A Different Kind of Abortion Debate

[miguel]

I am wondering if we can conduct an abortion debate on this board and refrain from the following:

1. Scenario questions – From either side, these do not work to make the point and often lead to people drawing unfounded conclusions about the reasons behind someone’s answer or lack thereof.
2. Comparisons with villains of the past – In other words don’t say the word Nazi etc. These feed off of emotionalism and lead to the person you are addressing dismissing your entire argument.
3. Any type of name calling – For the purposes of this discussion can we refer to the sides as pro-choice (being those who support keeping abortion legal) and pro-life (being those who support the illegalization of abortion). I know that some do not agree with this terminology, but can we agree to these definitions and this use for this debate – without the quotes? Can we refrain from diatribes about why any, or both, terms are wrong, inaccurate, misleading, etc?
4. Ideological arguments – Let’s try to focus on the science here. If we are going to make any headway in making abortion illegal then we must make arguments which do not rest on ideology and religion since those cannot be used in court in the US. Let’s focus on the science and adjoining legality of the issue.

What I would like to focus on is the following:

1. The science – Why does a 20 (or whatever number) week old fetus become a human? What changes in the physiology to make a fetus a human at a certain (any certain) stage of gestation?
2. Adjacent Legislation – Why is it that, in many states, if a person besides the mother causes the fetus to be aborted that is considered murder, or manslaughter, but when the mother causes it that is not murder or manslaughter? In what other case, or circumstance, does the decision of murder, or manslaughter, rest purely on who commits the act?
3. Informed Consent Laws – Why are these laws routinely broken when it comes to abortion? Why should these laws be, or not be, upheld in regards to abortion?
4. The Medical Science – What is the defining characteristic of elective medical procedures and should abortion be an elective procedure or should it only be proscribed? Should it be a proscribed procedure or an illicit one – why (remember to focus on the medical science and not ideology or religion here)?

Please back up comments with actual, referenced, facts. Please make sure that all references are from reputable sources. Please avoid linking to references which utilize the type of rhetoric I asked to be avoided.

I am honestly curious if the members of this forum, and by extrapolation the larger public, are capable of this. And, I honestly doubt that they are – please prove me wrong.

A few comments… while you are certainly free to set the boundaries of the thread you open, I’m not necessarily convinced that limiting the discussion to science is the only way into the pro-choice person’s heart or even the best way to avoid emotionalism. If people don’t like the truth, whether it’s science or some other form of truth, chances are pretty high they’ll react emotionally. Or they’ll avoid the discussion. You might convince a particular pro-choice person by focusing on the science. Or you might get through by focusing on historical parallels. On the other thread, WillieWonka freely admitted that he holds to a varying valuation of life ethic. And amazingly he tried to project that onto anti-abortion people. In light of that, it is perfectly acceptable IMO to bring up historical parallels to show where that type of ethic leads. And he didn’t run away from the discussion or get emotional. He wouldn’t be on that thread if he didn’t want a vigorous discussion. So IMO, it’s fine to tailor the conversation to the specific individual without name-calling. Truth is attractive. This forum doesn’t attract all pro-choice people. But the ones who are here are here to converse. They’re not here because they’re afraid of being offended by the truth. And even if you don’t convince that pro-choice person, there may be others who benefit from an open discussion without the limits you’re asking for on this thread.

 

[Drawmack]

A few comments… while you are certainly free to set the boundaries of the thread you open, I’m not necessarily convinced that limiting the discussion to science is the only way into the pro-choice person’s heart or even the best way to avoid emotionalism. If people don’t like the truth, whether it’s science or some other form of truth, chances are pretty high they’ll react emotionally. Or they’ll avoid the discussion. You might convince a particular pro-choice person by focusing on the science. Or you might get through by focusing on historical parallels. On the other thread, WillieWonka freely admitted that he holds to a varying valuation of life ethic. And amazingly he tried to project that onto anti-abortion people. In light of that, it is perfectly acceptable IMO to bring up historical parallels to show where that type of ethic leads. And he didn’t run away from the discussion or get emotional. He wouldn’t be on that thread if he didn’t want a vigorous discussion. So IMO, it’s fine to tailor the conversation to the specific individual without name-calling. Truth is attractive. This forum doesn’t attract all pro-choice people. But the ones who are here are here to converse. They’re not here because they’re afraid of being offended by the truth. And even if you don’t convince that pro-choice person, there may be others who benefit from an open discussion without the limits you’re asking for on this thread.

I asked for the limits on this thread because we have enough of those other threads going around and I wanted a discussion free from the things that are rampant, and often take discussions off topic, on those other threads. If you want to discuss without the limits I’m asking for then why not go discuss on one of those other threads instead of bringing those threads into this one? Additionally, I didn’t ask for only science – reread the OP if you think that I did.

 

[royal_archer]

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?

But such terms are not relevant to the discussion of a persons right to life. these terms are only introduced to elicit an emotional response to the situation. I am not challenging the accuracy of the terms just the appropriateness relative to context.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

First If the terminology were agreed to, it would have never been brought up in the first place. Iam also asking that the person who’s life is in jepordy be refered to as a human being or a person and not not be relegated to some dehumanizing laboratory term.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

If you were to use the term in a way as to relegate the person to something less than human you would be acting in a racist manner. Would you dare to refer to someone on the street by that term?

What words have I used that are emotionally inflammatory?

“blastocyst, embryo, and fetus.” And it is not the terms themselves, it is using the term in a context of a human rights discussion as a way to segregate a group of individuals from the greater population of humanity.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

That runs into a bit of a catch 22. Since they are not scientist at heart or by training, they do not comprehend or are not swayed by the evidence that they are not following a scientific process. They are not scientist, they are followers of certain scientist.

 

[Drawmack]

But such terms are not relevant to the discussion of a persons right to life. these terms are only introduced to elicit an emotional response to the situation. I am not challenging the accuracy of the terms just the appropriateness relative to context.

I think that they are appropriate in this context because when they are used appropriately they are a simple, easy, and uniform way to be concise about what stage of development we are discussing at that moment. If we always use just one term, any one term, then we must constantly use modifiers to state what stage of development we are talking about, therefore it is a means of simplifying communication to use the scientifically accepted terminology.

 

[Drawmack]

First If the terminology were agreed to, it would have never been brought up in the first place.

It has to be brought up in the beginning of the debate so everyone knows the accepted terminology for the course of that debate.

Iam also asking that the person who’s life is in jepordy be refered to as a human being or a person and not not be relegated to some dehumanizing laboratory term.

It is not dehumanizing to talk about a human fetus anymore than it is to talk about a baby in the third trimester. You still need to specify that it is a human fetus and not an orangutan fetus.

I would like to point out at this point – that this is proving that some people are incapable of scientific or legally based debates on this issue because they refuse to actually discuss the topic and instead get hung up on tangential issues.

 

[Drawmack]

If you were to use the term in a way as to relegate the person to something less than human you would be acting in a racist manner. Would you dare to refer to someone on the street by that term?

If I were engaging in a debate about the anthropology of the human race I would use the terms negroid, caucasian, mongoloid, and aboriginal. If I were engaging in a legal debate about civil rights I would use the terms negroid, caucasian, mongoloid, and aboriginal. If I were talking to a person of the negroid race on the street I probably wouldn’t refer to them as anything having to do with race. I cannot remember the last time race played a part in any discussion I had on the street before tonight. I can tell you this, if someone wants to be called black I tell them to refer to me as man who changes colors and if someone wants to be referred to African American I tell them to refer to me as European American.

“blastocyst, embryo, and fetus.” And it is not the terms themselves, it is using the term in a context of a human rights discussion as a way to segregate a group of individuals from the greater population of humanity.

But that is not why they are used. They are used because they refer to specific periods in the gestation process. So, if I talk about a human fetus I am talking about a human who is in the last stages of gestation prior to birth. If I talk about a human blastocyst I am talking about a human in the first stages of gestation after insemination. If I talk about a human embryo I am talking about a human in the stages between the afore mentioned. This is simply using the proper terminology to state which stage of development I am talking about instead of having to specify that in a much more wordy manner.

 

[Drawmack]

That runs into a bit of a catch 22. Since they are not scientist at heart or by training, they do not comprehend or are not swayed by the evidence that they are not following a scientific process. They are not scientist, they are followers of certain scientist.

Right, and knowledge and understanding of the scientific method and how it is applied can be used to show how they are disgracing their favored scientist. Sort of like when someone asks us WWJD.

 

[royal_archer]

Back to the original topic. . . bringing in agruements that the atheist can understand.

1. If a person renders aid at the scene of an emergency but then abandons the person leaving them to die they can be held liable for neglect. This is the case of the mother who is the only person who can care for the child using the emergency scenario as a precedent, the mother would be acting negligently if she terminated her care prior to the child being transfered to someone who could provide equivalent care.
2. The premise that a woman should not be burdened with the unwanted baby. Well look at the nearly 100 million people (and growing) who are on some form of public assistance who are an unwanted burden on me (a tax victim). If those who advocate abortion rights do not feel a woman should not be forced to care for her own child, why do many of these same people feel I should be forced to support someone elses children? (ps I am not agruing against helping these people out, just arguing against the government forcing me to.)
3. If a woman can wake up the next morning and decide she no longer wishes to be responsible for the baby she helped conceive the night before, why can’t the man have the same right. It would seem fair that if a woman has six months to change her mind, then the father should also get the same amount of time to make a decision as to whether he wants to be the father. Actually, he should have more time since his decision would not result in the death of the baby.

 

[royal_archer]

I think that they are appropriate in this context because when they are used appropriately they are a simple, easy, and uniform way to be concise about what stage of development we are discussing at that moment. If we always use just one term, any one term, then we must constantly use modifiers to state what stage of development we are talking about, therefore it is a means of simplifying communication to use the scientifically accepted terminology.

Then why oppose when others use terms that are concise and accurate descriptors of the message we want to communicate?

 

[Drawmack]

Back to the original topic. . . bringing in agruements that the atheist can understand.

I would like to point out that I have a very good friend who is staunchly pro-life and staunchly atheistic. Her reasoning is that no race thrives by killing its young inutero.

1. If a person renders aid at the scene of an emergency but then abandons the person leaving them to die they can be held liable for neglect. This is the case of the mother who is the only person who can care for the child using the emergency scenario as a precedent, the mother would be acting negligently if she terminated her care prior to the child being transfered to someone who could provide equivalent care.

This might work, but you’d have to be a little careful about it. Those laws you are referencing to have safe guards built in where the person providing the care becomes physically incapable to continue due to fatigue. If the person you are debating with is astute enough they could bring this into the argument at this point.

1. The premise that a woman should not be burdened with the unwanted baby. Well look at the nearly 100 million people (and growing) who are on some form of public assistance who are an unwanted burden on me (a tax victim). If those who advocate abortion rights do not feel a woman should not be forced to care for her own child, why do many of these same people feel I should be forced to support someone elses children? (ps I am not agruing against helping these people out, just arguing against the government forcing me to.)

Are you prepared for them to look you in the eye and say that anyone who gets pregnant while on public assistance should be forced to abort the fetus so that the new baby is not a drain on tax payers? (I’ve actually had people say that to me.)

1. If a woman can wake up the next morning and decide she no longer wishes to be responsible for the baby she helped conceive the night before, why can’t the man have the same right. It would seem fair that if a woman has six months to change her mind, then the father should also get the same amount of time to make a decision as to whether he wants to be the father. Actually, he should have more time since his decision would not result in the death of the baby.

This argument I like, it is the issue of father’s rights. Basically, why do the mother’s rights start before the father’s. The father should be able to compel an abortion or force the mother to relieve him of his parental rights. Conversely the father should be able to stop the abortion and relieve the mother of her parental rights. Why is the father’s future able to be decided, unilaterally, by the mother. Why does the father have no say in what happens to his child before it is born when the mother does? I think this is a great argument myself; it worked on me.

 

[Drawmack]

Then why oppose when others use terms that are concise and accurate descriptors of the message we want to communicate?

Because I set up this thread to talk about specific issues in a specific manner. If you want to discuss the issue another way feel free to do so in another thread. I want to talk about scientific and legal arguments. In these arguments, especially the scientific ones, people should be using the scientific terminology.

 

[royal_archer]

If I were engaging in a debate about the anthropology of the human race I would use the terms negroid, caucasian, mongoloid, and aboriginal. If I were engaging in a legal debate about civil rights I would use the terms negroid, caucasian, mongoloid, and aboriginal. … .

Would you throw out these terms in order to leverage an emotional response to take rights away from such a person?

But that is not why they are used. They are used because they refer to specific periods in the gestation process. So, if I talk about a human fetus I am talking about a human who is in the last stages of gestation prior to birth. If I talk about a human blastocyst I am talking about a human in the first stages of gestation after insemination. If I talk about a human embryo I am talking about a human in the stages between the afore mentioned. This is simply using the proper terminology to state which stage of development I am talking about instead of having to specify that in a much more wordy manner.

All to often those who support abortion will use these scientific terms preceded by “just a…” or they will say “they are not a person they are a…”

 

[Drawmack]

Would you throw out these terms in order to leverage an emotional response to take rights away from such a person?

Nope, I would use them to be specific about the racial group I was talking about. Just as I would use blastocyst, embryo, and fetus to be specific about the period of gestation I was talking about.

All to often those who support abortion will use these scientific terms preceded by “just a…” or they will say “they are not a person they are a…”

And, if that happens in this thread you are free to talk about why the person used that modifier. However, we’re into page four and it hasn’t happened yet. Matter of fact, no one has even presented an argument which relies on those terms yet. So far the only discussions utilizing those terms have been the discussion about why we shouldn’t use those terms.

 

[royal_archer]

I would like to point out that I have a very good friend who is staunchly pro-life and staunchly atheistic. Her reasoning is that no race thrives by killing its young inutero.

But I doubt she was swayed by the religious aspects. the points I made were devoid of religious implications.

This might work, but you’d have to be a little careful about it. Those laws you are referencing to have safe guards built in where the person providing the care becomes physically incapable to continue due to fatigue. If the person you are debating with is astute enough they could bring this into the argument at this point.

Even the Church supports taking the necesary steps to protect the life of the mother.

Are you prepared for them to look you in the eye and say that anyone who gets pregnant while on public assistance should be forced to abort the fetus so that the new baby is not a drain on tax payers? (I’ve actually had people say that to me.)

I would look them in the eye and say they need to be held financially responsible for their children or else put them up for adoption.

(FYI - I have been in discussion with pro abortion people who advocated encouraging abortions for all poor people.)

This argument I like, it is the issue of father’s rights. Basically, why do the mother’s rights start before the father’s. The father should be able to compel an abortion or force the mother to relieve him of his parental rights. Conversely the father should be able to stop the abortion and relieve the mother of her parental rights. Why is the father’s future able to be decided, unilaterally, by the mother. Why does the father have no say in what happens to his child before it is born when the mother does? I think this is a great argument myself; it worked on me.

this arguement also seemed to have a possitive effect on the affore mentioned abortion advocate.

 

[royal_archer]

Nope, I would use them to be specific about the racial group I was talking about. Just as I would use blastocyst, embryo, and fetus to be specific about the period of gestation I was talking about.

And, if that happens in this thread you are free to talk about why the person used that modifier. However, we’re into page four and it hasn’t happened yet. Matter of fact, no one has even presented an argument which relies on those terms yet. So far the only discussions utilizing those terms have been the discussion about why we shouldn’t use those terms.

but in previous threads it has come up so I was being pro-active by the way I have the SCIENTIFIC term which accurately describes those who engage in abortion or support abortion all queued up and ready to go if the discussion goes that way. But I’ll hold off on using it because it may be a bit inflamatory.

 

[miguel]

I asked for the limits on this thread because we have enough of those other threads going around and I wanted a discussion free from the things that are rampant, and often take discussions off topic, on those other threads.

I realize you want to limit the discussion and that’s fine.

If you want to discuss without the limits I’m asking for then why not go discuss on one of those other threads instead of bringing those threads into this one?

I don’t and I won’t. In the OP, you gave your rationale for not bringing up nazis. I thought it fair to question your rationale that’s all.

Additionally, I didn’t ask for only science – reread the OP if you think that I did.

Got it…science and the adjoining legislation.

 

[ahollars]

Do you have any recommendations for how we can avoid this without falling into emotionalism ourselves?

I have figured out how yet. It’s almost impossible at this point to not become emotional, because abortion is so wide-spread most of us personally know someone who has had an abortion.

From a scientific standpoint, we have to refer to the mess that started it all: Roe v. Wade.

In Section IX, the Court added that there was no legal grounds for factoring into this balancing test any right to life of the unborn fetus. The fetus would have such a right if it were defined as a legal person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not include protection of the unborn. The Court emphasized that its determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection neither meant to reference, nor intervene in, the question of when life begins: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

When life begins could easily be answered with today’s science and technology. At that point, any state has the right to encode the life question into law. None have successfully done it yet, but they are trying in places like South Dakota.