The Word "Vagina" Is Now Apparently Banned In The Michigan Legislature

[Ziggy Stardust]

I share your overall point of view Ziggy

And I see what you're saying, but this time it doesn't apply.

You are talking about the way both sides see the issue of abortion. And how it's irreconcilable to one side when it considers it murder. I realise all that.

but I still want the other side to be treated fairly.

Ok, lets look at some quotes and have a talk about treating both sides fairly.

So if that is the argument of pro-life, I think the honest thing to do would be to focus on that

Why?

Why do the pro-life side get to dominate the framework in which the debate is held?

Of course, as always, the pro-abortion tries to make abortion about women's rights while ignoring their opponents argument that it is murder. Please argue against "abortion is murder" which the pro-life side is bringing up instead of changing the discussion to women's rights.

Starting with the "pro-abortion" denomination. Reading that, I didn't think that's very fair.

Second. CE is wondering why we're not arguing against "abortion is murder". In effect he's asking: why are you pro-abortion guys not letting us anti-choice (childish, I know) people not dominate the debate? Please let us dominate the debate.

So I showed him why. If you focus the discussion on murder, the pro-life comes away wanting. Because it's the opinion: "Abortion is Murder" vs the fact "No, it isn't". End of discussion. Why aren't I focussing on it? Because it's a useless and fruitless discussion.

It's murder.
No it isn't.
Prove me wrong.
Just did.
No you didn't.
Yes I did.
Etc!
Indeed.

Another reason why I refuse to discuss this on terms of "Abortion is murder" is that by using their standards on my position, I condone murder. And that's the real reason this always comes down to discussion whether it's murder or not.

The solution is dead easy. And fairly obvious.
Pro-lifers who feel "abortion is murder". You read their arguments in the light of that sentiment. This will make you understand the points they raise. You will also understand they're not misogynist. Because that would be doing what CE did in reverse. Attributing pro-choice sentiments to the pro-life argument.

You extend the same courtesy to pro-choice people. You read their arguments with the knowledge they don't see abortion as murder.

If you want any kind of discussion taking place on this subject, you'd do well not to start with accusing the other side of avoiding the issue of murder when that side doesn't even consider that an issue to avoid and vice versa.

That is treating both sides fairly. Looking at their arguments in light of their position. Not picking one of the positions and claiming the whole argument has to be geared towards that.

 

[Mise]

For me, the only explanation is that there are a lot of men in America who would be happier in Saudi Arabia.

Given that Michigan does not allow for the acknowledgement of a certain word. It seems to me that all this legislation about abortion is unnecessary. The entire procedure seems almost impossible to occur.
How would a fetus even get inside a woman's body? In fact where do fetuses even come from? Who is manufacturing these, and placing them into women's bodies, and how?
These are the serious questions the Michigan state legislature should be tackling.

This is an epic post


EDIT: @Ziggy: you have to ask why Christians* believe that life begins at conception. There is scant evidence in the bible for this being a divinely inspired position. Indeed, there is more evidence for homosexuality being an abomination than for life beginning at conception. The real reasoning behind it is the belief that sex should only be done inside wedlock, and for the purposes of having a child (this also explains opposition to homosexuality), which has a much sounder basis (in tradition) than "the bible says that life begins at conception" (mainly because the bible says no such thing). They see things like abortion -- and contraception in general, if you're a catholic -- as going against God's instructions to go forth and procreate. If they truly analysed their beliefs properly, they'd realise that they don't literally believe that life begins at conception, but merely that life is for procreation, and abortion deliberately goes against that writ. And if they did that, then they wouldn't have to defend stupid notions like "every sperm is sacred" or "stem cell research is an abomination against God".

It's unfortunate that the religious basis for anti-abortionism isn't more soundly footed in popular debate as a "conservative" notion of what the purpose of life and sex actually is, because, if it was, it would be a much more productive debate.

*-of course, it's not just Christians, but pretty much all "conservatives", including those of Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc backgrounds too. Because, as I say, the true reason for opposition to abortion is plain old conservativism, rather than anything specific to Christianity.

 

[kochman]

The Word "Vagina" Is Now Apparently Banned In The Michigan Legislature

What a bunch of ...

EDIT: auto-hide... it started with a PUS

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

The best response I've seen so far in this thread.

So, stemcell research is murder?

No, because the stem cells are from a fetus that has already been killed.

I guess that you are against all kind of transplant surgery?

Why would you think that?

And how come your definition of what is a human being is the one that should be used? Any other definition would in itself be a proof.

It makes sense since all the genetic material is already there, and it's a lot less arbitrary than "25 weeks" or so.

Also, I take offence that you think my mental capabilities are non existent. Of course, you claim yours are as well, but that I leave up to you, and though it sometimes seems the human race does have some basic problems with their metal function, isn't it a bit harsh to claim that the whole human race have an IQ of less that a fern?
Unless, of course, you lump that in with "bodily development", which brings us back to the problem with definition again, oh, and biology.

At one time both you and I had an IQ of less than a fern, but as we got older we became more intelligent, I guess you can call that mental development and lump it in with bodily development.

A foetus* have the potential to become a human being in the same sense as you or me, but it certainly isn't a given. Just like a at-conception-first-cell has the potential to become something definitely not human, or just someone with more or less chromosomes than I have.

I was not aware that a cell at conception could turn into a non-human

Of course, the whole definition over a human being being defined by its genetic material might mean that I'm not a human being, because I have less genes than any woman does (so do you, if you are, as I assume, a male), not counting telomere decay nor any of the chromosome abnormalities.

No, that's not what I said, I said that since a fetus contains all the genetic material it will ever have, it should be considered a person.

*Sorry, British English user here.

That's Okay, I used to live there.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That is treating both sides fairly. Looking at their arguments in light of their position. Not picking one of the positions and claiming the whole argument has to be geared towards that.

Absolutely, very true. But what is gearing a debatet towards an argument? Does to even consider an aspect mean to gear a debate? Can an argument be sensible when an aspect is outright excluded? Especially if it is a fundamental one as the question weather abortion is murder? If a pro-lifer refuses to consider that abortion may not be murder by saying "But my religion says so", closing himself for any actually rational argument and to then go "Murderer!", that is gearing the argument to his position. And I despise it. But the general question: "Is abortion murder?" is not an argument, it is..well...a question. And if many people wonder about this question, a productive debate with those requires a consideration of this question. You ask why the pro-life.argument has to dominate the debate. It doesn't. But the question has to "dominate" in so far, as without an answer to this question, you can not possibly judge the actual relevance of women's rights. But you can answer the question without considering women's rights. Hence, as logic dictates, you start with the question and go from there. And if CE complains that this question is answered with "Women's rights" he hence absolutely rightfully does so. As to do so, means to simply skip the primary concern for a secondary one. Not very productive.
And this is what I saw in CE's post and wanted to highlight.
That CE himself maybe isn't the fairest debater, is another question. On both sides are all kind of people who don't act fair for several reasons. Be it a biased/provocative style or to simply not be willing to consider all arguments/aspects in a coherent manner.

But If you refuse to even consider the question: "Is it murder?", you in deed have no hope to have a productive discussion with the other side. And if it is simply not possible to find mutual understanding on this issue for religious reasons, but both sides pressure for the by them preferred stance of the government, no wonder this whole thing turns into a debacle. What follows now is just brutal ideological war. And in this war "God says so!" or "Women rights!" are both shallow arguments.

 

[Arakhor]

The simple answer to that one is of course it isn't murder, because if people really thought that, like Celtic or GW seem to, they would say so (and why), rather than dressing it up behind layers of religious argument or ridiculous civil legislation that make it near impossible to actually obtain a legal abortion. "Abortion is murder" in most cases is merely dishonest rhetoric used to discredit abortions without actually making them illegal.

 

[Traitorfish]

@Traitorfish
Well I didn't argue that murder can not possibly be justified. I argued that the stipulation that a woman had the right to choose weather not she wanted to carry a baby, can't. One just has to realize that otherwise one would argue that some discomfort is enough justification to kill if there is no other way.

Is that a problem? I don't really see why that would be a problem.

Nevermind if the one being killed had any choice in the matter for causing this discomfort.

A foetus is fundamentally incapable of engaging in choice-making, so that seems rather irrelevant. We may as well ask if a potato plant has any choice in its picking.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Absolutely, very true. But what is gearing a debatet towards an argument? Does to even consider an aspect mean to gear a debate?

What I meant by this is either making the debate: "is abortion murder?" or working from the argument "abortion is murder". The first will result in an is, is not argument. The second is not agreed upon by one side of the debate and cannot be used as a qualifier.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Is that a problem? I don't really see why that would be a problem.

I thought that murder asks for a little more justification than discomfort. Well me and my big heart...

A foetus is fundamentally incapable of engaging in choice-making, so that seems rather irrelevant. We may as well ask if a potato plant has any choice in its picking.

That the fetus is fundamentally incapable of engaging in choice-making is the point! As it means that it can not possibly be responsible for the discomfort it may cause. And I am sure you will agree that in general murder becomes harder to be justified if the murdered one holds no responsibility for the cause of the murder. So not only the justification is weak (discomfort) it is weakened even more by the fetus not deserving to be punished for it. That it can not deserve anything is irrelevant to that point, but is connected to the question if a fetus can be viewed as a person and how that may reflect on its ability to be murdered. But remember, we just assume that it can be murdered.

What I meant by this is either making the debate: "is abortion murder?" or working from the argument "abortion is murder". The first will result in an is, is not argument. The second is not agreed upon by one side of the debate and cannot be used as a qualifier.

Then the same has to go for women's rights. If you use women's rights as an argument, IMO pro-life people can use murder as an argument. As their opinion it was murder disqualifies the women's rights-argument, just like you believe to able to disqualify the murder-argument. That is what I meant in my last sentence. The disability to agree on the question weather that was murder basically disqualifies any further debate and that goes for both sides..
@Arakhor
Maybe you have a point there, I don't know. I only know pro-lifers from this board and a little news coverage about America.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, the pro-life has no business forcing their subjective views upon the women's rights issue. Since their opinion towards the matter is a subjective one they're limited to only subject themselves to it.

Edit: regardless that I believe the term is merely a rhetorical device.

 

[Traitorfish]

I thought that murder asks for a little more justification than discomfort. Well me and my big heart...

Why? It's not like the foetus isn't going to be bothered one way or the other.

That the fetus is fundamentally incapable of engaging in choice-making is the point! As it means that it can not possibly be responsible for the discomfort it may cause. And I am sure you will agree that in general murder becomes harder to be justified if the murdered one holds no responsibility for the cause of the murder. So not only the justification is weak (discomfort) it is weakened even more by the fetus not deserving to be punished for it. That it can not deserve anything is irrelevant to that point, but is connected to the question if a fetus can be viewed as a person and how that may reflect on its ability to be murdered. But remember, we just assume that it can be murdered.

I'm fairly hostile to the entire concept of retributive punishment, so I can't say that's the direction I was coming from. My thinking is simply that mindless objects can't suffer, so I don't see any general reason why we should feel obliged to avoid harming them. The mildest human discomfort, for me, takes absolute priority over any amount of metaphysical worry.

Then the same has to go for women's rights. If you use women's rights as an argument, IMO pro-life people can use murder as an argument.

The existence of women can be demonstrated empirically. The existence of a soul, vital spark, or otherwise immaterial subject is metaphysical speculation. Does it not seem that the liberal state should concern itself with that which does exist, and can be so proven, rather than that which might exist, but can never be known one way or the other?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

No, the pro-life has no business forcing their subjective views upon the women's rights issue. Since their opinion towards the matter is a subjective one they're limited to only subject themselves to it.

It is also a subjective view that women rights even mattered. A view you try to force down the throats of pro-lifers based on your subjective opinion that abortion wasn't murder.
edit: But as Traitorfish decently demonstrated, murder doesn't actually make abortion necessarily a bad thing. I guess it comes down to just shouting "It is eviiil"

I'm fairly hostile to the entire concept of retributive punishment, so I can't say that's the direction I was coming from. My thinking is simply that mindless objects can't suffer, so I don't see any general reason why we should feel obliged to avoid harming them. The mildest human discomfort, for me, takes absolute priority over any amount of metaphysical worry.

The existence of women can be demonstrated empirically. The existence of a soul, vital spark, or otherwise immaterial subject is metaphysical speculation. Does it not seem that the liberal state should concern itself with that which does exist, and can be so proven, rather than that which might exist, but can never be known one way or the other?

Hm... That does actually a good job in convincing me. One of course could argue that a fetus eventually would be able to suffer, but when thought to the end, one quickly realizes that this is a to broad category, as it basically makes it to be evil to not have as much children as possible and that leads any morality ad absurdum, as in the end it just would mean to create as many miserable humans as possible, making morality to be something that is not actually desirable by those who already live and exist. Alright, you convinced me that even if abortion was murder, it was murder that can be decently justified.
Except - what about a late-stage-fetus, which is sufficiently developed to be able to suffer?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is also a subjective view that women rights even mattered.
A view you try to force down the throats of pro-lifers based on your subjective opinion that abortion wasn't murder.

It's a fact that abortion is not murder. It's an opinion that it should be. There's the difference.

And I'm not forcing my view down anyone's throat. They have every right to their opinion. I will not force them to have an abortion. There's another difference.

 

[Traitorfish]

Except - what about a late-stage-fetus, which is sufficiently developed to be able to suffer?

That is a legitimate grey area, and one which I have no ready answer to. I tend to err on the side of bodily autonomy, but I readily confess that this is a quasi-emotional inclination- a suspicion of any attempt to dictate to others how they dispose of their body- rather than a fleshed out position.

 

[kramerfan86]

"all genetic material is there" with the only difference being "development" applies to every single severed part of a human body. "oh look a finger, it has all the genes of a full human it only differs in development!". Late term abortions where the only thing separating the fetus from a baby is location you have an argument I agree with, but in these early stages where you wouldnt be able to tell a difference between a pig, fish, and human embryos it really carries little weight IMO

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It's a fact that abortion is not murder. It's an opinion that it should be. There's the difference.

And I'm not forcing my view down anyone's throat. They have every right to their opinion. I will not force them to have an abortion. There's another difference.

Now I feel like you are fishing around the core issue here. I already noted that there is a legal and a casual understanding what constitutes murder and that pro-lifers obviously mean the casual understanding. Your insistence on the legal definition isn't a good argument against that, as what law says by itself has no value. Just a piece of paper and all.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that if one uses the opinion of pro-lifers that killing a fetus was just as evil as murdering some other human being, that then women's rights are legitimately not accepted as a counterargument? If you deny this simple exercise of logic, you effectively are trying to force on them the argument of women's rights. I say "force", because you don't care if the debate actually calls for women's right.
You can of course argue with women's right based on the reasoning that an abortion isn't actually that evil, but that is a whole nother thing and rightfully won't be accepted by someone who thinks it in deed is that evil.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why is it so hard for you to accept that if one uses the opinion of pro-lifers that killing a fetus was just as evil as murdering some other human being, that then women's rights are legitimately not accepted as a counterargument?

I don't get the impression that Ziggy doesn't understand it, he simply objects to having conclusions posed as premises and so doesn't give much time to arguments so constructed.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How exactly are statutes against murder, which are essentially the same in every single modern country on the planet, "just a piece of paper and all"?

Claiming that abortion is murder is no different than claiming that engaging in war or killing in self-defense is. It is materially changing what the vast majority of those who live in modern society consider to be murder.

It is also rhetoric which is deliberately intended to incite. That cannot be said for the position that abortion is a matter of women's rights, which abortion is also now considered to be in those very same countries.

To me, the issue is quite simple. When those who object to any abortion are willing to have all those embryos and fetuses transferred into their own bodies so they can come to term and be financially supported by those very same people until they become adults, we will then have an acceptable alternative that should satisfy both sides. Until then, it is a matter for the woman to decide for herself.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm pretty okay with describing any killing of sentient beings as "murder". It's honest. If you feel that you can justify your killings or those which you support, then the label shouldn't bother you; shirking it just suggests to me that you don't really believe, in your heard of hearts, that those killings were justified.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If the talking heads on TV start claiming that over 100 people were murdered every single day in the US in traffic accidents, you might have a point. Then the word would soon completely lose all the negative connotations which it now has. Until then, it is really no different than any other deliberately inflammatory speech.