• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Intelligent Abortion Exchange

What is your view on abortion?


  • Total voters
    42

RedHead9

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It is obvious that in our world a respectful debate about heated issues like abortion are difficult to have without people calling each other phrases like sexist and "anti-women". In this thread I would like to hear a well thought out explanation on why you believe abortion is right or wrong and why it should either be legal or illegal in the United States. Please refrain from putting links into your arguments because it would be much more helpful if you would just embed any quotes you feel further your argument. It would also be beneficial if your arguments are based on factual evidence rather than any subjective feelings. I should also disclose that I am pro-life and may respond to arguments. Last thing I would like to know is how extreme your views are on either side. This includes whether you believe that abortion should be restriction-less even until the 3rd trimester or if are pro-lifers would give exemptions for any situations. Thanks for your thoughts :peace
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It is obvious that in our world a respectful debate about heated issues like abortion are difficult to have without people calling each other phrases like sexist and "anti-women". In this thread I would like to hear a well thought out explanation on why you believe abortion is right or wrong and why it should either be legal or illegal in the United States. Please refrain from putting links into your arguments because it would be much more helpful if you would just embed any quotes you feel further your argument. It would also be beneficial if your arguments are based on factual evidence rather than any subjective feelings. I should also disclose that I am pro-life and may respond to arguments. Last thing I would like to know is how extreme your views are on either side. This includes whether you believe that abortion should be restriction-less even until the 3rd trimester or if are pro-lifers would give exemptions for any situations. Thanks for your thoughts :peace

I'm not voting in the poll. I support the criminalization of abortion for any reason whatsoever.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Fundamentally, pro-choice is a matter of human rights. We have a right to life that includes a right to bodily autonomy and self-defense; imposing on a woman's reproductive rights is imposing on her very right to life and thus must be rejected by any individual who believes in liberty. It is not possible for the unborn child to possess any rights without profound and unconscionable violations of a woman's basic human rights.

I support abortion-on-demand at any point during the pregnancy. I cannot, in good conscience, support anything less.
 

RedHead9

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I am aware that it is very rare for women to die during childbirth in the U.S. but on extremely rare cases when both mother and child are going to die you don't agree with saving the mother?
 

RedHead9

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Fundamentally, pro-choice is a matter of human rights. We have a right to life that includes a right to bodily autonomy and self-defense; imposing on a woman's reproductive rights is imposing on her very right to life and thus must be rejected by any individual who believes in liberty. It is not possible for the unborn child to possess any rights without profound and unconscionable violations of a woman's basic human rights.

I support abortion-on-demand at any point during the pregnancy. I cannot, in good conscience, support anything less.

My Fundamental question to you would be why is it okay to kill a baby outside the whom, but not in it. It is inside the mother's body, but it is not part of it. They fetus has its own distinct human genetic code. Individuals under the law can do whatever they like with their bodies as long as it doesn't interfere with another human. So why allow abortion?
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Including the life or health of the mother?

Correct. I oppose the intentional killing of the innocent for any reason whatsoever.

I am aware that it is very rare for women to die during childbirth in the U.S. but on extremely rare cases when both mother and child are going to die you don't agree with saving the mother?

All reasonable medical attempts to save both should be taken.

Directly lethally attacking an innocent person is not reasonable.
 

RedHead9

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Correct. I oppose the intentional killing of the innocent for any reason whatsoever.



All reasonable medical attempts to save both should be taken.

Directly lethally attacking an innocent person is not reasonable.

I completely agree with not intentionally killing the fetus, but trying to save both lives may include removal of the child from the mother which may unfortunately result in death. And by removing I do not mean dismembering as they do in abortive techniques.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
My Fundamental question to you would be why is it okay to kill a baby outside the whom, but not in it.

Aside from the issue that the child is occupying one of her internal organs-- which should be enough on its own-- the child inside the womb is dependent upon the function of the woman's metabolism for its very survival. As long as the child is inside the womb, she is acting in servitude towards it; this is only morally acceptable when this is done under her consent. Otherwise, forcing her to continue in servitude to an unwanted fetus is slavery.

And there are limited circumstances under which I would allow infanticide, as well. While women no longer have an explicit human right to kill a child once it has been removed from her womb, that does not mean that the child itself is possessed of the right to life, which I believe attaches when the child is accepted into a family. The decision on whether or not to support an unwanted, but newborn, child should be based on societal best interests rather than any supposed rights of the child itself. My stance on abortion is based on both factors: 1) that the unborn child itself has no rights and can have no rights, and 2) that the rights of the woman trump the supposed rights of the unborn child regardless.

It is inside the mother's body, but it is not part of it. They fetus has its own distinct human genetic code. Individuals under the law can do whatever they like with their bodies as long as it doesn't interfere with another human. So why allow abortion?

Individuals under the law can do anything with their bodies as long as it doesn't interfere with another human. But they are under no obligation, morally or legally, to tolerate interference with their bodies from others. The unborn child is not merely present in the womb, it is actively making demands of the mother's metabolic resources and actively imposing changes upon the mother's body. She has the inalienable and absolute right, as a free person, to put a stop to that process at any time.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,131
Reaction score
21,198
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I voted Pro-Choice but to place restrictions on late term abortions.

My position is founded on an understanding of both science and human philosophy.

During the early period of development (Zygote and Embryo) the organism is not differentiated enough to be classified as a viable human being. Most specifically it lacks a functional central nervous system and brain which allows for the possibility of self-identity. This is the essential characteristic we use to philosophically classify one as a "human being." Lacking these characteristics there is no moral dilemma, the development can be artificially stopped via abortion. During this period the woman's right to choose is absolute.

Once the developing organism has sufficiently differentiated and developed a central nervous system with a brain it has reached the status of "human being" and should be protected and nurtured. If the mother has allowed the organism to reach this stage, then her right to choose must be balanced against the right of the developing fetus to life. Thus protections must be in place to prevent abortion unless the mother's life is somehow endangered. Even then, if it is possible to remove the viable fetus and save it, such action should be taken.

I do not assume that a spirit is infused at the time of conception rendering the organism a "human being." If so, logic would expect most if not all organisms would survive to birth rather than 75% miscarrying naturally. Seems a waste of "spiritual essence" if that were not the case. ;)
 
Last edited:

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I completely agree with not intentionally killing the fetus, but trying to save both lives may include removal of the child from the mother which may unfortunately result in death. And by removing I do not mean dismembering as they do in abortive techniques.

Directly removing the baby (not removing a pathological organ, such as a ectopic fallopian tube or a cancerous uterus, with a baby in it) is tantamount to direct killing. It's like if you shoot someone in the chest, you can't claim you just intended to render him unconcious, rather the act of shooting someone in the chest itself indicates intent to kill, so too does removing a previable fetus.

(Obviously if the result is indirect, it's not intentional)
 

ToastyOats

Active member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
384
Reaction score
258
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I voted, but my more accurate view is that abortion is a difficult decision for any couple considering it, even if there's an issue with the pregnancy or the health of the woman. It should be up to them, and whatever personal morality they may have to decide on whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, not the government.
 

RedHead9

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Aside from the issue that the child is occupying one of her internal organs-- which should be enough on its own-- the child inside the womb is dependent upon the function of the woman's metabolism for its very survival. As long as the child is inside the womb, she is acting in servitude towards it; this is only morally acceptable when this is done under her consent. Otherwise, forcing her to continue in servitude to an unwanted fetus is slavery.

And there are limited circumstances under which I would allow infanticide, as well. While women no longer have an explicit human right to kill a child once it has been removed from her womb, that does not mean that the child itself is possessed of the right to life, which I believe attaches when the child is accepted into a family. The decision on whether or not to support an unwanted, but newborn, child should be based on societal best interests rather than any supposed rights of the child itself. My stance on abortion is based on both factors: 1) that the unborn child itself has no rights and can have no rights, and 2) that the rights of the woman trump the supposed rights of the unborn child regardless.



Individuals under the law can do anything with their bodies as long as it doesn't interfere with another human. But they are under no obligation, morally or legally, to tolerate interference with their bodies from others. The unborn child is not merely present in the womb, it is actively making demands of the mother's metabolic resources and actively imposing changes upon the mother's body. She has the inalienable and absolute right, as a free person, to put a stop to that process at any time.

I take issue with your argument in many respects. Firstly is your argument that the mother should not be forced to care for her child as it is comparable to slavery. This is simply false. Even when a child is born parents are responsible for the nourishment and wellbeing of the child. If they do not provide this they are liable to be charged for child abuse. Secondly, saying that a mother should't have to support a the baby is completely separate from abortion. If my neighbor states that i have to support him it is different for me to say no then to go to his house and murder him. Abortion isn't solely the withholding of support, it is the dismemberment or often the burning by saline of a human being.

Also you have provided no consistent argument on for why the unborn child can have no rights if it is a human being.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I take issue with your argument in many respects. Firstly is your argument that the mother should not be forced to care for her child as it is comparable to slavery. This is simply false. Even when a child is born parents are responsible for the nourishment and wellbeing of the child.

False. First, parents of born children may legally surrender custody of their children to the State so that adoptive parents may be found. This is biologically impossible in the case of unborn children.

Second, custodial parents-- leaving aside the issue of court-ordered child support, which I oppose-- have consented to this responsibility. They have chosen to have children, chosen to accept them into their family and chosen to take them into their homes. You can not assume that a pregnant woman has given this consent, and if she is seeking an abortion, it is clear that she does not consent to these parental responsibilities.

Secondly, saying that a mother should't have to support a the baby is completely separate from abortion. If my neighbor states that i have to support him it is different for me to say no then to go to his house and murder him. Abortion isn't solely the withholding of support, it is the dismemberment or often the burning by saline of a human being.

It isn't "going to his house and murdering him", it is removing him from your body. The fact that such removal is fatal is inconsequential; the unborn child has no right to occupy your body and make demands upon your metabolism without your consent, and you have the right to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from doing so. This is basic self-defense.

Your pro-life arguments here are fundamentally incompatible with your claimed Libertarian ideology.

Also you have provided no consistent argument on for why the unborn child can have no rights if it is a human being.

I have, and I will repeat it again for your benefit: it is logically impossible for an unborn child to have rights without denying the inalienable and inherent rights of women. You can either argue that unborn children have rights, or that women are full human beings with full human rights, but not both. And since it is self-evident that women are full human beings with full human rights, it follows logically that unborn children do not and can not have those rights-- or any rights at all. A person cannot have the right to anything which must be taken by force from another person. This includes their very existence, if it is solely dependent upon another human being's services.
 

RedHead9

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I voted Pro-Choice but to place restrictions on late term abortions.

My position is founded on an understanding of both science and human philosophy.

During the early period of development (Zygote and Embryo) the organism is not differentiated enough to be classified as a viable human being. Most specifically it lacks a central nervous system and brain which allows for the possibility of self-identity. This is the essential characteristic we use to philosophically classify one as a "human being." Lacking these characteristics there is no moral dilemma, the development can be artificially stopped via abortion. During this period the woman's right to choose is absolute.

Once the developing organism has sufficiently differentiated and developed a central nervous system with a brain it has reached the status of "human being" and should be protected and nurtured. If the mother has allowed the organism to reach this stage, then her right to choose must be balanced against the right of the developing fetus to life. Thus protections must be in place to prevent abortion unless the mother's life is somehow endangered. Even then, if it is possible to remove the viable fetus and save it, such action should be taken.

I do not assume that a spirit is infused at the time of conception rendering the organism a "human being." If so, logic would expect most if not all organisms would survive to birth rather than 75% miscarrying naturally. Seems a waste of "spiritual essence" if that were not the case. ;)
I take many issues with this argument, Firstly parents due have an obligation under the law to provide their children with proper nourishment. If you do not you are liable to be charged with child abuse. This is a simple fact. Secondly your premise that having to support the child is comparable to slavery is wrong. See abortion is not the simple withholding of support it is the dismemberment and often the burning of a human being by saline. If my neighbor told me i had to support him I am not allowed to go to his house and murder him. Abortion is more then the stopping of the process.

CAPTAIN ADVERSE your reasoning was also troubling. From the moment of conception science has agreed that the fetus is now a human being. Secondly your reasoning implies that the stage of development of an individual or its ability to meet some arbitrary standard that society has set will give the child a right to live. The fetus must meet a standard that "philosophy" says is good enough which is very dangerous as philosophy is a very unstable basis for mankind. throughout history when a group of people are oppressed the oppressors use your logic. They said blacks weren't human or that they weren't human enough to meet their standards. The same went for the native americans before they were killed. The only difference between a fetus and I are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. All of which cannot be enough to say a human life aren't valuable. Size can't determine and we should hope that your level of development shouldn't make you less valuable or 2 year olds would be dispensable. Neither can your environment or how dependent you are on someone else. There are many people who are dependent on parents yet they cannot be killed. Also by your reasoning if it your self identity that must be expressed to be classified as a human then we must place more value on the people of society who truly know who they are. If a teenager doesn't know their "true identity" yet they can't be human. It is very dangerous to set a threshold on human beings that they must achieve to be valued.
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
24,145
Reaction score
13,536
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
It is obvious that in our world a respectful debate about heated issues like abortion are difficult to have without people calling each other phrases like sexist and "anti-women". In this thread I would like to hear a well thought out explanation on why you believe abortion is right or wrong and why it should either be legal or illegal in the United States. Please refrain from putting links into your arguments because it would be much more helpful if you would just embed any quotes you feel further your argument. It would also be beneficial if your arguments are based on factual evidence rather than any subjective feelings. I should also disclose that I am pro-life and may respond to arguments. Last thing I would like to know is how extreme your views are on either side. This includes whether you believe that abortion should be restriction-less even until the 3rd trimester or if are pro-lifers would give exemptions for any situations. Thanks for your thoughts :peace

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/147687-carl-sagan-abortion-debate-scientific-view.html?highlight=abortion

and

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/197210-pro-choice-its-just-simple-w-432-673-895-a.html?highlight=pro+choice

It's all in those threads for the most part.

Happy reading.
 

RedHead9

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
False. First, parents of born children may legally surrender custody of their children to the State so that adoptive parents may be found. This is biologically impossible in the case of unborn children.

Second, custodial parents-- leaving aside the issue of court-ordered child support, which I oppose-- have consented to this responsibility. They have chosen to have children, chosen to accept them into their family and chosen to take them into their homes. You can not assume that a pregnant woman has given this consent, and if she is seeking an abortion, it is clear that she does not consent to these parental responsibilities.



It isn't "going to his house and murdering him", it is removing him from your body. The fact that such removal is fatal is inconsequential; the unborn child has no right to occupy your body and make demands upon your metabolism without your consent, and you have the right to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from doing so. This is basic self-defense.

Your pro-life arguments here are fundamentally incompatible with your claimed Libertarian ideology.



I have, and I will repeat it again for your benefit: it is logically impossible for an unborn child to have rights without denying the inalienable and inherent rights of women. You can either argue that unborn children have rights, or that women are full human beings with full human rights, but not both. And since it is self-evident that women are full human beings with full human rights, it follows logically that unborn children do not and can not have those rights-- or any rights at all. A person cannot have the right to anything which must be taken by force from another person. This includes their very existence, if it is solely dependent upon another human being's services.

Here are your arguments summed up with responses

1. “Even if the unborn are human beings, they have fewer rights than the woman. No one should be expected to donate her body as a life-support system for someone else.”
a. Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.
b. The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults.
c. The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.
d. It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

2. “Every person has the right to choose. It would be unfair to restrict a woman’s choice by prohibiting abortion.”
a. Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.
b. “Freedom to choose” is too vague for meaningful discussion; we must always ask, “Freedom to choose what?”
c. People who are prochoice about abortion are often not prochoice about other issues with less at stake.
d. The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.
e. Everyone is prochoice with it comes to the choices prior to pregnancy and after birth.
f. Nearly all violations of human rights have been defended on the grounds of the right to choose.

3. “Every woman should have control over her own body. Reproductive freedom is a basic right.”
a. Abortion assures that 650,000 females each year do not have control over their bodies.
b. Not all things done with a person’s body are right, nor should they all be legally protected.
c. Prolifers consistently affirm true reproductive rights.
d. Even prochoicers must acknowledge that the “right to control one’s body” argument has no validity if the unborn is a human being.
e. Too often “the right to control my life” becomes the right to hurt and oppress others for my own advantage.
f. Control over the body can be exercised to prevent pregnancy in the first place.
g. It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and “out of control” condition.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,131
Reaction score
21,198
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I take many issues with this argument, Firstly parents due have an obligation under the law to provide their children with proper nourishment. If you do not you are liable to be charged with child abuse. This is a simple fact. Secondly your premise that having to support the child is comparable to slavery is wrong. See abortion is not the simple withholding of support it is the dismemberment and often the burning of a human being by saline. If my neighbor told me i had to support him I am not allowed to go to his house and murder him. Abortion is more then the stopping of the process.

Excuse me? Your response confuses me. That entire first paragraph had absolutely nothing to do with my post. Feeding a child? Slavery? Wherever you got that from I don't know. :confused:

CAPTAIN ADVERSE your reasoning was also troubling. From the moment of conception science has agreed that the fetus is now a human being. Secondly your reasoning implies that the stage of development of an individual or its ability to meet some arbitrary standard that society has set will give the child a right to live. The fetus must meet a standard that "philosophy" says is good enough which is very dangerous as philosophy is a very unstable basis for mankind. throughout history when a group of people are oppressed the oppressors use your logic. They said blacks weren't human or that they weren't human enough to meet their standards. The same went for the native americans before they were killed. The only difference between a fetus and I are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. All of which cannot be enough to say a human life aren't valuable. Size can't determine and we should hope that your level of development shouldn't make you less valuable or 2 year olds would be dispensable. Neither can your environment or how dependent you are on someone else. There are many people who are dependent on parents yet they cannot be killed. Also by your reasoning if it your self identity that must be expressed to be classified as a human then we must place more value on the people of society who truly know who they are. If a teenager doesn't know their "true identity" yet they can't be human. It is very dangerous to set a threshold on human beings that they must achieve to be valued.

Ummm...NO! I've seen this position raised in the forum before and refuted it. While it is true that some members of the scientific community who are also religiously minded tend to use that terminology, that is NOT in any way the consensus of the scientific community. This position usually comes from people who conflate the start of human life as equivalent to the start of a human being.

It is not an arbitrary standard to set the bar at and above the development of a brain. People try to argue that because the ZEF contains all the building blocks of a human organism it makes it a human being. As I have pointed out before, most human cells contain all the building blocks of a complete human being and can be used to clone a complete human being once we master the bio-technology to program this. So unless you are willing to identify a clump of human skin cells, liver cells, or any other cells a "human being," then your position that a zygote and embryo in development are equally fallacious.

Finally, we identify ourselves as human beings because we have the characteristics of sentience. There is no evidence that developing cells at the initial stages have sentience. So as I stated, there is no moral dilemma.
 

RedHead9

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Excuse me? Your response confuses me. That entire first paragraph had absolutely nothing to do with my post. Feeding a child? Slavery? Wherever you got that from I don't know. :confused:



Ummm...NO! I've seen this position raised in the forum before and refuted it. While it is true that some members of the scientific community who are also religiously minded tend to use that terminology, that is NOT in any way the consensus of the scientific community. This position usually comes from people who conflate the start of human life as equivalent to the start of a human being.

It is not an arbitrary standard to set the bar at and above the development of a brain. People try to argue that because the ZEF contains all the building blocks of a human organism it makes it a human being. As I have pointed out before, most human cells contain all the building blocks of a complete human being and can be used to clone a complete human being once we master the bio-technology to program this. So unless you are willing to identify a clump of human skin cells, liver cells, or any other cells a "human being," then your position that a zygote and embryo in development are equally fallacious.

Finally, we identify ourselves as human beings because we have the characteristics of sentience. There is no evidence that developing cells at the initial stages have sentience. So as I stated, there is no moral dilemma.

The first part of the quote was a mistake and was addressed to someone else I apologize. Secondly yes science is clear. Leading embryology books confirm this. For example, Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud write, “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question this. “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge,” he wrote in his book Life in the Making. Again the development of the brain is your standard in which you claim is necessary to be human. And what to you is the true difference between a human life and human being? What follows by your reasoning is that those who do not have your standard of sentience is not worth protection. So if sentience is your standard than the mentally ill or disabled who may not be able to feel or perceive something subjectively may not have the same right to life. The phrase “just a clump of cells” is meaningless – at what point does a human being cease to be a “clump of cells”? We are all “clumps of cells” - just larger than we were when we were in our mothers' wombs! The fetus is a genetically distinct human person – even as a single cell, that fetus is alive and is a person with the complete genetic information of the adult. The only thing that is required to allow that fetus to grow into an adult human is time and nutrition.
If a fetus is not a person, when does it become a person? And what is added to the fetus to make it into a person? What else could the offspring off two humans be but a human person?
The argument that because a child is incapable of certain things – living without its mother, or reason – is also ludicrous. There are many people who are rightly and correctly called “persons” who can't do these things; infants, the handicapped, the very old, the injured. Is a person who is mentally retarded not a person because he cannot reason and interact? Newly born infants cannot survive without their parents – in fact, much older infants cannot survive without their parents. Does this mean they are not people too?
All of these arguments attempt to establish a definition of “person” which is at odds with the traditional view (namely, a person is made in the image and likeness of God) and which does not make consistent logical sense. All of these arguments simply seek to justify the selfish murder of children for no reason other than convenience by attempting to deny personhood to those who have it.
Another form of this argument is the view that late term abortions are not permissible but early ones are. This is a flawed argument simply because where is the line drawn? On what basis is the distinction made? What is the difference between (for example) a twelve-week and a twenty-week fetus which means one can be destroyed and murdered and the other cannot? There is no distinction except age – an entirely arbitrary choice. Is it right to murder someone who is 59 but not 60, for example?
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,131
Reaction score
21,198
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Secondly yes science is clear. Leading embryology books confirm this. For example, Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud write, “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question this. “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge,” he wrote in his book Life in the Making.

As I stated, I already refuted this position:

I actually researched those "scientific" citations you referred to from an original post. I decided not to reply to that earlier post because you seem to have no idea what you were citing. I just assumed you got your quotes from some pro-life website. Like this one: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=630377690415631&id=445605908892811

Did you actually read the source materials yourself? Wherever I could find them myself, I did!

Your first citation, "Langman's Medical Embryology" is a textbook on embryology first published in 1963. The 6th edition was published in 1991. It is currently in its 13th edition (2015). I could not find the 6th edition, but a perusal of any of the editions found online (starting with the 9th edition published in 2009) shows that it does use scientific terms in discussing ZEF development, and uses the word "Human" as an identifier much like other biological descriptions use similar terms (like reptile, simian, etc.).

However, NOWHERE does it state "an unborn child is a human being at conception."

Your second citation, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations" is an article written in 1983 discussing "two cases in which women in the late first or early second trimester of pregnancy reported feelings and thoughts clearly indicating a bond of loyalty toward the fetus." Hardly a comprehensive study. MMS: Error

Your third citation, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. I could not find the book online (and I don't feel like a trip to a library in hopes of finding it). So in the interests of fair play, I'll concede that this book may have made such a statement. However, there are a number of educated people who support your positon and use such terms in hopes of increasing that support. That does not mean they are correct. :shrug:

Your third citation, "Human Embryology & Teratology" was published in 1996 and the most recent edition is the 3rd published in 2001. This is the actual quote from that "voice for children" site from the book: "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed..." That is a far cry from human being.

Interesting that all of your citations are decades old.

In any case even if every one of your citations actually supported your position (which they do not) it is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the vast majority of texts which refer to the ZEF as "Human" development, but not as a Human Being.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
1. “Even if the unborn are human beings, they have fewer rights than the woman. No one should be expected to donate her body as a life-support system for someone else.”
c. The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

This, right here, is why we cannot have civil discussions of abortion. You are either ignorantly or callously dismissing the dramatic physiological changes that the fetus imposes upon the mother's body-- the lifelong impacts upon her health and well-being. You would not accept that any human being has the "right" to do this to any other human being against their will, so why are you making such a gross exception to your moral and political philosophy for the sake of a developing fetus? Your argument is morally and logically inconsistent with your principles.


2. “Every person has the right to choose. It would be unfair to restrict a woman’s choice by prohibiting abortion.”
c. People who are prochoice about abortion are often not prochoice about other issues with less at stake.

This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The moral underpinnings of your stated political philosophy are logically incompatible with the arguments you are making here. Other peoples' logical and moral inconsistencies have no bearing on this issue, and I would probably be on your side if we were discussing the issues on which most pro-choice people are less in favor of free choice.

d. The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

This is morally acceptable in self-defense.

e. Everyone is prochoice with it comes to the choices prior to pregnancy and after birth.

This is irrelevant and dishonest. Consent to sexual activity is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy and childbirth.

f. Nearly all violations of human rights have been defended on the grounds of the right to choose.

Other violations of human rights are irrelevant to the violation of human rights you are advocating.

3. “Every woman should have control over her own body. Reproductive freedom is a basic right.”
a. Abortion assures that 650,000 females each year do not have control over their bodies.

This is morally acceptable in self-defense.

b. Not all things done with a person’s body are right, nor should they all be legally protected.

You have not presented any logical and morally consistent argument for why unborn children are an exception to every human being's right to self-defense.

c. Prolifers consistently affirm true reproductive rights.

This is laughably false. If you're not going to be honest, I feel no obligation to continue being civil.

d. Even prochoicers must acknowledge that the “right to control one’s body” argument has no validity if the unborn is a human being.

I am a pro-choicer. I concede that the unborn child is a human being. I do not and will not "acknowledge" the blatantly false claim that the unborn child's status as a human being gives it rights that undermine the most basic and inalienable rights of the mother. The right to self-defense almost always involves another human being, and the fact that it involves another human being in no fashion invalidates a person's right to defend themselves from unwanted impositions on their body and its functions.

f. Control over the body can be exercised to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

This does not invalidate the woman's continuing right to exercise control over her own body at all times.

g. It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and “out of control” condition.

It is far more demeaning to her body and self-esteem to deny her the full human rights that every free person is entitled to. The fact that you have the sheer, unmitigated gall to make this argument while you are advocating for slavery is disgusting and offensive.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,131
Reaction score
21,198
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Again the development of the brain is your standard in which you claim is necessary to be human. And what to you is the true difference between a human life and human being? What follows by your reasoning is that those who do not have your standard of sentience is not worth protection. So if sentience is your standard than the mentally ill or disabled who may not be able to feel or perceive something subjectively may not have the same right to life. The phrase “just a clump of cells” is meaningless – at what point does a human being cease to be a “clump of cells”? We are all “clumps of cells” - just larger than we were when we were in our mothers' wombs! The fetus is a genetically distinct human person – even as a single cell, that fetus is alive and is a person with the complete genetic information of the adult. The only thing that is required to allow that fetus to grow into an adult human is time and nutrition.
If a fetus is not a person, when does it become a person? And what is added to the fetus to make it into a person? What else could the offspring off two humans be but a human person?
The argument that because a child is incapable of certain things – living without its mother, or reason – is also ludicrous. There are many people who are rightly and correctly called “persons” who can't do these things; infants, the handicapped, the very old, the injured. Is a person who is mentally retarded not a person because he cannot reason and interact? Newly born infants cannot survive without their parents – in fact, much older infants cannot survive without their parents. Does this mean they are not people too?
All of these arguments attempt to establish a definition of “person” which is at odds with the traditional view (namely, a person is made in the image and likeness of God) and which does not make consistent logical sense. All of these arguments simply seek to justify the selfish murder of children for no reason other than convenience by attempting to deny personhood to those who have it.
Another form of this argument is the view that late term abortions are not permissible but early ones are. This is a flawed argument simply because where is the line drawn? On what basis is the distinction made? What is the difference between (for example) a twelve-week and a twenty-week fetus which means one can be destroyed and murdered and the other cannot? There is no distinction except age – an entirely arbitrary choice. Is it right to murder someone who is 59 but not 60, for example?

This part of your position is a jumble of appeals to emotion, straw man points, and red herrings.

Human beings can think. Human beings can self-identify. Human beings can communicate. Human beings can use tools. Human beings have emotions, ideals, can act on hopes and desires. Human beings are viable outside of a woman's womb.

None of these characteristics apply to a ZEF prior to the development of a brain. Thus while it can be classified as an organism with the potential of becoming a human being, it is NOT one.

No more so than any other clump of living human cells as I listed in my prior post.

They ARE human cells. They are NOT a human being.
 
Last edited:

RedHead9

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This part of your position is a jumble of appeals to emotion, straw man points, and red herrings.

Human beings can think. Human beings can self-identify. Human beings can communicate. Human beings can use tools. Human beings have emotions, ideals, can act on hopes and desires. Human beings are viable outside of a woman's womb.

None of these characteristics apply to a ZEF prior to the development of a brain. Thus while it can be classified as an organism with the potential of becoming a human being, it is NOT one.

No more so than any clump of living human cells.

They ARE human cells. They are NOT a human being.

Again your subjective threshold for "humanhood" is Self-identity, communication, emotions, and ideals. So for the people of society who are lacking any of these characteristics, are they worth less? What makes the "clump of cells" worth protection is their place in the human family( by that I mean species) and their sharing in human nature. Again you are saying that development is indicative of worth.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
39,307
Reaction score
17,608
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I have, and I will repeat it again for your benefit: it is logically impossible for an unborn child to have rights without denying the inalienable and inherent rights of women. You can either argue that unborn children have rights, or that women are full human beings with full human rights, but not both. And since it is self-evident that women are full human beings with full human rights, it follows logically that unborn children do not and can not have those rights-- or any rights at all. A person cannot have the right to anything which must be taken by force from another person. This includes their very existence, if it is solely dependent upon another human being's services.

You might be able to make this argument hold up in the earliest stages of a pregnancy, but to declare, as you do, that abortion is a viable option up until the moment of actual birth is not only a poorly thought out position, but one that is highly immoral. Ending the life of a child (your word) capable of survival outside the mothers womb can only be considered and called for what it actually is--infanticide. Your position on rights is equally flawed. You have rights because you are human, and for no other reason. Like it or not, a child (your word) in the womb is a living human being. Arguing that rights begin at birth might have been understandable 100 years ago, but modern medicine makes such a stance as out of touch with reality as declaring the earth to be flat.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,131
Reaction score
21,198
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Again your subjective threshold for "humanhood" is Self-identity, communication, emotions, and ideals. So for the people of society who are lacking any of these characteristics, are they worth less? What makes the "clump of cells" worth protection is their place in the human family( by that I mean species) and their sharing in human nature. Again you are saying that development is indicative of worth.

There are no human beings who cannot meet these criteria (with the possible exception of brain dead living bodies, although this is why we can pull their plug). Your list was an appeal to emotion.

Just because you provide a list of human beings you believe "lacking" perfect qualities of humanity that YOU think other's would classify as "less than human" doesn't mean rational people like myself buy into that argument. :roll:

Everyone in your list exhibits the characteristics of human beings.

Clumps of developing cells do not, at least not during the early stages of ZEF development.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom