Venting my spleen
Okay, I learned my lesson the hard way about writing letters to the editor. No matter how cogent my argument is, some yahoo's rebuttal will be printed. So now my letters to the editor are anonymous and submitted to LJ instead. Case in point, you may have heard that the Minister for the Status of Woman, conservative MP Rona Ambrose has been criticized by some (rightly so) for voting in favour of a private member's bill that would reopen debate on the rights of a fetus. Although it didn't pass (and was always unlikely to pass -- even Stephen Harper wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole), it is astounding that the MP who represents the interests of women in Canada would vote for that bill.
Recently, the Hamilton Spectator printed a letter calling for Ambrose's resignation. Here it is. You may or may not agree with the letter writer, but she makes a valid point. Today, The Spectator published a reaction to that letter which you can link to here. However, this letter was not nearly as good and as you can see, just made one logical fallacy after another. Let me list them in order:
Appeal to Emotion/Begging the Question: "Can you honestly say that all the ultrasound photos posted on fridges, on Facebook, etc. are not human?"
Straw Man Fallacy: "...that they are just proudly displayed as images of a 'blob'?"
Appeal to Emotion (Pity): "...yes, there is actually a human, a real live baby in utero, and ironically enough perhaps a little girl who would grow into a woman...What happened to her right to life or her right to control her body?"
So here's the letter I would write back, if I were brave/stupid enough:
Dear Letter Writer,
I find your arguments overly simplistic and fallacious. First of all, I don't think anyone said that a fetus depicted in an ultrasound is "just a blob". The issue here is not whether a fetus is a potential human being. The issue is, what it takes to become a human being. Despite years of medical technology, a fetus can only be brought to term (or near-term) inside the body of a woman. And only from a very early stage embryo, at that (as far as I know, host-to-host fetus transfers are not possible). Whether the woman is a surrogate mother, with no genetic relation to the embryo, or whether the woman is the biological mother, her ongoing consent is required to bring that fetus to a stage of development whereby it can survive outside her body.
This is the point that pro-lifers love to ignore. I don't think anyone relishes the idea of destroying a potential individual life, whether that life is a human fetus or a Canada goose or the cow that's going into your hamburger one day. That's not the issue. The issue is that any discussion of the rights of the fetus is inevitably going to come up against the rights of the incubating mother. The difference here is that the mother is always conscious of what's going on. Her conscious consent is needed to carry that fetus to term. Anything less is a type of slavery, in my opinion.
So, it really is about the rights of the actual woman, not the potential woman. And if you accept that premise, then yes, Rona Ambrose is conflict with the mandate of her office and should resign.
Recently, the Hamilton Spectator printed a letter calling for Ambrose's resignation. Here it is. You may or may not agree with the letter writer, but she makes a valid point. Today, The Spectator published a reaction to that letter which you can link to here. However, this letter was not nearly as good and as you can see, just made one logical fallacy after another. Let me list them in order:
Appeal to Emotion/Begging the Question: "Can you honestly say that all the ultrasound photos posted on fridges, on Facebook, etc. are not human?"
Straw Man Fallacy: "...that they are just proudly displayed as images of a 'blob'?"
Appeal to Emotion (Pity): "...yes, there is actually a human, a real live baby in utero, and ironically enough perhaps a little girl who would grow into a woman...What happened to her right to life or her right to control her body?"
So here's the letter I would write back, if I were brave/stupid enough:
Dear Letter Writer,
I find your arguments overly simplistic and fallacious. First of all, I don't think anyone said that a fetus depicted in an ultrasound is "just a blob". The issue here is not whether a fetus is a potential human being. The issue is, what it takes to become a human being. Despite years of medical technology, a fetus can only be brought to term (or near-term) inside the body of a woman. And only from a very early stage embryo, at that (as far as I know, host-to-host fetus transfers are not possible). Whether the woman is a surrogate mother, with no genetic relation to the embryo, or whether the woman is the biological mother, her ongoing consent is required to bring that fetus to a stage of development whereby it can survive outside her body.
This is the point that pro-lifers love to ignore. I don't think anyone relishes the idea of destroying a potential individual life, whether that life is a human fetus or a Canada goose or the cow that's going into your hamburger one day. That's not the issue. The issue is that any discussion of the rights of the fetus is inevitably going to come up against the rights of the incubating mother. The difference here is that the mother is always conscious of what's going on. Her conscious consent is needed to carry that fetus to term. Anything less is a type of slavery, in my opinion.
So, it really is about the rights of the actual woman, not the potential woman. And if you accept that premise, then yes, Rona Ambrose is conflict with the mandate of her office and should resign.