If I say,
“You confuse apples and oranges, you conflate two different things,”do you demand that I present some evidence?
Say I tweet,
“@Gobstop says you claim apples are oranges!”Is your response,
“Forget Gobstop and talk to ME about what I MEAN"?•
I am puzzled about something in the pro-choice talk I’ve been reading. People on that side, help me with this.
No, I am not mocking you. You are people who seem to believe in making sense, in reason and facts, in fair dealing and no double standard. Today I read the words “rational” and “provable facts” – good words. Am I wrong about this?
Well a boatload of you are saying two things:
that Motion 312 is about Personhood;You can believe whatever you want (dogmatically, without reasons), and you can sway people with rhetoric – but I think you are attacking @Roseblue for doing both those things. Where are people we can trust? People need evidence. So just lay it out.
and that the evidence that it is about Personhood is betrayed by LifeSiteNews, a Catholic journalist, etc.
•
(Here’s my evidence for claiming that the above two things are said, but if you already accept that, just skip down to the next section.)
People say that Motion 312 is about Personhood. I’ll paraphrase the claim, then see for yourself if I am right about what people are saying:
‘Though Motion 312 doesn’t use the word person or personhood at all [Fact], when it says human being it means person. So when it asks,Look at these tweets:
Is a fetus a human being?it is really asking,
Is a fetus a legal person?Make no mistake about it; it is a motion designed to assign personhood to every fetus.’
@jjhippie: “Motion 312 wrongly conflates ‘being’ with ‘legal person’.”People also say that the evidence that this is a Personhood motion is betrayed by LifeSiteNews, some Catholic papers, etc.
@fernhilldammit: “If Motion 312 passes & MPs find that personhood begins at conception, then lots of impact/criminalization. So Motion 312 = pre-born personhood law.”
@fernhilldammit: “@Roseblue doesn’t want us to call Motion 312 a personhood law. OK, it’s a preborn law on personhood. Preborn thingies exist, dammit!!!!”
@JeninCanada: “No one denies a fetus is HUMAN, just that it’s not a PERSON. One is a biological, the other a legal definition. Motion M312 confuses the two.”
@jjhippie: “Motion 312 not a Personhood initiative? Yeah sure, pull the other one. Link [article in The BC Catholic titled “Personhood Motion To Get More Time”].”•
@jjhippie: “Don’t believe the [fetus] fetishists who say Motion 312 isn’t a Personhood motion. Here’s what they really say, behind closed doors. Link.”
@deBeauxOs1: Retweet, “I’d say the Evidence is In re Motion 312 being a straightup Personhood and Abortion motion. Link.”
@deBeauxOs1: “Motion 312 = Personhood motion, screenshot at 11!” Link [Canadian Catholic News article].”
@lahtay44: [Headline in] “The BC Catholic: ‘*Personhood* Motion To Get More Time.’ Link.”
@lahtay44: [A second headline in The BC Catholic] “‘Personhood Debate May Force a Change’ Link, [an article including the line] ‘parliamentarians will begin to debate the legal definition of when personhood begins’.”
So, what’s the evidence that Motion M312 confuses ‘human being’ and ‘legal person’? We need some reason to think this, if it is true. What is it?
Where does this show up in the words of the Motion itself? (Surely that matters somehow.) Or if it's not there, where is it?
And what could this motion, as framed, actually accomplish?
The Motion proposes that Parliament ask NOT when a human being begins (a lot of pro-lifers are wrong about that!) but whether a human being clearly begins at some point before birth:
what “evidence exists to demonstrate that a child IS or IS NOT a human being before the moment of complete birth?”So my question is just: what is the basis of the claim that Motion 312 is about Personhood?
(Yeah, “child” – I see the leading language, but look: if the evidence shows that it IS NOT a human being then it is plainly not going to be a child. As @Tempibones says, it is going to be a ‘child on the way’.
@Tempibones: “Myself, I’ve 3 children. When pregnant we say ‘I have 2 children and one on the way’ implying a child has not yet arrived.”The language doesn’t matter; it’s what the evidence will support that matters.)
(This isn’t the States, where ballot measures expressly propose to amend state constitutions to redefine “person” in the law to include “every human being from the moment of fertilization” - and then fail. This Motion doesn’t do that. So, are people more devious in Canada? If so, say how - what’s the clever plan?)Just, what is the actual evidence that when the Motion says “human being” it means “person”? Point it out so that people can agree with you. I’m open.
And, second, why do you think extremists and sundry journalists expose the hidden truth about Motion 312?
What do they know – these people who don’t seem to have a clue, who are just shooting holes in their own boats? (Did those headlines of theirs work for them?)
These are people who, by the look of it, are totally oblivious to the difference between ‘human being’ and ‘legal person’! (I gasp and want to tear out my hair! Have they followed this debate at all?! Why these pro-life people don’t listen to what pro-choicers have to say is beyond me, when it is you people they need to convince!)
•
I know you hate Woodworth, but he does get the difference between ‘human being’ and ‘person’ (go here, read this: bit.ly/LKKfoI).
I know that he wants to restrict abortions: but how can his Motion do that, unless there were a way to get actual agreement in Parliament that we have a human being before birth? – and actually long before birth, given that most abortions take place long before birth. It isn't going to restrict much if all they can agree on is ... I don't know: a fetus is a human being at 26 weeks.
Possibly a restriction like that offends you; fair enough. But what agreement could the evidence deliver, in your eyes? What do you think MPs would conclude from that evidence? Do you believe they can't read evidence correctly? Are they dupes and frauds? Is the evidence actually compelling?
Just lay out your case that by “human being” Woodworth means “person.” Because the evidence seems to argue that he doesn’t.
•
It looks like he is asking whether we could agree, on the basis of scientific information, that there is a human being in the womb at some point before birth. “If Motion 312 passes and MPs find that personhood begins at conception ...” – seriously: do you really think a committee of MPs from those parties could agree that that happens at conception? Do you believe that that evidence is compelling? Can they not draw conclusions from evidence?
Do you believe that the data Woodworth is asking to look at will show that there is already a 'human being' in the womb: not something human in origin or something biologically human (like hair is biologically human) but a human being? Do you believe that would seem to be the case, if people consulted the evidence he is calling for?
If so, then I get where you see 'human being' kind of equals person, in that it is a real human being (not just human matter) that seems to call for rights consideration and then elevation to legal personhood.
But I haven't heard one person on the pro-choice side express that. I haven't heard one pro-choice person say,
If the Motion goes ahead, and MPs hear that evidence, it will show them that, at some point before birth it is a human being in there. And then there will be talk of calling that human being a legal person, and then there will be restrictions on abortion.But maybe that's it - is it? I get the claim about 'human being = person', if that is the case. But no one says that. So, if that isn't the reason that 'human being = person', then what is the reason?
What I am looking for is hard to find: a bunch of people who want to make complete sense about what is happening in this country.
Call me a fool. Or, hey, enlighten me. Arguments based on evidence will work.