Kathy Ireland on Huckaby Show Artfully Discusses the Pro-life Position Regarding the Unborn
Want to learn how to make a powerful case for the unborn without appealing to the Bible? Take 7 minutes and watch Kathy Ireland. Well done. She models how to put this moral discussion back on the table without appealing to "personal faith."
To watch this impressive clip, click here.
We certainly need to be pro-all-of-life, but when it comes to the defending the unborn; it is not popular. But we need to be prepared to offer this kind of logic in an easy to understand, non-judgmental, gracious manner.
To watch this impressive clip, click here.
We certainly need to be pro-all-of-life, but when it comes to the defending the unborn; it is not popular. But we need to be prepared to offer this kind of logic in an easy to understand, non-judgmental, gracious manner.
Labels: Ethics, Faith and Politics, Pop Culture, pro-all-of-life
posted by Jonathan Morrow at
2:15 PM
23 Comments:
Question: Should a woman who has an abortion suffer the death penalty or just life in prison?
This is an important question. If one is to assert that human life begins at conception, then one must assert that all abortions are murder.
If that is the case, then one must assert that nature (what you may call "God") is the biggest abortionist in history since a large percentage of pregnancies results in spontaneous abortions.
Since that is the case, it could certainly be argued that the mere act of having sex could be considered a criminal act since there is a great risk that the act will result in the death of a human.
And, of course, if abortion is deemed "murder" as so many of you want, then thr legal system will have to go after all the women who have participated in this holocaust and throw them in prison. It would be really easy since the details of the murder are right there in the medical records.
. . . No, of course no rational person would think that but it illustrates the point. Mrs. Ireland -- like most anti-abortionists -- hasn't quite thought the this through all the way. Her stance that all abortions are abominations makes murderers and accomplices of a large percentage of the population.
Perhaps even including you, Jonathan.
Frank, on your view when does human life begin and why?
I promise to answer your question if you can answer mine:
"Should a woman who has an abortion suffer the death penalty or just life in prison?"
I believe (and have a logical, reasonable, medically and scientifically sound basis for my belief) that abortion during the first trimester is most certainly NOT murder.
I also very strongly believe that abortion in the last trimester could certainly be deemed "murder" worthy of prison time under many (but not all) circumstances.
I bet that if you could be perfectly honest, you would agree with the above two paragraphs.
Assuming you agree, why? What is the difference between a first trimester embryo and a last trimester baby?
"I believe (and have a logical, reasonable, medically and scientifically sound basis for my belief) that abortion during the first trimester is most certainly NOT murder."
I assume you don't want me to simply take this by faith? I would like to hear your "logical, reasonable, medically and scientifically sound basis for" this belief.
The Moral status of the unborn is logically prior to the legal questions you raised. Those must be answerd first.
THE fundamental question is when does this clearly human person get rights? the arbitrary 12 week mark? Brain activitiy begins at 40 days, why not then on your view? I will await your carefully reasoned answer.
BTW - I am glad that you you are against late term abortions. So am I.
I assume you don't want me to simply take this by faith? I would like to hear your "logical, reasonable, medically and scientifically sound basis for" this belief. Jonathan,
For starters: You and I both agree that aborting a fetus in "later term" is a horror. I believe that you and I would both agree that if a man or a woman were to physically and intentionally abort a fetus just a day before that fetus is due to be born, she commit a murder that is fully deserving of harsh punishment.
So we agree on that. But please answer my question, Jonathan. When you do, I promise I'll lay out my logic for all to see.
Do you believe that a woman who has an abortion within, say, a month of conception commit "murder"? If so, what shall the punishment be? If not, why not?
Frank, hypothetical question for you.
Let's say you're at a restaurant sitting near the bar. You notice a woman who is of legal age but also clearly pregnant doing tequila shots.
Are you comfortable with this situation or does something tell you that it is wrong? If it is wrong, why?
Let's say you're at a restaurant sitting near the bar. You notice a woman who is of legal age but also clearly pregnant doing tequila shots.
Are you comfortable with this situation or does something tell you that it is wrong? If it is wrong, why?Yes, of course I would be uncomfortable with that. Inside her is (presumably) a mass of tissue that, if treated unkindly, will be born with all sort of horrible maladies. Modern society knows that prenatal care at the very beginning of pregnancy is of utmost importance to the mass of tissue that will become a child.
But let's add some spice to the scenario: If the woman is only 2 months pregnant, that is "bad" but (in my mind) not punishable under law. On the other hand, I think a woman doing the same at 8 months should receive harsh punishment and emergency intervention for her unborn baby. Further, I think you would probably agree with me. The question is why do we not have the same passion for the 2 month old fetus as we do for an 8 month old?
SO, I've answered yours now answer mine: Shall the woman go to prison or not?
(and, for the record, I've debated this point a hundred times with believers and they almost universally refuse to answer the questions I have posed here. I know why. Anyone reading this knows why: The answer will betray an inconsistency in your reasoning. The answer forces you to admit that a weeks-old mas of tissue is not quite as deserving of all rights as you all claim they are.
You can prove me wrong by honestly answering the question I posed. I assure you that I will ALWAYS answer your questions honestly no matter how difficult they may be.
I noticed you referred to the baby as a "mass of tissue". I don't have kids yet, but if my wife were expecting and I referred to her "mass of tissue", I don't think she would be too happy.
That is changing the wording of something so that it isn't so uncomfortable. It's the same as calling the "war on terror" a "Overseas Contingency Operation". Let's be honest and refer to that mass of tissue by what it really is, a child.
So another question. Why would you be uncomfortable with a pregnant woman drinking? It's her body, doesn't she have the right to do with it as she wants? If the woman is 2 months pregnant or 8 months pregnant, what makes it bad?
You did bring up a very good question. The question is why do we not have the same passion for the 2 month old fetus as we do for an 8 month old?, My answer is that I do. That 2 month old fetus will become an 8 month old. So why prevent that from happening?
As for your question, "should a woman be prosecuted for drinking while pregnant?", here is how I'll answer. Do we prosecute women for prostitution or illegal drug use? Yes. Why do we do that if they have the right to do what they want with their own bodies? Would we prosecute a woman or anyone else if they gave an 8 month old alcohol?
Ya know, it's frustrating. Every single dad-gum time I debate an anti-abortion "believer" on this point, this question that I ask is ALWAYS ignored.
In this particular blog, I think back to the comment of the blog author; something to the effect of an "intellectually honest atheist" is very rare.
Yet here we are, a very interesting, important intellectual discussion where I have asked a simple question three times and it is blatantly ignored. That, to me, is intellectual dishonesty at its worse.
Again I will assert: There is NO QUESTION that I will not answer truthfully and honestly as long as my privacy is respected. NONE. I have nothing to hide. You all evidently do.
I know why you wont' answer, of course. If you answer, "Yes, I believe the woman who has an abortion should go to prison!" you will associate yourself with the likes of the Taliban or Fred Phelps or other hard-line, cruel fundamentalists.
If you answer honestly (that the woman should NOT be punished for aborting early on) then you betray your inconsistency on the subject and align yourself with with the pro-choice crowd or (horrors!) an atheist.
The simple solution to this moral dilemma? Simply state that early on, a fetus is not "really" a human but a POTENTIAL human. It does NOT acquire the full rights of a fully developed human being until some point later on in a pregnancy.
I think I know when that point is and have logical, sound, reasoned and INTELLECTUALLY HONEST basis for my argument. Can you say the same?
I think not.
My personal belief is that education is far more effective than prosecution.
So if you believe women have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies, are you in favor of legalizing prostitution?
At what point does a fetus become human? Who makes that decision and what gives them such authority?
Frank, I am not dodging your question. My response to you depends on your logic and answer. I have already said that from conception, that is a human person with full human rights.
You seem to be hung up on this legal issue before answering THE fundamental question in htis debate...what is the unborn?
so....what is the unborn?
I have already said that from conception, that is a human person with full human rights. So you do believe that a women who has an abortion should go to prison?
Really, this is a simple yes or no question, Jonathan. Why in the world would you need to know my stance before making your own?
And, Dave, I certainly could make a argument for prostitution since it is the woman's body and should be her choice. I won't but I could.
"so....what is the unborn?"
Jonathan,
Early in the pregnancy, the "unborn" is about a eighth of the size of the period at the end of this sentence. It is is a mass of tissue with no more inalienable "rights" than any of the other trillions of cells in my body.
At some point no more than 9 months later, that mass of tissue acquires all the rights afforded any other human being.
The difference? There are many postulates but I tend to think that the development of the cerebellum - the part of our brain that makes us "human" and more than the sum of our parts - is the dividing line.
The cerebellum develops somewhere around the middle of the second trimester. After that point, I believe abortion should be illegal except under special conditions.
There you go, Jonathan. A clear, HONEST, forthright answer. Now, will you answer mine? I doubt it.
The reason prostitution is illegal and frowned upon in our society is because the consequences aren't limited to the individual. If a woman choses to go into prostitution, that decision isn't limited to her body. The risk of spreading diseases affects others. If she has kids, they suffer from living in that lifestyle. Not only that, but what if one of her "customers" kills her? How would that affect her kids and her family?
That's why we react the way we do if we see a pregnant woman drinking alcohol. It may be her body and her choice to drink, but that choice has a direct impact on another person.
As you said, prenatal care is vital because that fetus will become a child. If that bundle of cells has no rights and is not human, than a pregnant woman doing things that could interfere with the development process shouldn't bother us. It does not because of what that bundle of cells is, but what it will be. When a child develops it's brain makes no difference, the fact is that if left alone, the brain will develop. Stepping in and interfering or stopping that development is a decision that directly affects another person's life, and I don't see any moral justification for that.
Hello Frank,
First a very important but often unconsidered question:
What is wrong with a law that says that if you take the life of a defenseless human being (i.e., kill) that there should be legal consequences? (BTW - this is not a rhetorical question)
I think that everyone would reasonably agree that the answer to this question is…nothing.
Because that is the issue – the unborn are human – the basics of the pro-life view:
1.The unborn is a living being with human DNA, and is therefore human.
2.There is no morally-relevant difference between an unborn baby, and one already born. (I will respond to your criteria for when a fetus becomes deserving of human rights in later post…)
BTW - For a sophisticated defense of the pro-life position io interact with, see Cambridge University Press’s “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal case Against Abortion Choice” by Francis J. Beckwith.
But to respond to your question, What should we do with women who have abortions (if Roe v Wade were overturned)?
Answer: That depends. We don’t know all of the relevant facts in the case, motivation, intentions, compulsion, etc… we need to reserve judgment until all the factors are known. The law always takes into account the multiple factors…so it is not unreasonable to take this on a case by case basis. The law is is not univocal how justice is served when crimes are committed, so I don't feel the need to make a universal judgment here.
But I think there is more to be said here… Culturally we are dealing with abortion on demand for 35 years now…so significant change will take time and a pragmatic, incremental and merciful approach would be in order.
On my view, the doctors would face the most severe penalties (remove their right to practice medicine, fines, jail time) because they are the perpetrators. Though the analogy is not perfect, the way we treat drug users and drug dealers under the law is helpful. Drug dealers are far more severely punished—and rightly so.
Moreover, if it is pharmaceutical companies who are making abortion drugs that a woman can still take that would be illegal as well and they should be severely prosecuted.
If we prosecute Doctors (the direct perpetrators) and the pharmaceutical companies if they continue to make drugs that kill innocent human beings; this will almost totally eliminate elective abortions. This would make the question of how to prosecute women practically irrelevant. Back ally abortion doctors and black market drugs would be severely punished as well.
Yet there is more to consider…Current absurdities within the law and the unborn.
1.There are currently fetal homicide laws in 30 states. If a woman drinks alcohol and harms the baby; she can be prosecuted for this…if she has an elective abortion; then that is somehow her choice. (e.g., Scot Peterson is being charged for two Crimes when he killed his wife who was pregnant, not just one and everyone recognizes that this is just - bc little Conner was killed too).
2.Consider this scenario - If a woman is on her way to get an abortion at a clinic, and as she pulls into the parking lot and is broadsided (car accident) by the doctor who would be performing the abortion and her fetus is killed. He gets charged with vehicular manslaughter. 20 minutes later, he can kill this baby through elective abortion with no legal consequence.
So Frank there is my HONEST answer on the legal issues and situation if Roe v Wade were overturned—not exhaustive, and nuanced but there it is (I draw from several people who have made similar cases).
My goal and the pro-lifer’s I know would not be to get revenge on women who have an abortion. Our goal is to seek the best way to protect precious, unborn humans and create a culture of personal responsibility and respect for all human life.
As you said, prenatal care is vital because that fetus will become a child. If that bundle of cells has no rights and is not human, than a pregnant woman doing things that could interfere with the development process shouldn't bother us. (at risk of repeating myself for the 5 or 6th time with no response to a very simple question)
OK Dave, so then you would support sending a woman to prison for life for having an abortion during the first month?
To be consistent, you would also send them to prison for using emergency contraceptives such as the "morning after" pill since these medications cause a fertilized egg to be aborted, correct?
Of course, at this point, I do not not expect an answer from either of you. Christians are quite predictable in this regard.
This blatant refusal to answer very simple questions exemplifies the chasm between atheists and Christianity. This kind of intellectual dishonesty will never result in mutual respect and actually breeds contempt.
Answer: That depends. We don’t know all of the relevant facts in the case,Thank you, Jonathan. I just posted a response that was critical of you for refusing to answer. I take some of that back but you are still avoiding the underlying question. You know it and I do, too.
So let's spell it out: We are discussing "on demand" abortion. Mostly for "convenience" sake.
So here are some "relevant facts." A couple have sex. Her boyfriend's rubber broke. The egg is subsequently fertilized. "Conception" has occurred.
The next morning, she goes to the pharmacy and gets an OTC emergency contraceptive that results in the egg being ejected from the body rather than attaching to the uterine wall. An abortion.
Should she spend some time in prison? YES or NO will be fine.
"So here are some "relevant facts." A couple have sex. Her boyfriend's rubber broke. The egg is subsequently fertilized. "Conception" has occurred."
That was their choice, and a human life has been created. Deserving of protection.
Here is my answer. Given this hypothetical, if the law is doing its job, no doctor will perform it and no morning after pill will be available to get.
If she chooses to harm the fetus under most existing fetal laws (I admit I don't know them all off the top of my head) then she would be accountable to whatever that is which could include some jail time if she illegally aborts (i.e. kills) that child. That is not unreasonable or over the top. But again, The law is pragmatic - deal with the Doctors and Drugs...and 99% of abortions are eliminated.
I am not for bedroom police or retribution or criminalizing women. And the guy whose condom broke is responsible too; which leads to very tricky litigation.
That is why laws work at a societal and corporate level (much more effective. Most women, would not have the courage to end the life of the child they know is growing inside them). Could there be extreme cases to consider--yes--so consider them on a case by case basis with mercy and compassion for the two people involved--mother and child.
Dr. Seuss was right - "a person is a person no matter how small."
This comment has been removed by the author.
"So here are some "relevant facts." A couple have sex. Her boyfriend's rubber broke. The egg is subsequently fertilized. "Conception" has occurred."
That was their choice, and a human life has been created. Deserving of protection.
Here is my answer. Given this hypothetical, if the law is doing its job, no doctor will perform it and no morning after pill will be available to get. Sorry but your answer is not very clear, Jonathan. A little help?
For starters, I'm sure you know that "emergency contraception" as described above is available without a prescription for about 40 to 70 bucks from any pharmacy, correct? It's essentially a mega-dose of estrogen. This is a perfectly legal procedure and I'm sure it happens hundreds of times a day in your town.
So please tell me: If you had your way with the law, would you send a women to prison for this or not? I think you are saying "yes" but please clarify that.
And another question please? Can you tell me exactly what bible reference y'all use for your anti-choice stance?
Thanks.
Frank, I am being very clear...you just don't like my answer. You are simply trying to paint me as a wild eyed fundamentalist wanting to throw all women in jail. :)
You are also trying to make a case against the pro life position without referring to the MAIN issue - what is the unborn (relying on this legal rabbit trail).
The unborn is a full fledged member of the human community--both science and philosophy bare this out.
Moreover, it is a human rights issue, so I don't need to appeal to the Bible. This is another red herring on your part diverting attention from the real issue - the moral status of the unborn.
Let me ask you a question to make this a bit more personal and less hypothetical.
Let's say (and I don't want this to happen BTW) your best friends wife has been trying to get pregnant for 2 years. They are finally able to. and 8 weeks into her pregnancy, she miscarries (again I do not wish this to happen to anyone).
What would you say? Would you comfort her by telling her it wasn't their baby yet? It was not human yet? Why are you so upset...it is just a clump of tissue? Remember, on your view, the baby doesn't have rights until well into the 2nd trimester. I don't think you would respond this way( and rightly so in my view.) The same is true if God forbid--she were in a car accident and lost the baby. I have a feeling your cool logic would fail you in the midst of that tragedy and it would be a tragedy--Frank because a precious life would have been lost. (again, please don't mistake this reasoning as my wishing anything bad to happen to anyone).
Regarding the "emergency contraception", you asked me to envision a scenario in which roe v wad was overturned. That person by taking the high does of estrogen is the direct agent responsible for the death of that very small human being - so in a perfect world, that should be illegal because it ends the life of a human being.
regarding: "So please tell me: If you had your way with the law, would you send a women to prison for this or not? I think you are saying "yes" but please clarify that."
If I had my way, they wouldn't get an abortion bc no doctor would perform it. No drugs, no estrogen would be available to purchase to "do it yourself", or "a morning after pill". I would also require everyone considering an abortion to see a 4-d ultrasound of what it is they are "terminating"...
So, like I clearly said before, each instance would be taken on a case by case basis; like any other crime (if roe v wade were overturned). That is my answer.
"I am being very clear...you just don't like my answer. You are simply trying to paint me as a wild eyed fundamentalist wanting to throw all women in jail."
.
Yes, the answer you provide will either be "wild eyed fundamentalist" or closer to my decidedly pro-choice stance. You cant' bring yourself to identify with either one. I understand.
No, of course you would not send a woman to jail for taking a morning after pill. To do so would be cruel. On the other hand, I'm sure you and I would agree that a woman who kills her child a day before it is due is certainly deserving of jail time.
You just don't want to admit that there is a difference between a day-old fertilized egg and a fully developed human being. One is fully deserving of all rights afforded to a human and the other isn't.
The conclusion: You and I (and most "anti-abortion" people) are pro-choice and anti-abortion. I have at least made an attempt to rationally qualify my stance. You (like most anti-choice people) seem to be unwilling to think deeply about the subject. You refuse to consider the end results of your stance.
Your religion may or may not support the use of birth control as an effective abortion preventative. Your religion almost certainly opposes organizations like Planned Parenthood who, through education and medical services, PREVENT far more abortions that you ever could with prayers and blog posting.
Through your actions and inaction, religion leaves women with no CHOICE over what happens to their own bodies.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home