Abortion: Conscious Decisions Give Worth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SplendidSt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SplendidSt

Guest
So I’m in a relaxed back and forth online with a guy who is pro-abortion. I know something is off with his argument, but I would like someone to look at my response to him and see if it gets to the heart of the issue:

His Argument: As living human organisms, we do many actions, a significant number of which are impulsive and not decided. The difference between the organism in the womb before the third trimester and that same organism following the third trimester, is that now this organism is making conscious decisions, and that this difference is the very difference that determines wether or not that living organism has a right to be protected from being killed (i.e. this gives the organisms life worth).

My Response: I have a better picture of what you’re getting at here. Biologically speaking, humans (homo sapiens) as a species are the very same organisms from the beginning of our lives at conception to our death. However, before the third trimester for example, we are not yet developed enough to make conscious decisions and thus during this period it is permissible to kill a fellow member of our species. Essentially, under this stance you have, there is no intrinsic worth or value in human life itself, but only in a member of our species that makes their own decisions. What makes it okay to kill a member of our species who cannot make their own choices, when being able to make choices is just a another state of development?

Is there something else here anyone can aid me with?
 
Newborns dont make conscious decisions anymore than babies in utero.
 
SplendidSt said:
So I’m in a relaxed back and forth online with a guy who is pro-abortion. I know something is off with his argument, but I would like someone to look at my response to him and see if it gets to the heart of the issue:

His Argument: As living human organisms, we do many actions, a significant number of which are impulsive and not decided. The difference between the organism in the womb before the third trimester and that same organism following the third trimester, is that now this organism is making conscious decisions, and that this difference is the very difference that determines wether or not that living organism has a right to be protected from being killed (i.e. this gives the organisms life worth).

My Response: I have a better picture of what you’re getting at here. Biologically speaking, humans (homo sapiens) as a species are the very same organisms from the beginning of our lives at conception to our death. However, before the third trimester for example, we are not yet developed enough to make conscious decisions and thus during this period it is permissible to kill a fellow member of our species. Essentially, under this stance you have, there is no intrinsic worth or value in human life itself, but only in a member of our species that makes their own decisions. What makes it okay to kill a member of our species who cannot make their own choices, when being able to make choices is just a another state of development?

Is there something else here anyone can aid me with?
Click to expand...
This is not uncommon. The developing human being can sometimes kick or suck its thumb. Are these truly conscious decisions? Does the human in the womb know where it is? It has no frame of reference. The other version of this argument concerns brain wave activity.

My answer? All of us reading this went through the same developmental process the moment the sperm entered the egg. That’s when the mother’s and father’s genes combined to create a unique human being. Other arguments are arbitrary. And misleading.

We are human at the moment of conception and worthy of all protection. Without the right to life, no other rights matter.

Ed
 
Are there not humans outside the womb who are not able to make decisions due to mental disabilities or ahlziemer’s…not worth life also…Hmmm…scary.

mlz
 
vz71 said:
How exactly is consciousness decided after the third trimester?
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what I had in mind to ask and I will ask him this. I thank everyone of all of the insights you’ve offered. I’m using them as needed. Here’s what he ended up replying with after my last comment and the following conversation:

His Reply: I would disagree. A developing fetus is drastically different that a fully developed Homo sapiens. At conception you cannot say that a zygote is the same as you or I. A fetus is not a homo sapien. Yes, a fetus can develop into a homo sapien but ultimately it is not yet. Do you call a butterfly a caterpillar? No. Can a caterpillar develop into a butterfly? Absolutely but it is not a butterfly.

My Response: Homo Sapiens is who we are as a species; this is determined by our genetic code. It’s how we distinguish between human DNA found in a crime scene and the DNA of a nonhuman animal. A caterpillar and a butterfly are the same organism. The caterpillar is the name we give to the larvae version while butterfly is the name we give that organism after it has gone through metamorphosis and developed into an adult. A butterfly is just further developed than the caterpillar. An elderly man is just a further developed than a middle aged adult man, and the middle aged are just further developed than young adults, young adults are just further developed than adolescents, adolescents more than tweens, tweens way more than toddlers, toddlers more than infants and infants more than fetuses, fetuses more than blastocysts, blastocysts more than zygotes, and before zygote that unique organism didn’t exist and you had the sperm cells from the dad and the egg cells from mother which are only cells of a greater whole. This is a difference in development of the very same organism, but the more developed have decided that it is admissible kill the lesser developed in their own species.
 
That was a great response.

It’s nice to see that you are both calmly discussing this. Most abortion debates I see are emotional and often irrational.
 
Knowing that consciousness is a dead end argument it sounds like they are trying to move to a claim that the fetus is not human.

And it looks like you have nailed them on it.

I look forward to seeing where the argument goes next.
And hope at some point the person realizes what they are really arguing.
 
Good response😀I would also send the video Trent Horn has done on When does life begin- very logical, short and truthful.
Bless you for proclaiming the truth with charity,
mlz
 
mlz said:
Are there not humans outside the womb who are not able to make decisions due to mental disabilities or ahlziemer’s…not worth life also…Hmmm…scary.

mlz
Click to expand...
I know some teenagers who have yet to make a conscious decision. 🙂
 
The big difference is the way people are judging. He judges it by what he thinks it is, at the moment, without factoring in it’s potential. For him, the potential for an entire human life is not worth protection. Pro-life people seem to factor in the potential as a major concern.

The POTENTIAL! The IMMINENT. The NEW person. Who will SPEAK. Who will LEARN. Who will LOVE. Who will CRY. Who will SING.

Let me say the same thing in abortionese.

The BLAH. The BLAH. The BLAH blah. Blah blah BLAH. Blah Blah BLAH. Blah Blah BLAH. Blah blah BLAH. Blah Blah BLAH.
 
Actually, the potential is the liability. I think that is why the pro-life message fails in some cases. It’s like that banner up above. For the pro-life person, showing that little baby almost fully formed is a motivator to save it because you see the reality of the baby and it’s real potential for a unique and precious lifetime. But for the abortionist, the more real the baby becomes, the greater the liability becomes. The potential for a real human life is exactly what they want to avoid. I know I am stating the obvious. You have to think backwards. For instance, if you could convince an abortionist that babies are NOT real, then they would not see the necessity of getting an abortion. Of course, that is not possible. They know the baby is real, and the potential is real, hence the whole reason for seeking an abortion.

How do you motivate a person, who does not want to save a real human being, to change their heart and mind into a person who does desire to save the human being? Guilt? It’s been taken care of. “The baby ain’t real yet but it will be soon. Act fast to avoid the burden. Guiltless abortions available at your nearest clinic.” Threatening the consequences in regards to God? Tactics like that and the previous might rope in those that are “on or near the fence”.

The staunch defender of abortion needs a profound sense of love for human life. As was demonstrated, the abortionist intrinsically knows that the potential is real. The problem is, the abortionist does not love human life enough. Their heart is very poor and what’s more they probably don’t know that and would be very offended if you told them the were poor in love. So don’t. Instead, start pointing out the things worth loving about the abortionist’s fellow human beings and don’t wait until they are pregnant to do it because they are going to need time to change if there is anything in them willing to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top