From my college newspaper (circa 2002):
The first debater, Jacqueline Harvey, Waco senior, was against abortion.
Using a glass container filled with plastic fetus models, Harvey said at least 90 children like those would be killed by the time the debate concluded.
"I challenge the opponents to provide evidence that the unborn aren't human lives," she said. [I added, "if the unborn are not human beings, YOU WIN. We can all go home.]
Brittany Mclean, Grapevine junior, argued against Harvey, saying that the rights of the mother outweigh the child." [She also said, "Of course the unborn are human beings" before she made that statement]"
To which I rebutted: When one person has more rights than another, that's called oppression.
Maybe it was wise to not touch it. It's impossible for them to win. The personhood argument is easy to debunk- so it iss easier for Miss ACLU to simply ignore it or divert the focus.
For the record, I'm against killing insects, too. It's always saddened me that the pro-life movement and the animal rights movement -- both about rescuing those who can't rescue themselves -- so often seem to be at each other's throats.
The refusal to value human life over animal life, it seems to me, is rooted in Peter Singer's work. (He calls it 'speciesism'). For me, that automatically renders it suspect, and subject to high scrutiny - Singer also thinks parents should be able to kill born children until they reach consciousness, and that we as a society generally have the right to determine what life is worth living (if there are any Singer apologists out there who think I am mischaracterizing his views, by all means correct me - I threw away his Writings on an Ethical Life in horror when I read some of this, so I can't readily go back and check myself).
While I certainly respect animal life, and have very little patience for people who torment, kill or otherwise harm animals, I cannot see how killing a cockroach is morally comparable to killing a human. I can't even see how killing a cat or dog is morally comparable to killing a human. Anyone who can 'splain that to me, please do so.
Happy Easter, all.
I saw Scott and Nadine last night at my school. I found your entry interesting.
Why should this human right be exercised rarely? Because it's an invasive, costly, and avoidable procedure done on the human body. Which is why contraceptives should be promoted and used--I wonder what Scott would think of contraceptives.
I agree that Scott was very persuasive. But in one situation, a student asked if abortion was excusable in situations of rape or incest. As he said he could sympathize for the woman, he said a woman should not have to "commit homicide" to "make herself feel better." Way to demean a woman's feelings and emotional state! So it's people like him who think that a woman's right to reclaim power over her body is belittled to nothing more than an inexcusable action done to "make herself feel better."
I also found it interesting that Scott said that if the life of the mother and fetus were at stake, he would rather save the mother than lose two. Than lose two. In no way did he explain that he would rather save the mother's life if only the mother or fetus would survive.
This, I ask you, what is a human being? Is what genetically defines is makes us a human being? Or is it our intellect, our thought, our consciousness, our actions that makes us human beings? Would you still consider a brain-dead person a human being or a mass murderer a human being? Who defines these terms but ourselves.
As the definition of 'human being' is a personal one, so should the intimate decision women make when they consider abortion. In other words, you may practice your pro-life beliefs if you let me practice mine.
Hi Selina,
Thanks for your comment. Do think all things that are invasive, costly, and avoidable should be done rarely? For example, cosmetic surgery? Is the right to cosmetic surgery a right which you think should only be exercised rarely? So kinds of contraceptives are invasive, costly and avoidable. Should they be used rarely? Second, if women have a right to use their bodies however they want (a standard pro-choice claim), then who are you to say they should only have abortions rarely?
But in one situation, a student asked if abortion was excusable in situations of rape or incest. As he said he could sympathize for the woman, he said a woman should not have to "commit homicide" to "make herself feel better." Way to demean a woman's feelings and emotional state! So it's people like him who think that a woman's right to reclaim power over her body is belittled to nothing more than an inexcusable action done to "make herself feel better."
Can you remember how the question was phrased? I've heard Scott answer this question many times and I don't recall him ever acting like a woman who has been raped has an abortion to "make herself feel better." I'm also not seeing how abortion allows a woman to reclaim power over her body.
I also found it interesting that Scott said that if the life of the mother and fetus were at stake, he would rather save the mother than lose two. Than lose two. In no way did he explain that he would rather save the mother's life if only the mother or fetus would survive.
I can't really empathize with your complaint here. If he was asked if both of their lives were at stake, it seems he answered the question and not some other question which you would also like to hear his answer to. Second, I'm not sure there are really situations where the choice is between saving the mother and letting the child die or saving the child and letting the mother die.
When I use human being, I use the term in a scientific sense. Human beings are members of the species homo sapiens. Individuals who are brain-dead are dead human beings and mass murderers, while their actions are sickening, are still human beings.
As the definition of 'human being' is a personal one, so should the intimate decision women make when they consider abortion. In other words, you may practice your pro-life beliefs if you let me practice mine.
Let me take your words and use them in a different setting and see if you think they make sense:
"As the definition of 'human being' is a personal one, so should the intimate decision women make when they consider killing their infant. In other words, you may practice your pro-life beliefs if you let me practice mine."
"As the definition of 'human being' is a personal one, so should the intimate decision slave owners make when they consider owning slaves. In other words, you may practice your beliefs if you let me practice mine."
Do
Grrr.... Haloscan and it's cut off limit.
Do you see how your assertion could allow anyone to kill anyone else and get away scot-free simply by asserting the individual they killed didn't fit into their "personal definition" of what a human being is?
Instead of making an argument using science or philosophy, you seem to be relying on acting like their are no objective criteria for how is and what isn't a human being.
Commenting by HaloScan
