Attempt At A Mutually Respectful Abortion Discussion

[EmmaSowl]

Dear Abrosz,

I read a reply you made to me, pondered it, but when I came back to reply, I found it missing (or I’m blind).

Could you please re-address my last post so we can continue? Thank you.

 

[EmmaSowl]

Hey, Abrosz - I did some Nancy Drew investigating and found out why you’re not replying (been there, my friend!). I will try to keep this thread alive till May. God bless.

 

[EmmaSowl]

Abrosz:

That is not for me answer. I never had one. But many women reported it, and it makes sense.

I don’t think one needs to personally know the trauma to speak of it - especially since it is the reason for the wish that abortion be rare. What do the women report that makes sense?

However we need to define what we mean by the generic term of abortion. Does it include the morning-after pill? Or other abortifacient drugs which just force the zygote out of the uterus, just like any other menstrual cycle?

For me, it is all those things.

Hasta manana!

@Abrosz - here is the post which hasn’t had a chance to get answered yet (so you don’t have to scroll and find it).

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I don’t think he is interested.

 

[EmmaSowl]

I don’t think he is interested.

Actually, I don’t think he’s currently able (I pulled a Nancy Drew). If there’s no reply before the upcoming 14 days are up, I’ll agree with your logical conclusion.

 

[Abrosz]

Actually, I don’t think he’s currently able (I pulled a Nancy Drew). If there’s no reply before the upcoming 14 days are up, I’ll agree with your logical conclusion.

Well, to paraphrase Schwarzenegger: “I am baaaack ” and thank you for keeping the thread alive.

Yes, the suspension expired. But I read the posts presented during the suspension, and I am thoroughly discouraged, even frightened and intimidated.

I made a post about “personhood” and presented a simple and indisputable medical truth. Yet, it was removed as “inappropriate”. Of course I would be glad to continue our conversation, but I am afraid that even respectfully offered but dissenting opinion might “earn” some more suspension.

Do you have any suggestion how to continue?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

simple and indisputable medical truth .

Yeah, no wonder you didn’t play nice. You think you know the whole truth.

 

[Abrosz]

Yeah, no wonder you didn’t play nice. You think you know the whole truth.

Really? Playing not NICE??? Any examples to support this insult??

And, no, I don’t think I know the WHOLE truth, but I am quite familiar with the scientific results discovered by millions of biological and medical procedures and experiments. And finally, an empty “criticism” is meaningless. If you wish to criticize, be specific, and moreover, offer a better, alternative explanation. And when you do it, don’t forget to include evidence for your assertion. And when you try to refute a scientifically precise statement, use scientific evidence.

I hope that @EmmaSowl will be back. While it is possible that we shall never have an agreement, at least she is polite and does not hurl insults.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

You present an opinion as a scientific fact. How can someone argue with you at all? Where’s the evidence that you actually said something that was factual, and not an opinion? If you would look at the rest of the thread, I, and numerous others, tried to tell you that you aren’t actually saying anything factual; that your base assumptions are completely false. You ignored us and acted like we didn’t exist or weren’t worth “enlightening.” I suggest you continue by realizing you may actually be wrong, engaging with those who wish to speak with you, and respectfully addressing other’s arguments with more than hand-waving dismissal. Otherwise, you may leave.

 

[Abrosz]

You present an opinion as a scientific fact.

What I presented IS a scientific fact - both biology and medical science established it as a FACT. The frontal lobe is the place where the personality resides. Remove it and all you have is a human looking vegetable. No attributes, no desires, will not even inclined to eat unless “prodded”. Nothing that would make this poor entity to be a human person.

You still did not present any evidence for some alternative view. As a matter of fact, I have no idea an alternative view might be. The ball is in your court. What are those “arguments” you speak of?

Of course if you do not consider biology and medical science to be real sciences, just say so. Alternately you could present another criterion to be the decider of a “person”, and present some evidence to support your view.

 

[EmmaSowl]

Well, to paraphrase Schwarzenegger: “I am baaaack ” and thank you for keeping the thread alive.

Trust me, I’ve been goooone more than once.

Do you have any suggestion how to continue?

I still have not read any other posts or your replies to them, but I don’t foresee any problems with the direction we were headed. Should I repost my last question or can you find it easily enough?

 

[Ender]

What I presented IS a scientific fact - both biology and medical science established it as a FACT. The frontal lobe is the place where the personality resides. Remove it and all you have is a human looking vegetable . No attributes, no desires, will not even inclined to eat unless “prodded”. Nothing that would make this poor entity to be a human person.

It may be a medical fact that removal of the frontal lobe has the mental effects you describe, but I’m willing to bet there is no book on biology or medicine that defines a person who experienced such a procedure as non-human. His state may be described as vegetative, but biologically he is not a vegetable. He is still a human.

What basic textbooks on embryology all say is that human life begins at conception.

 

[Abrosz]

I still have not read any other posts or your replies to them, but I don’t foresee any problems with the direction we were headed. Should I repost my last question or can you find it easily enough?

Please do, so there will be no confusion or misunderstanding. Though I am about to present my views in detail in the following paragraphs. I hope they will be useful.

It may be a medical fact that removal of the frontal lobe has the mental effects you describe, but I’m willing to bet there is no book on biology or medicine that defines a person who experienced such a procedure as non-human. His state may be described as vegetative, but biologically he is not a vegetable. He is still a human.

I said: “not a PERSON!” I did not say: “not of human TISSUE”. And to be a person is much more involved than having a DNA, which is associated with human entities. Not to mention that there is no such thing as a precise, definitive human “DNA”. How about “mutants”?

Modern genetic surgery/splicing allows us to transfer the DNA into the zygote of a different species, thereby creating a “chimera”.

What basic textbooks on embryology all say is that human life begins at conception.

That is not disputed. Every oak tree starts as an acorn. Every chicken starts as an egg. Every physician starts as a medical student. Every book starts as a bunch of empty sheets of paper. Aquinas correctly differentiates between “potential” and “actual”. Even if you are not a thomist (I am NOT), this distinction is valid, and needs to be taken into consideration.

However, as long as there is a resistance to acknowledge the difference between DNA, cell (zygote), collection of cells (blastocyst / tissue), organ and organism, I cannot see a way to go forward. If someone disputes this differentiation, then a tumor “becomes” a human “being”, maybe even a human “person”.

As I said, there is the distinction between “potential” and “actual”. Not just in the Thomistic philosophy, but everywhere. A zygote is a potential blastocyst, the blastocyst is a potential embryo, the embryo is a potential fetus, the fetus is a potential newborn. Between each step there is a huge, qualitative difference between these entities.

The whole abortion debate should (and MUST) acknowledge these different stages of development. Otherwise we just keep on talking past each other.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I said: “not a PERSON!”

Is person even a scientifically precise term?

 

[Aristotelian2]

@Abrosz
Hey,
You speak of human DNA, cell, tissue, organ, and organism being fundamentally different from “children”. I would like to see some proof for this statement. Are the above attributes fundamentally different from “Human”, and “Made in the image and likeness of God”? If so, where is the proof for this? If you are under the impression that because they are not fully developed, they are not yet living humans, then I’m afraid you are going to offend a lot of people. I, as a 15 year old, am not fully developed. Am I not a human with full value? Where does the line end? Why is a 8 month old baby of less value than one just newly born? As a Christian, and as a Catholic, I believe that God gives life at the moment of conception. I do not think that you would go so far as to say that one’s age gives one more value? That is really what your argument would come down to. Could you tell us, with scientific backing, at which stage of development you think a hypothetical baby is “really a baby”, and what studies have lead you to that conclusion?

 

[EmmaSowl]

EmmaSowl:

I still have not read any other posts or your replies to them, but I don’t foresee any problems with the direction we were headed. Should I repost my last question or can you find it easily enough?

Please do, so there will be no confusion or misunderstanding. Though I am about to present my views in detail in the following paragraphs. I hope they will be useful.

Will do!

Though I am about to present my views in detail in the following paragraphs. I hope they will be useful.

I’m not going to read what you and Ender write to each other. I’m going to stick to the original agreement and simply speak one-to-one with you. I have to be selfish with my health and time in this most serious matter for some of the reasons I’ve posted before.

 

[EmmaSowl]

EmmaSowl:

Abrosz:

That is not for me answer. I never had one. But many women reported it, and it makes sense.

I don’t think one needs to personally know the trauma to speak of it - especially since it is the reason for the wish that abortion be rare. What do the women report that makes sense?

However we need to define what we mean by the generic term of abortion. Does it include the morning-after pill? Or other abortifacient drugs which just force the zygote out of the uterus, just like any other menstrual cycle?

For me, it is all those things.

Hasta manana!

@Abrosz - here is the post which hasn’t had a chance to get answered yet (so you don’t have to scroll and find it).

@Abrosz - here we are - after the discussion delay!

 

[Aristotelian2]

In the words of the great Joe Knopp, “Prove it!” You cannot simply expect us to take your word for it. Your methods of debate are very un-Socratic, and lack structure. The point of a debate is to look at something we both know to have an objective truth, and to discuss the facts, thus coming to a logical conclusion. You are missing two key factors in your debating: Logic, and facts. We should be looking at this as equals, with equal knowledge of our sides, not putting ourselves on high horses. Of course passion and conviction are required, but your arguments should not be based on emotional preferences. It is very comfortable to believe that abortion is a totally fine, natural process, simply ridding a woman’s body of an inconvenience. But then again, it is also comfortable to believe that slavery is just the natural process of one with a superiority complex, or simply one who is lazy. That doesn’t make it right, or excusable. So, please, in future arguments, try to remember to give facts, and be able to prove them as thus.

 

[Abrosz]

@Abrosz - here we are - after the discussion delay!

I see two questions. One is the women’s attitude toward anything (unwanted pregnancy included), the other one is the differentiation between different removing the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus from the woman’s body.

The first one is a highly personal, individual attitude, subjective in nature. There can be no generic answer. The experience might be traumatic for one woman, and might a “ho-hum” for another. But to my best knowledge, no woman ever got pregnant just because she wanted to undergo an abortion. And while a “morning after pill” is just like taking an aspirin, going to a doctor for an intrusive curettage is very different.

The second one makes me wonder, if you consider the distinction between “potential” and “actual” significant? Even if you are not a thomist (I am NOT) this distinction is extremely pertinent. As I said before, every oak tree starts as an acorn, every chicken starts as an egg, every physician starts as a medical student, and every book starts as bunch of empty papers… etc. When we look at anything in a development process it is primary to look at the entity as it IS, not where it came from and not what it MIGHT become. Those are important, too, but secondary to what that entity IS.

I hope these words are satisfactory, but if not, please ask again, what needs to be clarified. In the meantime, let be ask you about the difference between “potential” and “actual”, since those categories are very significant.

Thank you again for the opportunity to have a mutually respectful discussion.

 

[Abrosz]

You speak of human DNA, cell, tissue, organ, and organism being fundamentally different from “children”.

Just look at a child playing on a playground.

I would like to see some proof for this statement. Are the above attributes fundamentally different from “Human”, and “Made in the image and likeness of God”?

If mention God, the onus on YOU to prove your assertion.