What kind of crazed lunatic thinks a bunch of cells with NO nervous system has a "soul?"
Now, don't get me wrong, if I squint my eyes I kinda, sorta, maybe, can see a vague point if a person wants to outlaw abortion if the fetus is in a state of advancement that includes a functional brain.
But... since conception? How can such a mass of cells have a self? You need a BRAIN for a self!
And even the Bible doesn't say anything whatsoever about "when life starts."
Who invented that "since conception" unbeliavable claptrap anyway?
= new reply since forum marked as read
The original claim is unsound in my opinion. The original argument is weak, and poorly structured. It should be attacked by anyone who respects the art of argumentation.
Additionally, I believe the claim attacks my own mother, who is pro-life, but is not misogynist. I have not introduced her into the argument because that would not be fair argumentation, but she probably does influence a portion of my motivation in this debate. I am not expecting you, or anyone, to disprove my claim about my mother, but rather just accept my perception of her as part of my motivation, since my motivation was questioned.
I only need to find one exception throughout history to disprove the claim. The label of the exception doesn't logically matter to get to the truth of the claim I am arguing against. The exception can even be a mentally ill person. The original claim is so absolute, and therefore weak, that it practically argues against itself. Technically, I could invent a pro-life argument designed just to disprove the original claim, but that would not be fair argumentation in my opinion.
Now whether you like the characterization or not, pregnancy is a medical situation. In many cases it is a dangerous medical situation. Anyone who would attempt to ban an option for a woman's medical treatment is infringing upon the agency of that woman and therefore inherently misogynistic.
In order for this premise to be accepted, you would have to prove that every single person who made a pro-life argument, throughout the entire history of humanity, in every single culture, without exception, viewed abortion as a women's health issue, as opposed to any other type of issue, such baby killing, some supernatural event, etc. The original claim has emphasized that there are absolutely no exceptions.
A Christian Scientist would deny any and all medical treatments to even his or her own children, regardless of their gender, based not on a hatred for humanity, but rather based on the belief in supernatural intervention over medical intervention. Although this may seem incredibly stupid to us, the motivating factor for them to deny all medical treatments does seem to be founded on supernatural reasons.
Except as history, it is not really valid to today's public policy issues in my current opinion, but that is not what I am arguing against. "
E)ach and every single anti-choice argument has" includes every pro-life argument ever made, even by children. Doesn't matter who they are, or when they made the claim. If someone made that claim in a university debate, you would probably hear gasps in the audience, as he or she would have just placed himself or herself into a loosing position, because the claim is absurd, and impossible to prove.
The only logical way to defend the position is to make a new one, or "reclarify," as I believe some politicians call it nowadays. For example: "Today's public, American, pro-life movement is based on misogyny." This removes claims made in superstitious, third-world villages; claims made by people hundreds, or even thousands, of years in the past; claims made by children; claims made by the legally insane, and claims invented just to disprove the original assertion.
When I make a poor argument, I admit it, try to learn from it, and move on. I seem to do this every other month on DU. I think the person who made the original claim should do the same in this case.
For many, the desire is to avoid being thrown into an eternal furnace by an all-loving God.
I have been thinking about this since I read it last night. Are you saying hatred is not an emotion? Seems to me only beings with emotions can feel hatred. I agree hatred doesn't require currently felt anger, but I think hatred and anger are two different emotions.
I did think about this for a while, and I have two things to say. The first is the original claim specifically uses the word "hatred." A person can be considered a misogynist (as opposed to minogynist
) for mere distrust, but the original claim doesn't even use the misogynist. I started using the word for its hatred aspect, since it is shorter than "hatred for women" and not as an attempt to misrepresent the claim.
The second point I wanted to make is I agree with you there is mistrust involved, but it is often intertwined with divine coercion. The person with the pro-life stance trusts his or her god more than the woman.
Sure, but the claim each and every time a pro-life argument is made, hatred for women is present either consciously or unconsciously has never been proven. I think some who make pro-life arguments could be strictly motivated by mindlessly following one's upbringing, and/or divine coercion. I admit that I cannot prove my belief either.
See, e.g. Genisis 2
.
The soul was thought to enter the body with the first breath, and to leave the body when the person expired, i.e. stopped breathing.
This is consistent with what people report for near death experiences, where the soul is said to leave the still functioning body.
