Stumble This | You should also watch “Atheists Explain Why You Don't Die When The Sun Goes Down” |
CBS Evening News, September 30, 2008. Katie Couric asks Sarah Palin about her stance on abortion - specifically in the cases of incest and rape - and the "morning after" pill RU486.
Notice that Sarah Palin only says a woman shouldn't go to jail for aborting their rapist's baby. She's being honest about that. But what she's not mentioning is that the anti-choice movement is trying to make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions. Those doctors who do perform them would go to jail.
Notice that Sarah Palin only says a woman shouldn't go to jail for aborting their rapist's baby. She's being honest about that. But what she's not mentioning is that the anti-choice movement is trying to make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions. Those doctors who do perform them would go to jail.
Uggh, hurry the fuck UP Nov 5th!!!
I challenge the sifter community to post some video(s) of Palin saying intelligent things that make sense.
Perhaps this speaks to the general intelligence of women statistically speaking. Here's a thought: maybe she WAS the smartest republican woman they could find?
Here we go again... "life begins at conception" bullshit.
Uggh, hurry the fuck UP Nov 5th!!!
Could you enlighten the rest of us as to when life starts since you seem so sure it doesn't begin at conception?
lol, it's so obvious that Katie Couric is jealous of Miss Palin's stunning good looks and irrefutable moral judgements
interesting priorities.
i guess brains comes 3rd on your list?... 4th?
still with the jealousy? srsly?
That said, I wouldn't doubt for an instant that her stance would probably dramatically change if she or someone close to her were. Only a monster would force a woman to carry the child of the man who raped them to term.
>> ^volumptuous:
Could you enlighten the rest of us as to when life starts since you seem so sure it doesn't begin at conception?
Saying that a 50-cell blastocyst that has 0 nerve cells (i.e. 0 feeling) possesses human qualities seems to clearly violate Occam's Razor.
If you have an alternative hypothesis, the modern intellectual community would like to hear it.
Anyone who wishes to take that freedom away from us are the real monsters.
And also yes the amazing dichotomy of a "culture of life" that promotes bombing countries and the death penalty is a huge mental disconnect.
issacredand every egg also have potential, so i guess that means a woman is committing murder every time she has her period (why else so much blood), and a man genocide any time he ejaculates.So she's all for contraception now huh, what happened to her abstinence only stance? Was she presented with some sort of over whelming evidence that occurred right under her nose that actually managed to change her opinion?
The argument is framed wrong. Of course a 50-cell blastocyst is alive, so are yeast cells and paramecium. Better to ask when is a developing fetus a human being.
And also yes the amazing dichotomy of a "culture of life" that promotes bombing countries and the death penalty is a huge mental disconnect.
Thanks Dag, that was my point but you said it way better than I ever could. Science can't determine when a developing fetus becomes a human being. At its core the question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.
My own 2 cents... if you analyze the DNA of a zygote you will find that it neither that of the mother nor the father but that of a unique, unborn human being. As far as I'm concerned it's human at that point and should have all the rights we attribute to humans.
I am not persuaded by the "it can't feel anything" argument. Neither can someone deep in a coma or under anesthesia, but we would consider it murder if we snuffed out their life.
I am also not persuaded by the "it would be horrid to have someone carry around their rapists' baby" argument. I agree, it would be horrid. But the baby didn't rape the woman. Despite the violent nature of its conception, it deserves the same chances for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the rest of us. That said, if we're going to force women to give birth to a constant reminder of such a traumatic incident we should also be fully willing to support the mother with both free health care and help with giving the baby away for adoption after it is born.
And before I get the "you'd change your mind if a loved one was raped"-argument let me just say my girlfriend in college was raped. I had a front-side seat to the trauma and anguish of such an attack and I know it takes a lifetime of healing to recover from it. It doesn't change the fact that the unborn baby is innocent. You want to burn your clothes after the attack? Fine. I'll get the lighter fluid. But don't take out your pain on someone who isn't the culprit.
We don't have the freedom to kill other people... which is what the argument is all about. When does a human get the status of "human" along with all the rights and protections such a label confers?
>> ^SDGundamX:
>> ^volumptuous:
Could you enlighten the rest of us as to when life starts since you seem so sure it doesn't begin at conception?
Saying that a 50-cell blastocyst that has 0 nerve cells (i.e. 0 feeling) possesses human qualities seems to clearly violate Occam's Razor.
If you have an alternative hypothesis, the modern intellectual community would like to hear it.
By your logic, a caterpillar and a butterfly are not the same species since one does not contain any of the qualities of the other. Yet biology clearly shows that the DNA of the two are the same. They are the same species. So perhaps you could explain to the intellectual community how, then, a zygote that is a living organism and, like the caterpillar growing into a butterfly, will itself grow into a human being, will have the same DNA as a human being, and yet is somehow not considered a human being?
If so... well, then you've made some odd moral judgment there. You've decided at that point that because the mother is possibly going to come to great physical harm or die, then abortion is ok. You have given the mother's life more weight than the fetus's.
So, question is, why do you do that for physical pain and wellbeing, but give no thought to the mental pain and trauma caused to a woman who has to carry to term a baby she never wanted, or that causes her day in day out reminder of the rape that caused it? In this case you haven't given the mother's wellbeing any weighting at all, and are putting the not yet developed fetus's future above all else.
Odd.
Me? I'm pro a woman having the choice... BUT there is a point in a pregnancy where you have to go 'Hang on, I think at this point we could say this is a real person'. Myself, I would ascribe that to the point that we could remove the fetus and have it live and grow outside the woman. These days that is conceivably possible at 24-26 weeks or so... very dangerous that young, but has been done. I would say, if it can't yet be made to survive outside of the mother's womb, then it's the mother's choice.
After that, well it has a shot on it's own (albeit with a great deal of care and machinery to keep it alive up to 'full term')
I am not persuaded by the "it can't feel anything" argument. Neither can someone deep in a coma or under anesthesia, but we would consider it murder if we snuffed out their life. "
You seem to think "uniqueness" means something that it doesn't. Identical twins are not unique, but they have the same rights as everyone else.
We ascribe more rights to humans than to apes, who have more rights than dogs, who have more rights than insects etc. This ordered pattern suggests there's a principle behind our ascription of varying degrees of rights.
There's a 1 to 1 correlation in that pattern between degree of consciousness and level of rights, so that's probably the best candidate you'll find for why we ascribe varying levels of rights. Coma patients are an exception because we believe their feelings are present in some manner.
I didn't say a zygote isn't a human being, I said it doesn't possess human qualities. Rights exist for reasons, and those reasons are not present in the 50-cell state of a zygote.
Perhaps this speaks to the general intelligence of women statistically speaking. Here's a thought: maybe she WAS the smartest republican woman they could find?
My dear Sir,
I dislike this comment.
Very respectfully yours,
Pinky
(I originally wrote "You are a dick-head," but I thought I might get in trouble for that.)
I'll upvote to counter Bill O's trolling downvotes, but I won't upvote Gorillaman's comment. I may despise the woman, but would never wish rape upon anyone.
Moral cowardice. I endorse rape or any other violation of those who have forfeited their human rights by opposing the rights of others.
Sarah Palin should be burned at the stake like the witch she is.
>> ^Kagenin:
I'll upvote to counter Bill O's trolling downvotes, but I won't upvote Gorillaman's comment. I may despise the woman, but would never wish rape upon anyone.
Moral cowardice. I endorse rape or any other violation of those who have forfeited their human rights by opposing the rights of others.
Sarah Palin should be burned at the stake like the witch she is.
Oh really, f*ck off.
Moral cowardice my arse. It's sticking to your morals even when you don't agree with someone's stance. It's the moral highground to not stoop to violence and oppression against those you don't like.
Resorting to violence against those you don't like... that's just pure thuggery, and speaks highly of your lack of thinking anything through a great deal.
You've changed your argument. Your original argument was that a blastocyst doesn't "possesses human qualities" and the human qualities you referred to in your post were clearly biological in nature (lack of nerve cells). I countered that argument (successfully, I think). Now you're saying that you were really talking about rights not qualities. Okay, fair enough.
I see your point. Attributing most rights is purely arbitrary. We attribute people 21-years old and over the right to drink. We attribute 18-year olds the right to vote and "die on some godforsaken isle" for the glory of their country. The numbers could easily be different(and of course are different depending on which country you live in).
But we're not talking about buying alcohol or registering to vote here. We're talking about life itself. As far as I know, the law here in the U.S. simply assumes all humans have a right to life. You have to present very compelling evidence in a court of law to deprive someone of their right to life--for example, evidence showing that the person poses a mortal danger to society. In other words, the right to life is not assigned, it is assumed by virtue of being human.
Which brings us back to the original question, when are developing embryos considered humans? You seem to be saying it is when they have achieved a certain level of "consciousness"--that we somehow earn rights based on our level of consciousness. That definition seems odd to me though. Wouldn't you agree that an adult ape is more conscious than a newborn infant? An adult ape interacts far more with its environment and shows far greater problem solving abilities than a newborn. Does that mean then that a newborn infant has less rights than an adult ape? We kill adult apes for research and (illegal) sport. Imagine,then, if newborns had less rights than adult apes. Surely that's not what you're suggesting. I only bring it up because I can't see how you're determining when a human is "human." Or maybe I'm still not understanding what you mean by "quality."
Yes I do. I don't see a paradox here. The baby is threatening the mother's life. The baby's right to life does not exceed the mother's own right to life. Please note I am defining "right to life" here as literal life, not "lifestyle." Some people make the jump that because the baby will inconvenience the mother's "life" (they really mean lifestyle) the pregnancy should be allowed to be terminated.
So to answer your question, the baby has become a threat to another person's life. I see the act of terminating the pregnancy in such cases as an act of self-defense on the part of the mother.
And as I said before, I do agree that it is terrible to have to carry a constant reminder or such a horrible crime for 9 months. If society demands such a sacrifice then society also has the responsibility to make sure the mother is cared for medically, psychologically, and economically and that, if the mother so wishes, the baby is adopted. I should point out that not all mothers hate babies born of rape, nor do they view the baby as a constant reminder of the crime. But I certainly wouldn't fault a woman who did feel that way.
Moving on to your view of ascribing the right to life at the time the baby can survive--with medical intervention--outside the womb: I think it's safe to say that as technology advances that time will move closer and closer to conception. It may even become possible to "grow" a human outside of womb under laboratory conditions. Will you simply readjust your view of when abortion is unethical every time there is a medical advancement?
Only a monster would force a woman to carry the child of the man who raped them to term.
Why must pro-lifers and pro-choicers throw superlatives at each other all of the time? A monster! HA! Let's think about this. I appreciate that pro-choicers are making a sincere attempt at what they believe to be compassion by giving women the option to abort. Pro-lifers are making an equally sincere attempt at morality. Palin may be a pitiful excuse for a vice-presidential candidate, (no, let me rephrase that) a disastrous embarrassment to the Republican party, but she's not a monster, and neither am I.
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^SDGundamX:
Could you enlighten the rest of us as to when life starts since you seem so sure it doesn't begin at conception?
>> ^volumptuous:
Saying that a 50-cell blastocyst that has 0 nerve cells (i.e. 0 feeling) possesses human qualities seems to clearly violate Occam's Razor.
If you have an alternative hypothesis, the modern intellectual community would like to hear it.
I thought SDGundamX's question was a very good one, but in essence your response was, "Let me answer your question with another question." You called for an "alternative hypothesis." Alternative to what, exactly? None of you pro-choicers (with the very dubious exception of Spoco) have offered an explanation of when life begins.
Then let me offer my opinion on the subject. Philosophically speaking, if you believe in human life as a concept in and of itself, there MUST be a SET point at which a fertilized egg ceases to be "life" and is suddenly given the sacred status of "human life." It is not philosophically sound to argue that human life begins at some point between 24 and 26 weeks of pregnancy. Human life is not defined by dependency on environment nor on physical or mental capabilities. (A human infant holds the sacred title of "human life," but it has less intellectual capacity and is less capable of independent survival than a border collie.) Infants and fetuses are just as dependent on their environment as zygotes. They are simply in a later stage of human development. A human being cannot be instantly endowed with all of the capabilities of an adult, and there must be a starting point. I'm really sorry that the ovum doesn't instantly take on a little miniature human form when it is fertilized. Then maybe people would think of it as a thing with all of the necessary equipment for becoming an adult human being?
Where is the logic of those who believe in 13-week abortions but not 22-week abortions? I see no difference but time. If you take a child out of the mother at 22 weeks, it cannot survive on it's own. It's gonna need a heck of a lot of help. Ah, but it is human life, is it not? It is no longer all wet and icky and attached to an umbilical cord and TAH DAH! it isn't dead! LIFE! Oh, goody. Now we know when human life begins.
Life doesn't start at conception, it's a continuous process that started 3 billion years ago. Only sentient life forms have the moral status of persons. A fertilized egg is not sentient.
This is by far the best argument I've heard for the moral grounds for abortion (and also extends to stem cell research). It may be what chilaxe was trying to say but I just couldn't understand the way he was saying it. "Sentient" in animal rights is defined as "capable of suffering" and I'm guessing that's how you're using it here (correct me if I'm wrong). Such a definition neatly sidesteps the issue of consciousness.
So okay, I'll agree with you on this--a zygote and the subsequent stages of celluar development are not sentient for some time--estimates vary from the 13th to the 24th week of pregnancy.
I'm not so sure sentience is a pre-requisite for humanity, though. I pointed out above the case of someone in a coma. chilaxe's counter to that was that we believe "their feelings are there in some manner." But those in a deep coma do not respond to pain and will not remember any pain should they eventually wake up. Hence no suffering. Have they therefore lost their humanity? Are they no longer a person?
The answer to both questions is quite clearly no. I'm interested in understanding "why not," because if only sentient life forms have the moral status of persons then a deeply comatose patient should have lost that status by virtue of being beyond suffering. If the argument is that "well, they may wake up and therefore be sentient again" then I would say you have to include developing fetuses as humans because they too may well be sentient someday--if someone doesn't destroy them first.
The point we're all missing is that as humans, we have free will. As Americans we are guaranteed freedom of choice - freedom to choose our religion, or to choose secular existence, and we should be free to choose what we wish to do to our own bodies.
Anyone who wishes to take that freedom away from us are the real monsters.
I don't like Palin.
I deeply sympathize with women who have become pregnant as a result of rape or incest, but I want to point out that when a woman becomes pregnant under such circumstances, it is the perpetrator who has robbed her of her freedom. If abortion was a concept that had never been imagined, we would blame the criminal and not the law for taking away a woman's right to choose. A pregnancy may be a tragic consequence of an atrocity, but as was said before, this is not the child's fault. Abortion only adds to an already heinous situation.
Oddly enough, I'm against the death penalty. Strange how that works, isn't it?
^Well to them it's all about the potential, something has started forming that could become a human being. Of course every sperm
issacredand every egg also have potential, so i guess that means a woman is committing murder every time she has her period (why else so much blood), and a man genocide any time he ejaculates.It is ridiculous to compare an ovum or a sperm to a zygote. Why? Because neither an ovum nor a sperm if left alone in their unique environments will ever develop into a human being, but a zygote will.
For you pro lifers (SDGundamX in particular), do you support Palin's other stance on abortion in that it's ok if the mother's life is at stake?
If so... well, then you've made some odd moral judgment there. You've decided at that point that because the mother is possibly going to come to great physical harm or die, then abortion is ok. You have given the mother's life more weight than the fetus's.
So, question is, why do you do that for physical pain and wellbeing, but give no thought to the mental pain and trauma caused to a woman who has to carry to term a baby she never wanted, or that causes her day in day out reminder of the rape that caused it? In this case you haven't given the mother's wellbeing any weighting at all, and are putting the not yet developed fetus's future above all else.
Odd.
Me? I'm pro a woman having the choice... BUT there is a point in a pregnancy where you have to go 'Hang on, I think at this point we could say this is a real person'. Myself, I would ascribe that to the point that we could remove the fetus and have it live and grow outside the woman. These days that is conceivably possible at 24-26 weeks or so... very dangerous that young, but has been done. I would say, if it can't yet be made to survive outside of the mother's womb, then it's the mother's choice.
After that, well it has a shot on it's own (albeit with a great deal of care and machinery to keep it alive up to 'full term')
This is the first good argument I've seen, but of course I entirely disagree with you, Spoco. I don't think it is an odd moral judgment and I agree with SDGundamX that abortion in the case of self-defense is a completely different matter. At that point, what else is there but to determine whose life is more valuable? That ought to be the woman's decision.
The mental pain and trauma of carrying and delivering an unwanted or forced baby can be very severe, indeed, but our emotional well-being is never more important than a human life.
I'm annoyed by people who pretend to know something about the choice to have an abortion. I know three women who believed that an abortion would make them happy when they had it done. All three of them still regret their choice. One is my mom's friend who was pregnant as a result of rape and she had an abortion because she believed that the pregnancy was contributing to her emotional anguish, but once the baby was gone she felt just as unhappy as before. When she had her first child she says that she realized for the first time that what she had done was wrong, and now she suffers because of the guilt. This is a unique situation, of course, but I make this point because some people want to pretend that abortion is the perfect bandaid when it really has consequences of its own sometimes.
When Obama was asked why he voted against the live-birth abortion ban, he said that it was because he believed that it was just another hoop for mothers and doctors to jump through. The doctor would have to come back and check to see if the baby was alive and the mother would have to second-guess the decision that had already been made. Oh my goodness we can't have that! So what if their is a chance that the baby is viable? We can't have hoops that potentially protect life. We can't have those mothers second-guessing a monumental decision that could affect them for the rest of their lives, now can we?
Edit: Forgot to mention, Spoco, that I don't understand how a child "with a great deal of care and machinery to keep it alive" is more "on its own" than a child in the uterus. In fact, the latter is FAR more independent. All the mother has to do is live her life.
When does this belief in start of life end? Some could argue life begins in the male gonads and the female gonads separately. Therefore, I could believe everytime I masturbate I kill millions of little blankfists. Civilization would most likely thank me for that.
"By your logic, a caterpillar and a butterfly are not the same species since one does not contain any of the qualities of the other. Yet biology clearly shows that the DNA of the two are the same. They are the same species. So perhaps you could explain to the intellectual community how, then, a zygote that is a living organism and, like the caterpillar growing into a butterfly, will itself grow into a human being, will have the same DNA as a human being, and yet is somehow not considered a human being?"
I didn't say a zygote isn't a human being, I said it doesn't possess human qualities. Rights exist for reasons, and those reasons are not present in the 50-cell state of a zygote.
I see what you're saying, but you can't get out of this argument so easily. Exactly what qualities make someone human? What, specifically, are these reasons that we have rights? (I feel like Katie asking Sarah to be more specific: http://www.videosift.com/video/Tina-Fey-as-Sarah-Palin-she-does-is-again )
Life doesn't start at conception, it's a continuous process that started 3 billion years ago. Only sentient life forms have the moral status of persons. A fertilized egg is not sentient.
Okay, finally a defined point at which life begins! I believe science puts sentience at about 6 months after conception. If you want to say life begins when the embryo can feel pain, I say, well, at least you put life somewhere. But you must realize that the consequence of that logic means that the babies who are born before this (up to a month) and live are not human until some time later. In that case, it would be okay for the mother to change her mind at any time during that month and flush the thing.
It's arguments like these that make me glad that I'm not only pro-choice, but also don't have any qualms regarding infantcide.
Oddly enough, I'm against the death penalty. Strange how that works, isn't it?
Well, at least your morals don't conflict. (Excuse me while I vomit.) But, seriously, if you don't think infanticide is wrong, then being pro-choice would be a logical choice for you, albeit immoral and repugnant. It's these people who don't see the difference between infanticide and abortion that I don't understand.