Best argument against the abortion "clump of cells"?

[EZweber]

A non physical ethereal being, whether it exists or not, is a person. Therefore brain activity cannot be used to determine the difference between a fertilised egg and a new born baby.

You got the wrong therefore. The right one is “Therefore brain activity cannot be used to determine personhood.”

 

[Sbee0]

EZweber:

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.

I say personhood starts at conception and you have absolutely no way of demonstrating with any tangible evidence that I am wrong. Personhood is not scientific and does not show the age of anyone, it is entirely arbitrary and philosophical. Deciding rights for those who are and aren’t a “person” is a bad idea, as history has shown us.

Hence the entire problem with using “personhood” as justification for abortion. All we know is science says there is a human life created at conception, distinct from the mother, rendering just about every pro abortion rights argument out there (like “my body”) as null and void.

 

[vz71]

That most would accept. As the truth.

The truth is not dictated by majority.

 

[edwest211]

That’s the correct conclusion.

 

[Wozza]

Hence the entire problem with using “personhood” as justification for abortion.

Good heavens above. Who ON EARTH has suggested that it is a justification? It is an EXPLANATION. Try reading what is being written.

 

[goout]

The only problem is, you don’t understand what moral theology is. What you are doing is called “barbaric force based on political power and arbitrary definitions”.

Ok, what is morality?
The evaluation of human acts in reference to the objective good.
It is objectively good to exist in the image of God.
Human beings are all that.
Human beings are present at conception, by scientific observation and revelation.
It is immoral to kill innocent human beings before birth or any other time.

Your argument is morally vacuous.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Hence the entire problem with using “personhood” as justification for abortion.

Good heavens above. Who ON EARTH has suggested that it is a justification? It is an EXPLANATION. Try reading what is being written.

My my. Touched a nerve eh?

And does it matter which one it is? It’s neither actually. Really don’t see why Pro Choicers bring this argument up at all in this debate since it’s a poor argument and rightfully shot down quickly.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The definition was one that concerned synaptic activity in the brain. You can address that or not as you wish. But it strikes me as a complete waste of everyone’s time if I give an answer to a reasonable question and it is simply dismissed as nonsensical without any attempt to show why.

Oh, I respect you and your opinion, I’m just saying that what you have shown earlier in this thread where you defined

 

[goout]

Wozza:

Sbee0:

Hence the entire problem with using “personhood” as justification for abortion.

Good heavens above. Who ON EARTH has suggested that it is a justification? It is an EXPLANATION. Try reading what is being written.

My my. Touched a nerve eh?

And does it matter which one it is? It’s neither actually. Really don’t see why Pro Choicers bring this argument up at all in this debate since it’s a poor argument and rightfully shot down quickly.

Yes. It’s just a bad argument that appeals to arbitrary opinion and power.
It opens up the “personhood” movement to brotherhood with the 3/5ers and eugenics movement.
Not a nice crowd to hang with.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Wozza:

Sbee0:

Hence the entire problem with using “personhood” as justification for abortion.

Good heavens above. Who ON EARTH has suggested that it is a justification? It is an EXPLANATION. Try reading what is being written.

My my. Touched a nerve eh?

And does it matter which one it is? It’s neither actually. Really don’t see why Pro Choicers bring this argument up at all in this debate since it’s a poor argument and rightfully shot down quickly.

Yes. It’s just a bad argument that appeals to arbitrary opinion and power.
It opens up the “personhood” movement to brotherhood with the 3/5ers and eugenics movement.
Not a nice crowd to hang with.

Exactly. History has proven that it’s a terrible idea to use the arbitrary marker of personhood to deny rights including right to life.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Sbee0:

Hence the entire problem with using “personhood” as justification for abortion.

Good heavens above. Who ON EARTH has suggested that it is a justification? It is an EXPLANATION. Try reading what is being written.

My my. Touched a nerve eh?

And does it matter which one it is? It’s neither actually. Really don’t see why Pro Choicers bring this argument up at all in this debate since it’s a poor argument and rightfully shot down quickly.

Yes it does mattter. I am not saying that because of X then Y is allowed. I am saying that because of X people believe it is allowed. Surely you see the difference.

I am trying to get across that not everyone thinks exactly like you do. If you don’t appreciate that then the arguments that you use will be ineffective. Which is what we see.

You say that abortion is morally wrong because you are killing a person. If those with whom you are arguing do not consider it to be a person - at that time, then you are wasting your time using that argument.

Does that not make sense?

So keep on using it if it makes you feel good. But the sensible approach would be to have a quick internal q and a and perhaps decide that a different approach is required. To keep on using the same argument KNOWING it doesn’t work is an exercise in futility.

 

[Wozza]

The best argument is that the scientists never refer it as a “clump of cells” but as an embryo=the young of a viviparous animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb (dictionary.com definition)
wikipedia says = An embryo is an early stage of development of a multicellular diploid eukaryotic ORGANISM.
After death the embryo becomes a “clump of cells”. Your dead body will be a clump of cells as well.
we should monitor the definitions coz liberals tend to change them without notice.

What we have been talking about, and you may have seen me mentioning it, is whether a new born baby is the same, as regards our definition of person, as a fertilised egg. We can drop the emotive ‘clump of cells’ and simply refer to the egg at the point of being fertilised. No need for medical definitions other than that.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The definition was one that concerned synaptic activity in the brain. You can address that or not as you wish. But it strikes me as a complete waste of everyone’s time if I give an answer to a reasonable question and it is simply dismissed as nonsensical without any attempt to show why.

Oh, I respect you and your opinion, I’m just saying that what you have shown earlier in this thread where you defined

It looks like you didn’t complete the post. What was it you meant to say?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

uh, how did that happen? lol, my apologies friend

Oh, I respect you and your opinion, I’m just saying that what you have shown earlier in this thread where you used argument with “would you save a baby or fertilized egg” and definition of a person resting upon opinion (or subjective definition, whatever) is not enough of an argument in my opinion, because first part rests on notion of feelings defining value of said person (emotional factor, but yes we’ve been through that I guess) and majority opinion or in-fact any opinion being force of truth. Opinions are attempts to find truth, but they are not always successful. I simply propose that protecting potential life is very similar as protecting life- same way drivers are supposed to slow down in some areas even at night, when chance of someone being there is low. Chance of baby being born is in comparison much higher.

I used nonsensical argument to prove subjectivity of opinion makes it a weak argument and that refuting simple subjective opinion based on nothing concrete is hard not necessarily because opinion is correct.

People have gone to jail for murder while having better reasons for that than abortion has for itself. (not saying those reasons justify murder of course)

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Wozza:

Sbee0:

Hence the entire problem with using “personhood” as justification for abortion.

Good heavens above. Who ON EARTH has suggested that it is a justification? It is an EXPLANATION. Try reading what is being written.

My my. Touched a nerve eh?

And does it matter which one it is? It’s neither actually. Really don’t see why Pro Choicers bring this argument up at all in this debate since it’s a poor argument and rightfully shot down quickly.

Yes it does mattter. I am not saying that because of X then Y is allowed. I am saying that because of X people believe it is allowed. Surely you see the difference.

I am trying to get across that not everyone thinks exactly like you do. If you don’t appreciate that then the arguments that you use will be ineffective. Which is what we see.

You say that abortion is morally wrong because you are killing a person. If those with whom you are arguing do not consider it to be a person - at that time, then you are wasting your time using that argument.

Does that not make sense?

So keep on using it if it makes you feel good. But the sensible approach would be to have a quick internal q and a and perhaps decide that a different approach is required. To keep on using the same argument KNOWING it doesn’t work is an exercise in futility.

Clearly you completely missed the point. But carry on.

 

[Wozza]

uh, how did that happen? lol, my apologies friend

Oh, I respect you and your opinion, I’m just saying that what you have shown earlier in this thread where you used argument with “would you save a baby or fertilized egg” and definition of a person resting upon opinion (or subjective definition, whatever) is not enough of an argument in my opinion, because first part rests on notion of feelings defining value of said person (emotional factor, but yes we’ve been through that I guess) and majority opinion or in-fact any opinion being force of truth. Opinions are attempts to find truth, but they are not always successful. I simply propose that protecting potential life is very similar as protecting life- same way drivers are supposed to slow down in some areas even at night, when chance of someone being there is low. Chance of baby being born is in comparison much higher.

I used nonsensical argument to prove subjectivity of opinion makes it a weak argument and that refuting simple subjective opinion based on nothing concrete is hard not necessarily because opinion is correct.

People have gone to jail for murder while having better reasons for that than abortion has for itself. (not saying those reasons justify murder of course)

There’s not much there with which I can disagree.

I definitely agree that the decision to have an abortion or not is an emotional one. And the point I have been trying to make is that the emotion involved in the termination of a baby a day before it is born is utterly different to that involved in taking a morning after pill the day after having conceived (whether you know it or not) - which amounts to the same thing.

That said, we need to look at why that is the case. And the reason (not argument - because it is not intended to be an argument for or against abortion) is that a lot of women treat what they are carrying at those two different stages differently. The hypothetical scenario of the baby and the embryos in a fire is meant to illustrate that.

So we reached a point where I had to define that difference (although it seems pretty obvious to me that a baby and a fertilised egg are not in any way comparable). Hence the suggestion of personhood and a definition of that which involves brain activity.

At that point, I am done. What I have said can be accepted or rejected. And short of arguing that an angel may or may not be a person or the number of neuron connections and measurable synaptic activity is required to tie down that definition (an exercise that totally misses the point of the proposal in the first instance), I have nothing more I think I can add.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Sbee0:

Wozza:

Sbee0:

Hence the entire problem with using “personhood” as justification for abortion.

Good heavens above. Who ON EARTH has suggested that it is a justification? It is an EXPLANATION. Try reading what is being written.

My my. Touched a nerve eh?

And does it matter which one it is? It’s neither actually. Really don’t see why Pro Choicers bring this argument up at all in this debate since it’s a poor argument and rightfully shot down quickly.

Yes it does mattter. I am not saying that because of X then Y is allowed. I am saying that because of X people believe it is allowed. Surely you see the difference.

I am trying to get across that not everyone thinks exactly like you do. If you don’t appreciate that then the arguments that you use will be ineffective. Which is what we see.

You say that abortion is morally wrong because you are killing a person. If those with whom you are arguing do not consider it to be a person - at that time, then you are wasting your time using that argument.

Does that not make sense?

So keep on using it if it makes you feel good. But the sensible approach would be to have a quick internal q and a and perhaps decide that a different approach is required. To keep on using the same argument KNOWING it doesn’t work is an exercise in futility.

Clearly you completely missed the point. But carry on.

See above. I have nothing further I can add.

 

[Sbee0]

abc_xyz:

The best argument is that the scientists never refer it as a “clump of cells” but as an embryo=the young of a viviparous animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb (dictionary.com definition)
wikipedia says = An embryo is an early stage of development of a multicellular diploid eukaryotic ORGANISM.
After death the embryo becomes a “clump of cells”. Your dead body will be a clump of cells as well.
we should monitor the definitions coz liberals tend to change them without notice.

What we have been talking about, and you may have seen me mentioning it, is whether a new born baby is the same, as regards our definition of person, as a fertilised egg. We can drop the emotive ‘clump of cells’ and simply refer to the egg at the point of being fertilised. No need for medical definitions other than that.

Irrelevant of course as nobody enters a clinic seeking an abortion for a “fertilized egg”.

Pro abortion rights advocates call an unborn child a clump of cells - like a tumor- to justify abortion rights. The science does not back them up. I’ll go with science on this one. I like science.

 

[Sbee0]

Not one prochoicer has ever provided tangible evidence I’m wrong beyond their own opinion when I say that personhood as well as life begins at conception. I suspect none ever will.

 

[Wozza]

Not one prochoicer has ever provided tangible evidence I’m wrong beyond their own opinion when I say that personhood as well as life begins at conception. I suspect none ever will.

Not one prolifer has ever provided tangible evidence I’m wrong beyond their own opinion when I say that personhood begins well after conception. I suspect none ever will.

Don’t make it too easy for me.