- Page 2- Persuaded

Back in April, Jeff Ludwig made assertions in his blog that pro-choice advocates are similar to Nazi Germany because of how they advocate the "dehumanization of the fetus." This similarity allows for the destruction hundred of thousands human fetuses, which in turn, is comparable to Nazi Germany dehumanizing the Jews so that it was okay to kill more than six million human beings. He further posits that in my responses, both here in The Stewart Consortium and in my comments, that I fail to address his points and that it further illustrates his point how pro-advocacy pro-choice movement are(and my counter points)dehumanizing "the fetus."
Admittedly, in the course of our discussion were conflated and imprecisely used terms that lent to pious emotionalism on Jeff Ludwig's part and ideological sanctimony, in part, on mine. Each of us forgetting that there is biological and  scientific processes and definitions that need to be brought into the discourse.  For instance, beginning with the term fetus -- the automatic fertilization of a woman's egg' does not automatically make a "fetus." At this point of physiological process begins with the sperm having to reach one of the Fallopian tubes within 12 to 48 hours before the sperm dies and that's if the sperm have reached the correct tube with the egg to fertilize because a woman's body is suppose to only release one egg a time human reproduction the fertilization of the egg has begun the egg becomes a "zygote" not a "fetus" and the "zygote" has yet to travel out of the Fallopian tube through the cervix and "implant" onto the uterine wall of the woman, which can take another 48 hours. And even then, the woman's body still may reject the process for a number of myriad factors and reasons (human reproduction).

For this reason, the Personhood Amendment, which called for the protection of an fertilized egg and was proposed in 2008, and 2010, and now again in 2012 for Colorado is flawed. To move on further, nor does our understanding or the application of the term, "fetus," presumed by laypersons, provide a knowledgeable instruction on the complicated term of "conception" with its philosophical and medical terminology fusing by those invested with rational and emotional arguments in the subject matter of abortion and individual rights. Below are our comments by Jeff and myself and the conflation of points with a bit of snarkiness. Unlike in my comment below, I did not address his assertions point by point. In Jeff's first response to he says the following,

Greg:

Needless to say I am not persuaded and moreover you never really directly address my main contention that abortion advocates dehumanize the fetus. You do concede the point indirectly when you reference a fetus at 72 hours etc.

In personal conversation with Jeff, I conceded that a woman has the right to use emergency contraceptives in the event that their has been a failure, such as condom breaking, rape, etc. I still believe this, and, with certitude that upon further review of biological facts in play that this is reasonable and responsible by a woman who does not wish to become pregnant. Additionally, I will admit my conflation of "fetus" and fertilization (conception) as being incorrect. Emergency contraceptive drugs, such as Ella, do not abort abort pregnancy but prevents fertilization or implantation if taken within 120 hours (5 days) of occurrence (FAQ of Ella) due to a contraceptive failure or criminal incident. The medical definition of "fetus" has been somewhere between seventh to ninth week after "conception." The term of conception is taken from the Latin to mean "becoming pregnant" (MedicineNet). In this case of human and others species this is to mean the "fertilization" of the egg. In human reproduction terms however, the fertilized egg has not yet  implanted itself into the uterine wall, which occurs until six to seven days after "fertilization" and the egg has become a "blastocyst."

To continue on Jeff's point, he states that

You make false assumptions like I am religious. I am atheist.

He is correct, but from his assertion and fanatical rhetoric of how pro-choice advocates are equivalent to "Nazi Germany" in their portrayal of  dehumanization of the "fetus" it was an understandable mistake that I presumed he was a religious zealot. Mea Culpa. I did address this later in my comment back to him later, which I will discuss later.
Jeff then proffers, the following definition of "health" as a way to assert how pro-choice claims are the continuation of the "dehumanization of the fetus," he says

Health is defined as, "physical and mental well being; free from disease ..." When a person claims abortion rights are necessary for women's health, what disease is he/she trying to cure or prevent?

First, his definition is circumspect, since he does not identify the source of his terminology. Notice he does not provide the full his term and is only taking part of it. He could have copy and pasted the full definition or even pasted the link in the comments. Second, Jeff chose to cherry-pick part of the definition and only apply or display the part of health. He does so not detract from his argument of rational emotionalism (it appears rational but it rooted in emotion) that followed.

According to medical online dictionary defines health as "a state of physical, mental, and social well-being." Included in this link is the varying etymology of how health is viewed from a social perspective and that of a health epidemiology stand point. There are multiple definitions of health and to subscribe to one that is parsed and disingenuous is to be trapped by the person's emotional appeal. This is what Mr. Ludwig has done. What is missing from his parsed answer is "social well-being." The definition of health is culturally determined, in that, social mores of the community factors in how one defines their well being (health). And, if the definition is at odds with a faction within that community of how health is viewed it thus becomes polarizing and can harm the greater community writ-large.

For example, Jeff as a pro-life advocate emotionally binds abortion rights as a negative. From his viewpoint he sees pro-choice advocates view of pregnancy as being a disease that needs to be cured and thereforeit gives pro-choice the rationalization to dehumanize to the fetus. This is contrary to reality. Simply, abortion rights are actually reproduction rights for women and are to empower choices and opportunities.

Image from Margaret Atwood book

It is from this clinical perspective that might appear the development of the fetus has not created viable human agent outside of the womb. Jeff's dismissal of women's health, which reproduction is a part of, only demonstrates that he views women's ability to judge what determine their own social well-being, as irrelevant.

Women are secondary to their own reproduction and the human fetus subverts autonomy that women may have had. Admittedly, women's reproductive and health issues are truly a personal matter and the human perspective intrinsic and emotional. Jeff further asserts that I failed to discuss his claims that pro-choice advocates arguments "resembles the rationales offered by the Nazis."  He says the following to bolster his assertion,

Instead of discussing my claim that many of the pro-choice arguments resemble the rationales offered by the Nazis, you attack the messenger. By the way, the Kommandant of Auschwitz testified at Nuremberg that he believed that 2 million were killled at that extermination camp. The point which you don't contest is that a shocking number of abortions are performed in the US annually. You are perfectly content with PP performing 1.32 million, as opposed to 1.35 million, abortions over a four year period. You actually prove my primary contention.

First, my problem with his "claim" is that he uses and continues to use the inflammatory rhetoric to incite a justification for the restriction of a woman's right. Notice how he uses the Nuremberg trials to later demonize my comment on the accuracy of his claims about Plan Parenthood.  Second,  he further fails to acknowledge that Plan Parenthood true function as providing low-income women and families with health services and that Plan Parenthood "abortions" is only 3 percent of their entire healthcare services.  Third, addressing his point on my "contentment," is not only inaccurate, but an ad hominem attack. The numbers reported are the numbers reported, and were to point out his inaccurate observations.  My contentment is not for Plan Parenthood "record" on number the abortions they perform, nor is Mr. Ludwig correct that his point has been proven. He fails to recognize the humanitarian acts that Plan Parenthood provides with its other 97% of its services. Fourth,  his proclamation for the "shocking" number of abortions, when viewed in the proper context in terms of population is nominal, and only shocking to him and pro-life advocates. The number of abortions performed by Plan Parenthood in relationship to the population of the United States (313,885,991) is a fraction (less than .25 percent) and the distortion of concern by the pro-life movement is inconsistent.

If life is as valuable to the pro-life advocates as they claim, how does, according to  some, the death penalty be a valid societal tool? Or how does, see the use of assassination of terrorists by the US government as valid on the premise and execution of the things one does during a war? Even still, how does, others see the deaths of millions in a genocide, such as in the Sudan as acceptable, because it does not effect them personally? Not willing to spend the blood and treasure to defend the innocent, except for the unborn on American soil, is valid in the eyes of these pro-life advocates. It is these rationalizations pro-life advocates as well that dehumanizes. Mr. Ludwig would argue that,

You can't terminate 1.32 million fetuses over four years without admitting that you believe those human lives were not worthy of living. You wouldn't advocate killing 1.32 million women over four years but killing 1.32 million fetuses over the same period is acceptable. How do you get to that point? The fetus is not human. Dehumanize means to make inhuman. Your use of the term sentient. It's another example of contending that the fetus is inhuman because presumably it can't perceive or has no consciousness.

On a number of levels, Mr. Ludwig's above assertions fail. I have not personally terminated any fetuses over any period time and to imply that I would advocate the death of 1.32 million women is a silly distraction. A fallacy, a red-herring, that appeals to emotional angst of the argument only sidetracks the discussion and defers the argument. There is no point to get to, before or after, his emotion appeal. As Mr. Ludwig knows that his points are to dehumanize and therefore make it appear that my arguments make me  inhuman. I can admit that all life is worth living and this is because of my belief in what determines a sentient being is, the definition of fetus and its viability, and my belief in the hardcore tenets of individual choice and the woman's right to chose as inviolate.

On the other hand, abortions that fall into definition of Mr. Ludwig's exceptions and that acceptable, per our personal conservation, are in the cases of rape and incest, which only one can infer that these fetuses are not necessarily worthy of living because of their father's sin. The latest point may be unfair, but Mr. Ludwig is willing to concede the woman's right to chose and he can rationalize (or at least justify) the social well being over the fetus. Yet, even if all abortions were outlawed within the United States, Mr. Ludwig's exceptions would apply. As an example, in a longitudinal 2011 report by the Department of Justice (DOJ), from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, regarding Pattern & Trends from 1980 to 2009, discusses the last report available on arrest for forcible rape. According to DOJ,

the definition of forcible rape is limited to the act of sexual intercourse, or the penetration of a female sexual organ(vagina) by a male sexual organ (penis). This definition excludes other types of violent sexual assault such as forcible sodomy, forcible sex with an object, and forcible fondling...

The latter half of the definition by the DOJ is astonishing, but the distinction is being made in order to track the statistics accurately within the Uniform Criminal Reporting (UCR). In 2009, the last reported data year is available, 21,110 arrests were made for forcible rape. In other words, on the average, there were nearly 58 forcible rape arrests per day and if all the women were to abort from the point of fertilization, in the case of emergency contraceptive, to the actual procedure just after the ninth week,then there still would be abortions that dehumanize the condition. In essence, Jeff Ludwig's position is flawed based on his own logic. He has dehumanized the unborn for the acts of the father and declared the unborn as subservient to the primacy of the mother's social well being. However, the exception is carved out or how raped or incest victims are viewed it is still the woman's right to decide.

Finally, in the closing of his comment back to me he asserts the following two points

Another false claim you make is that I believe the fetus is supreme to the adult woman. I don't advocate killing the mother to insure the unborn child's health. What I claim is that when a woman is pregnant, the interests of two human beings are involved. You deny this by assuming the unborn child is not human and worthy of legal protection. You dehumanize the fetus.

This above claim no where in my commentary do I assert that the unborn child is not human.What I assert that is, that women are the final arbiters in making the choice for themselves. No one, not religious or not, should primacy over a woman's body. Should fetus by medical definition of nine weeks, though most states place restrictions after twenty weeks, be protected? Yes. No where in my response do I deny worthiness of the unborn child, it is the viability, which is solely dependent on the mother and once again that decision is best left to the woman. I assert the woman's right over the fetus period.

You seem to refuse to accept the fact that the Nazis portrayed the Jews as subhuman in order to justify their extreme policies. Because you presume that the fetus lacks sentience, you believe that it is not human. It is subhuman. That is dehumanization. Instead of addressing my arguments you resorted to baseless claims. Pro-choice advocates are not Nazis; they don't work fetuses to death. Yet they do rely on similar rationales to justify killing millions of unborn babies. Next time you might focus your response on the arguments I actually made.

Jeff

As stated earlier, I stand by my definition of sentience and the woman's right to decide. I am persuaded that   fetus is human -- sure. Does that mean I view the fetus as subhuman, of course not. You make assumptions and judgement not in play. In commentary, I did not deny that Nazis portrayed the Jews as subhuman for justification of their extreme policies. You have failed to persuade me that pro-choice advocates extremists have the force of government and dragging women against their will and forcing women to have abortions. The argument you made was about how pro-choice advocates dehumanizing the fetus and the rational for it similar to the Nazi model. The flaw in your argument is that pro-choice are a corporate interest not a governmental. Pro-choice advocates are not bombarding the public-sphere via governmental propaganda --radio, television, theater, or cinema. Nor are pro-choice advocates forcing women to have abortion. Pro-choice do argue that is a woman's choice, which you seem not want to acknowledge. You use the Nazi model as a way to demonize the pro-choice and hence my criticism. If you are argument is how the social  mores of the time has become to secular and dehumanizing for the public welfare of the United States, then make that argument. It can be done without resorting to the emotional and historical references of Nazism.

By claiming that your intent is not call pro-choice advocates Nazis, but assert throughout argument the similarities of Nazi model is disingenuous.

However, you have persuaded me that the extremes on both side of argument are about dehumanizing the Other.