1. I concede on the first point though I draw a distinction between the two;
2. You completely ignore the position of the mother. Does she not have a right to make her own decisions, control her own life, her own autonomy, her own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? What about positions where the pregnancy is making the mother suicidal – whose right to life trumps?
3. You say that human rights were not invented by our legal system, rather recognised by it. I disagree. Many scholars believe that there are some inherent and inalienable rights, such as the right to life, right to be free from torture etc. However, that is a very western perception of human rights. In undeveloped countries this is not so. In the Middle-east for instance some people are still stoned to death – they clearly do not conform to your theory. Also, other human rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion etc were positively created by the legal system. There is a difference between what some perceive as inherent human rights and constructed human rights, and differences geographically.
4. On the social justice point – again you ignore the position of the mother, a human who has been fully realised
5.You talk about the reasons we change laws – excellent – that is why we changed the law which made abortions illegal (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, adopted in NZ in 1866) to making them legal in certain circumstances (Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977). Clearly the law was catching up with morality.
6. I concede to you science points as what I have briefly read generally conforms to this. However, as an ethical issue I think it is different. A poll I saw said most people thought a foetus became a human when it had a foetal heartbeat and I suppose at the end of the day you have to compete with popular opinion when attempting to change something.
7. I’m glad no woman has ever given birth to a tree. However, my point was to draw attention to the fact that there are differing views on when a foetus becomes a human (notwithstanding the science but subject to popular opinion).
8. My point in respect of slavery and the holocaust is that they restricted the rights and freedoms of fully realised humans. Abortion seeks to exonerate the mother – who should be the focus in my opinion – from an unwanted pregnancy. The focus should not be solely on the foetus, but also on the mother who is more important.
9. I thought there was no increasing support for pro-life in NZ generally – do you have stats?
10. For the 9 preceding reasons I have no desire to spend a night anywhere with a feminist haha. I prefer not to argue when out and about…

At the end of the day certain people will always disagree with abortion. However, most people understand that the rights of a foetus must be reconciled with the rights of the mother, to allow, in certain circumstances, termination. We should protect the citizens we have as opposed to ones we might have. The law governs us every single day and the law states that a foetus is not a human – defining a human, to me, is more complex than saying it is a fertilised egg. If this were so it would have ramifications on fertilising eggs in laboratories, in-vitro fertilisation (where some fertilised eggs are discarded), the morning after pill etc. If all of these things operate to destroy fertilised eggs, in some situations, is that not murder according to pro-lifers?

Clearly “Radical Feminist” and I have opposing views. I respect the rights (legal and moral) of the mother while disregarding any moral rights of a foetus, which, to me, is not a person, but an unrealised person. “Radical Feminist” clearly does not agree with the current legal position and respects the rights of a foetus (moral only) over that of the mother in all situations, so far as I can tell.

What is right and wrong is a matter of opinion, notwithstanding the fact that those who agree with my positon, or parts thereof, have the support of the law.

1. There is nothing illogical about using the example of child abuse in that situation – as the argument at hand was not about the legality of abortion, but rather about whether we should speak up about acts that we view as ethically wrong.

Your argument was that pro-lifers should stay silent about the act they find ethically unacceptable (abortion), and so I made the comparison to another act which is also ethically unacceptable in my books (and which also happens to be illegal, but that’s not relevant to anything) – child abuse.

So, no, there is no logical fallacy here – just a position you happen to disagree with.

But, for the sake of charity, let me use an example that might satisfy your interpretations of logic…

Let’s say 250 years ago, when slavery was still legal, I was part of the anti-slavery club at university, should I be expected to just shut up and not raise my concerns about the ethical nature of slavery merely because someone who is pro-choice about slavery throws the illogical slogan at me “if you don’t like slavery, then don’t own a slave”, and because slavery happens to be legal?

2.

“(a) ethics – you consider abortions unethical, but do you not consider it unethical to compel a person to carry a pregnancy to full term against their wishes? Do you consider it ethical to compel a rape victim to birth the product of her rape?”

Do you mean, ‘do I think that it is unethical to end the life of an innocent human being just because they happen to be unwanted, in a womb or were conceived by rape?

Of course I do – because I take seriously human rights, and the most fundamental of all human rights in the hierarchy of rights is the right to life for all innocent human beings.

“(b) Human rights – the Human Rights Act 1993, along with all other promulgations and assertions of human rights, are the product of the same system which decided that foetuses are not human, so it would be illogical to bring something which the law deems to not be a human under the constraints of an instrument designed by the same system.”

This is both a logical fallacy and factually wrong.

Firstly, it is a logical fallacy to suggest that just because someone is right about a, b and c, they are also right about d as well.

Each issue might be weighed on it’s merit, otherwise we’d have to start saying things like Hitler’s amazing record on animal welfare (his regime passed some of the most advanced animal protection laws of that era) means that he was also right about the genocide camps – after all, they came from the very same source.

Secondly, what you state here is not factually accurate.

Human rights were not invented by our legal system, instead they are recognized by it and safeguarded by it, which is not the same thing as the legal system being the author of them.

Human rights existed well before our modern frameworks recognized them, which is why things like slavery, or denying women the vote didn’t suddenly become ethically wrong once the law changed – these things were always ethically wrong, which is why the law HAD to change.

See the difference?

“(c) Social justice – tell me how the imposition of your will over the fate of another person is any form of social justice?”

?

I agree, that’s why I am ethically opposed to abortion, because it is an act of imposing your will upon the will of another innocent human being and bringing about an unjust end to their existence – denying them their fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.

“You posited that it is wrong to kill an innocent human. Again we are faced with this logical conundrum that a foetus is not a human. It is a foetus. We are all governed by the law – the law mandates this.”

Yes, and the law also used to mandate that it was perfectly acceptable to own another human being as a slave.

It also used to mandate that women could not vote.

And in Germany it also mandated that Jewish people were not human persons.

You still seem to be missing the point that the law is not the same thing as ethics, and that the law is not infallible, and can in fact be unethical in its decrees.

That’s one of the reasons why we change laws – because they can be based on ethically unacceptable propositions, and this results in injustice and unethical laws.

See now?

4.

“I quite enjoyed your statement about rejecting scientific facts. Could you please point me to the scientific journal(s) which you have clearly read which define, with precision, the point at which sperm and eggs crystallise into a human being? I always this was one of the great debates… At least for rational people. Is it when organs form, when fingers and toes form, when they have some cognitive functions or any brain activity? Please enlighten me, because as far as I can tell you are simply asserting your opinion on the matter, and no scientific facts as you claim.”

Easy peezy lemon squeezey…

The moment the gametes (ovum and sperm) fuse together, a new human existence has begun – obviously we can’t track the precise millisecond of this event, but then we don’t really need to because we are talking about abortions, the majority of which take place weeks after this point.

If you want to say “we just don’t know for sure when it happens”, then I can live with that, because according to ethics, in cases of uncertainty about whether our actions will cause harm to an innocent human being or not we should act according to the precautionary principle (the second most important principle of ethics after ‘ do no harm’).

That principle tells us that if we aren’t sure about the status of the unborn entity then we most definitely shouldn’t be using that as a basis to end its existence because we could actually be killing an innocent human being (and there is enough scientific and philosophical evidence to raise this as a valid concern in this case).

But as I said, this is ultimately just a red herring, because the majority of abortions in NZ take place between 10 – 12 weeks.

At that stage the unborn human being in their fetal stage of development has all ten fingers and toes, a beating heart and all of their organ formation has been complete since week 8.

They have digestive juices, functioning kidneys and a nervous system.

Oh, and did I mention they’re moving around under their own auspices by then?

You might not realize this, but the human heartbeat starts at approximately 21 days old (3 weeks).

We also know from advances in DNA that from the moment of conception you have your own unique DNA that is different to that of your mother or father – meaning you are not part of your mother, but a separate body to hers.

That enough science?

5.

“Since a foetus is not capable of rational thought then perhaps according to this logic it is not a human until it has attained such skill. You may want to read a recent article (I cant find the link right now) arguing that foetuses should be able to be terminated post-pregnancy because of this very reason.”

Read that article – not only was it ethically reprehensible, but it is also logically fatally flawed.

Your argument that human beings are not human beings until they have attained the ability to reason is problematic for a whole host of reasons, but most importantly because it proposes that I am only a human being if I posses the ability to reason.

One small problem (several actually)…

When we sleep, we no longer posses the ability to reason. In fact, when we sleep we cease to do anything exclusively human, instead slipping into a state where we lose touch with our rational consciousness for hours.

If we are placed into a medically induced coma, or put under for an operation we also no longer possess the power to reason.

And if we drink to the point of the extreme that also robs us of our ability to reason.

But none of these things stop us from being human.

Why is that?

Well, because even though we can’t reason at that given moment, we still actually have that ability, just in potency – i.e. awaiting to be enlivened and actuated by us.

A human being in their fetal stage of development also possesses the power to reason in potency – the only difference is that it will take them slightly longer than a sleeping person to actuate and enliven that potential they possess.

But this difference is one of only degree, and not substance – only human beings can posses the potency to reason – animals don’t, plants don’t – so if only human beings can have the potential of rational thought, and fetuses have this very potential, then they can’t be anything other than human beings.

And that’s leaving aside the obvious scientific issues such as UNIQUE DNA, or the fact that no women has ever popped out a cow, or a shrubbery after 9 months of pregnancy, human beings only ever give birth to human beings.

6.

“You talk about slavery and the holocaust. I am sorry, but again your argument is astoundingly weak. Those examples are the very antithesis of abortion. Abortion is designed to promote mental and physical well-being, promoting individual choice and autonomy, promoting freedom and the right for a person to control their own fate. These are all things which both slavery and the holocaust were diametrically opposed to. Now, if you had said “a person should not be able to have surgery because they might die” then that would be more in tune with this argument.”

Again, you’re totally missing the point here.

Just like abortion, during the time of slavery, and the Holocaust, the law, and the popular culture of the day, said that slaves and Jews weren’t human beings, and therefore they weren’t entitled to the same human rights as the rest of us.

The EXACT same argument is made by those wanting to try and give ethical justification for abortion – their claim is that the human being inn their fetal stage of development isn’t actually a human being entitled to human rights.

It’s the same ethical flaw and it’s known as ‘might makes right’ – the strong decide what is right for the vulnerable who are unable to defend themselves.

7.

“It may be something you can actually contribute to changing because abortion certainly isn’t.”

I wouldn’t be so cocky about that Shane – for the last couple of years there have been some emerging trends which are pointing to the fact that more and more people are shifting towards a pro-life position.

The supporters of slavery said exactly the same thing, until suddenly they woke up one morning to find that culture had grown in awareness and ethical enlightenment.

Interestingly, the keepers of the Berlin Wall had no idea it was even coming down until they switched on their TV’s in November 1989 to see it’s seemingly impossible and unthinkable dismantling happening right before their very eyes.

Viva la change.

“your comments were further weakened by the fact that you chose to hide behind a cloak of anonymity.”

Logical fallacy alert – the logical of an argument has nothing to do with the person delivering the argument, it’s the actual merit of what is being proposed that counts.

Besides, you’re starting to sound like someone desperate for a night on the town with a feminist – sorry fella, but this one’s taken.

1. You attempted to derogate from my argument by using the example “if you’re morally opposed to child abuse, just shut up and choose not to beat your kids”. This is intrinsically different from abortion because child abuse is ILLEGAL while abortion is LEGAL. A more apt argument would be to say “if you’re morally opposed to killing animals, just shut up and don’t kill animals.” To the latter statement, as posed by myself, I would say yes. As to child abuse I would say no because the law imposes positive obligations, in some cases, to report child abuse. I hope you can see the ‘logical error, as you so aptly put it, with your attempted analogy;

2. You talk about “ethics, human rights and social justice”. To that I would say:
(a) ethics – you consider abortions unethical, but do you not consider it unethical to compel a person to carry a pregnancy to full term against their wishes? Do you consider it ethical to compel a rape victim to birth the product of her rape?
(b) Human rights – the Human Rights Act 1993, along with all other promulgations and assertions of human rights, are the product of the same system which decided that foetuses are not human, so it would be illogical to bring something which the law deems to not be a human under the constraints of an instrument designed by the same system.
(c) Social justice – tell me how the imposition of your will over the fate of another person is any form of social justice?

3. You posited that it is wrong to kill an innocent human. Again we are faced with this logical conundrum that a foetus is not a human. It is a foetus. We are all governed by the law – the law mandates this.

4. I quite enjoyed your statement about rejecting scientific facts. Could you please point me to the scientific journal(s) which you have clearly read which define, with precision, the point at which sperm and eggs crystallise into a human being? I always this was one of the great debates… At least for rational people. Is it when organs form, when fingers and toes form, when they have some cognitive functions or any brain activity? Please enlighten me, because as far as I can tell you are simply asserting your opinion on the matter, and no scientific facts as you claim.

5. Also, I would love to hear about this philosohical logic as to what a human is. For me a human is the product of a process known as evolution and a species which is capable of rational thought and contemplation. Since a foetus is not capable of rational thought then perhaps according to this logic it is not a human until it has attained such skill. You may want to read a recent article (I cant find the link right now) arguing that foetuses should be able to be terminated post-pregnancy because of this very reason.

6. You talk about slavery and the holocaust. I am sorry, but again your argument is astoundingly weak. Those examples are the very antithesis of abortion. Abortion is designed to promote mental and physical well-being, promoting individual choice and autonomy, promoting freedom and the right for a person to control their own fate. These are all things which both slavery and the holocaust were diametrically opposed to. Now, if you had said “a person should not be able to have surgery because they might die” then that would be more in tune with this argument.

7. I don’t actively seek out these pamphlets, they are put in front of every single seat at the university (slight exaggeration). Maybe you should contemplate the fate of the trees, and anthropogenic climate change… It may be something you can actually contribute to changing because abortion certainly isn’t.

So, while some of your arguments may have seemed strong on the face of it, as we have seen they had no substance. Further, your comments were further weakened by the fact that you chose to hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

I will admit you had a fair point about freedom of expression – I shouldn’t say it should be stifled, because as you said that would be contravening one of our laws – but you did say laws can be wrong did you not?..

I will end on that positive note.

However, I feel like I need to challenge the logic of a couple of your points, so bear with me here mate, I promise to be gentle…

“Surely the easiest way to ensure you pro-lifers are not morally culpable is to simply not undergo any such procedures yourself…”

Pro-lifers aren’t morally culpable for decisions they were never party to – heck no one is – so there’s actually no issue in regards to us whacky fetus lovers and moral culpability about abortion.

However, the second part of your argument here is a little bit more interesting, and also logically anemic – if you’re saying that the easiest way to resolve ethical issues is simply not to give a rat’s bum, and then never actually do that thing which you find ethically problematic, then I would suggest we’d be in a whole lot of trouble as a society.

What if someone said to you: “if you’re morally opposed to child abuse, just shut up and choose not to beat your kids”.

That doesn’t solve the problem of all the child abuse that is going on, while I stand idly by saying ‘oh well, I’m not joining in, so it shouldn’t matter what those other people do to their kids – that’s their choice after all’

The point is that cultures only shift from unethical to more ethical modes of thinking and acting when enough people actually start to act in an authentically human way by giving a damn about ethical issues, and the treatment of their fellow human beings, and then being a voice which points out the ethical problems in a current and socially accepted practice – no matter how unpopular that might be.

As the great man himself, Bob Marley, would remind us: “the people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off, so why should I? light up the darkness.” – or at least that’s what they said he said in the film I Am Legend (should I draw a parallel with zombies and people who act like ethical zombies, mindlessly stumbling along with the cultural flow, looking for pro-life brains to eat, because they can’t be bothered to think deeply about important ethical issues? Okay, I won’t)

“While abortion may contradict your own ethics, morality and perhaps religion, your view is not in line with most of New Zealand, or the Government.”

Firstly, this isn’t a religious issue for me, it’s an issue of ethics, human rights and social justice.

Secondly, good ethics is not done by taking a vote and then making your ethics fit whatever the majority want. If it did, then there would have been no problem with slavery, or the Holocaust, or any other of the multitude of examples we could use where the majority were willing to go along with the harming and denial of fundamental rights to the vulnerable or the minority.

Thirdly, the pro-abortion position doesn’t just contradict my ethical views, it also contradicts well established ethical logic.

The ethical logic we all agree on, and which is well established is this: it is always wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human being.

So how can it be logical to then say: ‘but I’m okay with abortion”?

The only way this could be a logically consistent position to maintain is if you believed that a fetus isn’t a living, innocent human being, but if you want to believe that then you would have to reject scientific facts about human biology, embryology, etc.

You’d also have to reject other important philosophical logic regarding the nature of what a human being is.

Since I love science, sound philosophy and consistent ethical norms, I’m a pro-lifer.

“In law a foetus is not a person until birth so there is no ‘murder’”

As they would say in New York ‘big whoop!’

Once upon a time a slave was not viewed as a human person in the eyes of the law as well, and this was one of the major justifications for slavery.

In Nazi Germany the law also said that Jews were not human persons like the rest of us – and that error underpinned the great and vile evil of the Holocaust.

Let me share a little secret with you Shane – Bruce Willis was dead all along… no… hold on… that was the wrong secret, here’s what I meant to say: the law can actually be wrong, and it has actually been wrong before about human rights and freedoms.

“Also, stop attempting to proliferate your views at universities with those pamphlet drops that are turned into paper planes, defaced, cause much litter and are generally ignored.”

Um… yeah… I’m gonna need to go ahead and disagree with you there Shane (do you mind if I call you Shane, or would you prefer Mr. Shane?), because what you’re suggesting here is that Prolife NZ should stop exercizing their right to freedom of expression, and that they should stop engaging the culture on issues that they are passionate about, and they consider to be important ethical issues of our era.

If you can’t express ideas freely, and encourage open and honest discussion about these issues on a university campus, then where exactly can we have a free and open exchange of views and ideas?

But if you don’t like it, you could always follow your own advice from the start of this comment – if you don’t like the pamphlets, don’t have one for yourself.

“In your recent pamphlet you said that young women aren’t made aware of the risk of abortion – every doctor is under an obligation to disclose risks of any medical procedure – if you have evidence otherwise you should bring a negligence action against that professional – otherwise perhaps consider not making such comments, it is defamatory to the medical profession as a whole.”

Actually Shane, the latest pamphlet isn’t about doctors, it’s about the abortion counseling process, which is separate to what happens when a woman sees a doctor to start this process.

Prolife NZ loves doctors, in fact I personally happen to know of many doctors who are big fans of Prolife NZ, and who are totally supportive of the theme of their latest pamphlet – that’s cause good doctors always care about informed consent for their patients.

Phew, I need to go, my typing finger hurts.

Peace out Shane – and don’t forget, us pro-lifers will always have a coffee with anybody mate, we’re good like that cause we care about all human beings, so if you’re ever near a Prolife NZ member on campus, ask them to shout you a coffee so you can have a chat about these issues without a keyboard and monitor in front of you!

As for me, I think that if a pregnant woman does not want her baby for any reason, feels she cannot care for it adequately, the child is deformed, or other reasons, it is her personal choice to terminate that pregnancy. The opinions of people who find it abhorrent, of which I am not one, in no way affect her individual right, and nor should it. The law seeks to protect autonomy. Society seeks to protect health – both mental and physical. While abortion may contradict your own ethics, morality and perhaps religion, your view is not in line with most of New Zealand, or the Government.

In law a foetus is not a person until birth so there is no ‘murder’ which is a term constructed by the same system that considers a foetus not to be a person.

Also, stop attempting to proliferate your views at universities with those pamphlet drops that are turned into paper planes, defaced, cause much litter and are generally ignored. In your recent pamphlet you said that young women aren’t made aware of the risk of abortion – every doctor is under an obligation to disclose risks of any medical procedure – if you have evidence otherwise you should bring a negligence action against that professional – otherwise perhaps consider not making such comments, it is defamatory to the medical profession as a whole.

On that cherry note,

have a nice abortion-free life all you pro-lifers.

“We suggest you remove the close up ultrasound image of the foetus as these images are highly emotive.”

Oh dear… why wouldn’t we want mothers to know what is inside their wombs? Can’t have them being fully informed.

http://www.womens-health.org.nz/uploads/Submissions%20updating/2012/WHA%20comments%20on%20the%20Antenatal%20screening%20and%20testing%20for%20Down%20syndrome%20and%20other%20conditions%20consumer%20resource%20April%202012.pdf

Also, thanks for calling me out on the use of the term strawman. I’m usually pretty onto it with gender-neutral language but that is one that has until now slipped me by (possibly resulting from its frequent usage in literature regarding fallacies, hopefully that may change in the future).