A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
I object to her calling fetuses “babies.”
There’s nothing saying she was referring to foetuses as babies… unless you’re saying that a week before birth you’d still call it a foetus.
I think when someone wants to be pregnant (or chooses to remain pregnant), the common verbiage is “having a baby,” as in, eventually. When it comes out, when it’s born, it will be a baby, and parents tend to think of the future eventual baby. I have never heard pregnant women refer to themselves as “have a baby,” they will be having it later and prepare for its arrival.
Fetus is more of a medical term and technically while someone will be having a baby, what they have is a fetus until it is born. If it isn’t born yet, but could live outside the womb if born right now, it’s still not born yet and not a baby. But if you want your fetus to grow and be born, you’re having a baby, and will have a baby. If you don’t want your fetus to grow and be born, you might not be attached or sentimental to it enough to label it what it would be since it won’t be, unless you are already of a mind that it’s a person (and we call small persons “babies”) no matter how short a time ago fertilization took place.
So “babies” don’t belong in uteruses unless you are having one, while fetuses would be the wrong thing to name on the list, because fetuses don’t belong in uteruses unless you’re having a baby.
Yep. With all 3 of my pregnancies, I thought of them as babies. I had a 1st trimester miscarriage with the 1st. At that time, I mourned the lost of the what could’ve been. I don’t think of the 1st as a baby now. The tests at the time didn’t even show a fetus. The official diagnosis was a blighted ovum. This is a fairly common condition where the fertilized egg will implant and start giving off pregnancy hormones, enough to trigger a positive pregnancy test and symptoms. But due to chromosomal problems, no embryo develops and the uterus sheds it contents. Some women don’t even realize they’re pregnant, and just think it’s a late and heavy period. I had a lot of pain and bleeding and required medical management to help the process along. I was a medical resident at the time, and so I knew what a blighted ovum was. That helped turn the mourning process into more of a disappointment.
Many women who plan and welcome their pregnancy imagine an entire young life at that first sign of the double line on the over-the-counter urine pregnancy test. They see Kindergarten and Disney trips and college graduations.
So, Reginald, perhaps you’ll forgive those poor women for jumping the gun and using the term baby before it’s out of the womb. Since you’re not the one getting pregnant, you don’t get to object. Never, ever, argue with a pregnant woman.
Thats like me saying I object to you calling embryos a fetus. At some point an embryo becomes a fetus, and a fetus becomes a baby. The point is still made, and people STILL want to nitpick at irrelevant shit! Get a grip!!!!
A zygote is not an embryo is not a foetus is not a baby. Those distinctions are very, very relevant, and here’s why: Duality is bullshit. We’re not endowed with a soul at conception. Our personality and sense of self are entirely dependent on our physical forms, specifically the physical form of our brains.
Which means, and pay attention because this part is important: Until our brain physically develops to a certain point, WE ARE NOT PEOPLE. Have the potential to become people? Yes indeed. People from conception? No sir.
I object to spelling babies f-o-e-t-u-s. The superfluous o is an affront to all Amercun speakers.
It shoould be THINGS THAT BELONG IN MY UTERUS: Whatever the hell I decide. (Period!)
LOL! didn’t see it at the time Ha!
I note that it has “babies” as belonging in a uterus, but “persons” as not belonging. So are babies not persons then?
As for “misplaced moral outrage”, what exactly does this mean? Presumably we aren’t meant to understand that any sex-related moral outrage is wrong, as that would imply that nobody should ever feel any outrage about adultery or incest or rape or paedophilia, which is quite clearly nonsense. So how do you propose we tell misplaced outrage from appropriate outrage?
And I presume “laws” is a reference to anti-abortion legislation. If so, why should somebody who thinks a foetus is human not try and pass laws against killing it? Personally I’d be rather worried if somebody took this attitude.
(“Ah,” you might say, “but I don’t think foetuses are human, so I see nothing wrong with killing them. So you shouldn’t try and stop me, because that would be imposing your morality on me.” If anybody thinks this is a proper argument, I’d advise them to spend a while thinking about the statement “Personally I don’t think Jews are human, so if I want to kill some, you shouldn’t try and impose your morality on me.”)
Babies was a misnomer, or Babies meant a fetus she wishes to carry to birth. If the woman objects to it, then its probably misplaced. A human fetus is human, they are not persons. The woman is a human too and is most definitely a person. People have the rights to make decisions over their own bodies. If you dis agree with this there are several organizations who could use that spare kidney you are not using.
“A human fetus is human, they are not persons. The woman is a human too and is most definitely a person.”
So how are you defining “person”, and how is it different to being human?
“People have the rights to make decisions over their own bodies.”
Not if their decisions will harm other people. Hence why we laws against murder, battery, and so on.
A zygote is not a human. It is not a person. It has no rights. If it gestates some, it will become a human, a person, something with rights. But when it’s a zygote, it’s not.
(a) Lots of people think a zygote is a human, and when somebody says things like “laws have no place in my uterus”, they normally mean something along the lines of “you’re allowed to think this is murder, but don’t do anything about it,” which is pretty obviously an absurd position for somebody to take.
(b) How are you defining the terms “human” and “person”, and why?
Lots of people pretend to think a zygote is human in order to make their ancient mythology fit with the real world. They don’t have funerals for miscarriages, which they would if they truly thought a zygote was human. When words and behavior don’t match like that it implies that the words are false. If they truly thought a zygote was human then every miscarriage would involve a police investigation to determine what caused the miscarriage. Every miscarriage would be published in a newspaper the same way a death would be.
When actions and words conflict in that manner it can be quite revealing. In this case it reveals that they aren’t speaking truthfully when they speak of a zygote as if it were human. They are, most likely, lying for Jesus.
Admittedly the sign is not entirely clear, and leaves some room for confusion, but you’re just going out of your way to be intentionally thick here.
It has nothing to do with being sex-related (and most sex-related moral outrage is wrong). The reason adultery, incest, rape, or pederasty are wrong is not because they are sex-related. Those things are wrong because of what one person unfairly does to another person. Adultery is wrong because one person violates an agreement with another person. The other three are less sensible examples for you to bring up. Those are wrong because they are examples of one person forcing their will on another person, which is what you are advocating here.
If your moral outrage is directed at a person choosing what to do with their own body in some way which hurts no one, but goes against your idea of what they should be doing with their own body, that is exactly misplaced outrage. If your moral outrage is directed at people trying to force their personal desires onto someone else’s body, that is a fine thing to be morally outraged about.
If you don’t approve of abortion, don’t get an abortion. Problem f*cking solved.
Since the thread is already godwinned, and the organization which has been most involved in killing jews is right at the center of the “pro-life” camp, try this one. “Personally I don’t think judaism is a valid personal choice. So if I want to forcibly convert some jews to catholicism, you shouldn’t try to impose your respect for other people’s rights on me”. Does that seem like a proper argument to you?
“person choosing what to do with their own body in some way which hurts no one,”
“Adultery is wrong because one person violates an agreement with another person.”
Wait a minute, though — in the first quotation, you seem to be arguing that things are only wrong insofar as they hurt somebody, whereas in the second, you seem to be including the idea of violating an agreement as being wrong. If two people commit adultery and make sure that nobody else ever finds out, then their partners don’t really suffer, so either you’d have to say that committing adultery was OK in this situation (as nobody got harmed), or that “it hurts no-one” isn’t an adequate defence of somebody’s actions (as you’ve already accepted that an action can be wrong despite not hurting anybody). You can imagine similar scenarios with incest (a brother and sister are raised apart and only meet in adulthood, both want to have sex, so there’s no compulsion, and one of them is infertile, so there won’t be any babies with genetic diseases) or even rape (the girl is passed out all the way through and doesn’t get pregnant or catch an STD, so she wakes up with no recollection or knowledge of the event). Either incest and rape are OK in these situations, or things can be wrong despite not harming anybody.
“If you don’t approve of abortion, don’t get an abortion. Problem f*cking solved.”
“If you don’t approve of murder, don’t murder. Problem f*cking solved.” “If you don’t approve of rape, don’t rape anybody. Problem f*cking solved.” “If you don’t approve of racism, don’t discriminate. Problem f*cking solved.” Etc.
“Since the thread is already godwinned, and the organization which has been most involved in killing jews is right at the center of the “pro-life” camp, try this one. “Personally I don’t think judaism is a valid personal choice. So if I want to forcibly convert some jews to catholicism, you shouldn’t try to impose your respect for other people’s rights on me”. Does that seem like a proper argument to you?”
You know, you haven’t actually explained why my analogy was a bad one, you’ve just changed the subject. And in answer to your question, no, because being a Jew doesn’t harm any particular individual or society as a whole. Killing someone, on the other hand, does. So it’s quite reasonable to stop someone from killing people but not to stop someone from being a Jew.
You have yet to make a case for how abortion hurts someone, or that a foetus is a someone Your personal opinion is flying against the medical and legal understanding and the traditions of pretty much every culture ever, including the Biblical ones. In most cases the procedure is the least hurtful option available to the person most concerned, the pregnant woman. In the very few cases where the foetus is approaching what is legally, medically and yes, even traditionaly thought to be personhood the case is generally that the option to abort is sad and perhaps drastic, but still provides the option for the least amount of suffering.
It’s only wrong if you get caught? Nice :(
Pro tip: When you are being deceptive, you are doing something wrong.
Your analogy is wrong because the fetus is not a person and cannot be a wronged party.
Let’s be entirely clear on this. I am not advocating moral relativism. I am advocating that your version of morality is the wrong one.
A lump of human organic material with no thoughts, no feelings, and no brain activity of any kind, is not equivalent to a human being. Failure to understand this, undercuts your ability to understand any human concept of morality. A zygote can not suffer. It can not feel pain. It can not be treated unfairly. And it can not be murdered. Do you really not understand how stopping a potential person who doesn’t exist yet from coming into existence is different from killing an already existing person? Or are you still just being intentionally thick?
Adultery is wrong because it is a harmful action to another person. Cheating on your spouse is wrong because it is a violation of trust. Many married couples have open marriages where the partners agree in advance that it is okay to f*ck other people. A person in an agreed upon open relationship f*cking someone besides their spouse is neither adultery nor wrong. Because it is not a violation of trust. Committing to a monogamous relationship, and f*cking someone besides your spouse, and lying to your spouse about what you are doing, and expecting monogamy from them while you cheat on them, would be an example of a violation of trust (whether they find out or not). Violating an agreement is wrong because it does hurt someone. As I said, it is an unfair act against another person. I don’t expect someone of your view to understand how this is wrong without a commandment of some sort. But surely you can see how it is dishonorable.
Your imagined incest scenario is disconnected from why incest is frowned upon. If a brother and sister who were both consenting adults decided to f*ck without any possibility of reproduction, it would bump into social stigma, but there’s no real reason we should call that wrong.
Your defense of rape reveals a lot more than you intended about your understanding of morality. In that scenario, the rapist is still treating someone else’s body (an actual person) as their property with no respect for that person’s autonomy. It is still rape, and it is still wrong for exactly the reasons that rape is already wrong. That you can imagine a scenario where the victim doesn’t know what happened, doesn’t change the part where one person is declaring their ownership of another person’s body without asking. I don’t expect someone of your view to understand how this is wrong, as declaring your ownership of someone else’s body is exactly what you are trying to do here. But it is still wrong. And it certainly doesn’t help the air of moral superiority you are attempting to claim here.
And I did explain why your analogy is a bad one. You just didn’t understand my explanation. So let’s try this again.
You are attempting to equate the “killing” of people who are not even alive yet, with the Holocaust, the murder of a few million people who definitively were alive prior to being killed. That is why the analogy is a bad one.
A mass murder carried out mostly by christians on the motivation that they felt jews were harming society by being jews, has more idealogically in common with what you are trying to do here, than the actions of those you are trying to shame with the nazi card. Conservative factions in 1930′s Germany (including the catholic church, the current ringleader of the pro-life movement) decided that their right to control other people’s choices outweighed those people’s right to decide their own choices. You are trying to equate the movement for personal autonomy with a repressive regime, killing people in an attempt to stamp out that autonomy. That is why the analogy is more than merely bad. If you’re going to throw around Hitler references, it is entirely valid to point out the obvious fact that someone with your weak moral compass would have wholeheartedly approved of killing jews if it was what their church told them to do.
Other people’s bodies do not belong to you. If you don’t approve of what other people do with their bodies, that doesn’t change the fact that other people’s bodies do not belong to you. If other people’s personal choices offend you without giving you any valid reason for calling them harmful, that doesn’t change the fact that other people’s bodies do not belong to you.
You misunderstand me. I never said “adultery etc. can be carried out in circumstances which don’t harm anybody, therefore they’re OK in such circumstances,” I said “adultery etc. can be carried out in curcumstances which don’t harm anybody, but they’re still wrong, therefore actions can be wrong despite not harming anybody.”
“Violating an agreement is wrong because it does hurt someone.”
If nobody else ever finds out, who’s being hurt? Unless you want to say that people are hurt by having their agreements violated even when they don’t find out, but I don’t see how you can say that unless you’ve already decided that violating an agreement is bad.
“you can imagine a scenario where the victim doesn’t know what happened, doesn’t change the part where one person is declaring their ownership of another person’s body without asking.”
Again, tho’, your objection only makes sense if declaring ownership of someone else’s body is bad regardless of whether or not it harms anybody. Which, just to be clear, is something I agree with, but it does present problems for your “it’s OK if it doesn’t harm anybody” idea.
“You are attempting to equate the “killing” of people who are not even alive yet, with the Holocaust, the murder of a few million people who definitively were alive prior to being killed. That is why the analogy is a bad one.”
No, I used an alalogy to illustrate why it’s silly to say “you shouldn’t try and force your definitions of personhood on other people” by pointing out what kind of ridiculous things you might wind up supporting if you applied that line of reasoning consistently. I never said you supported killing Jews; in fact, the whole analogy depends on you not supporting the idea.
What you are being told is you shouldn’t force your religion on other people.
What the hell is wrong with you people not seeing the point? Nitpicking at “men” and “persons”. Babies are people, but the ones on the right side list are implied to be ADULTS. I get it, are you just stupid?
Lets put it this way. Do you agree that the city, state, church, government or dumb ass protestors have the right to tell a woman that she cant have an abortion because it conflicts with THEIR own personal beliefs? Because I dont!!!!
May I add cancer to the list of things I do not want in my uterus? I also do not want an infectious pathogen in there. Pelvic inflamatory disease is a potentially dangerous illness. I don’t think I’d care to have a fibroid either, especially the big and bleeding sort.
This is a hard one. I am pro EARLY choice. I wish that SCIENCE (not bible thumpers) would 100% determine the exact week of gestation that a fetus starts to feel pain. From that point on abortion should be prohibited. If you want to end a pregnancy there should be no reason you can’t do it before the fetus is developed to a point where it can feel pain. At 16 weeks on my daughters ultrasound I watched her stretch, yawn and react to us pestering her to get her to move a bit so that we could see her gender. At that point to abort her would have seemed like murder. The problem is that abortion can not be regulated down the middle because anti-choice protesters take an inch and try to turn it into a mile. Can’t we meet in the middle where a woman that does not want a baby can end a pregnancy but before the point where the fetus would feel anything?
Science to the rescue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_perception Quoting: In March 2010, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists submitted a report, Fetal Awareness – Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice, concluding that “Current research shows that the sensory structures are not developed or specialized enough to respond to pain in a fetus of less than 24 weeks”, pg. 22.
The neural regions and pathways that are responsible for pain experience remain under debate but it is generally accepted that pain from physical trauma requires an intact pathway from the periphery, through the spinal cord, into the thalamus and on to regions of the cerebral cortex including the primary sensory cortex (S1), the insular cortex and the anterior cingulated cortex.3,4 Fetal pain is not possible before these necessary neural pathways and structures (figure 1) have developed. -pg. 3
The report specifically identified the anterior cingulate as the area of the cerebral cortex responsible for pain processing. The anterior cingulate is part of the cerebral cortex, which begins to develop in the fetus at week 26.
More Science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_movement
I don’t mean this to slight you, but just because something is moving doesn’t mean there’s anyone home.
Quoting: Fetal movement refers to motion of a fetus caused by its own muscle activity. Locomotor activity begins during the late embryological stage, and changes in nature throughout development. Muscles begin to move as soon as they are innervated. These first movements are not reflexive, but arise from self-generated nerve impulses originating in the spinal cord. As the nervous system matures, muscles can move in response to stimuli. Some sources contend that there is no voluntary movement until after birth. Other sources say that purposive movement begins months earlier.
It should not be prohibited no matter what. Its not allowed after a certain time anyway, because by that point, you might as well just have the kid and give it up for adoption. If science determines that it feels a tiny prick of pain at 1 month of pregnancy, then abortions would just be illegal, because most people dont know theyre pregnant until then. The mother is going through pain and emotional suffering too when she has the abortion. Its something they experience together. Its not nice to hurt other people, but at the same time, its barely a person yet and everyone needs to stop being so damn sensitive to every little thing. Its not your body so buzz off.
Oh, yeah, if you are pro-life and eat meat, then I think you better stop eating meat, or go pro-choice. You cant bitch about the pain of a baby, and then not give two shits and a fuck about the pain that very intelligent and emotional farm animals feel while they are being led to SLAUGHTER. Thanks.
Denial is the best option here,there really is no other way around it.Negros wernt considered truly human and thats why some people would try and justify slavery but as we know they only were denying the obvious just as sceince and reason shows what we all know to be true but would rather deny to justify our own desires.
Follow Patheos on