I have never been really good at expressing myself. I blame my upbringing and the mind conditioning I was subjected to. At the very early age of 4 yrs. old, if memory serves, I was taught and would practice vigorously a brief presentation for a religious tract. This in itself was a very effective tool used by the ministry of the Jehovah's Witnesses and many other religions as well. I mean, seriously, if a little boy/girl around 4-5 years old came up to you and asked you, "Would you like to live forever on earth in peace and harmony with no fear of sickness or death?" how could you not listen to them and respond in any way, shape or form? Whether it was complete politeness or true heartfelt curiosity, the message was in fact delivered and it was in your mind stewing quietly and provoking some thought on the matter.
However, one thing that I did manage to take away from all that was the ability to ask people (complete strangers even) some very thought provoking questions in a way that would make them think and, hopefully, start a conversation. I am, however, a little out of practice with going door-to-door and asking these questions, but I have it within myself to use if I should so need to. So exactly were am I going with this? Well, that's a question I had to actually ask myself. Literally, I had to stop typing and recollect my thoughts because I was thinking about one subject when I started and was thinking about 3 different ways I could go from here. (I blame Tweenky for that since, meeting her, she has encouraged me to be myself, express myself, think about the subject matter beyond its surface and read books on skepticism. I have been asking questions from a very young age, but never got answers that made any sense or was told, "'Cause I said so." Now I can find the answers myself and question without fear or disapproval - after all, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained," right?)
Ok, so I can get back on track now. The main item I wanted to discuss was the "heartstrings effect". This is something I have been guilty of at a very young age but completely oblivious to it until recently. I have to admit it is a very effective method and it is widely use throughout our daily lives. Now it infuriates me when people use these tactics to mislead or misinform others. Prime example is when any pro-life ad or statement mentions something about "tearing a baby apart" or similar phrases. I mean, come on, really, that is in reference to a procedure used some 30 years ago. The idea and image it puts in your mind makes you have feelings of disgust, sympathy for the baby and outrage that this happens at all. So I ask you all, when you hear someone quoting such bullshit or see it in an article online, call them on it. Help show the rest of the crowd, that seem to act like mindless sheep, that the facts are greatly exaggerated and show them where they can find the truth of the matter. Please help by getting them to look up the information themselves and help educate everyone. There are so few of us out there right now calling them on their bullshit and we can only do so much, but with one person showing a few and a few showing a dozen the numbers grow exponentially and we become a better educated nation as we should be. This in turn will make it harder for them to pull this crap and make them actually own up to what they claim. Seriously though, I'm not immune either - if I'm ever guilty of spewing just flagrant bull, call me on it. I promise to be the bigger person and admit I was wrong, retract a statement and give credit to who ever called me on it. I know my shit stinks just like the next person but i'm not the one blaming the girl down the road for it.
Today, through the use of modern medicine the D&X procedure seems even more barbaric because now we have access to pills that can prevent implantation before sex and even after with "Plan B." So why continue to use this reference to a 30 year old procedure that they are fully aware of is no longer used, except in the rare occasion of a late term complication and there are no other options? It all about the heartstrings: if they can get you emotionally involved, you will be more willing to follow whatever course they have laid out for you. Even if that course leads you down a road that will strip women of their rights in all matters concerning their own bodies. But that's just it, we have so many other options today than we did back then. If the proposed "personhood" amendments are allowed to continue they will eventually reduce all these options drastically.
The recent upsurging push to bring "personhood" up for debate actually hasn't been a debate really at all. They have just skipped the debate and pushed for it to be voted on and even with a ballot initiative failure they now have people in positions to start pushing it in the legislature. Twice now personhood was defeated in 2008, 2010 in Colorado, even recently 2011 in Mississippi it failed by 58%. In fact, there are several presidential candidates that have mentioned something in line with personhood, banning birth control, etc.
Really? Since when does the majority of the people not have a final say on a matter that affects them directly. This is just like a small child that ask mommy, "Can I go outside?" "No, dear, it's too dangerous out there!" only to have the child to go ask daddy the same question hoping for a different answer. That is another issue for another blog post in the near future.
When it comes to these heartstrings attempts, I can see their usefulness. That doesn't mean I condone using it when you're misleading someone to believe lies and half-truths. They are most effective when telling a story and the need for you to become emotionally involved helps you understand the feeling of the words. Take for example the following:
I was recently talking with a few friends about our work involving personhood and what lies we have exposed and such. When, out of the blue, a close friend who rarely gets involved with such things says "What the fuck, are you serious? The government wants to take away my wife and daughter's rights and force them them to continue to carrying the baby should they happen to get raped by some diseased infested, honky, wet-back, nigga?"
Needless to say, I was taken aback. Here is a self-proclaimed Christian, born and raised in the South, and has some hidden racism that I had never heard from him before. It did surprise me but he never expressed anything like that before until it became something that hit him emotionally. Then I thought about what he was saying without the racism involved. He was not only upset that his loved ones would be forced to carry a child of rape and in his mind the rapist could have been of any race but that they were diseased-infested as well.
The very idea that you could be forced to endure a pregnancy from rape is indeed appalling when there are options available. For him to convey that emotio,n he had to imagine the worst possible man and describe him to us. Whether they are diseased-infested, drug-addicted or one of those guys from "The Hills Have Eyes," it's a very emotional picture he painted in words. The difference is he was expressing his opinion as opposed to these pro-life ad or articles that are misleading people as they are describing a 30 year old procedure that is rarely used unless, as stated before, there is a late term complication and all other options have been exhausted.
So again, please call them on their bullshit - don't stand in it and let them mislead your friends and family.
I have been in this fight for decades. The appeal to emotion has always been the major strategy of those opposed to women's rights to control their own bodies. One picture of a fetus, innocent and vulnerable, is worth a thousand words of a narrative about the mother's risks in carrying it to term...unless it is the abortion activist who gets awkwardly pregnant. Reliable stats say that 18% of abortions are performed on pro-life women.
ReplyDeleteExcept that what YOU did was to ALSO provide an emotional justification.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking from a non-religious standpoint, "personhood" CAN, in point of fact, be argued WITHOUT religious arguments whatsoever.
The simple, scientific fact is that at the moment of conception, an individual Human exists, unique in genetic structure from any other individual (assuming that at this exact moment we are talking about a single individual and not multiple ones which would occur most often later during the development processes).
At this moment, a "complete" individual Human is developing through each of the stages of an individual Human's development. Many attempt to falsely claim that this initial cell is no different than any other cell within a Human body, but the scientific proven facts, displayed over thousands of years of these occurances, is that ONLY this specific type of cell will, so long as it is provided the nutrients and other material necessary to continue to survive, will develop beyond its current state. You cannot remove any other cell from an overall Human body, implant it, and expect it to develop any further than its current form. Even individual sperm cells and individual eggs do not do so (speculation about Human eggs undergoing parthenogenesis has yet to be researched fully and, even then, some change must occur to the egg before it is capable of development).
The arguments used to claim "potential" Human life are equally misleading. Upon conception, so long as nutrients and other necessities are provided to the individual (through implantation), and no other damage has occurred, then said cell WILL develop, and so long as that specific cell was produced, either biologically or through other means, using Human genetic material, then the species involved IS Human, in each and every subsequent developmental stage. Death at any stage does not cease the individual's inclusion in the species. Appearance, equally, does not determine species.
The misleading, and repeated arguments that that which was conceived through the use of Human genetic material is anything more or less Human and, therefore, not Human, is intentionally misinformation, lies, and deceit.
(continued)
(concluded)
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the argument that implantation determines species is equally misleading as implantation only serves as the current developmental stage's method of obtaining the nutrients and materials necessary to further development. The claim that such only makes that individual "potential" is misleading in that the only differences between a cell that has implanted and a cell that has failed to implant within a certain time period is life versus death. When the cell, or any other developmental stage for that matter, is no longer capable of development in ANY form (as some defects do limit certain developments but not all), then death has occurred. However, death does not end the species.
In regards to our legal system, created not by nature but by Humans, it is fraught with significant contradictions and inconsistancies. In the matter of "personhood", we can already see that the legal system, from any government level, already has the problem that the overall legal system has. Defining whether an individual is or is not Human, defining what particular Rights an individual has, or what Rights another individual has over other individuals (such as what Rights a Parent holds over their own child), what Rights an individual in various extreme medical conditions has, and many other situations. It is not difficult to believe that we would grant protection of life to various situations in an individual Human's existance, yet in other similar, but not exactly the same situation, deny them such protections.
All because Humans want power over others and will do whatever is necessary to deHumanize certain individual Humans. We did so for Capital Punishment. We did so in the cases of some Humans who rely on life support machines. We did so when slavery was legal. We did so in regards to Corporal Punishment. We did so in various extreme medical defects of children. We did so in many cases of Siamese Twins. It is not unrealistic that we do so when it comes to the earliest stages of Human development, despite said individuals BEING Human, just as Human as any other developmental stage they would eventually become so long as they continue to live.
So we do whatever is necessary, including revision of scientific fact, to justify deHumanizing, and thereby depriving any individual Human, of the same, most basic Right that so many other Humans have.
These are facts. Not based on magic, superstition, religion, or any other intangible opinion, but rather the science of natural existance and the fallacy of Human logic as it applies to what we define, or fail to define, as the most basic of Human Rights.
Andrew, a human is not complete at conception. It may have a complete set of chromosomes but it is not a complete being.
ReplyDeleteBut none of this really matters to me. The bottom line is that a human's right to liberty is greater than the right of a fertilized egg to live. Just as no one can force you to surrender your blood or organs to preserve another's life (and this is already settled law), so too can no egg or fetus force a woman to surrender her body to give birth to it.
Religious arguments for personhood are bullshit. Naturalistic arguments are fallacious. If you want to surrender your liberty to a fertilized egg, do so when you get a womb. But you have no right to demand that the rest of us surrender our liberties in the same manner.
"Andrew, a human is not complete at conception. It may have a complete set of chromosomes but it is not a complete being."
ReplyDeleteYou state so, but provide no factual evidence to the contrary.
"But none of this really matters to me. "
Which is why you did not provide any factual evidence as mentioned above.
"The bottom line is that a human's right to liberty is greater than the right of a fertilized egg to live. "
Except, that as already pointed out, the earliest stage of individual Human development is no different than any other stage of Human development, making the earliest stage of Human development equally protected in regards to its Life as any other developmental stage is protected.
You simply have provided no factual evidence to support your claim other than a " 'cuz I said so" argument, which is no different than religion providing the same argument as to why "God" exists.
Andrew, you made the claim that, at the moment of conception, a complete human exists. I disagree with you. Since you made the claim, you are the one that needs to provide evidence - not me.
ReplyDeleteStructurally and functionally, a fertilized egg is not a "complete" human. That's demonstrably true. So when you say it is complete, you must have some other definition in mind. It is your burden to define it and prove it.
You make a second claim that, "...the earliest stage of individual Human development is no different than any other stage of Human development." Again, this is structurally and functionally untrue. If you mean something different, define it and prove it.
The claim that I made regarding liberty being greater than the life of a fertilized egg is based on the 4th amendment and settled case law. There is also settled case law regarding the right of a human being not to surrender body parts or fluids to prolong the life of another person. That is not an appeal to my authority but a statement of fact.
Now let's be fair. You posted several paragraphs making all kinds of claims and you didn't cite a single source or reference anything. If anyone is making a "cuz I said so" argument, it's you.