


added: hope you didn't read this before my many edits!

[Hemel]

Good grief! Talk about semantics!

Thinking through a good point here - is 'killing' different from 'taking'?

From the top of my head then - yes, there must have been some reason why I chose the one term over the other. Perhaps I do have have an unstated unconscious horror about taking lives that I don't easily use a word like 'killing'. Perhaps too it's because the concept is maybe broader - like 'killing' somehow seems more active and in some ways more individualistic or individualised than 'taking life'. Also because there are ways of taking life without actually killing - like maybe signing a death warrant or passing a death sentence ... or maybe even through acceptance allowing others to die (maybe an example here would be the inequitable access to food throughout the globe).

Um ... trying desperately here to stay on 'terms' rather than actually 'abortion' - so very quickly - you then perhaps are accessing an innocent/not innocent discourse in your stance on killing? Which I think maybe is consistent - even though the results seem not so (some lives taken, some not).

And for this

One the side of the potential new human...what has it done any differently than other humans to lose its chance at life?

Ah, just embedding itself in the wrong place? Which to me seems similar to the case of those who die of eg hunger ... ie they were born in the wrong place ....

I have some troubles over the idea of potential human life also - but that again goes into abortion (and threatens to be a HUGE can of wriggly worms ) so I'll back off that one sharpish


(and no - came in after you'd finished editing )

[Lizra]

Well, I suppose life will never be "fair"!

[Hemel]

Now that I've been thinking about it ... it could just have been a response to the 'pro-life' term that IR used. So I sort of came up with 'anti-taking-life' .... probably because 'anti-life' doesn't seem to have much to recommend it as a stance!

Hey ho ... the simplest answers are the best ... (though why they always take me hours of thought to get there I'll never know! )

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by RÃ*an


Does that answer your question? [/B]

Yes, thanks. You state that there's a "gray area" here, which is essentially my point. My argument extends this to say that, even if we disagree with abortion, we still treat foetuses differently from neonates in very important ways.

I agree with you that most people probably feel deep down that the foetus is a kind of person, and not just a cluster of cells. On the other hand, I think that almost everyone's behaviour acknowledges, however implicitly, that defining the starting point for life is, at least in part, a medical issue.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
One of the Mooters here knows someone who runs those booths that have been on college campuses around the US where they show graphic pictures of aborted fetuses. People get vehemently angry about those pictures - yet I truly believe that they would NOT get angry about pictures showing politically "popular" abuses ... again, this should ring alarm bells in a person's mind, IMO.

Yep. ("one of the mooters" is me).

People put up big fights about their right not to see the graphic pictures. They argue about how they were forced to see them (they actually weren't, there were signs posted about them being displayed back before you got to them). But then what about freedom of speech? You are "forced" to hear someone expressing their views when you walk by them. Its no different.

Umm...follow the link in my sig to see some pics.

[brownjenkins]

personally, i have no problem with any kind of pictures... or any other expression of opinion from either side, as long as they stay within the realm of what is legal

that said, i think the most extreme on either side need to realize that both pov's can be reasonably justified in their own way, and that the true solution lies in preventing the unwanted pregnancy in the first place... which is where birth control and education come in (every form of education... from abstinance to the 'real life' sex that goes on as early as middle school, and few adults are willing to address realistically)

i think if every child was given free access and complete education about sex at the age before the age when it becomes an option... we'd stop thousands of unwanted pregnancies

[The Gaffer]

What do people think about the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's decision to relax the rules on screening embryos for compatibility with a sick sibling?

Link to the story on the BBC site

[Rían]

What do YOU think about it?

[BeardofPants]

I think it's a bloody good idea, personally. (quick replying!)

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What do YOU think about it?

Who me? I'm all for it. Clearly, there will be some ethical concerns, but when you allow abortion and you allow "lottery" models of IVF (remember, most of those frozen embryos end up dead) it doesn't make much sense to prohibit purposive IVF when that purpose is a good one.

I think that it's another example of how, by our behaviour, we clearly define embryos as qualitatively different from neonates.

[Rían]

Personally, I think any type of optional abortion is wrong.

However, if a person is for allowing optional abortions, then I don't see why they would logically object to embryo screening.

To stay logically consistent, tho, I don't see why they would have a logical reason to object to killing adults, either - a fetus that's wanted is a baby, and a fetus that is NOT wanted is NOT a baby, and can be aborted. I don't see why the same reasoning shouldn't be applied to adults - an adult that is wanted by society is human, and one that isn't wanted by society is - not, and no one should object if, say, their son decides to kill them because he wants their money. To me, it's logically inconsistent to differentiate.

If morals are just a product of our times, then I think it's logically inconsistent to object to killing unwanted adults, and NOT object to killing unwanted babies.

However, I believe that morals are NOT just a product of our times (altho they may "play out" differently in different times and societies, the base morals are the same, because they come from a God that doesn't change) - so it makes sense that humans object, in their hearts, to killing a person, and obviously feel bad about abortion, even if they call it anything but a baby.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think that it's another example of how, by our behaviour, we clearly define embryos as qualitatively different from neonates.

You've hit the nail on the head - but I will back up one more step, and say that our BEHAVIOUR (note the spelling, just for you, Gaffer! ) is defined by our beliefs.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If morals are just a product of our times, then I think it's logically inconsistent to object to killing unwanted adults, and NOT object to killing unwanted babies.

And... its just as illogical to object to abortions and NOT object to killing unwanted adults. Yet so many pro lifers do just that when they support capital punishment. Again, hypocrisy abounds on both sides.

[Rían]

To me, capital punishment and abortion are two totally different things.

Abortion is one person getting rid of a baby they don't want. There is no regard for the baby's personhood or humanness. The abortion is not a consequence of any action by the baby.

Capital punishment is society (as opposed to a single person) applying a consequence, which is known beforehand, for a terrible act, such as murder or torture, that a person chooses to commit. There is a VERY high regard for the personhood of both the victim and the perpetrator; there are extensive and careful trials, and the sentence, if it is passed, is carried out in solemnity and with regard to the dignity of the perpetrator, but it is carried out because the personhood of the victim has been intentionally violated, and personhood is a sacred thing and there must be serious consequences for destroying it.

I don't see any logical inconsistencies there.

[Hemel]

I see inconsistencies. That's because both involve taking a human life (albeit the unborn human could be considered as 'potential' human life.) So I don't see how one can advocate one (capital) and yet not the other.

I also don't see that 'personhood' is a sacred thing. For example, in legal terms over here a company is a 'person' ... but I don't see that that makes the company sacred. Instead it just makes it something that can be dealt with by law, which is where I understood the concept of 'personhood' originated.) So I see a difference between human life and personhood ... as interest, then, do you equate them, RÃ*an, or also see differences


Oh dear, I suppose I have to respond to this bit ...

the sentence, if it is passed, is carried out in solemnity and with regard to the dignity of the perpetrator

because I truly can't see, unless the perpetrator her or himself actually chooses death, how, no matter how solemn the proceedings, the dignity of the perpetrator is respected ... even with such things as the lethal injection(s). But put that down to my prejudice ... I'm totally opposed to what I call 'judicial murder'.


And edited to pick up on this bit ....

To stay logically consistent, tho, I don't see why they would have a logical reason to object to killing adults, either - a fetus that's wanted is a baby, and a fetus that is NOT wanted is NOT a baby, and can be aborted. I don't see why the same reasoning shouldn't be applied to adults - an adult that is wanted by society is human, and one that isn't wanted by society is - not, and no one should object if, say, their son decides to kill them because he wants their money. To me, it's logically inconsistent to differentiate.

In fact, that is exactly what we do do ... if we're in a society that advocates capital punishment, then the person to be executed has been evaluated as not wanted by society. (The 'son' bit doesn't apply, in my opinion, because he isn't 'society' and there hasn't been judicial process that represents society ... he's just an individual who wants what isn't his, and in fact would commit a crime (murder) to get it.)

But this ....

so it makes sense that humans object, in their hearts, to killing a person, and obviously feel bad about abortion, even if they call it anything but a baby.

Quite ... which is why, if we execute adults, we call them things like murderers, or evil, or criminals ... something that categorises them in a way that detracts from, or covers, or removes their humanness.