Best argument against the abortion "clump of cells"?

[VanitasVanitatum]

The abortion rights group simply has more traction. Also, societal pressure and lack of visibility contribute to it.

If you woul like to look at the pro-abortion choice position

There are so many variations.

 

[Richard_White]

The unborn are by no means a “clump of cells” at any point in gestation. The zygote-embryo-fetus progression is extremely well controlled by cellular mechanisms. Development is extraordinarily complex, being ordered by a progression of transcription factors that activate one another and drive the multiplication, diversification, and differentiation of the cells into a fully developed human organism. Thus, from the moment of fertilization, it is a human organism. It is only in a different stage of development from you and me. And this development occurs remarkably quickly. Everything is formed by the end of the first trimester and then only grows and changes into the proper form. So to say that the fetus is only a “clump of cells” is anti-scientific. It is also anti-human rights. To strip the rights away from a human only in a different stage of development is pure evil. It’s like killing a 5 year old - he is still developing too isn’t he!?

May God bless you all!

 

[blackforest]

I didn’t ask of our emotions do determine whom to kill. I asked if they should. Because that would be a terrifying society to live in. In fact, it already is.

As always, the anti-abortion choice group is busy telling each other what great arguments they have.

Well, fortunately, I assess arguments based on their merit, not how many popular votes they have.

From Arthur’s piece:

Considering that the early fetus does not even look recognizably human, cannot engage in normal human perception or thought, and does not have the most basic human body functions, can we call it a human being?

Of course they look human! They look and act and function like every other human being at their given phase of development.

Given that there are gunshot and car accident victims who look less human than you and I, I’m glad that an ableist like Joyce Arthur doesn’t hold any powerful seat in government. Her streak of bigotry has no place in a civilized society.

On the topic of bigotry and discrimination, do you support bans on abortions motivated by sex selection? Or is every abortion A-OK for any reason so long as we stamp the word “choice” on it?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The abortion rights group simply has more traction.

Nothing to do with their arguments, right? Certainly no point in looking at their arguments…why would you need to do that to refute them? Nah. Bad idea.

Talk among yourselves, I’m out.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

“Bye-bye.”

 

[EZweber]

If you would like to look at the pro-abortion choice position, I think this is a good summary with no incendiary language. http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml

Well @Erikaspirit16 , if you’re still there, I have been reading your article and in the first few paragraphs, here are some problems. (paraphrasing) 1) Since women will have abortions anyway, we should legalize it whether it is right or not. That just doesn’t make sense; try replacing “abortion” with “murder”, which is what I think it is.
2) We don’t know it’s a human being. While I disagree, if you wanted to drop a bomb on a house, you would have to prove that there were no human beings in it. The burden of proof is on the pro choice side, not the pro life side.
3) refers to the claim that a embryo has human genes and will develop into a mature human. The counter argument is that a flake of dandruff could develop into a mature human. However, unless steps are taken that deprive an embryo with normal care for it, it will develop into an adult, but you can’t say the same for a flake of dandruff. More when I have more time.

 

[Elf01]

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.

I agree that women have abortions for emotional reason. Either they don’t see the unborn child as human, they are afraid of the consequences of not having an aborion, or both.

Now can we discuss legality/morality.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

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.

I agree that women have abortions for emotional reason. Either they don’t see the unborn child as human, they are afraid of the consequences of not having an aborion, or both.

Now can we discuss legality/morality.

Which are obviously not the same thing. But I think we can leave the legal aspects out of any discussion. It either is or it isn’t illegal. That can well depend on one person’s personal opinion in law or in moral matters).

As to the morality, it hinges directly on what we’ve been discussing so far. There aren’t many people who wouldn’t consider a baby a day before birth as being a person with all the rights that that entails. So terminating a pregnancy at that stage would be seen by almost all as immoral. Myself included.

But there are a significant number of people who consider that what the pregnancy consists of at the moment of conception to be a very long way from ‘a person’. They consider that there is no specific moment when what the woman is carrying becomes a person. As we’ve discussed, most people consider a fully formed baby to be more valuable than a foetus. Or to pit it more bluntly, to consider a foetus to be less significant than a baby. And consider a divided cell at the moment of conception to be a lot less significant that a foetus.

My personal opinion is that there is no problem whatsoever is having an abortion when you are a few weeks pregnant. But there is when you are a few months pregnant. But there is no dividing line. There is no point where one can say ‘today it’s OK, but not tomorrow’. It’s either less of a moral problem or more.

Life and morality in particular is never black and white. ‘Thou shall not kill’ even needs qualifying. It’s not unacceptable in all circumstances.

This is something that you probably cannot find it in yourself to accept. You want to draw a line in the sand and say that beyond this specific point (conception), you shall not pass. Which is a position with which I cannot agree.

So we can knock this around for a while and put some more points forward, but there is no winner to be declared. We can only agree to disagree.

 

[Elf01]

As to the morality, it hinges directly on what we’ve been discussing so far. There aren’t many people who wouldn’t consider a baby a day before birth as being a person with all the rights that that entails. So terminating a pregnancy at that stage would be seen by almost all as immoral. Myself included.

So morality is determined by majority vote?

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

We’re all “clumps of cells.” We’re just a bigger clump, that’s all.

 

[EZweber]

But there are a significant number of people who consider that what the pregnancy consists of at the moment of conception to be a very long way from ‘a person’. They consider that there is no specific moment when what the woman is carrying becomes a person

You have to prove that it’s not a person before you can kill it. There are also a lot of people, myself included, who think that they are a person from the moment of conception.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

I would also say that by around the time a baby becomes detectable, the beginnings of most human characteristics become visible such as arms, legs, eyes, and a heart, though they are still under development.

 

[Usagi]

I mean, it is a clump (or sort of a sphere) of cells. It’s the “just” we have an issue with, because we all used to look like that and we know what will keep happening, most of the time, if the process is not interfered with.

 

[Emeraldlady]

But there are a significant number of people who consider that what the pregnancy consists of at the moment of conception to be a very long way from ‘a person’. They consider that there is no specific moment when what the woman is carrying becomes a person. As we’ve discussed, most people consider a fully formed baby to be more valuable than a foetus. Or to pit it more bluntly, to consider a foetus to be less significant than a baby. And consider a divided cell at the moment of conception to be a lot less significant that a foetus.

My personal opinion is that there is no problem whatsoever is having an abortion when you are a few weeks pregnant. But there is when you are a few months pregnant. But there is no dividing line. There is no point where one can say ‘today it’s OK, but not tomorrow’. It’s either less of a moral problem or more.

If you accept that somewhere in the course of pregnancy the life becomes a person then you are applying the principle survival of the fittest to determine right to life. The weakest are sacrificed to the interests of the strongest.

It used to surprise me that some of the most intelligent people support partial birth abortion on principle. The strange philosophical twist is though, that to protect the basic principle of human equality and right to life, the only distinction that can be made for personhood is between born and unborn without any other qualification. So pro abortion proponents who value the basic principles of equality and an inalienable right to life regardless of any creed, colour etc are forced to a position of regarding all the unborn as non persons simply for being unborn.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

But there are a significant number of people who consider that what the pregnancy consists of at the moment of conception to be a very long way from ‘a person’. They consider that there is no specific moment when what the woman is carrying becomes a person

You have to prove that it’s not a person before you can kill it. There are also a lot of people, myself included, who think that they are a person from the moment of conception.

This is not something one can ‘prove’. Is the dna human? Yes. Just as the dna of the egg and the sperm. So that gives us no help. Is it a person? Not in any form of the definition I could possibly use for a fertilised egg.

That’s what it is. A fertilised egg. A potential person? Yes. A person? No.

 

[Elf01]

This is not something one can ‘prove’.

Then wouldn’t it be prudent to assume it is?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

This is not something one can ‘prove’.

Then wouldn’t it be prudent to assume it is?

No. It’s not the case that I think ‘Gee, it MIGHT be a person, therefore…’. It isn’t. By any definition of the term. I’m not worrying about maybe making a mistake in thinking this. It’s a fact.

 

[Elf01]

No. It’s not the case that I think ‘Gee, it MIGHT be a person, therefore…’. It isn’t. By any definition of the term. I’m not worrying about maybe making a mistake in thinking this. It’s a fact.

What is a person?

 

[AlbMagno]

The DNA of the sperm and the egg are incomplete. The DNA of the fertilised egg is complete and is different than that of the mother. The fertilised egg is also totipotent, unlike any other cell proceding from the mother.

 

[anon99031074]

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

I am pretty sure there were animals and even humans long before categories such as “clump of cells”, “embryo”, “fetus”, “person” and even “human” had been invented. These are mental labels belonging to a sense-making framework invented by humans, and are imputed onto the referent. They do not exist inherently in a human being or any other animal at any state of development.