Comments on: How Pro-Choicers can “give” http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/27/how-pro-choicers-can-%e2%80%9cgive%e2%80%9d/ Men's Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:39:56 -1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Squiggy http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/27/how-pro-choicers-can-%e2%80%9cgive%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-16977 Squiggy Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:25:47 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/27/how-pro-choicers-can-%e2%80%9cgive%e2%80%9d/#comment-16977 You "pro-choice" people sure have to do a long song-and-dance, don't you? And if you can't see that humans are totally different from animals, then you don't understand the term "morals". Oh, wait. You already said that. You “pro-choice” people sure have to do a long song-and-dance, don’t you?

And if you can’t see that humans are totally different from animals, then you don’t understand the term “morals”. Oh, wait. You already said that.

]]> By: TheGlimmering http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/27/how-pro-choicers-can-%e2%80%9cgive%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-16925 TheGlimmering Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:49:24 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/27/how-pro-choicers-can-%e2%80%9cgive%e2%80%9d/#comment-16925 Are you conceding that an unborn person has no right to the body of the mother? That's been my argument for the legality of abortion some time now, while the decision whether or not to abort has been a question of cost-benefit analysis. For instance, your description of the fetus leaves out the salient fact that EKG research has long since determined that heartbeat and limbs aside, a child at birth is incapable of any cognitive function such as thought, personality, memory, or purposeful movement of any kind. It's movements, including smiling and crying, are the result of purely reflexive impulses from the brainstem. I eat animals that had heartbeats, limbs and cognitive brain function, so surely that's not the basis for the moral assertion here. Of course, a fetus is a human life and we are obliged to respect it above the life of any other animal by virtue of our own humanity. Although rarely articulated, I submit that's the reason abortion is generally permitted while infanticide is not. Without the intervening woman's body and her various superceding rights, lent strength by the fetus's entire lack of self, the mere humanity of the child is sufficient for us to sustain them. Were life a little harder, perhaps under more primitive circumstances, humanity alone probably wouldn't suffice as other individuals would not have enough to support the surviving fetus. Which means it's hardly a matter of morality. I suppose, as a pro-choice representative, I am ceding that there is a distinct moral dimension, just not between choosing to abort and choosing to carry to terms. As an EMT I would be compelled to dress a fellow EMT down who took undue burdens on themself, placing themself at risk, to save a patient. What would the patient have done if they'd been injured? That same principle applied to the unhappily pregnant girl balances out any moral differential for me between aborting or carrying to term. What's left is the moral differential between withdrawing life support from a vegetative human being and killing any thinking, feeling animal. I find that difference an exceedingly close call. All of which begs the question, exactly why is anyone willing to cede a higher value to a human life than another animal's? Although I practice it myself, I don't consider it a moral principle at all, but a specieist principle. I'm human, therefore I value my own species over that of others. Nothing moral about it, it's pure self-interest. I believe we'd have to wander into the realms of theology to claim a justification for a moral distinction, at which point those of us disinclined to believe the theology in question will politely agree to disagree. Are you conceding that an unborn person has no right to the body of the mother? That’s been my argument for the legality of abortion some time now, while the decision whether or not to abort has been a question of cost-benefit analysis. For instance, your description of the fetus leaves out the salient fact that EKG research has long since determined that heartbeat and limbs aside, a child at birth is incapable of any cognitive function such as thought, personality, memory, or purposeful movement of any kind. It’s movements, including smiling and crying, are the result of purely reflexive impulses from the brainstem. I eat animals that had heartbeats, limbs and cognitive brain function, so surely that’s not the basis for the moral assertion here.

Of course, a fetus is a human life and we are obliged to respect it above the life of any other animal by virtue of our own humanity. Although rarely articulated, I submit that’s the reason abortion is generally permitted while infanticide is not. Without the intervening woman’s body and her various superceding rights, lent strength by the fetus’s entire lack of self, the mere humanity of the child is sufficient for us to sustain them. Were life a little harder, perhaps under more primitive circumstances, humanity alone probably wouldn’t suffice as other individuals would not have enough to support the surviving fetus. Which means it’s hardly a matter of morality.

I suppose, as a pro-choice representative, I am ceding that there is a distinct moral dimension, just not between choosing to abort and choosing to carry to terms. As an EMT I would be compelled to dress a fellow EMT down who took undue burdens on themself, placing themself at risk, to save a patient. What would the patient have done if they’d been injured? That same principle applied to the unhappily pregnant girl balances out any moral differential for me between aborting or carrying to term. What’s left is the moral differential between withdrawing life support from a vegetative human being and killing any thinking, feeling animal. I find that difference an exceedingly close call.

All of which begs the question, exactly why is anyone willing to cede a higher value to a human life than another animal’s? Although I practice it myself, I don’t consider it a moral principle at all, but a specieist principle. I’m human, therefore I value my own species over that of others. Nothing moral about it, it’s pure self-interest. I believe we’d have to wander into the realms of theology to claim a justification for a moral distinction, at which point those of us disinclined to believe the theology in question will politely agree to disagree.

]]>