Wednesday, February 04, 2009

The Bizarre "Rationalism" of the Pro-Abortion Lobby

Those reading the Nexus over the past couple of days are already familiar with the silly argument recently raised by Stage Left's Balbulican insisting that opposition to abortion is essentially a sexual fetish -- a mental illness.

While the response to criticism of Balbulican's invalid argument has been amusing -- essentially boiling down to an argument that the alleged psychological sexual fetish described by Balbulican shouldn't have to actually adhere to the definition of a sexual fetish according to psychology -- some of the other arguments to be raised in the course of that thread have been amusing in an altogether different manner.

Such as the argument raised by Mike of Rational Reasons, who, in the course of taking exception to the arguments raised by Blue Wave Canada's Suzanne, suggests that a fetus -- or unborn child, as some may prefer to call it -- is a foreign entity to its mother:
"...My bodily integrity is paramount and I cannot be compelled to carry any foreign biological entity within me against my will. After all, it is the basis of your entire argument that a fetus is a distinct and thus foreign biological entity and you are trying to compel a woman to carry this entity within her against her will. I cannot be compelled to carry such an entity even if it means certain death for the entity or someone else."
In the wake of a comment this incredibly stupid, one really can't help but wonder who, precisely, it was that taught Mike one of two things: sex education, and english.

Mike's counter-argument seems to rest on one key misconceived premise: if an unborn child is separate from its mother then it's a foreign entity.

But even if one were to accept the argument that an unborn child is separate from its mother -- and considering that, as Mike himself notes, the unborn child receives oxygen and nourishment from its mother through its umbilical cord, this is a very difficult argument to accept -- it doesn't logically follow that the unborn child is foreign to its mother.

After all, if Mike had received the same birds-and-the-bees talk that the vast overwhelming majority of educated people receive he would know that an unborn child is the product of natural processes occurring within the mother's body.

Yet the word foreign, in almost any sense of the term, deals with things that either originate externally, or do not belong there in the first place.

Considering that a child is conceived within the mother's body, through the reproductive processes that are natural to a woman's body, an unborn child could not possibly be a foreign entity.

It would also be foolish to believe that the unborn child doesn't belong there, considering that (again) it results from natural bodily processes within the mother.

Yet Mike, as it turns out, not only won't admit to the fallacy of his argument, he wants to disavow the argument altogether:
"And, in that exact same paragraph, I quite clearly explained how it connected with what Suzanne said:

After all, it is the basis of your entire argument that a fetus is a distinct and thus foreign biological entity…
And yet, interestingly enough, it wasn't Suzanne who suggested that the unborn child is separate and foreign to the mother.

Suzanne indeed suggested that the mother and their unborn child are distinct biological entities. Interestingly enough, she doesn't actually use the word "separate", although it's clearly implied in her argument.

But there are numerous cases in which two entities can be biologically distinct from one another, yet not separate and certainly foreign to one another.

An interesting test case is that of conjoined twins. Conjoined twins are often born sharing the same organs, and even the same DNA. Yet, they are biologically distinct from one another to the extent that they can often be successfully separated via surgery -- although often one or both twins die in the process.

Thus "biologically distinct" -- even though it's clearly implicit in Suzanne's specific argument -- doesn't automatically mean separate. Nor does separate necessarily mean foreign.

Of course, this is nothing new to those who are familiar with Mike. The indefensible argument is one of this individual's specialties, and whenever he's caught in one, he simply insists that he isn't obligated to defend his ideas.

Which may be true enough. But no one is obligated to accept an undefended and unsupportable idea.

Any truly rational person knows this.


  1. A quick comment: Patrick has misunderstood the post in question. Please visit the site, read the original post, and read the ensuing discussion. The substantive issue gets explored in some depth: Patrick's digression, not so much.

  2. And interestingly enough, Balbulican can't be bothered to even try explaining this "other point" he was trying to make.

    Also, he won't explain how his explanation of a "fetus fetish" can be taken seriously considering that it defies the definition of a sexual fetish according to actual psychologists.

  3. Heh. The "point" is thoroughly explained, and explored, in the thread in question. Serious readers are encouraged to reflect on the points raised by Dr. Dawg and SUZANNE, who, though diametrically opposed in their views, both understood "the point" in a way that Patrick fails to.

  4. Oh, Balbull found his way over here...Ross, you may as well try nailing down jello than having the Bloviating Balbull(shit) explain his "other point"...good luck with that.

    ...and FYI, you realize that thread is deader than dead now that LuLu has arrived to mop up after Cynic Boy...I think she has a master's degree as well.

  5. Yeah, Balby, let's take a look at what you wrote. I'll go ahead and highlight the most interesting parts of the original post, and number them for the sake of explaining what Balby really said:

    "By now you’re aware that the heartwarming story of the eight babies born in California last week has morphed into a surreal horror story with a screenplay by Jerry Springer, directed by David Lynch.

    (1.) It turns out that Mommy Suleman is 33-year-old single woman, living with her parents, with no visible means of support, who already has six children and had herself artificially implanted with eight more. Her mom went bankrupt last year and is now seeking psychiatric support. The family is trying to peddle her story to Oprah, who’s getting queazy. She just seems to like having babies.

    As CC noted, our Fave Foetishist is in a bit of a quandary. This behaviour is clearly insane; (2.)but’s it’s a form of insanity that represents the culmination of the vision espoused by the radical anti-choice movement.

    (3.)A fetish, in the sexual sense, is an object or behaviour that, in and of itself would normally not evoke a sexual response. Through association, however, the non-sexual becomes imbued with all the power and emotion of sex itself, triggering an emotional response. This obsession can range from harmless to morbid to psychotic.

    (3. CONT) The foetishists have performed the same trick, an unhealthy severance of object from context. They are utterly fixated on the foetus, which in their mind assumes all the attributes of personhood. They invest in a pre-human cluster of cells the same emotional passion nature intended for a child. The foetus IS their fetish. Some of them seem barely aware of the mother except as a kind of ambulatory, pre-birth incubator.

    (4.)No wonder our foetishists find this story disturbing. It’s a staging of their own mania, writ large and performed live

    So, let's start from the top.

    1. Nadya Suleman. Has too many kids.

    2. "Anti-choicers" (broadly defined by pro-abortion activists as anyone who opposes abortion) to blame.

    3. Because of fetus fetish. Which is a psychological sexual fetish.

    4. Anti-abortion lobby doesn't like criticism of Nadya Suleman because they're responsible for her being crazy.

    This, despite the fact that Balbulican's definition of a "fetus fetish" as a psychological sexual fetish actually defies the psychological definiton of a sexual fetish.

    The other side of this amusing tale is that Balbulican simply will not discuss this in good faith.

    After all, Balbulican is responsible for what he writes. If he thinks someone has misinterpreted him, it's his responsibility to explain how, and explain his true intentions.

    He won't. And I think it has more to do with Balby's realization that his "fetus fetish" idea is a house of cards and he just wants to pretend that its foundation didn't get pulled out from under it.

  6. "...and FYI, you realize that thread is deader than dead now that LuLu has arrived to mop up after Cynic Boy...I think she has a master's degree as well."

    Heh. You know, I never realized that you had to have a master's degree in order to qualify to write a blog that specializes in screaming "shitcock!" at anyone it disagrees with.

  7. My dear Patrick, I simply urge your readers to read the source and draw their own conclusions. That's all.

  8. Interestingly enough, I urge them to do the same.

    But I also urge them to take a look at the actual facts about the thesis you're proposing.

    Unless they're ideologically brainwashed, I have no shortage of confidence they'll recognize it for the tripe that it is.


Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.