Video shows medical students walking out of their white-coat ceremony before an anti-abortion professor made the keynote speech

[Mass Effect]

Hateful viewpoint, really, according to you. Again, you showed zero tolerance for opposing views, just by saying that those views are HATEFUL. Should anti-abortionists say that those who perform abortions are committing murder...again, trying to make a point that these extreme views on both sides need to stop.

I don't show zero tolerance for opposing views. I show zero tolerance for hateful views. Most of my family, save two people are conservatives. If I showed zero tolerance for their views I wouldn't be with them nearly every weekend and holiday. My problem isn't with someone being anti-abortion necessarily. My problem is with a doctor putting religious beliefs ahead of science. And in this chaotic partisan world, where women WILL die thanks to state laws that are neither based on science nor best medical practices, I have zero tolerance for any doctor who props up that viewpoint. There are plenty of anti-abortion people out there who have joined the pro-choice crowd because these laws go too far. Those are the ones I tolerate and respect.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mass Effect]

It's fascinating watching part of this community somehow rationalize this behavior as a "right", when anybody with any sense of honesty would admit that a bunch of conservative students walking out on a speaker who may be pro-choice, pro gun-control etc. would be totally different. I assure you we would not hear neutral calls for tolerance and that they have the "right" to behave this way - (btw, I would think them walking out is just as immature and ignorant).

Furthermore, half the people in this sub beg the question when they try to rationalize their reaction. "Why is what the students did okay"? "Well because the speaker's view is hateful and anti-medicine". Sorry for the newsflash, although I am not endorsing this view per se, I could say that the pro-choice position is hateful insofar as it denies the right to life to a class of human beings. You may disagree with this characterization, but again this is a different question altogether that this sub (and other areas on Twitter), seem to take as "settled". Unlike what this sub may think, there is a reason that this issue remains universally controversial, and public opinion is generally in favor of some restrictions on abortion unlike what it seems here.

Lastly, someone above said that the speaker put "religion above science", this is just manifestly wrong and unfortunately reveals a lack of interest in the subject itself.

I mean, you can say whatever you want. You can stand on a podium and say a cheeseburger has a heartbeat. But that doesn't make it true or hateful. I have never had an abortion, but I also will never look at a woman or a child who's been raped and say "you must carry that baby!" like a Scarlet letter for her rape. I will also never look at a woman or a child and say "this is your path in life, to give birth regardless of whether or not you die. Once you get close to your final breath, doctors may be allowed to intervene, but not til then. Sorry 'bout the physical and emotional trauma you'll suffer in the meantime".

 

[Mass Effect]

I don’t think the principles are similar. COVID deniers are rejecting facts about reality. People who are anti-abortion have a different perspective on a complicated bioethical topic. The view that life begins to deserve independent consideration at some point before birth or even before viability is a perfectly legitimate one. Only in this crazy groupthink bubble would someone think that it isn’t.

It is not legitimate when you're forcing someone else to be the literal incubator for that life, their own life be damned. We do not require people to save the life of others, even if it means they lose their own life, in this country. When you get on a plane, they never say "put the oxygen mask on the person/child next to you first". So why the hell are we ok with telling women they must carry a child that could very well be detrimental to their physical and psychological health?

 

[Mass Effect]

So anyone who holds a public view on anything political is controversial? Do you think if this speaker was publicly pro choice that it would be controversial as well?

Actually, yes. You don't take a very contentious issue and make one side the keynote speaker without expecting backlash from the other side. Had they gotten a pro-choice person, I would have expected something similar.

 

[Mass Effect]

Medical professionals are held to a higher standard in the world, undoubtedly because we must form close bonds with patients and earn their trust. For this reason we can't get away with the same things that the rest of the public can. Although there is a lot of individuals who are pro-choice there are also a lot of individuals who are pro-life. It is not our job to or duty to comment on the matter nor judge others for their beliefs. I guarantee that the majority of you defending these students would be appalled if a transwoman was the keynote speaker and students decided to walk out and leave. You can cite the differences between these comparisons, but in essence they are both similar because they both revolve around the values that one holds. As medical professionals, we are expected to be open and understanding to others opinions/values without injecting our own biases and beliefs into the mix.

Really? You don't see how that's different? Do you also think it's the same as if students walked out on a black person being the keynote speaker?

 

[Mass Effect]

Wow. How childish. The speaker didn’t even speak on that topic and they couldn’t grant her professional respect? Way to ruin the white coat ceremony for other students and families. Lmbo people are actually defending this? Imagine taking this attitude with a resident, attending or fellow physician that you have to work with. Few would have the audacity to do so. This is honestly an embarrassing show of immaturity. Grow up

Umm, some of us are attendings and think you're wrong. And by the by I just honored a student last month who began to discuss his pro-life stance with me until I didn't engage. I don't care what my students or residents political views are. I judge them on whether or not they're good clinicians. If they let their political beliefs keep them from doing their jobs, then I will dock them. Otherwise, I don't give a damn.

 

[sloop]

It is not legitimate when you're forcing someone else to be the literal incubator for that life, their own life be damned. We do not require people to save the life of others, even if it means they lose their own life, in this country. When you get on a plane, they never say "put the oxygen mask on the person/child next to you first". So why the hell are we ok with telling women they must carry a child that could very well be detrimental to their physical and psychological health?

In situations where the abortion is medically necessary, that is one thing. It is totally reasonable, however, to hold the opinion that at some point an unborn fetus deserves its own individual consideration and should not be killed for the convenience of the mother.

 

[Mass Effect]

It’s a much grayer topic. At the most extreme, to a doctor that views abortion as murder, referring someone to another physician who will perform abortions is akin to saying “here is a referral to a hitman to take care of that pesky spouse.”

If the act of abortion is fundamentally immoral (for arguments sake—I’m not picking a side here), then aiding it in any way is immoral as well. Yes it’s going against your ethical responsibility to your patient in a sense (provide care—though it is up to us to determine appropriate care), but if your patient is pregnant and you view a fetus as a human being then you have two patients and are obligated to look after both. Clearly if the fetus is a human there’s more harm to them if mom gets an abortion than there is harm to mom if mom doesn’t get an abortion, barring a case where the pregnancy is putting her life at risk.

Once again just making arguments, not necessarily my own. But it’s clear that there will never be a consensus on abortion so as a society we really need to figure out how to avoid the issue in the first place.

I vote we just make IUDs free for everyone. Ship them around the world—free! Other county’s citizens will love America, we’ll have far fewer abortions (and thus fewer women getting stuck in these horrible situations), the drug companies will make gazzilions, and it’ll be the most beneficial thing you can do to fight climate change.

And what about rape?

 

[Mass Effect]

In situations where the abortion is medically necessary, that is one thing. It is totally reasonable, however, to hold the opinion that at some point an unborn fetus deserves its own individual consideration and should not be killed for the convenience of the mother.

Very few pro-choicers disagree with that. Very, very few. I personally think that abortion should be legal until viability. But I understand viability is a gray area and so I'd be open to compromise on that. I think what makes this issue such a hot button issue right now , more so than the past decades is the absurdity of state laws. States are saying no terminations even for ectopics? ECTOPICS! WTAF? If that isn't insanity, what is? So when you put a bunch of idiots in charge of dictating that women should die for a non-viable pregnancy or for a pregnancy that's the product of rape or incest or a pregnancy that will threaten a woman's life with no consideration for even a shred of human decency, you've past the point of "civil discourse".

 

[Mass Effect]

You’re joking right? Simply choosing to leave the ceremony while she was speaking was a disruption itself. They could have chosen to not even show up at all. Instead they chose to attend and then leave because they wanted to make a point and it distracted the entire ceremony. The focus was no longer on celebrating the accomplishment of acceptance into medical school for the class but rather on those who chose to leave during the speakers speech for something that wasn’t even being spoken about. Are you deliberately being obtuse and acting like that had no effect on the ceremony? Once again, will they continue to have the same attitude towards those who will be in charge of their education or their future colleagues? It was immature, pure and simple.

There was nothing immature about this. They had every right to be at their own white coat ceremony and every right not to stay for the entire thing. My god.

 

[Mass Effect]

OK, the clarification does help.

I wouldn't want to listen to them talk as a general rule, but I don't think they should be forbidden from doing so, especially if the speech was pure generic white coat ceremony stuff and didn't bring up COVID at all.

My thinking is that being an anti-vaxer or COVID-denier is not compatible with being a doctor. If you cannot understand and appreciate the science, I don't think you're the one to welcome students to the field.

 

[Mass Effect]

Unfortunately, not enough men (and women, but more men, in general) gets this and does this. Talking about men who refuse to use condoms, etc, and pressure unprotected sex on their gf/hookup whatever. And we know which side commits more domestic abuse over being withheld sex. No contraception is 100% effective. And when pregnancy happens, women are, for the most part, forced to bear the entirety of the consequences on their health/future. So I guess tend to side with the mother but I’d agree with you that abortion debate is byproduct of social issue surrounding sex.

One of the issues with abortion bans is how incredibly sexist they are. The woman has to carry the baby, changing her body forever, putting her life at risk, derailing her plans for the future by at least 9 months if not longer. The man? He can go on his merry little way without even paying a dime of money until the baby is born and if the baby is put up for adoption, never being responsible for it.

Until we have laws that treat men and women equally in this regard, there WILL be protest. If men could get pregnant, there would be no such thing as abortion bans. So if we're going to make them law, how's about we make new laws that the fathers of these fetuses must pay for all medical expenses from the initial pregnancy test to labor and delivery? After that, regular child support until the child turns 18 as they're supposed to do now.

 

[Mass Effect]

I mean this goes beyond the picking of a specific speaker, but you seriously think the only possible underlying rationale or motivation for being pro-life is "religious zealotry"? Like seriously? I get that religious people tend to lean pro-life but it doesn't follow that the position itself is rooted in religion any more than the fact that many famous abolitionists were religious (William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass, et al.) indicates that being anti-slavery is solely a product of "religious zealotry". It's obvious in the latter example that despite the overlap, there are entirely secular reasons to be in support of abolition and see slavery as unethical.

I'm not trying to be a jerk but have you done any reading on this topic beyond Twitter?

The poster was speaking about this speaker and this speaker's abortion views stem from religion.

 

[Mass Effect]

I love the fact that people are capable of downvoting these comments, but can't actually formulate a retort as to why they are wrong. Because everyone with a brain knows they are in fact 100% right. People saying just as rationale things as these on other social platforms are being banned for them.

They did formulate retorts. Pretty good ones, in fact. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean they didn't. And no, they are not wrong. And no, "everyone with a brain" doesn't know they are 100% right. My medical degree tells me I have a brain and I couldn't disagree with you more.

If people can't wrap their head around how dangerous of a precedent that sets, then they are worth opposing on general principle even if I agree with their views, and even if I appreciate future generations taking a stand against something they believe in within their rights on a public campus. Those social precedents appear far more dangerous to me than walking out of a white-coat ceremony.

This is completely untrue. No one is being banned for "saying just as rationale things as these". When you make statements like that that are objectively false (100%), you destroy your credibility and everything else you say is automatically suspect. People being banned from socials is due to blatant lies that promote and/or trigger violence. This very conversation is found on Twitter and the like literally every day and people don't get banned.

 

[LunaOri]

Or not show up

I don’t think it’s realistic (or kind) to ask students not to show up at their own white coat ceremony.

 

[Mass Effect]

If you disagree with the pro-life position, then fine, but don't couch your arguments in vague statements about "choice". The pro-choice position represents an affirmative stance that a certain class of human beings should not have protection under the law from lethal violence.

Dude, if you're going to lecture others on knowing what they're talking about, might not hurt to take your own advice. That is not the pro-choice position. Not at all. And if you don't know that, then you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Billiam95]

One of the issues with abortion bans is how incredibly sexist they are. The woman has to carry the baby, changing her body forever, putting her life at risk, derailing her plans for the future by at least 9 months if not longer. The man? He can go on his merry little way without even paying a dime of money until the baby is born and if the baby is put up for adoption, never being responsible for it.

If only there were some way for women to ensure that her spouse remain committed to their children...

 

[Mass Effect]

If only there were some way for women to ensure that her spouse remain committed to their children...

Thank you for the visual aid. Sexism on full display.

 

[Billiam95]

Those students were a captive audience who did not have the opportunity to debate. Their only options were to stay or leave.

I can't wait for all the support from SDN next time I walk out of some mandatory left-wing neo-marxist equity training.

 

[Billiam95]

Thank you for the visual aid. Sexism on full display.

...marriage?

 

[xffan624]

If only there were some way for women to ensure that her spouse remain committed to their children...

Right, it's the women's fault for being a slut and not waiting until marriage. As far as the men, it was the women's responsibility to project her virtue and prevent pregnancy. Her choice, her problem.

 

[Billiam95]

Right, it's the women's fault for being a slut and not waiting until marriage. As far as the men, it was the women's responsibility to project her virtue and prevent pregnancy. Her choice, her problem.

I didn't say or imply any of what you attributed to me.

 

[deleted905798]

Dude, if you're going to lecture others on knowing what they're talking about, might not hurt to take your own advice. That is not the pro-choice position. Not at all. And if you don't know that, then you don't know what you're talking about.

While it's not stated favorably from the perspective of someone who is pro-choice, this is most definitely the position at its core. The abortion debate historically has centered around two fundamental questions: 1) when does human life begin (in a biological sense), and 2) when does personhood begin (i.e., when does a human being accrue rights). You will generally not find anybody arguing point #1 in the academic community in recent history, the evidence is simply overwhelming. Pick up any book on human embryology and you will note that at conception, a radically distinct human organism comes into being. A human embryo (or fetus), is not a sperm or an egg, or otherwise some “intermediate” species or residing in a “non-human” stage; they are in the most explicit scientific sense a wholly distinct member of the species Homo Sapiens at an early stage of development. Once again this is relatively uncontroversial even amongst pro-choice scholars precisely because it is a scientific fact.

Where most of the argumentation remains (and where most pro-choice academics/philosophers disagree with the pro-life position), is point #2. Fair enough, and that is a discussion of its own, but once you accept premise #1, you are in a position of justifying that some human beings deserve the inviolable right to life, whereas others don't (which was my original formulation with which you took issue). This need for justification is what is behind pro-choice advocates often trying to find some other arbitrary marker for "personhood" (e.g., conscious awareness, or viability as per your suggestion in a previous comment).

Btw you state above you are outraged that states limit abortion in cases of ectopics. I agree that, this is absurd. Properly speaking this isn't even "abortion", as the direct aim in an ectopic pregnancy is not to intentionally terminate the life of the fetus but to save the life of the mother given a clearly pathological process. Having an unfortunate outcome that arises from a noble intention is not the same ethically as the intentional doing of harm (principle of double effect).

 

[anesussy]

It hardly goes against the principles of the profession. The Hippocratic Oath itself covers this issue, stating “Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.”

I'm pro choice, but this was probably the best comeback of all time. Holy cow.

 

[xffan624]

I didn't say or imply any of what you attributed to me.

So what did you mean by saying the one way a woman could assert her rights to equal parental contribution (as enumerated by Mass Effect's post) by the father of the baby she's carrying was marriage? 'Cause as a woman, that's what I heard. Please clarify.

 

[Billiam95]

So what did you mean by saying the one way a woman could assert her rights to equal parental contribution (as enumerated by Mass Effect's post) by the father of the baby she's carrying was marriage? 'Cause as a woman, that's what I heard. Please clarify.

Pregnancy is a natural outcome of sex. In the setting of consensual relations, waiting until marriage to have children is one way, and the best way imo, to ensure that fathers have an equal contribution (financially and otherwise) to raising their children. Regardless of marriage status, men have a moral and legal responsibility to financially support their offspring. I would 100% support requiring child support during pregnancy, as mentioned in an earlier post. I am not in any way stating that women are solely responsible, or that men are absolved of any blame, for unexpected pregnancies.
One way, not the only way.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

I’m so going to regret commenting in this thread

It was current students and members of the GHHS that picked the speaker i believe. If such a terrible anti-abortion physician is selected by other local students of the community, there must be SOME reason they did so right?

Idk how it is at Michigan, but I was a part of my schools GHHS. The leadership made most of the decisions with very little input from actual members so I wouldn’t be shocked if it was not a large group that made the decision, but I don’t know for sure.

You will generally not find anybody arguing point #1 in the academic community in recent history, the evidence is simply overwhelming. Pick up any book on human embryology and you will note that at conception, a radically distinct human organism comes into being.

except that you absolutely will. Mostly in the stem cell research arena in my experience, but there’s absolutely literature and debate on when the threshold is, and it’s not definitively when sperm meets egg. I do agree that the personhood debate is really what’s relevant though

Anyway I’m proud of the students who walked out. There are some people who will never be satisfied with any form of protest. If someone who holds a viewpoint opposing mine walks out on me giving a speech, I’m allowed to think to myself that they are stupid, but it’s well within their right to do so and I respect that.

 

[Mass Effect]

While it's not stated favorably from the perspective of someone who is pro-choice, this is most definitely the position at its core. The abortion debate historically has centered around two fundamental questions: 1) when does human life begin (in a biological sense), and 2) when does personhood begin (i.e., when does a human being accrue rights). You will generally not find anybody arguing point #1 in the academic community in recent history, the evidence is simply overwhelming. Pick up any book on human embryology and you will note that at conception, a radically distinct human organism comes into being. A human embryo (or fetus), is not a sperm or an egg, or otherwise some “intermediate” species or residing in a “non-human” stage; they are in the most explicit scientific sense a wholly distinct member of the species Homo Sapiens at an early stage of development. Once again this is relatively uncontroversial even amongst pro-choice scholars precisely because it is a scientific fact.

The personhood question IS the argument of pro-choice individuals. You can try to spin it to what you did, but it's inaccurate and misleading. A fetus is a group of cells that becomes a human organism and person eventually. Pro-choice individuals are not saying that "a class of human beings should not have protection..." They're saying that these cells are not people and as it is dependent on already living people in order to become a person, the host should have a say as to whether or not it continues to grow, at least until it is able to live without the host.

Where most of the argumentation remains (and where most pro-choice academics/philosophers disagree with the pro-life position), is point #2. Fair enough, and that is a discussion of its own, but once you accept premise #1, you are in a position of justifying that some human beings deserve the inviolable right to life, whereas others don't (which was my original formulation with which you took issue). This need for justification is what is behind pro-choice advocates often trying to find some other arbitrary marker for "personhood" (e.g., conscious awareness, or viability as per your suggestion in a previous comment).

This is what I mean by your misunderstanding of the position. A difference of opinion among pro-choicers doesn't make it arbitrary. Most pro-choicers believe it is just tissue at least until after embryogenesis and that as long as it is dependent on the uterus and bodily mechanisms of someone else to survive, it is not a person. Until then, it is literally putting someone else at risk just to stay alive and the person whose life is at risk should get to call the shots.

Btw you state above you are outraged that states limit abortion in cases of ectopics. I agree that, this is absurd. Properly speaking this isn't even "abortion", as the direct aim in an ectopic pregnancy is not to intentionally terminate the life of the fetus but to save the life of the mother given a clearly pathological process. Having an unfortunate outcome that arises from a noble intention is not the same ethically as the intentional doing of harm (principle of double effect).

So then you're also outraged about these laws? At least on that we can agree.

 

[Mass Effect]

I'm pro choice, but this was probably the best comeback of all time. Holy cow.

Not really. The Hippocratic Oath is regarded by some to be outdated specifically because of the passage quoted. "“Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so." There has been much debate over "poison." It's relevant to euthanasia certainly, but not only euthanasia. Modern medicine has made it so we DO, in fact, give poison all the time. In fact, for some illnesses, it's the standard of care. Think cancer or rheumatologic disease.

 

[Mass Effect]

Pregnancy is a natural outcome of sex. In the setting of consensual relations, waiting until marriage to have children is one way, and the best way imo, to ensure that fathers have an equal contribution (financially and otherwise) to raising their children. Regardless of marriage status, men have a moral and legal responsibility to financially support their offspring. I would 100% support requiring child support during pregnancy, as mentioned in an earlier post. I am not in any way stating that women are solely responsible, or that men are absolved of any blame, for unexpected pregnancies.
One way, not the only way.

Yes pregnancy is a natural outcome of sex and any man having sex outside marriage who gets his girlfriend pregnant should be punished just as severely. That means financial burden, bodily burden (if only) and risk to health. Make that happen and I'm on board.

 

[Billiam95]

Yes pregnancy is a natural outcome of sex and any man having sex outside marriage who gets his girlfriend pregnant should be punished just as severely. That means financial burden, bodily burden (if only) and risk to health. Make that happen and I'm on board.

No argument here

 

[deleted905798]

The personhood question IS the argument of pro-choice individuals. You can try to spin it to what you did, but it's inaccurate and misleading. A fetus is a group of cells that becomes a human organism and person eventually. Pro-choice individuals are not saying that "a class of human beings should not have protection..." They're saying that these cells are not people and as it is dependent on already living people in order to become a person, the host should have a say as to whether or not it continues to grow, at least until it is able to live without the host.



This is what I mean by your misunderstanding of the position. A difference of opinion among pro-choicers doesn't make it arbitrary. Most pro-choicers believe it is just tissue at least until after embryogenesis and that as long as it is dependent on the uterus and bodily mechanisms of someone else to survive, it is not a person. Until then, it is literally putting someone else at risk just to stay alive and the person whose life is at risk should get to call the shots.




So then you're also outraged about these laws? At least on that we can agree.

This is quite disingenuous, a "group of cells"? This is the sort of classification that would not pass muster in freshman level Logic course. You and I are groups of cells, my dog is a group of cells, the plant at my kitchen table is a group of cells; this phrasing completely ignores the relevant ethical import. Furthermore, a fetus does not "become" a human organism. Again, from a strictly scientific perspective the embryo/fetus is a wholly distinct member of the species Homo Sapiens, this is not "spin", this is simply a scientific fact that once again is accepted by virtually all pro-choice philosophers. The argument made by people like Judith Jarvis Thompson in her violinist example is precisely that the embryo/fetus ARE human beings and "people", but that the mothers rights universally overrides this fact.

Once again, this is a simple re-statement of my original framing of the pro-choice position, which you are loathe to own, which is that some human beings (in this case the pre-born child), loses the inviolability that characterizes the rest of human beings. You may think this reality is justified on some other rationale (personhood, maternal autonomy, etc.), but that doesn't change the fact that the original formulation I laid out holds.

Regarding you 2nd to last paragraph, I am not sure if you are referring to the average Twitter user who is pro-choice, or the actual experts on this topic, but I cannot name a single pro-choice scholar who thinks that the fetus is "just tissue", again you and I are "just tissue" as well, this doesn't tell us anything about the relevant ethics. Again, we aren't debating abortion as a whole here, simply my characterization with which you took issue earlier. To refute this, you will need to show that even in a strictly biological sense, the fetus/embryo are not distinct human organisms - again, as I laid out this would put you at odds not only with virtually all pro-choice philosophers, but with the current consensus in human embryology.

To end on a positive note, yes I agree with you on the last point of ectopic pregnancy or really any time the mother's life is in jeopardy, and so do most civilians and pro-life scholars btw (despite the occasional ignorant politician who may say otherwise).

 

[DarkBluMage]

Umm, some of us are attendings and think you're wrong. And by the by I just honored a student last month who began to discuss his pro-life stance with me until I didn't engage. I don't care what my students or residents political views are. I judge them on whether or not they're good clinicians. If they let their political beliefs keep them from doing their jobs, then I will dock them. Otherwise, I don't give a damn.

My point clearly went over your head.

 

[Mass Effect]

This is quite disingenuous, a "group of cells"?

It's not disingenuous, though I accidentally said fetus when I meant an embryo is a group of cells that becomes an organism/fetus and eventually a person.

This is the sort of classification that would not pass muster in freshman level Logic course. You and I are groups of cells, my dog is a group of cells, the plant at my kitchen table is a group of cells; this phrasing completely ignores the relevant ethical import. Furthermore, a fetus does not "become" a human organism. Again, from a strictly scientific perspective the embryo/fetus is a wholly distinct member of the species Homo Sapiens, this is not "spin", this is simply a scientific fact that once again is accepted by virtually all pro-choice philosophers. The argument made by people like Judith Jarvis Thompson in her violinist example is precisely that the embryo/fetus ARE human beings and "people", but that the mothers rights universally overrides this fact.

See above. I was talking about an embryo which then becomes a fetus and eventually a person. I never said it wasn't human. But an embryo is a group of cells and at least until after embryogenesis, I don't get the argument that it's a person at all.

Once again, this is a simple re-statement of my original framing of the pro-choice position, which you are loathe to own, which is that some human beings (in this case the pre-born child), loses the inviolability that characterizes the rest of human beings.

No it isn't. A human being gives a very clear suggestion that it's a person, which it is not according to the pro-choice stance. You have perverted the pro-choice position and then passed it off as you understanding it when you, in fact, don't. A fetus is an organism, not a human being in the literal definition of the word until at least the latter half of pregnancy. The personhood argument is exactly why your original framing of the position was wrong.

You may think this reality is justified on some other rationale (personhood, maternal autonomy, etc.), but that doesn't change the fact that the original formulation I laid out holds.

Regarding you 2nd to last paragraph, I am not sure if you are referring to the average Twitter user who is pro-choice, or the actual experts on this topic, but I cannot name a single pro-choice scholar who thinks that the fetus is "just tissue", again you and I are "just tissue" as well, this doesn't tell us anything about the relevant ethics.

See above.

To end on a positive note, yes I agree with you on the last point of ectopic pregnancy or really any time the mother's life is in jeopardy, and so do most civilians and pro-life scholars btw (despite the occasional ignorant politician who may say otherwise).

It isn't about politicians "saying" otherwise. I have learned to ignore what they "say". It's what they do that matters and politicians are living up to their words by outlawing abortion under any circumstance. This is why this issue is so contentious at the moment and why UMichigan should have gone with a vanilla speaker rather than turning off half their students so soon after these laws were passed that literally make women feel like second class citizens. To quote a cliche, "the body isn't even cold yet". It reeks of insensitivity and tone deafness.

 

[Mass Effect]

My point clearly went over your head.

Naw, I just call out BS when I see BS.

 

[deleted905798]

It's not disingenuous, though I accidentally said fetus when I meant an embryo is a group of cells that becomes an organism/fetus and eventually a person.



See above. I was talking about an embryo which then becomes a fetus and eventually a person. I never said it wasn't human. But an embryo is a group of cells and at least until after embryogenesis, I don't get the argument that it's a person at all.



No it isn't. A human being gives a very clear suggestion that it's a person, which it is not according to the pro-choice stance. You have perverted the pro-choice position and then passed it off as you understanding it when you, in fact, don't. A fetus is an organism, not a human being in the literal definition of the word until at least the latter half of pregnancy. The personhood argument is exactly why your original framing of the position was wrong.



See above.



It isn't about politicians "saying" otherwise. I have learned to ignore what they "say". It's what they do that matters and politicians are living up to their words by outlawing abortion under any circumstance. This is why this issue is so contentious at the moment and why UMichigan should have gone with a vanilla speaker rather than turning off half their students so soon after these laws were passed that literally make women feel like second class citizens. To quote a cliche, "the body isn't even cold yet". It reeks of insensitivity and tone deafness.

See above. I was talking about an embryo which then becomes a fetus and eventually a person. I never said it wasn't human. But an embryo is a group of cells and at least until after embryogenesis, I don't get the argument that it's a person at all.

No it isn't. A human being gives a very clear suggestion that it's a person, which it is not according to the pro-choice stance. You have perverted the pro-choice position and then passed it off as you understanding it when you, in fact, don't. A fetus is an organism, not a human being in the literal definition of the word until at least the latter half of pregnancy. The personhood argument is exactly why your original framing of the position was wrong.

Again, saying that an embryo is a "group of cells" tells us absolutely zero about the ontological status of that organism. You are stating that the phrase"'human being' gives a very clear suggestion that it's a person", but I was very clear to make this explicit distinction in my very first reply to you. I was very specific with my terminology that there is a distinction between a biological human being (aka a member of the species Homo Sapiens), and a person (a human being with moral worth (e.g., rights).

Again I am not disagreeing with the argument that pro-choice individuals make that an embryo is not a person. That is a whole separate and lengthy discussion (really the core of the debate). What I am stating is that at the very least, virtually all pro-choice advocates should (and do) accept that the embryo is a human being in a strictly biological sense. Again, you can disagree with this latter point, but that would put you at odds with everything we know about human embryology.

But once you accept "human being" in a biological sense, but deny personhood, you are essentially in a position of dehumanizing a class of "human beings" as not worthy of moral respect. Again there may be good arguments for this (e.g., Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist analogy), but this is simply all I was saying originally.

 

[DarkBluMage]

Naw, I just call out BS when I see BS.

Lol sure

 

[deleted905798]

I’m so going to regret commenting in this thread


Idk how it is at Michigan, but I was a part of my schools GHHS. The leadership made most of the decisions with very little input from actual members so I wouldn’t be shocked if it was not a large group that made the decision, but I don’t know for sure.

except that you absolutely will. Mostly in the stem cell research arena in my experience, but there’s absolutely literature and debate on when the threshold is, and it’s not definitively when sperm meets egg. I do agree that the personhood debate is really what’s relevant though

Anyway I’m proud of the students who walked out. There are some people who will never be satisfied with any form of protest. If someone who holds a viewpoint opposing mine walks out on me giving a speech, I’m allowed to think to myself that they are stupid, but it’s well within their right to do so and I respect that.

I agree that the personhood debate is what is really relevant. But from a biological perspective, where is this debate you mention? I am aware of reading some that debate the nitty-gritty of conception on the order of minutes-hours, maybe even 24 hours post sperm-egg contact, but insofar as this is relevant to the abortion debate, we are usually talking about a human embryo, at which point I am not aware of there being any uncertainty whatsoever that this is a wholly distinct member of the species.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

Or not show up

Or petition for change as they did and then walk out when the public university didn't support their concerns.

 

[Mass Effect]

Again, saying that an embryo is a "group of cells" tells us absolutely zero about the ontological status of that organism.

I mean, it is a group of cells. Don't know what you want me to say.

You are stating that the phrase"'human being' gives a very clear suggestion that it's a person", but I was very clear to make this explicit distinction in my very first reply to you. I was very specific with my terminology that there is a distinction between a biological human being (aka a member of the species Homo Sapiens), and a person (a human being with moral worth (e.g., rights).

But then you're using "human being" incorrectly. Human being does not mean "member of the species homo sapiens." It means "a man, woman, or child of the homo sapien species", per Merriam-Webster. A fetus is not "a man, woman or child". It's an organism.

If you look at britannica.com, you get "a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning." Again, not a fetus.

You speaking "biologically" and using a word pro-choicers intentionally do not use (because it's inaccurate to their belief) doesn't make it ok.

Again I am not disagreeing with the argument that pro-choice individuals make that an embryo is not a person. That is a whole separate and lengthy discussion (really the core of the debate). What I am stating is that at the very least, virtually all pro-choice advocates should (and do) accept that the embryo is a human being in a strictly biological sense. Again, you can disagree with this latter point, but that would put you at odds with everything we know about human embryology.

No, they don't and no it doesn't. At the heart of the pro-choice argument is that a fetus is not a human being. Even you say above that you are making a distinction between a biological human being and a person. But those words are very important in the discussion because pro-lifers have corrupted the position of pro-choicers by tossing around the words to mean something it doesn't to the pro-choice crowd.

But once you accept "human being" in a biological sense, but deny personhood, you are essentially in a position of dehumanizing a class of "human beings" as not worthy of moral respect. Again there may be good arguments for this (e.g., Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist analogy), but this is simply all I was saying originally.

That's not an honest argument. If I don't believe that a group of cells that then become an organism are a person, then I'm denying ORGANISMS the rights afforded to human beings. You can't just change the purpose of human being in the pro-choice argument by attaching "in a biological sense" to it in order to humanize it. They don't believe they are dehumanizing a class of human beings because they don't believe a fetus is a human being.

 

[Med Ed]

Naw, I just call out BS when I see BS.

Fun fact: in the 1970's the Southern Baptist Convention was pro-choice. They didn't reverse until it became apparent that abortion was an emotionally-charged issue that would drive their voters to the polls. And thus southern evangelicals, shall we say, hopped into bed with politics, and the rest is history.

If you look the world over the only two major groups who have a real problem with abortion are Catholics and evangelicals in the USA. Another fun fact: for most of its history the Catholic church aligned with the view of Aristotle that things didn't really start until the quickening. They only rolled it back to conception because they later decided that there was no explicit threshold, so conception was the safest bet.

In summary, if you're against abortion then don't have one, and try to leave everyone else the F alone.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

"It is medicine for crying out loud. Science, not religion"; ".... without the publicly espoused religious leanings on this issue"; "And that's because doctors who favor patient choice and favor keeping their religious views out of healthcare decisions are what most of this country wants"; "Collier bashes such concern on religious principles"; "If I want religious advice or teachings, I'll talk to my pastor, reverend, priest, rabbi, etc"

All of these quotes of yours across your comments suggest that you see religion as the primary motivation for the pro-life position.

As for "anti-choice", that is just a hollow assertion. We are all "anti-choice" for certain things, that's why we live in a civilization with a legal system. The abolitionists during the Antebellum period could also be called "anti-choice" because they firmly believed you shouldn't have the "choice" to hold human beings as slaves...does that mean they were wrong because they were "anti-choice"? Sounds a lot like "states rights" when you think about it.

If you disagree with the pro-life position, then fine, but don't couch your arguments in vague statements about "choice". The pro-choice position represents an affirmative stance that a certain class of human beings should not have protection under the law from lethal violence. The pro-life side has genuine disagreements. I think that there are good arguments on both sides and a lot of nuance involved. However I feel like all I have seen on SDN and Reddit (not from you, speaking generally here), are cringe memes and cheap-shots aimed at dunking on people without any concern for truth.

I believe the majority of the evangelical Christian and Catholic populations in this country are anti-abortion based on religious teachings or religious influences. Are there people that come to the pro-life stance independent of religious influence ? Sure, but I think it's the minority. Collier herself, as reported by NBC, describes her conversion from "secular humanist" to Christian to "a pro-life person." So, yes, I do see religion as the primary / predominant motivation for the pro-life position.

 

[Radetzky]

Not really. The Hippocratic Oath is regarded by some to be outdated specifically because of the passage quoted. "“Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so." There has been much debate over "poison." It's relevant to euthanasia certainly, but not only euthanasia. Modern medicine has made it so we DO, in fact, give poison all the time. In fact, for some illnesses, it's the standard of care. Think cancer or rheumatologic disease.

In the Hippocratic Oath you also swear to never become a surgeon.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

I agree that the personhood debate is what is really relevant. But from a biological perspective, where is this debate you mention? I am aware of reading some that debate the nitty-gritty of conception on the order of minutes-hours, maybe even 24 hours post sperm-egg contact, but insofar as this is relevant to the abortion debate, we are usually talking about a human embryo, at which point I am not aware of there being any uncertainty whatsoever that this is a wholly distinct member of the species.

Okay we’re getting off topic but I’m feeling pedantic: In stem cell/embryo/organoid research, there frequent is discussion about what the threshold is where it becomes unethical to conduct experiments on an embryo, or group of cells that could individuate into one, or vaguely resembles one. The most widely used rule at the moment is probably the “14 day rule”, which relates to the development of the primitive streak. But it gets increasingly complicated as you dive into stem cell based embryo models and organoids and all the kinds of discoveries that are happening in labs these days - in many ways they are very similar to an embryo, especially in cellular makeup, but with a questionable moral status.
(I’ll also note that I do NOT think this argument directly translates to the abortion debate as far as timelines go, but it pokes holes in your idea that there is a universal scientific definition for when a group of cells = a human embryo/human life)

As far as your overall argument goes, you’re incorporating a “personhood” argument by your use of the term “human being”. That’s a moral term, no matter how much you insist you’re talking purely science

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

In situations where the abortion is medically necessary, that is one thing. It is totally reasonable, however, to hold the opinion that at some point an unborn fetus deserves its own individual consideration and should not be killed for the convenience of the mother.

Yeah, agree, but that's not what's happening in TX, OK, and other places. It's a total ban.

 

[sloop]

Not really. The Hippocratic Oath is regarded by some to be outdated specifically because of the passage quoted. "“Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so." There has been much debate over "poison." It's relevant to euthanasia certainly, but not only euthanasia. Modern medicine has made it so we DO, in fact, give poison all the time. In fact, for some illnesses, it's the standard of care. Think cancer or rheumatologic disease.

This is silly. The comment about poison was included in the Hippocratic Oath because, at the time, there were physicians charging fees to supply rich people with poison as a means to assassinate people. Hippocrates was literally talking about physician involvement in murder. In context, the idea that Hippocrates was talking about anything that might incidentally have toxic effects is absurd.

Also, doctors should not be killing people, so I fail to see how the fact that the specified portion of the oath would prohibit euthanasia is anything other than prescient.

 

[deleted905798]

That's not an honest argument. If I don't believe that a group of cells that then become an organism are a person, then I'm denying ORGANISMS the rights afforded to human beings. You can't just change the purpose of human being in the pro-choice argument by attaching "in a biological sense" to it in order to humanize it. They don't believe they are dehumanizing a class of human beings because they don't believe a fetus is a human being.

Again, me and you are technically organisms and/or "clumps of cells" - when you say that X is just a clump of cells or an organism you aren't saying anything tangible. You may disagree with my use of terms but at the very least, I explicitly defined and differentiated them. That's generally how these sort of discussions go, because if we don't define terms, we end up talking past each other. If you insisted from the beginning on the specific formulation enumerated in Merriam-Webster, I would have phrased my argument differently.

None of this changes my main point, again. You say you're denying "organisms" the right afforded to human beings. But all this does is take my crystal clear definitions (with distinctions between a member of the species, and a person), and substitute "organism" in lieu of biological Homo Sapien. This just makes things way more confusing because there are zillions of "organisms" on this planet....a single-celled amoeba is an "organism". Are we really going to pretend there is not a substantial difference between an human embryo and an amoeba? My definitions aimed at clarification whereas it appears yours just muddy the water, and fundamentally end up begging the question.

I'm logging off for the day but I appreciate the dialogue. I'll consider some of the things you said.

Okay we’re getting off topic but I’m feeling pedantic: In stem cell/embryo/organoid research, there frequent is discussion about what the threshold is where it becomes unethical to conduct experiments on an embryo, or group of cells that could individuate into one, or vaguely resembles one. The most widely used rule at the moment is probably the “14 day rule”, which relates to the development of the primitive streak. But it gets increasingly complicated as you dive into stem cell based embryo models and organoids and all the kinds of discoveries that are happening in labs these days - in many ways they are very similar to an embryo, especially in cellular makeup, but with a questionable moral status.
(I’ll also note that I do NOT think this argument directly translates to the abortion debate as far as timelines go, but it pokes holes in your idea that there is a universal scientific definition for when a group of cells = a human embryo/human life)

As far as your overall argument goes, you’re incorporating a “personhood” argument by your use of the term “human being”. That’s a moral term, no matter how much you insist you’re talking purely science

I'm not "incorporating" anything. I explicitly defined my terms and the distinction between just being a member of the species and personhood. You're right that there is no universal scientific definition for when a "group of cells" becomes a human embryo life, but this hinges on the vagueness of "group of cells". There is however a near universal understanding of the approximate period when a new wholly distinct member of the species Homo Sapiens comes into existence. Logging off, but thanks for the dialogue. If you do find that research I'd be happy to read about it.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

I can't wait for all the support from SDN next time I walk out of some mandatory left-wing neo-marxist equity training.

The question is whether you'd have the cajones to do it. These students did.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

This just makes things way more confusing because there are zillions of "organisms" on this planet....a single-celled amoeba is an "organism". Are we really going to pretend there is not a substantial difference between an human embryo and an amoeba?

Therein lies the rub… the “substantial difference” is very much a moral one, which we are unlikely to come to an agreement on given our fundamentally different moral views. Just because you lay out definitions for your views doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.

If you do find that research I'd be happy to read about it.

I’m not sure if you’re not believing me that this research exists, but some of it has my name on it. A quick pubmed search should help you find some of it. Lots of talk right now especially in the wake of new ISSCR guidelines. But again, I’m being very pedantic here, as most of this research is not actually directly related to abortion, but it all connects in the end. There are fundamental questions about the status of an embryo or embryo like object that will always tie back to broad social factors like religion and cultural norms that we are unlikely to get everyone to agree upon.

If I wanted to get REALLY pedantic I’d go to my liberal arts roots of “how do we actually define anything, ever” but we’ll end up going in bad faith circles I expect

 

[scarletgirl777]

Honestly blows my mind a school like UMich would invite this speaker.

Agreed. This isn't a generic event. It's a very important ceremony that many people will remember forever and it's inconsiderate to put such a controversial figure as a keynote. It's not like this is a Catholic med school. Just put in someone likeable who will bring only positive thoughts so that the focus remains on the students.