Best argument against the abortion "clump of cells"?

[Elf01]

Yet the arguments run that we should all treat all stages exactly the same.

Actually the argument is that no stage should be killed.

I used the wrong word.

Some women trying for a baby are depressed on getting their period.

I would imagine that knowing that they had been pregnant, however briefly, and that their baby had died would devestate them.

Now once again, even if I am wrong does somebodys right to life depend on how much they will be missed?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Yet the arguments run that we should all treat all stages exactly the same.

I would imagine that knowing that they had been pregnant, however briefly, and that their baby had died would devestate them.

It is not a baby at the moment of conception. If you insist on treating the first few hours of a pregnancy as the last few hours then you are never going to understand the views of anyone who is pro choice.

Thanks anyway.

 

[blackforest]

Does the woman react differently in those situations?

Nobody knows they’re pregnant two weeks after conception. There’s not enough HCG detectable by pregnancy tests until at least the first missed period. So your scenario is impossible.

But yes. It would indeed depend on the woman. My miscarriage at nine weeks was devastating. Pro-choicers may choose to gaslight me by saying that something’s wrong with me. But my feelings are perfectly valid.

That said, @Elf01 raises an interesting question. Should our personal, emotional reactions to death determine who lives or dies?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Does the woman react differently in those situations?

Nobody knows they’re pregnant two weeks after conception.

That was NOT the point. The point is that you either claim that everyone treats a pregnancy an hour before giving birth exactly the same as one treats a pregnancy an hour after conception or you accept that people have a vastly different view of those two times.

 

[Elf01]

It is not a baby at the moment of conception. If you insist on treating the first few hours of a pregnancy as the last few hours then you are never going to understand the views of anyone who is pro choice.

Thanks anyway.

You still haven’t answered the rest of my argument.

I assume because you know your right to life doesn’t depend on how others will react to yout death.

I think your first sentance sum up why you are pro choice.

What is it then?

 

[ioannes_pius]

You should point out to the person that they are, technically speaking, also a “clump of cells.”

 

[fhansen]

I have some initial thoughts, but I would like to see how you deal with this kind of argument.

You know – the one that says am aborted embryo is just a “clump of cells”?

It really boils down to this: if we don’t really think human life is sacred or of such supremely high value that it deserves special right to life treatment enforceable by law then there really isn’t a point in time when any person’s life, at any stage, should’t be expendable if they in some way interfere with our own life or pursuit of happiness.

So the problem is that we must find the precise magic moment of when a fetus becomes a human, deserving of full right to life protection-and, inconveniently for some, there simply is no such time. Justice Harry Blackmum, who wrote the opinion for Roe vs Wade, admitted that using the third trimester as this point in time was an arbitrary, not scientific, determination by the court.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It is not a baby at the moment of conception. If you insist on treating the first few hours of a pregnancy as the last few hours then you are never going to understand the views of anyone who is pro choice.

Thanks anyway.

You still haven’t answered the rest of my argument.

I assume because you know your right to life doesn’t depend on how others will react to yout death.

I think your first sentance sum up why you are pro choice.

What is it then?

These are the reasons I do my best to avoid discussions on abortion. People treat a fertilized egg and a baby exactly the same. Or at least, they want to me to do that. But a fertilised egg is a fertilised egg. And a baby is a baby. They are not the same.

You do know that they freeze embryos? And although I’m pretty certain that you object to that, your reaction to anyone suggesting that they freeze babies would be entirely different.

As the old saw goes: Would you save a baby or half a dozen frozen embryos from a fire? We all know the answer. It is the inability of people to admit the answer to that simple question which prevents any further worthwhile discussion.

 

[Elf01]

These are the reasons I do my best to avoid discussions on abortion. People treat a fertilized egg and a baby exactly the same. Or at least, they want to me to do that. But a fertilised egg is a fertilised egg. And a baby is a baby. They are not the same.

You do know that they freeze embryos? And although I’m pretty certain that you object to that, your reaction to anyone suggesting that they freeze babies would be entirely different.

As the old saw goes: Would you save a baby or half a dozen frozen embryos from a fire? We all know the answer. It is the inability of people to admit the answer to that simple question which prevents any further worthwhile discussion.

You entered this one.

Crickets. As expected.

Again you’re assuming that emotions determine who has the right to life. I hope you always have someone who cares about you.

Yes I’d save the born child. Frozen embryos need more than being pulled out of the fire. They need to be refrozen, and I don’t think getting that done on time is easy. Yes, there is also an emotional factor. I can hear a born child scream and cry.

I’d also save my child over yours. Does your child have a right to life?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

These are the reasons I do my best to avoid discussions on abortion. People treat a fertilized egg and a baby exactly the same. Or at least, they want to me to do that. But a fertilised egg is a fertilised egg. And a baby is a baby. They are not the same.

You do know that they freeze embryos? And although I’m pretty certain that you object to that, your reaction to anyone suggesting that they freeze babies would be entirely different.

As the old saw goes: Would you save a baby or half a dozen frozen embryos from a fire? We all know the answer. It is the inability of people to admit the answer to that simple question which prevents any further worthwhile discussion.

You entered this one.

Crickets. As expected.

Again you’re assuming that emotions determine who has the right to life. I hope you always have someone who cares about you.

Yes I’d save the born child. Frozen embryos need more than being pulled out of the fire. They need to be refrozen, and I don’t think getting that done on time is easy. Yes, there is also an emotional factor. I can hear a born child scream and cry.

I’m not assuming anything. But gosh, babies cry and embryos don’t? So leaving aside the technical details of saving the embryos (they were in flasks and wouldn’t have been harmed if you had saved them), you would save one baby instead of two embryos because of, and I quote you, ‘an emotional factor’.

Now you have admitted that there is indeed a difference between embryos and babies. To the extent that you’d save one over two of the other.

Why was that so difficult to admit? It doesn’t change where you will now go with the discussion, but I needed that to be accepted up front.

 

[Elf01]

Why was that so difficult to admit? It doesn’t change where you will now go with the discussion, but I needed that to be accepted up front.

Right, now maybe you can explain why emotions should determine who’s right to life should be legally protected.

Also, to throw your dilemma back at you

There is a fire and two women are unconcious and trapped.

You know both of them and one is pregnant (early stages) and the other is not.

Who do you save?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Why was that so difficult to admit? It doesn’t change where you will now go with the discussion, but I needed that to be accepted up front.

Right, now maybe you can explain why emotions should determine who’s right to life should be legally protected.

Again, you are jumping the gun. And/or missing the point I am making.

Emotions determine what people do and why they do them. The legality of the matter of abortions shouldn’t consider emotions.

Emotions determine that you treat embryos different to babies. That has been determined. But that has nothing at all to do with the leaglities of the matter. I have been trying to get you to accept that emotions determine what you - and women consider to be right or wrong.

Saving two babies is better than saving one. But you don’t consider two embryos to be of the same value. Neither do I. Neither do most women who consider having early abortions.

You do understand that, don’t you?

The legality of abortion itself is an entirely different matter. Which we are not discussing.

 

[Elf01]

Saving two babies is better than saving one. But you don’t consider two embryos to be of the same value. Neither do I. Neither do most women who consider having early abortions.

I actually forgot to add one point. If one of those embryos was related to me my answer would change.

It’s not about value. Given the choice between one unconcious person and more unconcious people I’m going to save the concious person (assuming other factors are equal). Not because he/she has more value, but their ability to interact would have more of an emotional impact on me.

The legality of abortion itself is an entirely different matter. Which we are not discussing.

I was thinking about legality.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Saving two babies is better than saving one. But you don’t consider two embryos to be of the same value. Neither do I. Neither do most women who consider having early abortions.

I actually forgot to add one point. If one of those embryos was related to me my answer would change.

It’s not about value. Given the choice between one unconcious person and more unconcious people I’m going to save the concious person (assuming other factors are equal). Not because he/she has more value, but their ability to interact would have more of an emotional impact on me.

Exactly. You are agreeing with me even though you’d rather not. But agreeing with me doesn’t change whether abortion is wrong or right. It just makes you realise why people have different feelings about it.

Accepting that doesn’t affect any arguments you might make about the legality OR the morality of it. Arguments with which I might agree.

 

[Elf01]

Exactly. You are agreeing with me even though you’d rather not. But agreeing with me doesn’t change whether abortion is wrong or right. It just makes you realise why people have different feelings about it.

Accepting that doesn’t affect any arguments you might make about the legality OR the morality of it. Arguments with which I might agree.

Right. We agree that people have different views about abortion.

Now lets talk about should it be legal?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Exactly. You are agreeing with me even though you’d rather not. But agreeing with me doesn’t change whether abortion is wrong or right. It just makes you realise why people have different feelings about it.

Accepting that doesn’t affect any arguments you might make about the legality OR the morality of it. Arguments with which I might agree.

Right. We agree that people have different views about abortion.

No. We what we agreed is that people have different views as to what they consider to be a conglomerate of cells and a viable foetus.

It’s an emotional decision. It’s an emotional determinant (as you agreed when you said you’d save the one baby as opposed to the two embryos).

Agree with that and we can continue.

 

[blackforest]

They have vastly different views. That’s one of many reasons why we have pro-life and pro-choice. Please address my question.

Should our personal, emotional reactions to death determine who lives or dies?

 

[michaelArc]

Aren’t we all just a clump of cells?

If you met my neighbour, you might argue that she is just a clump of cells.

 

[Wozza]

They have vastly different views. That’s one of many reasons why we have pro-life and pro-choice. Please address my question.

blackforest:

Should our personal, emotional reactions to death determine who lives or dies?

In the context in which it is asked, the question is naiive. Our emotional reactions DO determine our personal decisions. These decisions are nothing less than personal and emotional.

Is that not obvious to you?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

As always, the anti-abortion choice group is busy telling each other what great arguments they have. As I’ve pointed out several times in other threads, their argument is SO good that in fact the percentage of the US population supporting their position has declined 4% since 1976, and the opposite side has increased 7%. So they must be extremely persuasive.

If you would like to look at the pro-abortion choice position, I think this is a good summary with no incendiary language. THE PRO-CHOICE ACTION NETWORK