"A Right to Know" pro-life brochure

[pharphis]

Howdy.

I noticed today on my campus that there is a pro life club and picked up one of their brochures out of curiosity. The brochure and slightly longer booklet can be found here:
http://studentlifelink.ca/resources/print-resources/right-to-know/

Anyway, there was some thoughts I had about it and wonder what others think about the narrative of this piece (whether you're "pro life" or not... I'm not).

One of my thoughts is that they paint "killing an innocent human being" as morally wrong in all cases (I might agree with this - not sure) without talking about how obviously there are other moral implications to abortion - not just the life of the unborn (is it morally wrong to cause mental anguish to someone who doesn't want to carry a child for 9 months?). The focus seems to solely be about right to life rather than minimization of suffering, which was something else I think is troublesome.*

There's more nuance then this piece suggests (which ofc intended) but I was wondering what other thoughts any of you might have had.

*Does someone in a vegetative state with no brain function (you know, beyond breathing and whatever) have the "Right to life"? How is this different than an unborn, unthinking and unfeeling fetus (or earlier) state of development?

 

[sylvan8798]

This is one issue I decline to debate on.

 

[cullennz]

I don't bother reading biased, one-sided, emotive brochures. Good luck though!

 

[Caper]

One of my thoughts is that they paint "killing an innocent human being" as morally wrong in all cases (I might agree with this - not sure)

I consider myself at least partially prolife. Not sure if I agree with that either.

without talking about how obviously there are other moral implications to abortion - not just the life of the unborn (is it morally wrong to cause mental anguish to someone who doesn't want to carry a child for 9 months?).

Obviously they view the unborn child as a human being with rights. So If they are alive they view that unborn childs right to live as a greater right then those that not want to carry the child for nine months.

The focus seems to solely be about right to life rather than minimization of suffering, which was something else I think is troublesome.*

That's because they think the unborn have a right to life. Is that really that hard to understand?

*Does someone in a vegetative state with no brain function (you know, beyond breathing and whatever) have the "Right to life"? How is this different than an unborn, unthinking and unfeeling fetus (or earlier) state of development?

Prolife can be a pretty big spectrum of opinions. My opinion is that a fetus is not always in a state of unthinking and unfeeling and at some point deserves protection.... which is kind of how most people view the issue. Very view countries allow for an 8 month old fetus to be aborted with out very good reason for example.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

A woman's decisions about her body are none of my damn business, unless my wife, and even then the baby is an appendage of HER body, not mine, until I cut the cord.

 

[cullennz]

A woman's decisions about her body are none of my damn business, unless my wife, and even then the baby is an appendage of HER body, not mine, until I cut the cord.

Real men chew through it and then stand looking manly with their hands on their hips.

Preferably wearng steel cap boots and a sleeve rolled up to show their tattoo

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

 

[qayak]

Real men chew through it and then stand looking manly with their hands on their hips.

Preferably wearng steel cap boots and a sleeve rolled up to show their tattoo

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

Where's the part where they eat the placenta?

Sent from my SGH-T889V using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptical Greg]

......One of my thoughts is that they paint "killing an innocent human being" as morally wrong in all cases.....

That's where you ask them " Why is it morally wrong, and by whose standards of morality? "..

At which time you will probably get an answer along the lines of " Well it just is .. ", or " It says so in the Bible. "..

At which point, you ask them " Which Bible, and which passage? "..

If they are at a loss for a scripture, you might suggest Hosea 13:16..

It should go down hill from there...

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Not how they do things at the hospital where my kids were born. Is chewing through the cord some kind of socialist medicine thing?





(Kidding, no flames plz)

 

[ZiprHead]

Ask them what they think about the part of the Bible where God gives instructions to Moses on how to perform an abortion.

 

[Dessi]

The argument in the brochure is spelled out pretty clearly:

Premise 1: Intentionally killing an innocent human being is a serious moral wrong.
Premise 2: Elective abortion kills an innocent human being.
Conclusion: Elective abortion is a serious moral wrong.​

The brochure follows up by showing that a fetus is, in the scientifically literal sense:

- an individual: distinct from other living things
- living: characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli
- human: has human DNA a human genetic signature
- an individual being: self-contained, self-integrating living entity with it's own nature​

Seems pretty cut and dried.

One thing bugs me about the argument: the first premise, that it's wrong to take human life, needs justification. Some of you are thinking, "surely you're kidding, Dessi. Killing innocent people is so intuitively, obviously wrong that it shouldn't merit discussion." Hear me out on this:

Many people who are pro-life have no qualms about killing non-human animals and, for that matter, plants and other living organisms. It's easy to show, using the definitions provided in the brochure, that rats, sea sponges, chimpanzees, sunflowers, and all other living organisms are individual living beings. They don't have a right to life because, quite simply, they don't have human DNA. And therein lies the rub: the entire argument is an appeal to speciesism, that one very particular taxonomic grouping out of the entire tree of life has a magical claim to moral value shared by no other group. It's little more than tribalistic wishful thinking, exactly the same prejudice as racism and anti-Semitism highlighted on the brochure's cover. There is no reason, not even in principle, why a fetus's right to life depends on it being a member of one species instead of another.

The argument in the brochure is a red herring at best. It tries to convince the reader that a fetus is a human in the scientific literal sense, but species membership isn't morally relevant at all. Knowing the fetus's taxonomic classification communicates precisely no useful information by which we can judge the morality of abortion.

As near as I can tell, the unjustified speciesism in Premise 1 makes the entire argument against abortion circular.

There might be a strong persuasive argument against abortion, the argument in this brochure isn't it.

 

[ehcks]

It says that a fetus has rights. Fine. I'll go with that. Adults have rights too, and it's still sometimes acceptable to kill them. Even innocent ones. Even for medical reasons. Even for other people's medical reasons.

Imagine a person with a medical disorder that requires a full blood transplant. The only person able to donate is their mother. The mother is entirely within their rights to not donate, and we would never want to change that. If we did, then we could start forcing anyone to donate blood or organs to anyone who needed them.

We can't do that. Which means we can't force carrying and birthing a child either.

 

[casebro]

You expected something different from "a pro life club" ?

It's one of the political discussions that has been settled. Women have the right. period. full stop. Amongst child bearing age women, it is #9 on their list behind economy, world peace, etc. The ones bringing it are stupid zealots who won't accept the decision. "Zealots of any kind are to be avoided."*

* Heinlein, among others I suppose.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The sacredness of human life is a purely human construct, and a pretty poor construct at that, since those that decry it the loudest, usually give it a pass when it is convenient.

 

[Caper]

Many people who are pro-life have no qualms about killing non-human animals and, for that matter, plants and other living organisms. It's easy to show, using the definitions provided in the brochure, that rats, sea sponges, chimpanzees, sunflowers, and all other living organisms are individual living beings. They don't have a right to life because, quite simply, they don't have human DNA.

Yeah... that's a pretty big thing. That's where you should have stopped and gave your head a shake.

 

[Caper]

It says that a fetus has rights. Fine. I'll go with that. Adults have rights too, and it's still sometimes acceptable to kill them. Even innocent ones. Even for medical reasons. Even for other people's medical reasons.

That's what the fight is about. They and I in some cases believe the unborn's right outweigh the adults.

 

[Dessi]

Yeah... that's a pretty big thing. That's where you should have stopped and gave your head a shake.

You are familiar with the short story, The Emperor's New Clothes, right?

[Two weavers] promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, no one dares to say that he doesn't see any suit of clothes until a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

The emperor's clothes are your counter-argument.

 

[Caper]

You are familiar with the short story, The Emperor's New Clothes, right?

The emperor's clothes are your counter-argument.

Ok. But I've saw you go down this road before... bacteria are just little people or what ever it is. Or we can kill anyone we want because we also kill chickens.
None of that works for me as an argument for or against abortion. I think it is ridiculous. A bit crazy even.

Being human is a real actual thing in this debate. What defines being human more specifically. As much as you really, really try.... chickens aren't people.

 

[pharphis]

I don't bother reading biased, one-sided, emotive brochures. Good luck though!

I figured I'd give it a chance to see what they had to say, though ofc I realized it was unlikely to convince me that elective abortion is always wrong.

I consider myself at least partially prolife. Not sure if I agree with that either.



Obviously they view the unborn child as a human being with rights. So If they are alive they view that unborn childs right to live as a greater right then those that not want to carry the child for nine months.




That's because they think the unborn have a right to life. Is that really that hard to understand?



Prolife can be a pretty big spectrum of opinions. My opinion is that a fetus is not always in a state of unthinking and unfeeling and at some point deserves protection.... which is kind of how most people view the issue. Very view countries allow for an 8 month old fetus to be aborted with out very good reason for example.

Oh I understand. It just doesn't seem to be justified at all. It's an assumption.

Agreed entirely and I also think this is most people's stance, though I haven't looked at an opinion poll or anything in awhile.

 

[pharphis]

That's where you ask them " Why is it morally wrong, and by whose standards of morality? "..

At which time you will probably get an answer along the lines of " Well it just is .. ", or " It says so in the Bible. "..

At which point, you ask them " Which Bible, and which passage? "..

If they are at a loss for a scripture, you might suggest Hosea 13:16..

It should go down hill from there...

I'm tired of being labeled a sexist or racist or whatever when I ask "why" something is a problem that might intuitively seem obvious. I suspect this would be one of those cases where I'd be labeled a monster.
In the booklet they reject a counter-argument as being based in moral relativism (without actually explaining why iirc) which I suspect the authors would try to frame and opposition to their position as being.

Ask them what they think about the part of the Bible where God gives instructions to Moses on how to perform an abortion.

From what I saw in the brochure (and the bigger booklet) they don't mention religious reasons at all. If they did, I would immediately dismiss it as a baby-eating atheist. How else are we supposed to get the babies? Everyone knows the unbornagain Christians have the most flavor.