Strangely convoluted thinking

[Bikewer]

Saw a new bumper sticker today:

Isn't it hypocritical to be in favor of abortion after you've already been born?


Kind of thing that makes you just stop and go, Huh?

 

[neutrino_cannon]

It's like saying that someone is hypocritical to be in favor of stronger police forces after being mugged already.

 

[rachaella]

Saw a new bumper sticker today:

Isn't it hypocritical to be in favor of abortion after you've already been born?


Kind of thing that makes you just stop and go, Huh?

I guess it would also be hypocritical to be in favor of birth control after you've been born, or really any kind of behavior that would prevent some sperm and some egg from combining. Being in favor of abstinence too would qualify.

 

[toddjh]

Saw a new bumper sticker today:

Isn't it hypocritical to be in favor of abortion after you've already been born?


Kind of thing that makes you just stop and go, Huh?

Is your nonexistent younger brother upset that he was never born? Isn't it hypocritical to be against abortion and not mourn him, too?

Jeremy

 

[Yahweh]

I saw a very patriotic truck today...

It had many bumperstickers including "JESUS IS LORD" (with Lord in much larger 3D letters to accentuate important).

Two Jesus fish, tail to tail.

About 5 "Re-Elect Bush" stickers.

The truck was a rusty Ford.

 

[Yahweh]

Saw a new bumper sticker today:

Isn't it hypocritical to be in favor of abortion after you've already been born?

Seems like someone mistaking Pro-Choice for mandatory abortion over natural birth...

Good enough to convince the convinced, I'd say...

 

[ceo_esq]

It's like saying that someone is hypocritical to be in favor of stronger police forces after being mugged already.

How is it like saying that? For one thing, you can only be aborted (or born) once; after you're born you've already definitively avoided what is arguably the most direct risk posed by abortion - which is not the case with a phenomenon like mugging (which is theoretically capable of repetition in any individual's case). For another thing, the analogy is obviously going to break down if you're likening something positive (being born) to something negative (being mugged).

 

[Skeptical Greg]

For another thing, the analogy is obviously going to break down if you're likening something positive (being born) to something negative (being mugged).

( Since we are waxing pedantic) .. Begs the assumption that being born is always a positive experience and to a lesser extent that being mugged is a negative one.. ( a'la Deathwish ? )

 

[ceo_esq]

( Since we are waxing pedantic) .. Begs the assumption that being born is always a positive experience and to a lesser extent that being mugged is a negative one.. ( a'la Deathwish ? )

Sorry, perhaps I should have qualified that. But even that's not really necessary; my point about the analogy doesn't actually require the strict assumption to which you're referring. The analogy still breaks down if you liken a phenomenon that is generally positive to one that is generally negative, because regardless of whether there are individual exceptions, the inference of hypocrisy (which arises here, as far as I can tell, from the reasonable supposition of having derived a direct net advantage from being born) will be reversed if you replace having been born with having been mugged. No?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Sorry, perhaps I should have qualified that. But even that's not really necessary; my point about the analogy doesn't actually require the strict assumption to which you're referring. The analogy still breaks down if you liken a phenomenon that is generally positive to one that is generally negative, because regardless of whether there are individual exceptions, the inference of hypocrisy (which arises here, as far as I can tell, from the reasonable supposition of having derived a direct net advantage from being born) will be reversed if you replace having been born with having been mugged. No?

I'm trying to figure out why I decided to pick that nit with you. You make complete sense...

 

[Brown]

Saw a new bumper sticker today:

Isn't it hypocritical to be in favor of abortion after you've already been born?

How about this bumper sticker:

"I asked my fetus about whether it minded being aborted, and it didn't object."

Tasteless? You bet. But it's just the other side of the coin.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Strangely convoluted thinking

How about this bumper sticker:

"I asked my fetus about whether it minded being aborted, and it didn't object."

Tasteless? You bet. But it's just the other side of the coin.

I'm not so sure that's the other side...

 

[Brown]

Re: Re: Re: Strangely convoluted thinking

I'm not so sure that's the other side...

Well, the basic idea that anti-abortion forces use is that only people who are already born are for abortion, while all people who are unborn are against it. The first bumper sticker addresses the first half of the idea, and the second (fictitious!) bumper sticker addresses the second half of the idea.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Strangely convoluted thinking

Well, the basic idea that anti-abortion forces use is that only people who are already born are for abortion, while all people who are unborn are against it. The first bumper sticker addresses the first half of the idea, and the second (fictitious!) bumper sticker addresses the second half of the idea.

I can imagine an anti-abortionist as presenting your bumper sticker as a facetious statement, with the idea that fetuses do not have a chance to object; and why I suggested it didn't seem all that counter, to the original quip that was presented..

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

I guess it would also be hypocritical to be in favor of birth control after you've been born, or really any kind of behavior that would prevent some sperm and some egg from combining. Being in favor of abstinence too would qualify.

Isn't it hypocritical to not be having sex every chance you get after you've already been born?

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Strangely convoluted thinking

I guess it would also be hypocritical to be in favor of birth control after you've been born, or really any kind of behavior that would prevent some sperm and some egg from combining. Being in favor of abstinence too would qualify.

The difference? No person has ever *been* a sexual act, or *been* two unique gametes in two different locations.


There is a philsophical debate over when a person first starts to be a person. I think it rather obvious that you can trace every human individual's existence to the moment when the egg becomes fertilized, for human development and genetic existence unquestionably begins at that instant.



-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Strangely convoluted thinking

How about this bumper sticker:

"I asked my fetus about whether it minded being aborted, and it didn't object."

Tasteless? You bet. But it's just the other side of the coin.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that bumper sticker, I think it'd be good P.R. for the pro-life movement.

Heck, you could ask a newborn the same question. The issues? Possession of one human by another, and the complete defenselessness of the possessed.

Heck, let's ask deaf people who can't read lips the same question.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Isn't it hypocritical to not be having sex every chance you get after you've already been born?

Only if you are unable to distinguish between an activity and an individual. But people who think that abortion is commensurate to the word choice have problems distinguishing things, so you'd be able to slide this one by such types.


-Elliot

 

[daenku32]

Re: Re: Re: Strangely convoluted thinking

The difference? No person has ever *been* a sexual act, or *been* two unique gametes in two different locations.


There is a philsophical debate over when a person first starts to be a person. I think it rather obvious that you can trace every human individual's existence to the moment when the egg becomes fertilized, for human development and genetic existence unquestionably begins at that instant.



-Elliot

Do you think the fetus suffers because it's being confined in a tight space, with fairly small amounts of oxygen, and no ability to communicate (cry), when it's feeling pain or angst?

If we want to get all touchy feely, we can REALLY get touchy feely.

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Strangely convoluted thinking

Do you think the fetus suffers because it's being confined in a tight space, with fairly small amounts of oxygen, and no ability to communicate (cry), when it's feeling pain or angst?

If we want to get all touchy feely, we can REALLY get touchy feely.

No, because it's all relative. From the perspective of a fetus, I reckon it has no idea what a tight space is. You'd have to enter a large space in order to make such a distinction/judgment.

Small amounts of oxygen? We need enough oxygen to survive, right? And the fetus would have to have been exposed to large amounts of oxygen in order to make such a distinction.

Fetuses can't communicate? Well, I guess you would have to have an idea of the "other" to communicate. But surely you're aware that moms/dads sing to the fetus, stroke the belly, feel the fetus kick, etc. What would such activities fall under? Let me guess, base superstition and sentimentality.

As for pain and angst, ever see the movies of fetuses reacting to the introduction of the tools of D&C? As for pain, if premies can feel pain, why not fetuses?

-Elliot