A Different Kind of Abortion Debate

[Drawmack]

Oh, and might I add some words of wisdom from personal experience? You see, I used to be an atheist, existentialist, feminist, pro choicer, radical, rebel, liberal. Oh, I loved science. I thought that was all I needed. But do you think I listened when any of the Christians I knew would give me the scientific truth about abortion during debate? Nope, sorry. It made not one dent in my armor. I would do the same thing that I mentioned above. Divert, distract, refuse to listen.

It was not until I had an abortion. Well, even after that I was quite satisfied with my “choice”…for a little while. I believe it was the prayers of those same Christians that softened my heart, unstopped my ears, and undulled my mind.

Just a warning, my friend. Yes, logic and science and reason can be the “nail in the coffin” for the arguments of those who are prochoice. Or for those who have not totally bought into their ideology. Approach the avidly pro choice with caution, kindness, and a cool head. But don’t expect instant success. Expect shrill voices, instead.

I, myself, was the most insidious type of pro-choicer. I was the pro-choicer who agreed with everything the pro-lifer said but would follow all that agreement with, “But those are my morals and I don’t have the right to force them on someone else.”

What finally, really, got me to thinking about this issue (which I changed my mind on before becoming a Christian) was when a pro-lifer started talking about parental rights. Being a man, it really chinked my armor to have someone point out that my rights do not, legally, begin until after the mother’s and that she can, unilaterally, make decisions concerning the life of our child which will affect the rest of my life. This is another gap in the legal system. Parental rights are not equal until after the birth of the child, why? Why is it not the man’s baby until it is born? What, magically, changes about the baby when it is born to make it become the father’s child?

 

[lumenorientale]

Can you think of any cases besides the one I mentioned – possibly for other states?

I’ll do some research and get back to you on that. I know I’ve heard quite a few, but as for some specific ones, I’ll have to look it up.

 

[lumenorientale]

Here’s an interesting quote, to allow us into the mindset of pro choice.
This is from the minutes of the Alaska State Legislature re: a fetal homicide law.

“SENATOR DYSON pointed out that if a mother is speeding and as result of an accident kills her three-year-old child, it is an illegal activity. This bill says it is a crime regardless of whether the child is born or unborn. A wanted human being is still being killed, he said. An unwanted child is in a free fire zone at this time in our culture, Senator Dyson added.”

All I can say is…
if you want to read all the whole of the minutes, here is the link: legis.state.ak.us/BASIS/get_single_minute.asp?session=23&beg_line=01270&end_line=01839&time=1438&date=20040504&comm=HES&house=H

(abandon hope, all ye who enter here)

 

[royal_archer]

Okay, those are valid points. However, our society already deems that murder of humans is legally wrong. Now, can we use science to say that a fetus is a person and if so at what point? You do bring up an interesting point. Maybe it is the agencies that oversee medicine and medical treatment we need to be addressing and not legislators?

science can show evidence of a DNA structure This evidence has shown that the entity is human. Refering to the child as a fetus instead of a person only introduces an emotional angle that for some makes the one human seem lesser than the other human.

a requirements tutorial to set up the background: if you ask someone to paint your car blue and they paint it baby blue and you meant a darker blue like a “blue” Crayola crayon you have a situation where there was ambiguity in the original requirement. You could argue that it was unreasonable for them to paint the car baby blue ( when the original color was a darker blue and you intended for them to just freshen the paint job, not change the color. ) in such a situation you may have to enter into new contract with more specific details possibly paying extra for the prefered color paint because they gave you such a good price because the baby blue was ugly and they wanted to get rid of it. background over.

With that in mind some felt the constitution had enough ambiguity to allow the supreme court to do what they did. It is now our responsibility to clarify our contract with government (the constitution). We need to get the states to ammend the constitution to stop this travesty.

 

[lumenorientale]

Here’s another case, I’m not sure what the specifics are, because my computer is being stupid and not allowing me to open pdfs :takethat: (or maybe I’m being stupid…)

airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/1125/pagea9.pdf

 

[royal_archer]

The stages of development for mammalian life forms at various stages of gestation have scientific names: blastocyst, embryo, and fetus. If you wish to state that using these terms to refer to pre-birth humans is not correct then please provide scientific evidence that humans are not mammals.

They are no more accurate than the term pro abortion.

Those are terms that some use to draw an emotional response to the detriment of the person who is in the early stages of their development. Remember, your rule was to allow the sides to choose the names by which they are refered to. I am on the side of these young humans. If the opposition is able to choose the names for their side, shouldn’t we be able to choos the names for our side?

 

[royal_archer]

I would chastise people in this thread who used the latter three terms or those like them. But, I would equally chastise those who wanted to deny that using the first three terms is correct terminology…

If you refered to someone from a certain southern continent by the scientific term for their race you would immediately be charged with racism. Such terms and their immeidate derivatives have been used in a derogatory manner and as such have tainted the term. The same is true with these terms which refer to the early stages of development.

INotice that we are almost an entire page into this thread and have only seen a couple posts that actually present any kind of information about the topic at hand. The rest, like this one, are talking about why this type of debate is either impossible or fruitless. This is, disheareningly, proving me correct.

That is because your are asking that we do not use emotionally inflamatory words on one side while using emotionaly inflamatory words on the other side.

 

[royal_archer]

Oh, and might I add some words of wisdom from personal experience? You see, I used to be an atheist, existentialist, feminist, pro choicer, radical, rebel, liberal. Oh, I loved science. I thought that was all I needed. But do you think I listened when any of the Christians I knew would give me the scientific truth about abortion during debate? Nope, sorry. It made not one dent in my armor. I would do the same thing that I mentioned above. Divert, distract, refuse to listen.

It was not until I had an abortion. Well, even after that I was quite satisfied with my “choice”…for a little while. I believe it was the prayers of those same Christians that softened my heart, unstopped my ears, and undulled my mind.

Just a warning, my friend. Yes, logic and science and reason can be the “nail in the coffin” for the arguments of those who are prochoice. Or for those who have not totally bought into their ideology. Approach the avidly pro choice with caution, kindness, and a cool head. But don’t expect instant success. Expect shrill voices, instead.

I have a theory as to why they do not listen to scientific reasoning. I believe that for many science is a religion in itself. and they subscribe to different scientific stories the way those who believe in God would subscribe to different religions. Someone listens to a religion and makes an emotional decision as to whether they will follow that religion (I know there are exceptions but let me make my point). lets say someone feels budism sounds good, They then accept the teachings of that religion with out necesarilly checking them all out. Those who subscribe to the teachings of various scientific groups accept those teachings with a blind faith. It is not that they are reviewing the objective scientific evidence and comming to their own conclusion. If you offer scientific evidence that conflicts with their preconceive beliefs you will be dismissed as quickly as a christian will dismiss the conflicting teachings of a muslim.

 

[lumenorientale]

I have a theory as to why they do not listen to scientific reasoning. I believe that for many science is a religion in itself. and they subscribe to different scientific stories the way those who believe in God would subscribe to different religions. Someone listens to a religion and makes an emotional decision as to whether they will follow that religion (I know there are exceptions but let me make my point). lets say someone feels budism sounds good, They then accept the teachings of that religion with out necesarilly checking them all out. Those who subscribe to the teachings of various scientific groups accept those teachings with a blind faith. It is not that they are reviewing the objective scientific evidence and comming to their own conclusion. If you offer scientific evidence that conflicts with their preconceive beliefs you will be dismissed as quickly as a christian will dismiss the conflicting teachings of a muslim.

Too true. As I’ve said before, they are much like “cafeteria scientists,” picking and choosing what to believe in.

 

[Drawmack]

Here’s an interesting quote, to allow us into the mindset of pro choice.
This is from the minutes of the Alaska State Legislature re: a fetal homicide law.

“SENATOR DYSON pointed out that if a mother is speeding and as result of an accident kills her three-year-old child, it is an illegal activity. This bill says it is a crime regardless of whether the child is born or unborn. A wanted human being is still being killed, he said. An unwanted child is in a free fire zone at this time in our culture, Senator Dyson added.”

All I can say is…
if you want to read all the whole of the minutes, here is the link: legis.state.ak.us/BASIS/get_single_minute.asp?session=23&beg_line=01270&end_line=01839&time=1438&date=20040504&comm=HES&house=H

(abandon hope, all ye who enter here)

I’m reading my way through and I recommend that all read it. However, check your logic at the door because most of it makes no sense. The way I see it is that something cannot both be A and not A at the same time. These people are asserting that, legally speaking, an unborn child is human (and worthy of human rights) if someone takes an illegal act which kills the child but is not a human (and not worthy of human rights) if no illegal action is taken. That really doesn’t make sense to me and I think could be the chink in these laws that a worthy lawyer would widdle into a gaping hole.

 

[Drawmack]

Here’s another case, I’m not sure what the specifics are, because my computer is being stupid and not allowing me to open pdfs :takethat: (or maybe I’m being stupid…)

airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/1125/pagea9.pdf

I got it to open. The background:

A woman was 8 months pregnant and hit by a drunk driver. As a result of the accident the woman went into labor and delivered the baby prematurely. The baby was on life support for hours. The judge ruled that the drunk driver could not be charged with vehicular homicide because the baby did not have a heartbeat at birth.

That’s reprehensible, but at least it’s consistent between abortion chosen by the mother and abortion not chosen by the mother. The interesting point is that this happened in CA which is one of the states cited in the AK testimonies above as having laws protecting the unborn fetus.

 

[Drawmack]

science can show evidence of a DNA structure This evidence has shown that the entity is human. Refering to the child as a fetus instead of a person only introduces an emotional angle that for some makes the one human seem lesser than the other human.

The scientifically correct term is blastocyst, embryo, or fetus depending on the stage of development. This is not obfuscation or anything like that. It is simply scientifically correct terminology. To argue against the use of scientifically correct terminology is to argue against scientifically correct arguments – do you really want to go there?

 

[Drawmack]

They are no more accurate than the term pro abortion.

Those are terms that some use to draw an emotional response to the detriment of the person who is in the early stages of their development. Remember, your rule was to allow the sides to choose the names by which they are refered to. I am on the side of these young humans. If the opposition is able to choose the names for their side, shouldn’t we be able to choos the names for our side?

I asked that we all use the terms pro-choice and pro-life as agreed upon nomenclature. I wasn’t allowing anyone to choose terminology, I was simply asking that we use an agreed upon terminology and that all stick to it’s use.

 

[Drawmack]

If you refered to someone from a certain southern continent by the scientific term for their race you would immediately be charged with racism. Such terms and their immeidate derivatives have been used in a derogatory manner and as such have tainted the term. The same is true with these terms which refer to the early stages of development.

If you’re talking about the term negroid you would not be charged with racism. If on the other hand you were talking about using a derogatory slag term derived from the word negroid then you would be charged with racism same as if you used any of the varied slag terms for European nationals.

That is because your are asking that we do not use emotionally inflamatory words on one side while using emotionaly inflamatory words on the other side.

What words have I used that are emotionally inflammatory?

 

[Drawmack]

I have a theory as to why they do not listen to scientific reasoning. I believe that for many science is a religion in itself. and they subscribe to different scientific stories the way those who believe in God would subscribe to different religions. Someone listens to a religion and makes an emotional decision as to whether they will follow that religion (I know there are exceptions but let me make my point). lets say someone feels budism sounds good, They then accept the teachings of that religion with out necesarilly checking them all out. Those who subscribe to the teachings of various scientific groups accept those teachings with a blind faith. It is not that they are reviewing the objective scientific evidence and comming to their own conclusion. If you offer scientific evidence that conflicts with their preconceive beliefs you will be dismissed as quickly as a christian will dismiss the conflicting teachings of a muslim.

That is a very good point. That is also why one who wishes to engage in debates based on scientific evidence should know the scientific method inside and out and how to apply it to their arguments and their opponents arguments. In this way, you can demonstrate that someone who is not willing to consider a scientific theory fallible is, in fact, acting unscientifically.

 

[lumenorientale]

Woman Charged with Killing Mother and Unborn Child

A Pennsylvania woman has been charged with multiple offenses in the killing of 22-year-old Cari Chapman and her unborn baby July 31 in Franklin Township. Patricia Stark, 22, is still at large after she fled the scene of the shooting, according to the Times-Leader.

The rest of the article is on this page: nrlc.org/news/2006/NRL08/BriefNews.html

You’ll need to scroll down to read the article itself, but there are plenty of other stories on the page pertaining to our topic at hand.

There are plenty of examples of this sort of contradictory behaviour in our legal system. Naturally, many groups such as NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood actually oppose any laws that protect the unborn against violent acts (other than abortion). They see the contradiction themselves, and they don’t like it. They call it “eroding reproductive rights,” “anti woman,” etc. Well, in 2004, W. passed the Unborn Victims of Violent Crime act, which makes it a homicide if a criminal act results in the death of an unborn child. Good thing, hopefully it does undermine Roe V. Wade–as NARAL and ACLU says it does.

 

[Drawmack]

Woman Charged with Killing Mother and Unborn Child

A Pennsylvania woman has been charged with multiple offenses in the killing of 22-year-old Cari Chapman and her unborn baby July 31 in Franklin Township. Patricia Stark, 22, is still at large after she fled the scene of the shooting, according to the Times-Leader.

The rest of the article is on this page: nrlc.org/news/2006/NRL08/BriefNews.html

You’ll need to scroll down to read the article itself, but there are plenty of other stories on the page pertaining to our topic at hand.

There are plenty of examples of this sort of contradictory behaviour in our legal system. Naturally, many groups such as NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood actually oppose any laws that protect the unborn against violent acts (other than abortion). They see the contradiction themselves, and they don’t like it. They call it “eroding reproductive rights,” “anti woman,” etc. Well, in 2004, W. passed the Unborn Victims of Violent Crime act, which makes it a homicide if a criminal act results in the death of an unborn child. Good thing, hopefully it does undermine Roe V. Wade–as NARAL and ACLU says it does.

I am very familiar with that case, not only did it happen right near my house but Patti’s (the assailants) older sister is a former student of mine. I remember her sister coming to me when this happened to talk about it because she trusted me. Thus, I don’t really talk about this case in public because it’s difficult for me to discern what I learned from the newspapers and what I learned from talking to involved parties. In this, particular, case that fetus was beyond the age when it could have been legally aborted by the mother. So, technically, there is no conflict with this case and current abortion laws in PA. I do know that Patti is a very lost soul (drugs and alcohol abuse among other things I won’t mention here) and I would like to take this opportunity to ask every one to please pray for Patti and her victims (all three of them).

 

[lumenorientale]

I am very familiar with that case, not only did it happen right near my house but Patti’s (the assailants) older sister is a former student of mine. I remember her sister coming to me when this happened to talk about it because she trusted me. Thus, I don’t really talk about this case in public because it’s difficult for me to discern what I learned from the newspapers and what I learned from talking to involved parties. In this, particular, case that fetus was beyond the age when it could have been legally aborted by the mother. So, technically, there is no conflict with this case and current abortion laws in PA. I do know that Patti is a very lost soul (drugs and alcohol abuse among other things I won’t mention here) and I would like to take this opportunity to ask every one to please pray for Patti and her victims (all three of them).

Sorry to hear about that, it must be very difficult for you. I will pray for Patti and her victims.

 

[Drawmack]

Sorry to hear about that, it must be very difficult for you. I will pray for Patti and her victims.

It is, and thank you.

 

[nkbeth]

The scientifically correct term is blastocyst, embryo, or fetus depending on the stage of development. This is not obfuscation or anything like that. It is simply scientifically correct terminology. To argue against the use of scientifically correct terminology is to argue against scientifically correct arguments – do you really want to go there?

Surely science can determine that a genetically unique human life begins at conception. It seems to me that the only reasonable question is, when is this developing human being a person? Is this something science can answer?

The law can specify (or assume) criteria for recognizing human personhood (with legal rights). But just as many legal rights should be based on natural rights (dare I say, God-given rights) so too legal personhood should be based on natural personhood.

The one basic right that every (innocent) human person has is the right to life. That is the very least that should be given to every person. If someone firmly disagrees with this, I would hardly know where to start (especially without going into religion).

Trying to use science or philosophy to prove where during human development this personhood starts (other than conception) seems absurd. What criteria would you use that would not be a matter of “personal choice”? What would stop you from using similar criteria to say that already living human beings are not persons? …This kind of thought leads us down the slippery slope where some are already going - to the right to kill the elderly and disabled. When people think even this is fine, I do not know where to start.

Saying, after the above, “well then, a human being must be considered a person from the start (from conception)” is not a logical proof. At this point, perhaps you do need to go to religion. Or you need use the sense that Ronald Reagan showed in saying:

“The price of abortion is too great to risk one’s own “knowledge” against the assertions of so many others and the evidence of ones own eyes”

Common sense is not science, but science should be based on common sense. If common sense and the natural law are abandoned, science and other philosophy cannot take their place; and legal arguments crumble.

Common sense (and science!) is abandoned in judging that a fetus becomes a real person only at the moment it is born. Science supposedly has abandoned magic and archaic theories such as that of spontaneous generation. But now would it say that “poof” a living being becomes a human person simply because it exits a physical place?

Similarly common sense (and legal reasoning) is abandoned in saying that abortion is murder when the mother wants the baby, but perfectly OK when she does not.

Common sense says that when it looks like a baby, it probably is a baby.