Abortion Debate Between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox

Topic Author
Visitor

31 Mar 2014 17:49 #143113 by

Abortion Debate Between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox was created by

I found this debate rather thought provoking. I've included the text from Matt Dillahunty's post on his profile, who is on the pro-choice side in the debate (it's almost two hours long). Thoughts?

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/truradio/2014/03/25/theology-matters-with-the-pellews-special-debate-episode

Warning: Spoiler!

So, on Tuesday evening, I debated abortion - again. This time against Clinton Wilcox, a religious representative of the Secular Pro-Life community (he used secular arguments). You can listen to it at the BlogTalk link in this message.

I was just directed to a thread over at the Secular Pro-Life Facebook page where they were discussing the debate. Clinton wrote the following:

"He had the nerve of accusing pro-life people as the ones who don't understand sex, when he takes the ridiculous position that sex *doesn't* lead to pregnancy."

That statement is indicative of one of the major problems and the follow-up comments demonstrate this problem: they're so mired in their position that they can't even understand simple concepts after they've been explained.

It was already evident when he just kept bringing up personhood. The bodily rights arguments already address the issue of personhood and demonstrate why it isn't relevant. The violinist is a person, the 2-year-old who needs a kidney transplant is a person...they don't have a right to use someone else's body without their consent.

While I'm already aware that I don't need to be taking either legal or moral advice from someone who thinks it's more moral to legally require a rape victim to carry a fetus to term than to terminate the pregnancy...or that it's more moral to legally require a woman to carry a fetus to term even if it results in her being permanently paralyzed...but now I'll have to add yet another embarrassment to that list.

You see, it isn't my position that "sex *doesn't* lead to pregnancy". My position was that sex doesn't *necessarily* lead to pregnancy.

When it comes to causation, A is the cause of B if it is both necessary and sufficient. Additionally, among necessary and sufficient causes, we look for the most proximate cause.

The facts, though they'd like to pretend that I'm simply confused about sex and pregnancy, are that you can have sex and NOT get pregnant...and that you can get pregnant without having sex (IVF). I'm not just talking about same-sex couples, or infertile couples, or couples using precautions...I'm talking about sex.

There are additional conditions, beyond mere sex, that are required for pregnancy to occur. You have to have compatible people, having sex at the right time...and even then, a pregnancy may not occur.

I was pointing out a problem with his simplified "sex causes pregnancy" language (which he used to convey responsibility, ironic for someone who doesn't actually consider responsibility when forcing the rape victim to remain pregnant) and I was noting that sex doesn't simply lead to pregnancy.

I even noted, when pressed, that in the normative sense: yes, sex leads to pregnancy. My point was designed to address that he was over-simplifying for the sake of appealing to responsibility...which he actually doesn't even care about.

Pregnancy is an involuntary condition - you can have all kinds of sex in a desperate bid to get pregnant and NEVER get pregnant. You can also have sex using reasonable precautions and wind up pregnant. That's what I meant by involuntary.

Meanwhile, in the modern world sex isn't even *necessary*. (Thus further killing off the necessary and sufficient components of causality.)

Their mocking tone that I just don't understand the grade-school biology behind sex is very telling. It tells me they don't understand causality. It tells me they don't understand what I explained several times...

And, as it seems to be the focus of their self-congratulation, it tells me that they don't understand that while Clinton definitely performed better than their previous representative, they still haven't manage to put on a debate performance that is compelling or convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with their position.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/truradio/2014/03/25/theology-matters-with-the-pellews-special-debate-episode

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Visitor

01 Apr 2014 03:18 #143159 by

Replied by on topic Abortion Debate Between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox

Not really thought provoking. Just the same tired argument about corner cases. And his statement, "You can also have sex using reasonable precautions and wind up pregnant.", on what planet is this true? Or I guess I should ponder what reasonable precautions are to him. Having researched the argument on when life begins, scientists are pretty sold that it begins in conception. So his argument that an "invader" must be killed inside this woman's poor unexpecting womb sounds a bit ridiculous. I mean, I took sex ed in high school, it was pretty clear that having sex was a way to procreate. I was under no I illusions that it was risk free even if he uses condoms. I really don't see where he correlates ivf to an unwanted pregnancy.

This may sound cruel, but a woman's "choice" is when she initiates in sex. Not afterwards when the resultant procreation leads to fertilization. Murder isn't a fair decision for an "oopsy". I mean, really, it's nine months out of your entire life. I think you can put up with it and dump the kid off at the nearest adoption shelter. I'm aware the number of adoptable children will skyrocket, but maybe then we'll respect the act of sex or perhaps they'll make it easier for someone to adopt. I'm also obviously not talking about corner cases such as rape and life threatening situations.

Our culture is very cruel to those that have no voice. I don't think we will move away from barbarism in my lifetime sadly. Just my two cents, I'm sure it'll tick someone off but you're gonna rock the boat to get on the dock.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Brenna
Offline
User
I hear your voice on the wind, and I hear you call out my name

01 Apr 2014 03:40 - 01 Apr 2014 03:44 #143161 by Brenna

Replied by Brenna on topic Abortion Debate Between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox

Storge wrote: Not really thought provoking. Just the same tired argument about corner cases. And his statement, "You can also have sex using reasonable precautions and wind up pregnant.", on what planet is this true?

I'm not even going to get into the reasons why the general comments of this post are both ignorant and poorly conceived (if you'll excuse the pun) as we went through this in another thread on the forum before.

But I will say as to the above quote, it happens. No form of contraception apart from total abstinence is infallible.

Storge wrote: N I really don't see where he correlates ivf to an unwanted pregnancy.

It doesn't. Nor did he say it does. He said it is an example of his position that sex does not necessarily result in pregnancy.

Walking, stumbling on these shadowfeet

Part of the seduction of most religions is the idea that if you just say the right things and believe really hard, your salvation will be at hand.

With Jediism. No one is coming to save you. You have to get off your ass and do it yourself - Me

Last edit: 01 Apr 2014 03:44 by Brenna.

The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Adder
Offline
Master
7 minds, 5 trials and 3 pillars.

01 Apr 2014 03:58 #143162 by Adder

Replied by Adder on topic Abortion Debate Between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox

A pregnancy is not like sneezing (for most), it can leave persistent problems downstairs and even kill the mother under worse case scenario's. Not to mention the often dramatic impact on hormones which are possible, and limitations on behaviour during term.

My opinion avoids the dilemma for me.... I think the mother's egg/s and reproductive system is integral to her - its just the process cannot begin and run without the additional set of data from the father. So I tend to view it as the mother 'creates' the child, and therefore it would just be a case of being part of the mother and therefore her choice!!!

It could be argued the child seems to create itself, and all that is needed is the correct and safe environment, and nutrition.... the incubator argument. As mentioned to this, I find enough ground to disagree as the argument seems to devalue the women's involvement to the provision of an egg and operation of incubation. Since those things are connected and part of her normal bodily systems, they then are part of her and the operation of which just part of 'her' function. The result of which could be a human child. They grey area which supports the argument against my opinion is that she has no input into the blueprint of creation after creation of the zygote.... but this might not be 100% true if we consider epigenetic effects through dietary and environmental influences, even including things such as stress.

So with my opinion there is no debate left to be had (from my point of view). I think its the mother's choice until delivery at which time the role changes dramatically to 'parent'. For me the question of when life begin's is a bit moot, the child is part of the mother until birth, but I would imagine consciousness cannot happen before some threshold number of neuron's are functioning as a network.

Introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist.
Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu

The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Visitor

01 Apr 2014 04:17 #143163 by

Replied by on topic Abortion Debate Between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox

You can also have sex using reasonable precautions and wind up pregnant. - he's talking about sex with precautions. He does not say contraception. There's oral and anal sex... You can't get preggers by those... Unless of course he did mean contraception, then his statement is true and is accepted by the many who use them knowing full well they may not work. Which makes that argument for abortion a bit silly. "Well, I knew it might not work but I went ahead and did it anyway, now I've got this kid I need to get rid of".

And he said the ivf statement as an example of getting pregnant without having sex not the other way around. Which didn't keep to his main idea. So could you enlighten me as to why that was included in his response?

And I apologize deeply for re-hashing an already argued argument. I'll do the proper search for that particular forum. I so delight in reading negative comments between members. (That last was sarcasm, BTW) But this is unfortunately an aggressive topic so I'm not shocked by the response. Just a bit saddened it happened on Totjo.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Visitor

01 Apr 2014 04:55 #143164 by

Replied by on topic Abortion Debate Between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox

Thank you Adder for the civil counter :-)

I for one know how crappy hormone flux can be post and pre natal. However, there are meds for that if one is willing to go that route. And yes childbirth does change the body. There are exercises that can get one in great shape (so I hear, lol) Also, if abortion was made illegal I would hope that protective laws for those that are endangered by pregnancy or are victims of rape would be made so that they were exceptions. Otherwise the pendulum would just swing the other way and nothing would have been accomplished. But I question the mental impact an abortion takes on a woman's mind. There is currently no education or support for women post abortion that I know of. How does that affect her life, and would it be much different/worse if she carried the child to term. In some states an abortion can take place after 20 weeks, a procedure of that scope is like having a baby. We have these laws that say it's OK to do this but where is the after care support from the pro-choicers? It just seems like a double standard.

Also, from my understanding, a fetus does have it's own DNA separate from mom and dad. http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/06/an-unborn-baby-gets-its-dna-sequenced-is-it-cause-for-celebration-or-alarm/ Although, I generally read scientific journals, this is an article written on one. So technically that would make a fetus a separate entity from mom. Although i'm not really clear if that would that change your argument?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Adder
Offline
Master
7 minds, 5 trials and 3 pillars.

01 Apr 2014 05:32 - 01 Apr 2014 05:33 #143165 by Adder

Replied by Adder on topic Abortion Debate Between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox

Storge wrote: So technically that would make a fetus a separate entity from mom. Although i'm not really clear if that would that change your argument?

Not in my opinion no. The whole body is made up of separate bits and pieces in a system working together. The unborn child being just another expression of the mother's bodily function's, though clearly a unique/complex one requiring input from the father to start the process. This changes after birth because at that point, quite simply the child becomes detached and theoretically a separate organism/system of its own. I guess it depends where we draw the boundaries to define something as a separate system, and one way to do that is to assess a systems reliance on inputs to influence some system of function. The most simple being the mother as a system of creation with an initial commencement signal/input being procreation. The other more contemporary view would be to view the embryo as a system of its own, and the mother as providing inputs in a supporting capacity.... but for above mentioned reasons I think it might be too simplistic. It's already been shown a mother's diet can effect the expression of DNA in the unborn child (eg here ), and these epigenetic influences could extend beyond that type of obvious examples (perhaps). I'm open about it though, its just my current opinion until a better one comes along
:pinch:

Last edit: 01 Apr 2014 05:33 by Adder.

The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Visitor

01 Apr 2014 13:20 #143174 by

Replied by on topic Abortion Debate Between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox

Really interesting point of view, thanks. I'd never considered it that way although if I'm imagining it correctly a fetus wouldn't be much different than a woman's arm or leg. And while cutting off one's appendage at will is not illegal it is still a somewhat gruesome image in my opinion. But I am quite boorish in the way I think. It seems you would feel the same about mom's who drink and use drugs while with child? I love my kiddo but I always felt biologically he was more akin to a parasite in utero than an appendage. Maybe if I thought the latter I would have been more in touch with my body. Interesting concept and not one widely shared by society. The implications this presents would likely elevate the status of women I think.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Brenna
Offline
User
I hear your voice on the wind, and I hear you call out my name

01 Apr 2014 20:58 - 01 Apr 2014 21:13 #143238 by Brenna

Replied by Brenna on topic Abortion Debate Between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox

Storge wrote: And I apologize deeply for re-hashing an already argued argument. I'll do the proper search for that particular forum. I so delight in reading negative comments between members. (That last was sarcasm, BTW) But this is unfortunately an aggressive topic so I'm not shocked by the response. Just a bit saddened it happened on Totjo.

I imagine about as shocked I am at an intolerant attitude towards a very delicate topic with wide ranging cultural and psychological impacts. Though I am not entirely surprised. In my experience it tends to be something that few people do any actual unbiased research on before deciding where they stand.

Out of interest, I am actually against abortion personally, for a number of reasons, I would not even consider it unless it was unavoidable. But I don't believe that anyone has the right to make that decision for someone else.

Thank you Adder, that's a really interesting view point. Id not thought of it like that before either.

Last edit: 01 Apr 2014 21:13 by Brenna.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Visitor

01 Apr 2014 21:14 #143244 by

Replied by on topic Abortion Debate Between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox

I say blow up the patriarchy's Death Star . . . and if Immortal Technique wants an army, I say we give him one.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: Zero, Verheilen, ChaotishRabe, Morkano, Rini, Tavi, Khwang