"Abortion is like getting rid of a tumor"

[GandalfTheWhite]

I’m looking for people who know more about science that me…preferably those who work in this field. A person argued this:

My personal standpoint to use against those people who say that abortion is wrong because life begins at conception (which is biologically true, although using that logic, the removal of a tumour is wrong, as in the early stages of pregnancy, there is little difference between an 8 cell foetus & an 8 cell tumour (no I’m not calling a baby tumour, I’m just looking at it from an objective scientific standpoint))

Now, the sentence doesn’t make much sense becuase he contradicts himself. I pointed that out and he answered:

I fail to see how I contradict myself when I say that an 8 cell tumour is almost identical to an 8 cell foetus. The sole difference is in that a foetus doesn’t metastasize, other than that, it is the same - a small group of cells that grows faster than normal groups of cells. At that point, it has no blood, no distinct tissues, & no shape, it is therefore a tumour. I simply stated that I wasn’t going to start going around to expectant mothers saying “Oh, hows the tumour?”, no contradicting there.

I would refute what he says from the logical standpoint but that will not do much good because he will keep repeating the 8 cells argument. I’m not completelly sure how to serpond to that. I have an idea but I don’t want to be spreading false claims out of ignorance. Could someone please help me refute this?

Cheers,

~Gandalf

 

[exoflare]

Wow, you have a real piece of work on your hands there…

Ask him if the tumor has a distinct set of DNA from the person it’s growing on. That should shut him up (but probably won’t).

Let me rephrase that… this argument would prove your ignorant friend wrong, but in my experience the people who argue for abortion don’t usually care whether or not they’re making any sense anyway. They just kind of talk mindlessly until they get tired.

 

[Atemi]

My personal standpoint to use against those people who say that abortion is wrong because life begins at conception (which is biologically true, although using that logic, the removal of a tumour is wrong, as in the early stages of pregnancy, there is little difference between an 8 cell foetus & an 8 cell tumour (no I’m not calling a baby tumour, I’m just looking at it from an objective scientific standpoint))

Three points I saw:

1. He says there is little difference between a fetus and a tumor, and he says this is a scientific standpoint.

For one, a tumor, by definition, is an abnormal growth.

For the scientific community to speak of objective normalcy…and thus what a tumor is not…is to place this comparison way beyond a “little difference.”

8 cells of a human being are not equivelent to 8 cells in a tumor, yet that is what this person so desperately wants to believe.

A cell is not a cell is not a cell is not a cell.

**2. **This person admits that life begins at conception.

What kind of life?

Cancer? An ameoba? A plant? A pig?

Ask this person what scientific species this life is.

Also, this person is equating all forms of life. That is nonsense.

A life is not a life is not a life is not a life.

He already knows this, as he probably has no problem spraying a roach, but would not be so keen on someone else so haphazardly taking his life.

3. Again, he admits that life begins at conception and compares this to a tumor.

Ask him if the single celled fetus is just as similar to a single celled tumor.

Is the tumor alive?

He will probably say yes.

Ask how it is alive.

He will probably say it is made up of a living cell/s.

Fine.

This is the catch, though:

Since he admits that life begins at conception, ask him if he then believes that sperm cells and ovum are not alive.

He will thus have to backtrack and reevaluate why he agreed that life begins at conception.

He knows what life. Human life. He admitted it.

…

 

[RyanL]

Ask him whether or not a doctor who performed a biopsy on the tumor and on the embryo would be able to tell the difference. (Hint: he could.)

Ask him whether or not the tumor is a single, genetically unique individual organism, a living unitary whole of our species which, if given time and nutrition, will tell you so itself. (Hint: the tumor is not.)

If he claims that an embryo is not “human life”, dissect the claim. Ask him if it is dead. (Hint: it is not.) Then ask him if it is the undead. (Hint: it’s not a zombie.) Then ask him if it’s a monkey life, or a toaster life. (Hint: it’s neither of those.) Eventually, the only option which will remain will be “human life”. Make sure he agrees that it is, in those words; if he will not, ask him what else it could be.

OR, you could get super-simple on him and ask him if human parents are capable of making anything other than human babies – like, say, rabbits or iguanas. (Hint: the answer is no.) If human parents make human babies, what on earth could be his hang-up?

If he concedes that it may very well be a “human life”, but this particular human life is not entitled to any rights…ask him why not. Typically, you’ll either get the response that (1) it can’t feel pain or (2) it’s not self-aware. However…satisfying (1) doesn’t give worms “rights”, so why should it give humans “rights”. Additionally, quadriplegics can’t feel most pain…do they have less human rights? Comatose and unconscious people can’t feel pain…can you kill them? As for (2), human babies aren’t self aware for several months, and may not be for over a year…can we kill them? Is that really what makes infanticide wrong?

As a side note, my daughter is currently in week 21 gestation. That means she’s not “viable”. She has fully developed limbs, hair, eyebrows, fingernails, etc., and she naps, dreams, feels pain, and at our last ultrasound my wife and I saw her yawn. To say that “viability” matters to whether or not I could have her systematically dismembered is just plain offensive to any rational human being.

Just some thoughts.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Unitas]

A cancerous tumor leads to death.

An embryo leads to life.

Pretty simple.

By nature there is a difference. You could also put pressure on when that clump of cells becomes worthy of human dignity. By his definition, even he himself is similiar to a tumor, in that they’re both just clumps of cells. If I removed him from the gene-pool, it’s no different than simply removing a tumor.

He must admit that a human is worth more than a tumor. That’s a faith-decision because there is no scientific measure as to when an embryo gains human worthiness.

Scientifically, a human is worth no more than a fly. We’re both organisms. You can’t necessarily place the value on intelligence, as in certain cases some humans are at a greater mental disadvantage than some animals are; yet it’s a crime to murder one and not the other.

Even he is making a value judgement without strict scientific proof, you just have to find it and nail him on it.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I’m looking for people who know more about science that me…preferably those who work in this field. A person argued this:
I would refute what he says from the logical standpoint but that will not do much good because he will keep repeating the 8 cells argument. I’m not completelly sure how to serpond to that. I have an idea but I don’t want to be spreading false claims out of ignorance. Could someone please help me refute this?

HeLa cells we taken from a cancerous tumour in a woman, now dead, called Henrietta Lacks. They are useful scientifically because they grow without limit in culture. They grow so well that contamination of other cell cultures by HeLa cells can be a problem.
Someone pointed out that this technically makes HeLa cells an organism in their own right, adapted to parasitise lab cultures.

The point is that it doesn’t really mean very much to define something as alive or dead. A zygote is on the main germ line and thus very different from a tumour, but it can’t survive outside of the womb, and presumably it can’t think. In the early stages the conceptus is not an individual; if you break it into two you will obtain identical twins.

The Church’s opposition to abortion is not based on the idea of fetal rights, though that is a common misunderstanding. There are perfectly good psychological reasons for disliking post-conception birth control which have nothing to do with either religious dogma or rights-based ethics.

 

[mercygate]

Unmolested, the human embryo will become a human being.

To stop an embryo from becoming a human being requires an act of violence.

Unmolested, a tumor will remain a tumor.

 

[heisenburg]

Simple Arguments AGAINST Abortion…

Scientific Only

Its my Body, Its My Choice
No, it isn’t your body, at the instant of conception You have a completely different genetic organism. This does NOT occur some time later, but the moment swimmer finds the mansion.

It’s closely related to a tumor
The ONLY similarity between a tumor and a zygote is that they both grow quickly…
However,

1. Tumors grow out of control and continuous, with no direction. A zygote controlled and organized. You can ‘predict’ where a zygote will be at any given time after conception. The same is NOT true for a tumor
2. A tumor has the same genetic make up as a the ‘parent’, a zygote does NOT…
3. As mentioned, a tumor unchecked can kill. A zygote unchecked leads to a potentially new Christian
4. The Human body automatically goes into protection mode for a Zygote and will do anything it can to support the growing child. The Body will normally attack a tumor.

It’s not a human until really late in the pregnancy, you can abort it as late as the beginning of the third trimester
All I have to say to that is this… watch my wifes ultrasound at 12 weeks and at 16 weeks… then, tell me it isn’t a unique person with its own needs. By the way, we aren’t into the third trimester yet and the baby is already doing ‘human’ things of its own free will like moving towards a hand on the belly, or moving away from things that are putting pressure on the belly…

We aren’t in the third trimester for another 3 weeks

PROCREATION OF A SPECIES
No need to explain. Why would any species want to reduce it’s chances of survival.

Science plus a little faith
My Favorite aspect…
Forgive me for not having exact sources in front of me to site

Numbers Game

1. If you ‘do’ everything exactly when you are suppose to, there is only an at best 30% chance of success. Now, of those that do succeed, nearly half of those the body will miscarry before the mom even knows she is pregnant. Most people just don’t know it because it happens around the same time as her normal cycle. Of those that remain, a small percentage, (somewhere in the neighborhood of 25%, will wither end up as late miscarriage, or have some physical, or mental problem.

We have not introduced any outside forces, all natural…

Now if you do the Math. the result is somewhere around an 11% chance of successful baby.

Keep in mind one more thing… These are numbers for a PERFECT ‘alignment’ even a half day off from optimal… um… wrestling… significantly reduces these numbers even more…

Someone once said having a baby is a miracle. They didn’t know how right they were.

If I ever hear someone tell me a baby was unplanned, i show them these statistics… There is no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy, only unexpected because god said its time and YOU were the one that wasn’t ready…

Philosophy
Once pregnant, The choice for carrying a child is gone. You’ve already made the choice. Your job now is to understand the choice you made. (yes a little matrix but get over it )

Anyway…

In Christ

 

[VociMike]

That’s just an argument from imperfect perception. The tumor cells “know” that they are a tumor, not an embryo. That is, they will always grow new tumor cells, and never ever turn into a human embryo. Likewise, the embryo cells “know” they are an embryo, and will grow more embryo cells, not (in the normal course of things) tumor cells.

So the two are completely distinguishable by their substance. Your friend seems to think that appearance is substance. This is a most fundamental error.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

Tumor cells just grow. They’re a lump of (except for some ovarian cancers, but those are a different kind of beast…) By the 8-cell stage that your friend in harping on, I believe(any other bio majors correct me if I’m wrong) that the cells in an embryo have started differentiating. That is, this cell is now destined to become nerve tissue, this one will become muscle, that one skin, that one digestive, etc. and they become more specialized from there on in. There is a definite pattern and purpose to an embryos growth that tumor cells lack. Ovarian tumors will sometime differentiate, but if you’ve ever seen a picture of one, you can see that they lack a pattern. Nerve is lumped in with muscle in with fat. It’s quite gross, actually. But a human embryo not only has a unique set of DNA, it will, given time, go through an absolutely incredible process that will turn it into a human baby. A human embryo is no less human than a new-born human baby.

Ask your friend what the difference is between himself and a tumor is, if a human embryo is ‘like a tumor’. His cells are still dividing and growing, just like cancer cells. Perhaps remind him, kindly, that he’s lucky his mother didn’t decide to get rid of him when he was a ‘tumor’, otherwise you wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

[1ke]

Get the book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn.

Although, you’d really do better to just shake the dust off your feet. This person has no intention of listening to anything you say.

 

[MysticalMan]

I would definitely ask him if the DNA in the tumor is the person who holds it, and then ask if the DNA in the “human tumor” is the same as the person holding it. I think DNA is the best thing that happened to science. We CAN prove if something is of human origin. And as we know we had the same DNA at the moment of conception as we will at the moment of death.

And FYI- you can’t even do a surgical abortion on an eight cell human! Dumb argument!

 

[exoflare]

Unmolested, the human embryo will become a human being.

To stop an embryo from becoming a human being requires an act of violence.

Unmolested, a tumor will remain a tumor.

Even though I see, and agree with the point you are trying to drive at, I wouldn’t use that particular argument - look at it more closely and it’s implying that the embryo is not a human being yet (ie. “will become” a human being). More saavy debaters will notice this and catch you on the inconsistancy (that before you claimed human life begins at conception), forcing you to revise your argument. Just a thing to watch out for…

 

[mercygate]

Even though I see, and agree with the point you are trying to drive at, I wouldn’t use that particular argument - look at it more closely and it’s implying that the embryo is not a human being yet (ie. “will become” a human being). More saavy debaters will notice this and catch you on the inconsistancy (that before you claimed human life begins at conception), forcing you to revise your argument. Just a thing to watch out for…

Excellent point. Hmm. How to rephrase that?

 

[pumpkinbeast]

Excellent point. Hmm. How to rephrase that?

Perhaps “undisputed human being”? Or “human embryo will become human baby”? It is rather sad that one must assume that people will not necessarily equate ‘human embryo’ with ‘human being’…

 

[I_Leatherman]

Is’nt it a question of honesty, he/she knows well that one is a person the other is a tumor. You don’t need to prove anything to them when they know they are being dishonest. Just keep looking at them silently until they retract that argument …:ehh:

 

[RyanL]

Excellent point. Hmm. How to rephrase that?

I like to call it an “embryonic human”, rather than a “human embryo”.

Phrased differently, it would look like this:

Unmolested, the embryonic human will become a fetal/infant/child human.

To stop an embryonic human from becoming a fetal/infant/child human requires an act of violence.

Unmolested, a tumor will remain a tumor.

The words “embryonic”, “fetal”, and “infant” show that these refer merely to the particular stage of development in a continuum of growth for an individual member of our particular species. Before fertilization → no human. After fertilization → human. After fertilization, there are only stages of development.
Malcolm McLean:

In the early stages the conceptus is not an individual; if you break it into two you will obtain identical twins.

While it is true that if external forces act on an embryonic human, the cells may split and form two distinct embryonic humans, it does not follow that it is “not an individual”.

Recommended reading, for you and for all:
The First Fourteen Days of Human Life, published in The New Atlantis

It’s relatively short, and extremely informative. It’s based on sound science, and it is well reasoned. One of the particulars discussed it the following quote:

Some argue that the possibility of twinning or fusion shows that prior to day 14 the embryo is not an individual; the individual who is clearly present at more mature stages of development has not yet come to be…

I’m sure you’ll find it worth-while.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[heisenburg]

An unmolested embryo has a chance to become Pope…

An unmolested tumor has a chance to kill

 

[Fergal]

To take this logic and twist it a bit has already happened. There are scientists who view the embryo as a ‘tumour’ and use chemo drugs on the pregnant woman to end her pregnancy.

Chemotherapy like Methotrexate has been used in the past to end a pregnancy.

See fwhc.org/abortion/mtxinfo.htm

 

[freesoulhope]

I’m looking for people who know more about science that me…preferably those who work in this field. A person argued this:

A tumor, logically speaking, is not a human life, and neither will it turn in to a human baby. Comparing a tumor to the “physical appearence” of a "human life, in its early stages of development; in affect and actuality", is silly, and puposely self-deceptive; either that, or the person isn’t very inteligent, regardles of any academic potential. Sorry to say.

Obviously, a human embryo, is “biologically and genetically different” to a tumour, regardless of what either one of them look like or appear to be. If they were indentical in nature, a tumor would eventually develop in to a human baby; which wouldn’t be a very pleasent sight.

Peace. Its just plain silly.