I was being trite, in response to the same from you. Take another look at what I'd quoted when I said this the first time.
I was actually trying to be sarcastic, but I suppose there isn't much of a difference.
I used those terms to, perhaps, wake you up to your own language and how it can come across. Your rhetoric is similar to that of the anti-abortion lobby, and your language is misogynistic. Which is why I said those things. There is not some sinister plot at work here, Jaime.
The similarity in rhetoric was somewhat intentional, but it wasn't for the reasons you thought. I think we can both agree that much of the anti-abortion lobby uses that rhetoric in order to sway the minds of people through manipulating their emotions. I've started to think that we need to expose this subtle manipulation for what it really is - a cynical effort by people who have a social agenda that they want to implement. The problem is, simply telling them this won't be believed. Nobody likes to be told that they've been played for a fool, and they'll fight for a long time to keep from admitting that they could have been wrong in the first place. Instead, I thought that by using similar rhetoric, their defenses against "evil pro-death liberals" wouldn't kick in, and they might actually be willing to listen.
Try something like what? I noted it too. I asked about it directly, at the end of that quote. There is not some sinister plot at work here, Jaime.
It was starting to look like you were trying to lure me into saying something which you could then use to discredit me. I've encountered people like that before, and it's something I have to be careful of in other places.
A member, or just having the quality of being human? You've not established this. You've taken it as granted by all parties. It's by no means granted. What makes something 'a being', Jaime? Show your work.
I was expressing my opinion here, actually. That doesn't make the question meaningless, it just means that I wasn't assuming it granted by all parties.
I consider an embryo or fetus, even a fertilized egg, to be a human being (not just having the quality of being human, which makes very little sense to me in any case). That is why I have a moral objection to abortion, because I don't think it's right to kill other humans regardless of whether most people consider them humans. That's one of the pro-life arguments that I agree with. However, despite that, I consider myself pro-choice. Because first off, to dictate my beliefs to others as moral imperatives that must be followed is reprehensible; second, to fixate on a developing embryo and ignore the other human being who's severely impacted by a pregnancy (the mother) is stupid; and third, to ignore necessity and practicality in favor of morality is foolish.
The topic is abortion, Jaime. And when a fetus is in an incubator, abortion isn't a relevant topic. You painted the womb as a passive environment that the fetus finds beneficial for growth. It's not. That was misogynistic of you.
First, the only reason I brought up environment at all was to demonstrate that there is no environment wherein hair stands, or skin flakes, or fingernail clippings, or whatever, will ever be anything but hair stands, or skin flakes, or fingernail clippings, or whatever (which is not true of an embryo) Second, I was not passing the womb off as a passive environment in any case; I simply spoke of the correct type of environment. I think you read something into my words here which I in no way intended. Third, if we had artificial wombs which could do the job of growing embryos and fetuses, then it would be relevant (since that would be an option instead of abortion). Though, we don't have those yet, and probably won't for several years at the earliest.
You've in no way shown me to be wrong in that conclusion, Jaime. And maybe I'm less inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on this topic in light of past ones. Remember the whole "women need to face the consequences of their own actions" tuffle way back? As in, women who have sex and get pregnant without meaning to shouldn't be able to get off scot free for their moral failure? You were oblivious at the time to how this could be characterized as you wanting women to be punished for the crime of having sex. Have you considered that you might be similarly oblivious now? It's hard for a third party to tell whether your misogynistic language is a mistake, like it supposedly was before, or if it reflects some actual bias of yours.
It's been an awfully long time since that topic happened, but as I recall, I had to spend a while trying to explain that I didn't mean what you thought I meant, and I'm not sure if I successfully got that across or not. I think I was using consequence in its neutral sense, that is, something that happens as the result of another action, but since people often use consequence and punishment interchangeably, that's how you took it.
Trying to have, so long as certain relevant topics are barred from analysis.
If I had gotten this far when I originally read your post, this comment would probably have caused me to get even more upset. Suggestive comments like this aren't generally conducive to having a good discussion.
So your choice of which term to use was random? Oh, please. Of course brevity was one of your motivations, that's reasonable. But brevity could select for any of the terms we listed. You picked one. Why pick that particular one?
Because it's the one that came to mind first. I do get in arguments with anti-abortion people elsewhere, and they use that term pretty heavily. I also live in one of the most conservative states in the entire country, Oklahoma, so it's used a lot in general. When you hear a term a lot, it comes to mind more easily.
Granted. Will you grant, by the same token, that your point here:
None of those other things will grow into what we consider a human person on their own....is null and void? Nothing ever grows into into what we consider a human person on its own.
Sure. None of those other things will do so, period. The point I was trying to make there is that an embryo can and does grow into a fetus, then an infant, etc. Bodily detritus, such as hair, skin, fingernails, etc, not only does not, but can not (short of esoteric genetic manipulation which isn't possible anyway).
So, again, your depiction of the mother as merely an environment was...random. Or a mistake. Or something. Not very convincing, Jaime.
No, you jumped to conclusions based on my stating that the fetus needed the correct kind of environment in order to grow. All I meant by that was that it wouldn't grow in other environments. I certainly was not trying to dehumanize women, as you subsequently (and repeatedly) suggested.
Does this mean that based on your reaction to the rest of my post, you didn't bother to think through what I said here? Let's see...
I think at this point we both were more focused on trying to show the other was wrong, rather than actually listening.
...yep. What you had, made no sense as written, because our cells in general are human. They're human in the sense that they are human cells and not, say, fish cells. So I figured you meant "not human beings/persons" since that made sense in context. I stated I was assuming this, so that you could correct me if I'd made the incorrect assumption. Who's the one jumping to conclusions, again?
The way you wrote it, it looked like more that of trite sarcasm that you used earlier. It's not easy to tell when someone's being serious, as opposed to facetious or sarcastic or trite or...whatever.
As for the "nitpick", my point is that "qualitatively different" on its own is irrelevant. What's important is the nature of the qualitative difference, if one exists. Which is why I went on about potentiality to form a valued being, not being a particularly important qualitative difference. Because the being in question still doesn't exist.
An embryo isn't just a set of human cells in the sense of being human cells and not fish cells. Hair strands, skin flakes, fingernail clippings, blood samples, pick a subset of human cells...none of them will eventually grow into an infant under any circumstances, whereas an embryo will, under the right circumstances. That's what I meant by qualitative difference, so it is relevant to the discussion. As for it being valued, what does that have to do with anything? Something doesn't have to be a valued being for it to be a being (since there are uncountable examples through history where humans were not valued at all, yet still met the definition of human being).
So no, it's not safe to assume I got this one wrong, though I suppose it's convenient to assume so.
You apparently misunderstood what I was trying to say. Hopefully I've explained it a bit better this time.
Given your moral stance against abortion, despite your legal support for its option, I'd have been very surprised not to find what I found. Maybe that is my own bias talking, or maybe the truth is somewhere in between. Perhaps from your perspective it's justified, but in an abortion situation, finding it to be morally wrong for the would-be mother to put her personhood over that of the baby is misogynistic.
The problem with this conclusion is that it presumes that I don't accept any circumstances where this could happen, which is not true. Furthermore, it's kind of like saying that because I morally disapprove of someone calling for another person's death (despite supporting their legal right to say it per the First Amendment), I must therefore hate the first person deep down. It's not the same situation, but it's close enough to illustrate the problem (or at least so I think).
It's saying that some moral sovereignty of a woman's body is lesser than that of a man's, because a man never has to make such a decision about his own body. It's equally morally sovereign to that of a woman's in all other respects. Again, maybe this is justified. Maybe I'm wrong to consider this a bad thing. But you can't pretend the discrepancy doesn't exist, and that it doesn't tend to end up informing one's other opinions on the topic.
First off, even if the former is accurate (which I don't grant, more in a bit), why would the rest follow from it? Why would a man's body be morally superior to a woman's in all respects, simply because it was superior to it in one?
Also, consider this: I don't think of it as either superior or inferior. Just different. For something to be superior or inferior, there has to be a reasonable basis for comparison. And when it comes to pregnancy, or having an abortion, there is no such basis for comparison, because men can't get pregnant or have an abortion. It is a moral difference, but to claim that it's superior or inferior is foolishness, in my view.
I hope my clarification where you addressed this further up-post shows why I came to the conclusions I did. I know you're personally pro-choice, Jaime. But as you know, it's quite possible to be morally against abortion while still believing that it should be kept legal. Hell, I'm morally against indoctrinating kids with known falsehoods (eg. YEC stuff), yet believe that on balance it should be kept legal, given the alternatives. And while you've left no doubt about your pro-choice stand, you've also expressed for quite some time your position that abortion is morally negative. It's not your legal position that I object to, Jaime. It's the moral position, which seems to me to be quite similar to the positions that motivate some people to take a political stand against abortion (just not you). In short, your political support for choice doesn't have much to do with the moral question that we were actually discussing.
I hope that I've illustrated why my moral position with regards to abortion is not like the anti-abortion moral position regarding it. Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some superficial similarities, but it's not difficult to find those in many circumstances. Here's how I look at it. Would I want some stranger, who I didn't know from John Doe, butting in and telling me that my wife (or girlfriend) should not have an abortion, for for that matter that she should? The answer is no, therefore, it is not at all justifiable for me to do it to anyone else, whatever my personal feelings about it.