A Different Kind of Abortion Debate

[Drawmack]

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.

 

[livi]

I think people are capable of a debate like that. I can make a case right now proving that an unborn baby is, in fact, human using a scientific argument. Its called the law of biogenesis, and what it basically says is that each species reproduces more of its own species. Because an unborn baby has human DNA and two human parents, it naturally follows that it must be human. However, I think its important that we don’t forget the religious aspect either. An unborn baby has a soul from the moment of his or her conception, and that makes the baby human.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

The problem with this tact is that there are facts from reputable sources – like this hasn’t been done ad infinitum. Some will to not to accept them because it undermines a perceived “right to choose”. When the facts aren’t accepted the discussion falls apart.

One could start with these quotes here: princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

But time has shown over and over that these will be picked apart to suit whatever agenda.

This isn’t a battle of science. Science cannot create life. Science is not our God. Science has failed to create a single living cell from nothingness and they never will. The best they will achieve is to manipulate life. It’s a test of morality and one’s adherence to God’s will. It’s a supernatural fight which will take supernatural means to defeat.

 

[Drawmack]

I think people are capable of a debate like that. I can make a case right now proving that an unborn baby is, in fact, human using a scientific argument. Its called the law of biogenesis, and what it basically says is that each species reproduces more of its own species. Because an unborn baby has human DNA and two human parents, it naturally follows that it must be human. However, I think its important that we don’t forget the religious aspect either. An unborn baby has a soul from the moment of his or her conception, and that makes the baby human.

I asked to exclude the religious aspects because we cannot use them in a legal argument in the United States. A single slip in court would get the entire case dismissed, therefore we must learn to debate this without that aspect. Could you extrapolate more on your scientific argument please? At what stage is the DNA completely formed? Why does it only happen when it involved two human parents and not in everything where human DNA is present?

 

[Drawmack]

The problem with this tact is that there are facts from reputable sources – like this hasn’t been done ad infinitum. Some will to not to accept them because it undermines a perceived “right to choose”. When the facts aren’t accepted the discussion falls apart.

One could start with these quotes here: princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

But time has shown over and over that these will be picked apart to suit whatever agenda.

This isn’t a battle of science. Science cannot create life. Science is not our God. Science has failed to create a single living cell from nothingness and they never will. The best they will achieve is to manipulate life. It’s a test of morality and one’s adherence to God’s will. It’s a supernatural fight which will take supernatural means to defeat.

So, you agree that people are incapable of debating about this topic on scientific grounds only?

 

[royal_archer]

abortion legality is not a matter of scientific issues. It is a social, moral, or political issue. science can say how criteria apply to the biology but can not say what criteria should be applied. If we as a society want to say our IQ is what sepparates us from lower forms of life and therefore authorize the murder of anything with a double digit IQ or less, then science can not say if that is a good criteria, they can only provide means of measuring and analysis of what creatures and humans would be effected.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Humans are imperfect and fallen and cannot save themselves and that includes through Science and the Courts. To think otherwise is to be deceived. Still, we try. Ultimately it is not a scientific debate because abortion has at its core an immoral Lie that has nothing to do with science. Abortion is/was never about science.

Sure, humans can try to have this debate again and attempt to scientifically refute the Lie and I did offer a starting point with the link.

 

[royal_archer]

1. 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?

Then I would hope you would equally chastize those who would use scientific euphanisms to try to dehumanize the child who is human. These are human beings not “a collection of cells” or other terms refering to the stages of development.

 

[lumenorientale]

I tend to agree with those who say that such a dialogue, based on science, with those who are “pro-choice” will come to nothing. Try to engage them with this question: “What is abortion?” See how far you get.

I’ve tried before, myself. It never works. They spend time trying to divert the argument–what about the poor women who can’t afford kids, what about the kids who aren’t wanted and end up being abused, what about the mother’s health…ad infinitum. And yes, I’ve tried to redirect the argument with such statements of “Well, we can talk about that. I’m not at all afraid to talk about those very important issues, but first, let’s stay on topic and address the first question I asked. What is abortion?” Somehow, they keep changing the subject. As hard as I try to engage them on the subject of what an abortion TRULY is, down to it’s molecular level, if you will, they dodge, divert, change the subject, get emotional, get mad, don’t want to discuss it further. The equivalent of plugging their ears and saying “I can’t hear you.”

And to tell you the truth, I think it’s because they know that their arguments aren’t based on truth, or science. It’s all irrational, all emotional. But there is something more to this. It’s the Culture of Death, nothing less than diabolical to its core. Altogether evil. There is a demonic side to this that is the power behind Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, and Zero Population Growth.

I know, it’s not exactly something you want to bring up, say, if you are in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I’m just telling you what we’re up against here. It’s demonic oppression of our lawmakers and society, if not outright possession. So scientific, logical, rational arguments won’t amount to a hill of beans–without prayer. We have to pray like mad, then perhaps the walls will fall and these folks will actually hear our arguments. Their hearts need to be softened, or all of our logic will come to nothing.

So pray, pray, pray. Then make your arguments, then pray some more. And more.

 

[Drawmack]

abortion legality is not a matter of scientific issues. It is a social, moral, or political issue. science can say how criteria apply to the biology but can not say what criteria should be applied. If we as a society want to say our IQ is what sepparates us from lower forms of life and therefore authorize the murder of anything with a double digit IQ or less, then science can not say if that is a good criteria, they can only provide means of measuring and analysis of what creatures and humans would be effected.

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?

 

[Drawmack]

Then I would hope you would equally chastize those who would use scientific euphanisms to try to dehumanize the child who is human. These are human beings not “a collection of cells” or other terms refering to the stages of development.

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.

 

[Drawmack]

I tend to agree with those who say that such a dialogue, based on science, with those who are “pro-choice” will come to nothing. Try to engage them with this question: “What is abortion?” See how far you get.

That is an excellent suggestion.

I’ve tried before, myself. It never works. They spend time trying to divert the argument–what about the poor women who can’t afford kids, what about the kids who aren’t wanted and end up being abused, what about the mother’s health…ad infinitum. And yes, I’ve tried to redirect the argument with such statements of “Well, we can talk about that. I’m not at all afraid to talk about those very important issues, but first, let’s stay on topic and address the first question I asked. What is abortion?” Somehow, they keep changing the subject. As hard as I try to engage them on the subject of what an abortion TRULY is, down to it’s molecular level, if you will, they dodge, divert, change the subject, get emotional, get mad, don’t want to discuss it further. The equivalent of plugging their ears and saying “I can’t hear you.”

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

And to tell you the truth, I think it’s because they know that their arguments aren’t based on truth, or science. It’s all irrational, all emotional. But there is something more to this. It’s the Culture of Death, nothing less than diabolical to its core. Altogether evil. There is a demonic side to this that is the power behind Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, and Zero Population Growth.

I know, it’s not exactly something you want to bring up, say, if you are in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I’m just telling you what we’re up against here. It’s demonic oppression of our lawmakers and society, if not outright possession. So scientific, logical, rational arguments won’t amount to a hill of beans–without prayer. We have to pray like mad, then perhaps the walls will fall and these folks will actually hear our arguments. Their hearts need to be softened, or all of our logic will come to nothing.

This is exactly the type of conversation I was hoping to avoid in this thread.

So pray, pray, pray. Then make your arguments, then pray some more. And more.

For the purposes of this thread let’s address the bolded portion of the above statement and assume that everyone who is a believer will be praying.

 

[lumenorientale]

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.

The terminologies such as “blastocyst, embryo, fetus,” are used in the same manner as “collection of cells” or “piece of tissue,” or even worse (and I’ve heard this one used, too) “parasitic organism.” These words are all used in order to dehumanize the unborn. Clear and simple. The first three are technically correct terms, and taken objectively, do nothing to dehumanize. Mainly because one would have to be specific in what we are talking about, distinguishing between HUMAN blastocysts, embryos, fetuses, and those of cats, dogs, bears, sheep etc. A human blastocyst can be nothing but human; a cat blastocyst can be nothing but a cat. The last three terms are used to diminish what a human fetus, embryo, or blastocyst is (ie, human), in order to make abortion palatable, to distract from the central issue, and make it “not murder.” It’s sort of a “cafeteria science,” combined with emotion and utter abuse of the English language–playing on the lack of knowledge that the general populace possesses.

However, we are still not talking about science here. It’s semantics. Refer to my last post. This isn’t about scientific truth. We most obviously have that on our side–absolutely. It’s about hardened hearts, dulled minds, and dead souls. Drawmack, we can bring up all the science, reason, and logic we want. They simply WILL NOT LISTEN. Again, pray, pray, pray. Then argue.

 

[lumenorientale]

That is an excellent suggestion.

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

**Stay cool headed, I guess. Remind yourself that you have truth on your side. But just how can we avoid emotion totally, when we are talking about a slaughter unprecedented in human history? We aren’t Vulcans. There are human lives at stake here. **

This is exactly the type of conversation I was hoping to avoid in this thread.

**Well, just how do we avoid it? We aren’t debating abortion here, or the fact that there is evil behind it. We, as believers are talking about how to engage those who are pro-choice. I’m just reminding us all of what this is all about. **

For the purposes of this thread let’s address the bolded portion of the above statement and assume that everyone who is a believer will be praying

Agreed. Because that is what needs to be done. Let us not take pride in our intellect, or our ability to scientifically deduce that the fetus is indeed human. That’s great and all, but it is only through Jesus we will have any real victory. Agreed?.

 

[Drawmack]

The terminologies such as “blastocyst, embryo, fetus,” are used in the same manner as “collection of cells” or “piece of tissue,” or even worse (and I’ve heard this one used, too) “parasitic organism.” These words are all used in order to dehumanize the unborn. Clear and simple. The first three are technically correct terms, and taken objectively, do nothing to dehumanize. Mainly because one would have to be specific in what we are talking about, distinguishing between HUMAN blastocysts, embryos, fetuses, and those of cats, dogs, bears, sheep etc. A human blastocyst can be nothing but human; a cat blastocyst can be nothing but a cat. The last three terms are used to diminish what a human fetus, embryo, or blastocyst is (ie, human), in order to make abortion palatable, to distract from the central issue, and make it “not murder.” It’s sort of a “cafeteria science,” combined with emotion and utter abuse of the English language–playing on the lack of knowledge that the general populace possesses.

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.

However, we are still not talking about science here. It’s semantics. Refer to my last post. This isn’t about scientific truth. We most obviously have that on our side–absolutely. It’s about hardened hearts, dulled minds, and dead souls. Drawmack, we can bring up all the science, reason, and logic we want. They simply WILL NOT LISTEN. Again, pray, pray, pray. Then argue.

Notice 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.

 

[Drawmack]

Stay cool headed, I guess. Remind yourself that you have truth on your side. But just how can we avoid emotion totally, when we are talking about a slaughter unprecedented in human history? We aren’t Vulcans. There are human lives at stake here.

I understand that it can be hard to lay aside your emotions on such an emotional issue. Possibly if someone is incapable of doing this, they should leave the debate to others. I have found that some things do help with this though. The first, and foremost, thing that helps is education. If I know their arguments better than they do, if I know the science better than they do, if I am more knowledgeable about the topic then they are I do not so easily become derailed by emotionalism. It is much easier to avoid emotionalism if I have enough knowledge to be able to refute any claim they make.

Well, just how do we avoid it? We aren’t debating abortion here, or the fact that there is evil behind it. We, as believers are talking about how to engage those who are pro-choice. I’m just reminding us all of what this is all about.

Discuss the science of the issue instead of the morality of the issue. Science is on the side of pro-life but as long as pro-life insists on running back to religion we will never learn enough of the science to refute the oppositions claims.

Agreed. Because that is what needs to be done. Let us not take pride in our intellect, or our ability to scientifically deduce that the fetus is indeed human. That’s great and all, but it is only through Jesus we will have any real victory. Agreed?.

I do agree with this statement, but for the purposes of this thread I’d like to discuss the scientific and legal stand point, let’s leave the religious one out of this particular debate. Let’s look at things like the recent Texas case where a man was convicted of two counts of vehicular manslaughter because he got into an accident, while drunk driving, and killed a woman and her fetus. Doesn’t that mean that the fetus was a person? You can’t manslaughter a non-person, can you? But, the woman could have aborted the fetus legally. So why is it murder if one person does it but not if another person does it? These are the types of things I’d like to talk about in this thread.

 

[lumenorientale]

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.

 

[lumenorientale]

I understand that it can be hard to lay aside your emotions on such an emotional issue. Possibly if someone is incapable of doing this, they should leave the debate to others. I have found that some things do help with this though. The first, and foremost, thing that helps is education. If I know their arguments better than they do, if I know the science better than they do, if I am more knowledgeable about the topic then they are I do not so easily become derailed by emotionalism. It is much easier to avoid emotionalism if I have enough knowledge to be able to refute any claim they make.

Discuss the science of the issue instead of the morality of the issue. Science is on the side of pro-life but as long as pro-life insists on running back to religion we will never learn enough of the science to refute the oppositions claims.

We can quietly run back to religion, without telling them.

I do agree with this statement, but for the purposes of this thread I’d like to discuss the scientific and legal stand point, let’s leave the religious one out of this particular debate. Let’s look at things like the recent Texas case where a man was convicted of two counts of vehicular manslaughter because he got into an accident, while drunk driving, and killed a woman and her fetus. Doesn’t that mean that the fetus was a person? You can’t manslaughter a non-person, can you? But, the woman could have aborted the fetus legally. So why is it murder if one person does it but not if another person does it? These are the types of things I’d like to talk about in this thread.

Actually those are good questions to ask someone you are debating with. Ask them “what’s up with that?” Or here’s one for you: why is it when the pregnancy is “planned,” everyone’s talking about the baby this, the baby that, even when the woman is only 3 weeks along. But when she’s thinking about an abortion, all of a sudden, it’s not a baby? So planning makes it a baby, but it being “unplanned” makes it not a baby? Weird. The contradictions in our laws and in medical science are a big weak spot. These are definitely topics to bring up.

 

[Drawmack]

Actually those are good questions to ask someone you are debating with. Ask them “what’s up with that?” Or here’s one for you: why is it when the pregnancy is “planned,” everyone’s talking about the baby this, the baby that, even when the woman is only 3 weeks along. But when she’s thinking about an abortion, all of a sudden, it’s not a baby? So planning makes it a baby, but it being “unplanned” makes it not a baby? Weird. The contradictions in our laws and in medical science are a big weak spot. These are definitely topics to bring up.

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

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Discuss the science of the issue instead of the morality of the issue. Science is on the side of pro-life but as long as pro-life insists on running back to religion we will never learn enough of the science to refute the oppositions claims.

Again, the abortionists claims have nothing to do with science. We could stack a library full of scientific evidence in front of the abortionists (and though this forum probably already have) and it won’t make one bit of difference. Their defense and denial come from The Liar who has closed their minds to Truth and enslaved them in Lies. One does not fight The Liar with books – it is far too smart for that. The Liar would take delight in having us run around gathering books from flawed humans. The infallible teaching of God’s Church is the education we need. One fights The Liar with the one thing it desperately does not want people to turn to – prayer which is Truth from He who is Truth.