D
Drawmack
Guest
I know that, for myself, when I am better informed and better equipped with facts it is easier to avoid emotionalism.
Hmmm, maybe we should be fighting abortion on the state level instead of the federal level?
- Status
S
St_Francis
Guest
I have not been able to figure out your questions here. Most of them are easily answered by taking a look at the history of the issue: we have different laws because people have been able to get laws restricting abortion passed in some places but not all.
Mostly it seems like the people you should be asking these questions of are at sites which support legal availability of abortion. You are asking us to give you the rationale behind something that we are against.
The question is not why abortion, which is the taking of that life, should be illegal. The question is how can anyone think that it is all right to kill that person?
Mostly it seems like the people you should be asking these questions of are at sites which support legal availability of abortion. You are asking us to give you the rationale behind something that we are against.
We don’t think that there is a change in humanity of unborn children at a certain stage; once conceived, unborn children are human throughout their stay in their mothers’ wombs.
We believe a mother should not be able to cause the death of an unborn child at any stage any more than any other person should be able to.
We don’t believe that people should even be able to have abortions. Why would we be able to explain why people are not required to give the same amount of information for informed consent in cases of abortion as they are for other procedures?
What happens at conception? An individual (own DNA), living (growing), human being (human DNA) is created.
The question is not why abortion, which is the taking of that life, should be illegal. The question is how can anyone think that it is all right to kill that person?
D
Drawmack
Guest
What I am saying is, can we (pro-lifers) construct valid arguments – using science and adjacent laws – which do not rely on or utilize emotionalism, false dichotomies, and rhetoric to answer these questions when we debate with pro-choicers. If so, what are they. If not, fine.
Okay, let’s look at the science behind this statement. Can we, pro-lifers, back this up without reliance on religion or morality?
Okay, how can this be backed up utilizing adjacent legislation to show the inconsistent treatment of unborn humans? Can we prove that the laws, at least in some places, say that the same entity is both a human and not a human at the same time? And, if we can show this how?
Okay, how can we use the fact that informed consent laws are not upheld with abortion in order to show that abortion is not legally implemented even where it is legally allowed?
Okay, so let’s back this up with science. How do we do that? How can we show, using only science, that it is a human life from the moment of conception? Is the DNA argument sufficient? How does this relate to eggs which are artificially inseminated outside the mother’s body? (I know the Catholic teaching on artificial insemination, I’m not asking about that)
M
miguel
Guest
They knew life began at fertilization in 1973.
S
St_Francis
Guest
OK, now I see what you are saying.
Ummmm, I’m looking at the arguments that advocates of legalized abortion use, and they are very flimsy, stuff like, well, it’s not really a person until… All those points which they choose are arbitrary. In reality, pro-life arguments are *better *than theirs, from any point of view. Another aspect of their arguments is that they do not agree amongst themselves and have different reasons for what they advocate.
This relates to differences in treatment based on gestational age. Their argument is that after the unborn child is old enough to be able to survive outside the womb it should be forbidden to abort.
It is really up to them to prove why their idea has any validity at all.
This is precisely why NARAL, et al, is so against laws which give any human treatment to the unborn child. Since they disagree with the rationale of those types of laws, we can’t really argue that inconsistency of treatment shows anything.
Again, they believe that informed consent laws are simply there to cause women not to have abortions, not for the true purpose of informed consent. They are against informed consent laws and argue against them by saying that “no one knows” and different people would give different information, and that sort of thing.
There’s no real way to convince a die-hard advocate of legalized abortion. I say life exists when there is growth of the entity, they say human life only exists when there is… a heartbeat, brainwaves, consciousness, etc. Whatever suits them. *They see unborn humans as less worthy of protection than born humans (most of them; some see very young humans in the same class as unborn humans). *
Because they start at a certain point and generate justifications for their position rather than starting with an open mind, finding information, and *then *deciding, it is next to impossible to change their minds by a clear set of arguments.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Okay, how are the arguments better and why. That’s why I posted point by point break downs in my OP.
[qutoe]This relates to differences in treatment based on gestational age. Their argument is that after the unborn child is old enough to be able to survive outside the womb it should be forbidden to abort.
It is really up to them to prove why their idea has any validity at all.
Well, as they have the law on their side – no it’s up to us to prove ours. Actually, in any debate, it is up to both sides to prove their point. No one has ever won a debate by standing there and saying prove it over and over again.
Sure, if we’re talking about arguing with NARAL all day. But, if we’re talking about challenging the laws, in the legislature, then we most certainly can use these inconsistencies in the law.
Again if we’re arguing with NARAL all day. But, if we’re trying to change the laws and we’re talking this to the legislature then we most certainly can use this. However, if the person you’re talking to says such things ask them if they would be willing to sign off on informed consent for other procedures.
I agree with this statement. However, I’m interested in debating with the ends of changing the laws. Therefore, I do not seek to change the hearts and minds of pro-choice through debate. I seek to change the hearts and minds of pro-choice through prayer. I think that we’re talking across each other because. You seem to be implying that changing the hearts and minds of the person we are talking to should be the ends. I am saying that changing the laws are the ends. Thus, we will invariably be led to different conclusions about how to debate.
S
St_Francis
Guest
OK, now I have an even better idea of what you are trying to do here…
Can you prove the sky is blue? Can you prove that something did *not *occur? There are all sorts of things which must be proven by only one side; that’s what we do in a court of law, isn’t it? The prosecution is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt… the defense challenges the assertions and all that, but does not have to supply “proof” that the person did not do it. It can certainly be helpful, but proof of a negative is not always conveniently accessible.
What more can we do? We present what we have to say, and they are coming from such a different set of ideas that we can’t “prove” anything to their satisfaction.
So, wrt to gestational age as presenting cut-off points for permitting abortion… what do we have? We have the fact that somewhat more people are likely to concede that unborn humans are “more” human when they look more human, when we are more aware of them, than are willing to concede to younger unborn humans. But that occurs at different times for different people–once you get away from the *reality, *anything goes.
But NARAL is also chiming in, when it comes to lawmakers. We come in and say what we have to say, they come in and say what they have to say, the elected representative sticks his finger up to check which way the wind is blowing, and that’s it. We can make a perfectly valid case for evening out inconsistencies in the law, and NARAL comes along and says we should even them out the opposite way. We say, if any attempt to harm an unborn child at any time of pregnancy occurs by anyone other than the mother, it should be a crime; NARAL points out the inconsistency and claims that as a reason to not make it a crime to harm someone else’s unborn child.
And there is still the question of what constitutes informed consent wrt abortion. Should the evidence for a linkage to breast cancer be used? Well, it’s not sufficiently proven. Should the potential patient be required to view a sonogram of her child? Well, that’s too likely to cause an emotional rather than a reasoned reaction. And so on…
Aside from prayer, the only way we will be able to change the laws is through the legislature. There you are again dealing with individuals with their own agendas whose minds you have to change in order to get the law changed. The only way to really do this is to elect people whose minds are already dealing with the reality of what abortion is, what an unborn child, fetus, zygote, blastocyst, embryo is, rather than all the other aspects of the debate: what it would do to their chances of being re-elected, what sort of trouble it would cause, etc.
Moreover, I do not believe that we will be able to change the laws *until *we change the minds of many, many individuals, not just lawmakers but also the people who vote for them. And the way to do this is through education, the kind of education you described yourself as giving.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Yes. First you create ozone in the laboratory; that’s what gives the sky its color. Then you feed this produced ozone through a gas chromatagraph (sp?) and the output tells you that the ozone is blue, which conclusively proves the sky is blue.
You did not die prior to posting this question on the message board, and the post is proof of that.
This is correct. Currently the law says that a fetus is not the same as a person and therefore not entitled to it’s life being protected. Thus, it is up to us (those challenging this law) to prove that it is incorrect.
And, there we have a great argument. There are currently arguments between medical practitioners about when a cancerous tumor should be treated with chemo, radiation, laser surgery and invasive surgery. So, the medical field errors on the side of caution and goes with the opinion which states the earliest treatment. We can then ask why this logic is not applied consistently to all medical procedures including abortion.
Should we allow NARAL’s existence and stances to be a reason not to fight? We can bring up the inconsistent laws which exist (a fetus is protected if someone other than the mother is the cause of death, but not when the mother is the cause of death) and argue that point with legislators. Then we can allow NARAL their time as well. I do not understand how NARAL having an opposing stance stops us from formulating the types of arguments I’m seeking to formulate on this thread.
Informed consent requires that a person know exactly what the procedure does, exactly what side-effects could result including their chance of occurrence, and what the alternatives are. There is no question of what constitutes informed consent, regardless of the procedure. If the AMA deems that the link to breast cancer has not been sufficiently proven then that is left out, if the AMA deems that the link to breast cancer has been sufficiently proven that it is included with the percentage chance of occurrence.
It seems pretty simple to me. First, the woman must be informed of exactly what the procedure does. Thus, she must be informed of exactly what the fetus looks like and is at each week of gestation. Then, she must be informed of exactly how the abortion process works for that week of gestation. That meets the first portion.
Second, the woman must be informed of exactly what the side-effects could be. What happens when a piece of the fetus is missed and how often does this happen? What happens when the suction is too strong or the Dr. accidentally hits the side of the womb and how often does this happen? What happens if the woman flinches during the procedure and how often does this happen? What types of psychological side-effects have been witnessed in those who have undergone the procedure and with what percentage occurrence? We know that post-pardum depression is a real diagnosable psychiatric condition related to the changes in a woman’s hormones through natural pregnancy and birth, how does interrupting that cycle affect this? Again the AMA and APA can determine what needs to be covered here – they are qualified. That meets the second requirement of informed consent.
Third, the woman must be informed of exactly what the alternatives are and what assistance or agencies are available should she choose one of those alternatives. With adoption, how does that process work? What adoption agencies are out there? Do the adoption agencies help with costs associated with the pregnancy? If she decides to keep the baby, what help is available? What government and private programs are available to help with costs of pregnancy, delivery, and child rearing? What government and private resources are available to help her rear the child?
It is really pretty cut and dry what needs to be covered for informed consent. In my arguments I haven’t even had to explain what should be covered. I simply ask them to justify why those laws should apply to a woman getting a collagen injection and not to a woman having a sizable entity forcibly removed from her body.
S
St_Francis
Guest
All right, apply that kind of thinking to the abortion issue.
You don’t know that for sure; I could have died and it might be that someone else finished up my post for me.
Some negatives can be proven, whoever I am right now, I have not died, but many others cannot be proven.
However, part of the problem is that it is those who oppose us who are setting the standards of proof. We can prove it, but they do not accept our proofs.
Great, you have answered your question
No, my point was that ultimately we *are *debating with NARAL, et al, only we are debating *through *the legislator we are trying to influence.
D
Drawmack
Guest
If that were the case that the you in my post would have been referring to the person who finished up the post and not the person who began the post.
(It’s off topic but I thought we could use the laugh.)
S
St_Francis
Guest
Good catch!If that were the case that the you in my post would have been referring to the person who finished up the post and not the person who began the post.
- Status