Best argument against the abortion "clump of cells"?

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It certainly is. It’s to find out if you consider a baby to have more value than an embryo.

I generally find that those who refuse to answer these type of questions don’t like the what they know will be the follow up question. Because let’s face it. Unless you want to play Devil’s Advocate, the answer is obviously ‘save the baby’. But then would come the question why.

And you don’t like the suggestion that a baby has more worth than an embryo. But to answer the question, you’d have to agree to that.

But as you say, it’s not compulsory. Not answering doesn’t exactly hide anything. But feel free to ignore it.

How tantalizing you must believe this bait to be.

You can ascribe whatever motivation you wish to those that will not answer. The fact is, it is a straw man argument.
You do not know the motivation behind those that will not play the game.
You only know what you would like their motivation to be. That would make it easier to defeat.

From my perspective, you have built a fiction driven by an agenda, and then try to parade a straw man on those that do not play.

Yet we now how a position where Vanitas even concedes that the value of an embryo is ‘still being debated’. We have an agreement on whether that is even possible. As opposed to statements that all conditions of pregnancy are to be considered equal.

That is plainly not the position of many. In fact I would say the majority.

Does that have any bearing on morality? Not really. But it explains why women can feel they can have abortions. Until you understand that, you will go nowhere with your arguments against it.

And by the way, a straw man is a fallacious argument. I am making no argument. I am simply asking a question.

 

[joyfulandactive]

Regarding abortion clinics, one fantastically constructive way of responding to them is to have a center offering help to pregnant women located right next door or as close as possible. I have been reading about this in the news where pro-life organizations are doing this. I know for a fact that unless women are already connected to religious groups they often have no idea these organizations exist and that there are people who want to give them practical help and support so they can keep their child.

I serve on our RCIA team and over the years two candidates have told me in confidence that the number one reason that they want to be Catholic is because the church was the ONLY organization they heard consistently defending life at all stages. Both these women had had abortions. One was heavily pressured by her husband and doctor because the baby had some kind of health issue. The abortion was a decade previously but she was still suffering from that decision. She said she knew somehow that she would receive the healing she needed by coming into the church, as we were the only ones recognizing the seriousness of the choice she made and it’s aftereffects.

Both women had been atheist at the time of their abortions and just did not know where they could turn for help. The social pressure to abort can be intense. Medical personnel often ask over and over if a woman wants to abort their baby when there is a health issue.

 

[pulchraesamicamea]

All beings (including plants, animals, etc.) are made of cells.
The conception begins as the cell divides. As a result, we inherit our parents’ DNA and 23 sets of chromosomes and end up with two pairs of one chromosome (46 in total).
When life is about to be formed, the ovum and the sperm are cells.
If a human being is aborted from the womb, the human being dies.
“Clump of cells” is a life.

The “clump of cells” that they refer is just like us- depending on how God has created this beautiful person, he or she has 23 sets of chromosomes, has a beating heart, etc. If this person is not aborted, he or she may have become a sociologist, scientist, author, etc. and the potential is endless.

What I can encourage those who are considering abortion is to remember the potential the child bears. I’ve seen so many discouraging arguments against pro-life movement that targets the disabled population. I’ve seen “genetically disabled babies will have a horrible life and should never be born”. I have a genetic disability and I have a great life. I have friends. I’m studying to become a sociologist. I have great parents- we fight sometimes but they support me.

I do not want others to assume that we do not want to live because we have a disability.
We are not just a “clump of cells” that must get killed.

 

[Elf01]

I am not sure what you mean. Loving people is what Christ asks us to do and ultimately how we will be judged. Don’t forget Mary’s community would have stoned her without Joseph’s protection.

Loving people doesn’t mean not calling a spade a spade, or a murderer a murderer.

I mean what I said. We’ve conceded the language to the pro aborts and focused on compassion for the woman who hires someone to have her baby killed.

Less people may consider abortion, but they still think it should be legal.

 

[EZweber]

You did say exist in the original post.

I asked if they can exist. Can as in could.

 

[EZweber]

If you are now asking if the term is contradictory, then you need to tell me what it is that you think it might or might not contradict. It certainly contradicts everything we know about the physical world. But it doesn’t contradict belief. Lots of people believe in gods and spirits.

I am asking if it is possible that something exists which is not physical. It doesn’t necessarily even have to have an effect on the physical world. My next point depends on your answer.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

If you are now asking if the term is contradictory, then you need to tell me what it is that you think it might or might not contradict. It certainly contradicts everything we know about the physical world. But it doesn’t contradict belief. Lots of people believe in gods and spirits.

I am asking if it is possible that something exists which is not physical. It doesn’t necessarily even have to have an effect on the physical world. My next point depends on your answer.

You keep changing the question. It was orginally ‘a being’. Now it’s ‘something’. Obviously some things exist that are not physical, like maths. Maths exists.

S’truth, to cut to the chase…

It’s impossible for me to say that something doesn’t exist. It’s the way my mind works. I’m as rock solid an atheist as you are likely to find but you will never even find me saying that God doesn’t exist.

So wherever you are going with this, can you get there quickly?

 

[EZweber]

It’s impossible for me to say that something doesn’t exist. It’s the way my mind works. I’m as rock solid an atheist as you are likely to find but you will never even find me saying that God doesn’t exist.

So wherever you are going with this, can you get there quickly?

I’ll try. Could a nonphysical being have will or knowledge, again theoretically?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It’s impossible for me to say that something doesn’t exist. It’s the way my mind works. I’m as rock solid an atheist as you are likely to find but you will never even find me saying that God doesn’t exist.

So wherever you are going with this, can you get there quickly?

I’ll try. Could a nonphysical being have will or knowledge, again theoretically?

Sorry, EZ. Playtime is over. No more games. You need to make your argument if you could. I’m off for a beer, so take your time. But please cut to the quick.

 

[goout]

Cuts right to the heart of it, to the goodness of every human life.

 

[EZweber]

Sorry, EZ. Playtime is over. No more games. You need to make your argument if you could. I’m off for a beer, so take your time. But please cut to the quick.

Alright, my argument in full is as follows:

1. A spiritual (nonphysical) being with knowledge and will is at least potentially if not actually real, and therefore has some bearing on reality.
2. If you ask almost anyone who is not thinking of your definition, they would say such a being would be a person.
3. Such a being obviously doesn’t have a mature brain.
4. Therefore, your definition is not what is meant by “person.”

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But it explains why women can feel they can have abortions. Until you understand that, you will go nowhere with your arguments against it.

Not much that can be done for the obstinate.

 

[vz71]

And by the way, a straw man is a fallacious argument.

Right.
And it occurred as soon as you attributed motivation behind people’s behavior that you did not know.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Sorry, EZ. Playtime is over. No more games. You need to make your argument if you could. I’m off for a beer, so take your time. But please cut to the quick.

Alright, my argument in full is as follows:

1. A spiritual (nonphysical) being with knowledge and will is at least potentially if not actually real, and therefore has some bearing on reality.
2. If you ask almost anyone who is not thinking of your definition, they would say such a being would be a person.
3. Such a being obviously doesn’t have a mature brain.
4. Therefore, your definition is not what is meant by “person.”

That was it? You are suggesting that the definition of a person includes a non-physical immaterial entity that doesn’t necessarily connect to physical reality.

And that took how many posts?

Thanks for the effort you put into that. But no. I don’t hink what you describe is in any way compatible with what anyone would describe as a person.

 

[EZweber]

Thanks for the effort you put into that. But no. I don’t hink what you describe is in any way compatible with what anyone would describe as a person.

How many Christians have you met? They all define something like that as a person.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Thanks for the effort you put into that. But no. I don’t hink what you describe is in any way compatible with what anyone would describe as a person.

How many Christians have you met? They all define something like that as a person.

You’d do well not to anthropomorphise God. It never ends well.

 

[EZweber]

You’d do well not to anthropomorphise God. It never ends well.

My point; people do believe that a nonphysical being is a person. Also you have the angels. At least 1,200,000,000 people at least profess to profess that angels are persons last I looked.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You’d do well not to anthropomorphise God. It never ends well.

My point; people do believe that a nonphysical being is a person. Also you have the angels. At least 1,200,000,000 people at least profess to profess that angels are persons last I looked.

You are reduced to equating embryos with angels. Are we done?

 

[EZweber]

You are reduced to equating embryos with angels. Are we done?

I have not said that embryos are like angels. I have just said that because of the possibility of angels, your definition doesn’t hold water. Try again.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

By your definition of person abortion is ok. By others its not.

Now if I define person as “close family of mine” and refuse to agree to any other definitions, and I define murder as killing a person, am I allowed to go on a killing spree of those you consider people and I don’t? Hypothetically.

Benefit of doubt rests on side of letting live. There are situations where abortion is to be considered - if woman is in danger of death if it is not performed being prime example. Even if we consent to your definition, why kill potential life? If person is social construct so are baby and fertilized egg. We can toy around with terms but fact remains there is a developing individual and therefore killing him is either murder or slaughter. Fertilized egg is not plant nor animal, so by elimination it is considered to be of human race. Killing humans is murder and murder is forbidden by law.

I understand why women want to have right for abortions, I understand why some men pressure them to do so. I just see their reasons very lacking to justify a murder (or stopping potential life in the very least).