You may never have one yourself...
...but that doesn't mean everyone else should be denied a safe abortion if they should choose to have one.
I'm sorry to bother you with such an emotive topic, but it's one I feel passionately about so I am doing what I can to help.
Did you know it is officially illegal in Victoria? Victorian parliament will vote soon on a bill to decriminalisation abortion and bring the law into line with current medical practice.
The Religious Right (Pro-Lifers) are busy campaigning to have abortion kept illegal and to have the law enforced, denying Victorian women a fundamental right to control their fertility.
I believe that whether or not to continue a pregnancy should be between a woman, her medical practitioner, and her own God. The law has no business meddling in private reproductive decisions.
If you agree with me, you can show your support by signing up with:
http://www.ProChoiceVic.org.au
and signing this petition from the YWCA:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/decrim_abortion/
You could also write to your MPs giving your views, the Pro-Lifers will be, and personally I don't want them to look like the majority!
Yours in hope,
Emervents
Saturday, 15 March 2008
Letter to friends about Decriminalisation of Abortion in Victoria
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Slight rewording:
"I believe that whether or not to rape should be between a man, his medical practitioner, and his own God. The law has no business meddling in private reproductive decisions."
Please don't spout such illogical drivel when it it is so easy to turn the tables on it.
You are denying the humanity of others.
I'm afraid no one with a background in logic or argument would call that turning the tables.
If I spout drivel then I modestly claim that it is better considered drivel than yours. I published your post specifically to demonstrate the kind of logic pro-lifers tend to use.
That is, a logical fallacy called Appeal to Emotion.
Rape is a horrific violation of a woman's rights in all circumstances; abortion is NOT a horrific violation of a woman's rights in all circumstances. Yet by comparing abortion to rape, the above commenter is trying to make abortion as horrific as rape. The argument, if it could be called that, relies on our abhorrence of rape, to try to provoke the same abhorrence for abortion.
Luckily, for those who are thinkers, we quickly see that comparing abortion to rape is fallacious. Rape is sex performed against the will of the woman it is assault. No doctor will perform an abortion on a woman who is specifically telling him not to, he knows that would be assault. If all women are aborting against their will, they aren't telling their doctors at the time.
Rape is the violation of the rights of a living, breathing, self-conscious human being with a full life and full knowledge of its pain and future losses. That is why people are sent to jail for it.
A foetus is only living at the discretion of the mother, can not breath on its own until at least 24 weeks (and even then it needs expert medical help), is not self-conscious and cannot possibly have any knowledge of its pain or losses. That is why women are not sent to jail for aborting despite the law in Victoria.
Even if I were to concede that the foetus was a child (which I won't), I would still maintain that a non-conscious, not yet born individual does not take precedence over a fully functioning conscious individual.
As for denying the humanity of others: You come from the position that all human life is sacred, it's called "the sanctity of human life", it is a religious premise clung to by fundamentalists and does not actually reflect the value of the unborn in the bible (look up "abortion" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible for a better set of quotes and explanations than I can provide here).
This idea that human life is sacred from conception is historically very new, even for the Catholic Church. Until the last few hundred years (precise date escapes me, not going to look it up for you) ensoulment was at quickening, not conception.
Again, drivel? maybe. Illogical? rarely, and not this time.
Cheers,
Emervents
I'm afraid no one with a background in logic or argument would call that turning the tables.
If I spout drivel then I modestly claim that it is better considered drivel than yours. I published your post specifically to demonstrate the kind of logic pro-lifers tend to use.
That is, a logical fallacy called Appeal to Emotion.
Actually, no, all I did was substitute a few words using your logic. If my statement is an appeal to emotion, then, logically, so was yours!
Rape is a horrific violation of a woman's rights in all circumstances; abortion is NOT a horrific violation of a woman's rights in all circumstances. Yet by comparing abortion to rape, the above commenter is trying to make abortion as horrific as rape. The argument, if it could be called that, relies on our abhorrence of rape, to try to provoke the same abhorrence for abortion.
You've missed the point completely. Of course, rape is a violation of rights - for the victim. So it is with abortion.
Luckily, for those who are thinkers, we quickly see that comparing abortion to rape is fallacious. Rape is sex performed against the will of the woman it is assault. No doctor will perform an abortion on a woman who is specifically telling him not to, he knows that would be assault. If all women are aborting against their will, they aren't telling their doctors at the time.
I suppose you are going to tell me that the unborn choose to be aborted? You don't even notice that in your argument you switched the victim and the accomplice! The real victim isn't even mentioned in your argument! Where is your logic?
Rape is the violation of the rights of a living, breathing, self- conscious human being with a full life and full knowledge of its pain and future losses. That is why people are sent to jail for it.
A foetus is only living at the discretion of the mother, can not breath on its own until at least 24 weeks (and even then it needs expert medical help), is not self-conscious and cannot possibly have any knowledge of its pain or losses. That is why women are not sent to jail for aborting despite the law in Victoria.
The question of pain or consciousness is interesting, but not at the heart of the matter. The question is merely whether or not the victim is deserving of the same human rights as anyone else. To use your criteria to determine the value of a human life is unworthy because on a logical basis very similar arguments could be directed against adults who might be in a coma, on life-support or merely asleep! As far as being considered whether or not to be deserving of life at the "discretion" of another human being, I charge you again with spouting drivel. Dangerous drivel at that, since arbitrary criteria of a 'life worth living' by someone more powerful is exactly the kind of justification used by oppressors of basic human rights throughout the centuries.
Even if I were to concede that the foetus was a child (which I won't), I would still maintain that a non-conscious, not yet born individual does not take precedence over a fully functioning conscious individual.
You make the same classic mistake of misstating the argument that so many pro-choicers make - that of comparing the life of one versus the lifestyle of another - but you effectively call 'lifestyle', 'life'. It's apples and oranges.
If you remember nothing else I write, remember this: Pro-lifers do not advocate the death of a woman the same way pro-choicers advocate the death of the unborn. Pregnancy is a normal part of life - there is no battle for life between a woman and her unborn child that only one will win. Both are human. Both should have basic rights that cannot be taken away at someone else's "discretion". Pro-lifers affirm both sets of rights, pro-choicers deny one. Where is the concept of equal rights?
And in regards to your arbitrary criteria, see my response above. And what difference does being born make? So on that basis, you'd be more OK with an abortion of an otherwise healthy baby at full term than killing it a couple of days later after it is born? It really doesn't matter what your criteria is, all you are advocating is more power for the powerful at the expense of the weak. What if you were the one who was voiceless and weak? (Which is why I used the original example of rape, btw.)
As for denying the humanity of others: You come from the position that all human life is sacred, it's called "the sanctity of human life", it is a religious premise clung to by fundamentalists and does not actually reflect the value of the unborn in the bible (look up "abortion" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible for a better set of quotes and explanations than I can provide here).
You're assuming things about my position here. I have not mentioned anything religious, so it's silly of you to bring it up. Given that one can easily argue from a completely secular basis that the fertilized egg is the beginning of a unique human life with unique DNA etc., I can only wonder when you consider human life to begin in a way that is both practical and logical. My guess is that it's probably useful to you to disregard my argument on the basis of ad hominem attacks. You feel better categorizing me as a "fundamentalist", which is a bad sign. To those who understand arguments, they know that attacking the man is usually the last resort of people who have had their points undermined and will stubbornly refuse to admit it by making the argument personal. Effectively, you are saying about me, "Oh, you're just a (insert disparagement here), so I can ignore what you are saying even if it is true."
This idea that human life is sacred from conception is historically very new, even for the Catholic Church. Until the last few hundred years (precise date escapes me, not going to look it up for you) ensoulment was at quickening, not conception.
Ever heard of the Hippocratic Oath? About 2500 years ago. Here is a quote: "Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion." New? Now, that's just plain wrong. But this, and "ensoulment" or other such arguments are of no interest to me. What I know is that the combination of female egg and male sperm creates a new life and that modern science has given us more, not less, reasons to affirm human life from conception. And since abortion ends a life, it is clearly an assault on human rights.
Again, drivel? maybe. Illogical? rarely, and not this time.
I'm sorry, but drivel is what it was and drivel is what it is, your reply notwithstanding. You'll have to do much better than your response. It's pretty weak and I think my original argument stands firm since you didn't even address it fully, choosing instead to ignore the victim in abortion versus rape. You then attempt to justify dehumanizing the unborn in a similar way, for example, as Nazis disregarded Jews or slave-traders Africans - that is to say, the powerful can determine the right to live of the weak. You even use the word "discretion"! Also you attempted to undermine my credibility on the basis of assumptions of who I am or what I believe in other matters, which is irrelevant.
Where is your humanity? Where is your compassion? Where is your consistency? If you really were as logical as you say, you would use reason properly, admit when you're wrong and avoid shooting the messenger. And you would be pro-life.
Okeeee. There are many things to address here, so I will do them in separate posts so:
a) if I don't have time to address it all, then at least something will have gone up on the blog, and
b) so people who are less interested in the whole will not have to wade through it in its entirety.
Just quickly, it is true that ad hominem attacks are a sign of an angry, emotional, loser of an argument; I shall neither indulge nor respond to them.
cheers
Emervents
Post a Comment