Can you guys help me come up with scientific arguments against abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AaronK88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AaronK88

Guest
I typically have this debate at work, and it is frustrating to say the least because I am the only pro-lifer at my job. I live in Illinois, a very liberal state. Well, some of my co-workers are vehemently pro-choice AND catholic!

So instead of using religion as an argument, which is an exercise in futility for many of these people, I need to start turning to science to support my positions. I read a good site a while back by an atheist pro-lifer who chose to be pro-life because it was scientifically immoral to kill the unborn, but I cannot find this website. Anyone have any suggestions?
 
I would suggest looking at it from the historical aspect. There have been a slippery slopes leading from abortion to eugenics to killing “useless eaters” to killing those that disagree with the government. The most infamous is of course Nazi Germany.

(Historical note: Yes, I am aware that the Nazis mandated the death penalty for Germans aborting members of the “master race”. My point is that they forced abortions on those the found unworthy.)

Paul
 
Speaking as an atheist pro-lifer:

For me, it isn’t too hard to determine when life begins. Here’s a little ball of cells, that if left alone, is going to mature into something truly miraculous.

Sex is about responsibility. Like it or not, the evolutionary purpose of sex is to procreate. That said, sex is great fun, and with modern forms of birth control, it’s usually possible to avoid this responsibility. However it always exists, and if you cannot support bringing a new life into this universe, then you shouldn’t be having sex. It is a very real possibility that shouldn’t just go away because it is scientifically possible to remove that responsibility entirely.

I know these aren’t scientific arguments, per se, but they are arguments that stem from personal morality instead of a religious conviction, so you may find that they are met with some degree of acceptance.
 
I typically have this debate at work, and it is frustrating to say the least because I am the only pro-lifer at my job. I live in Illinois, a very liberal state. Well, some of my co-workers are vehemently pro-choice AND catholic!

So instead of using religion as an argument, which is an exercise in futility for many of these people, I need to start turning to science to support my positions. I read a good site a while back by an atheist pro-lifer who chose to be pro-life because it was scientifically immoral to kill the unborn, but I cannot find this website. Anyone have any suggestions?
I would ask them how they pick and choose what they believe about what the church teaches?

If they say the believe what the church teaches, then simply point them to what the church teaches…that a human life starts at conception. The church is very clear in stating that abortion kills a human being.

If they don’t believe what the church teaches, ask them why they are Catholic…then build from there.
 
Materials at www.healingtheculture.com

will be of great help.

Scientific, educated arguments.

A couple of points:

a. the Principle of Non-Contradiction
something can not be both a baby and not a baby

b. The Principle of Most Complete Explanation
the best explanation/argument is the side that offers the most data
(whichever explanation explains the most is the winner)

c. Principle of Ends and Means
The end does not justify the means

d. Principle of Necessity for the Resolution of a Rights Conflict
Whichever right is necessary for hte very possibility of another right’s existence is the more fundamental right. It should take priority in any conflict of rights.

We hold these truths to be self evident…Among them…
Life,
Liberty,
and the
Pursuit of Happiness

Somebody’s life is more fundamental than another person’s liberty (choice).
You can’t exercise your right to liberty if it means taking someone’s right to life away.

Unfortunately when arguing for ProLife, we are arguing our facts against their bleeding hearts. Our facts have to trump their emotions.
 
Speaking as an atheist pro-lifer:

For me, it isn’t too hard to determine when life begins. Here’s a little ball of cells, that if left alone, is going to mature into something truly miraculous…
Jefe Wyatt, an atheist,
is using the argument of the
**Principle of Fullest Human Potential

“You cannot judge the ontological worth of an individual or a group on the basis of the development they have achieved (up to this point). You can only judge their ontological worth on the basis of what they are capable of achieving.”**

www.healingtheculture.com

It doesn’t take faith in God or membership of a Church to recognize basic human rights and scientific fact.
 
So instead of using religion as an argument, which is an exercise in futility for many of these people, I need to start turning to science to support my positions. I read a good site a while back by an atheist pro-lifer who chose to be pro-life because it was scientifically immoral to kill the unborn, but I cannot find this website. Anyone have any suggestions?
While not specifically “scientific”, I have 3 sources for atheist/secular arguments against abortion:
A Libertarian Atheist Answers “Pro-Choice Catholics”

The Left’s surrender on issues of human value


A Secular Case Against Abortion

I hope this helps!
 
There are several ways of reproducing, and until recently we humans had just one (with a notable exception): A spermatozoon (Gk. seed-life) and an ovum (egg) meet in a cloud of spermatozoa. One sperm is chemically and physically in the best situation to contribute its DNA to the ovum. The membranes thin in reaction to a chemical recognition of each other in the hospitable environment of the fallopian tube. A half-share of DNA, 23 chromosomes, is present in each gamete (Gk. marriage unit). The spermatozoon’s 23 pass through the membranes when they become thin enough and are attracted byt he electomagnetic charge of the 23 chromosomes in the ovum. These bond and form a 46-chromosome human cell, with half the DNA of the father and half the DNA of the mother. This is not one of the mother’s cells and obviously not one of the father’s cells; it’s a different cell with a separate biological identity, and it is dividing as soon as it is formed. The cell divisions are planned genetically from the beginning. Each new set of cells is more specialized than the one before. In a few days, the cells are differentiated by type and are forming tissues – muscle, cartilage, skin, connective tissue, lymph, platelet, red blood cell, white blood cell, nerve cell – and within ten days the little creature has the visually recognizable buds of a brain, spine, nervous system, immune system, heart and eyes, along with other organs. These are the brain, heart and eyes etc. of a new person.
As anyone who has ever fished for minnows knows, it doesn’t take a high IQ for a creature to want to live. Every living thing struggles to live.
At some point in the conception process, the child is a new individual living creature. The child of a human and a human is always a human. If the sperm and egg were human cells, the resulting child is a human child.
Ten days later there is strong reason to assume the child has some kind of sensation and struggles to live. S/he is already more neurologically sophisticated than a cricket or a butterfly, or any insect, which we know will fight to live if threatened.
A pill abortion at ten days kills a human child who is alive and struggles to live. A surgical abortion kills a child far older than ten days, and stops a functioning multi-lobed brain, fully functioning nervous system, distinctly human hands, kicking feet, wiggling toes, face with recognizable expressions, thumb-sucking mouth, working liver, steadily-beating heart and functional kidneys, spleen, bone marrow and other human systems, and interrupts a learning new human mind.
A child was born years ago at 18 weeks and five days after conception. She lived. Today survival at 23 weeks is more common all the time and the day we can keep a child alive who emerges at 17 or 15 or maybe 12 weeks is in view already. A typical term is 39-41 weeks counting from conception (41-43 gestational age). The baby who survived birth at 18 weeks was at 45% term,and was exactly like a full-term child but thin, short, weak, with low immunities and sensitive to temperature and light, and exhausted, with difficulty breathing and eating. But she got through it. She differed from a nine-month child to the degree a none-monther differs from a child born a couple of months ago. That’s the degree to which that child differed from a child conceived three months earlier, or a three-month child differs from a six-week child, or a six-weeker differs from a three-week child, or three weeks from ten days, or ten days from seven days, seven days from four days, or four days from one day, one day from several hours, several hours from a few minutes. These differences of maturity are gradual and not sudden changes of kind. The only sudden changes of kind our life cycles involve are conception and death.
 
at the moment of conception, when the egg if fertilized by the sperm, that new cell has its own unique DNA. It is the DNA of a new unique HUMAN. Since we all have our own unique DNA, and the stuff that we are made of it, follows that when this new genome (DNA) is created, that is also when life begins.👍
 
at the moment of conception, when the egg if fertilized by the sperm, that new cell has its own unique DNA. It is the DNA of a new unique HUMAN. Since we all have our own unique DNA, and the stuff that we are made of it, follows that when this new genome (DNA) is created, that is also when life begins.👍
I couldn’t agree more. I would ask your pro abortion co workers if they were ever at the stage of human development when the egg is fertilized, and if they were, were they a human in its earliest stages or something else…if they answer something else ask for the scientific evidence describing what that something else is. The scientific evidence will prove that it is a developing HUMAN BEING.
 
When I was pro-choice, I based my reasoning on some faulty ideas:
  1. The value of life depends on the amount of pleasure it contains.
  2. It’s possible for one person to predict the amount of pleasure in another person’s future.
  3. The earth has room for just a few people more than it has, and these “places” are under intense competition; thus one person displaces another, who might have been happier.
  4. One’s right to live depends on one’s will to live.
  5. One’s will to live is partly based on one’s intelligence and awareness.
  6. A child gradually awakens from a deep sleep during pregnancy and early infancy, and his/her will to live is weak until full awareness about the time of his/her first word.
  7. Pregnancy is extremely dangerous for the mother.
  8. Miscarriage and stillbirth are signs that many children don’t want to live very much at all anyway.
  9. Unprepared parenthood is dangerous and mind-shattering, leading to mental breakdowns and inevitable child abuse.
  10. Adoption would mean a strong chance of giving your child to another man like the one who beat that little girl to death in 1989.
  11. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, therefore a child “is really” the animal s/he looks a little like.
    Most of these ideas came from the lessons we learned in school and from TV and movies, some from my home life.
To combat these ideas it might be necessary to address them each head-on.
  1. The value of life is immeasurable.
    2.No one knows the future or another person’s inner life, and certainly no one knows the future of another person’s inner life.
  2. There is no reason to think anyone displaces anyone. There is room for us all and our kids.
    4.The right to life is unalienable, as Jefferson put it, which means you have the right to live whether you want it or not.
  3. In your sleep, drunk, waking up in the dark with little idea where you are and no capacity to talk or tell time, you have far less than your usual amount of intelligence and awareness – but you sure want to know what the weird noise was, because you want to live.
    6.Babies born extremely prematurely recognize faces, different voices, and familiar words immediately. Children exposed before birth to classical music and repetitive speech recognize the words and tunes at birth. Babies undergoing surgery before birth act just like newborns, even at less than mid-term. A late-term child sleeps and wakes on a regualr cycle independent of the mother’s sleep cycle. An embryo sleeps and wakes, sees and responds to lights near the abdomen, reaches for her/his cord and clutches it, and shies away from loud noise. They’re conscious in there.
  4. Pregnancy is less dangerous now than it ever used to be, and most of the old problems of pregnancy were eliminated by prenatal vitamins and what we know now about the dangers of smoking and drinking while pregnant. Now it’s actually safer to have a baby than to abort, even with abortion legal, even in the early stages.
  5. Babies don’t choose death; they die from accidents, disease, and murder, but not from suicide. A common reason for miscarriage and stillbirth is malnutrition. The baby didn’t go on a crash diet. It wasn’t a choice. It was an accident.
    9.Parenthood can only be unprepared, since nothing but parenthood can prepare anyone for parenthood, yet most manage to do a good job. In fact there is so little difference between the way people parent planned children and unplanned children that we rarely know which we ourselves are. In any case, it makes no sense to kill someone to prevent someone from abusing him or her.
  6. People who want to adopt outnumber adoptable kids many times over. It takes so long because of the intensive screening process. The man who beat that little girl to death wasn’t her legal father – he had scammed a woman out of the child and some money and didn’t go through the adoption process. Many forms of adoption are available, and no one is forced into any given one of them.
  7. Ontogeny has a slim shaky relationship to phylogeny. As people develop, they look a little les like anything or anyone else. This differentiation continues throughout life. But even from the first few days, someone familiar with embryonic development can see that a human embryo is human, and looks aren’t everything anyway. Looking like a young tadpole wouldn’t make a person a tadpole. Anyway, none of us ever looked like a tadpole. We had long spine that looked like a tail, as tadpoles have, but a close look shows plenty of difference between a human embryo and a tadpole. We’re all human from the start.
 
My advice

When both cells meet, SOMETHING causes that the cells divide, once, twice, etc. every 12-20 hrs after implantation
After conception, the zygote, HUMAN, displays the four characteristics that define biological life
  1. metabolism
  2. growth
  3. reaction to stimuli
  4. reproduction (cell division, twinning for identical twins, the potental for this is always there)
12 days after conception, the blastocyst begins to develop hormones
13-14 days after, a primitive nervous system appears
 
I think Jesus would say, “If they haven’t listened to Moses and the prophets…they will not listen to science”. I don’t think it is wourth our time to try to convince people of anything if they are not open to truth God has already provided. Don’t waste your time trying to convince those who are committed to following the lie. Rather, find those who are searching for the truth and speak God’s truth to them.
 
I couldn’t agree more. I would ask your pro abortion co workers if they were ever at the stage of human development when the egg is fertilized, and if they were, were they a human in its earliest stages or something else…if they answer something else ask for the scientific evidence describing what that something else is. The scientific evidence will prove that it is a developing HUMAN BEING.
I think some of them will rationalize that a baby is not a human in the same way a tadpole is not a frog. I think you will find others who acknowledge that while it is technically a baby, the fact it resides in the mothers womb and is dependent on the mother makes it OK to kill. With this argument you could counter asking if it is OK for a landlord to kick a renter out with out the renter having any opportunity to find other shelter?
 
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist, turned pro-life while he was still an atheist. He tells his story briefly here:

aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

He also wrote a book about his experiences as an abortionist and his conversion called The Hand of God. He has since become Catholic.

While he was still an atheist, he wrote a book called Aborting America, which led me to become pro-life, and eventually Catholic myself.
 
**Hey I just want to say - don’t give up! I used to be so pro choice it was unbelievable (although I always had a certain unease about it but generally had a warped view that some people’s lives were not worth living therefore abortion could be the lesser of two evils) when about 6 months ago my Catholic boyfriend and I (I believe in God but don’t have a religion which I follow) had an argument about abortion. He argued from moral and scientific reasons (no mention of God created life etc) and I simply couldn’t defend my viewpoint against his.

A few months after the conversation I felt compelled to do some research on abortion, I discovered how it was carried out and could feel my support for abortion slipping away. I have since completely changed my orginal viewpoint as I’ve realised that pregnancy involves a Baby, not a ‘blob’ or ‘clump of cells’. I am so grateful to my boyfriend for helping me open my mind to the truth, I’ve come to realise that the unborn need a voice and that women who are being coerced into believing abortion is a ‘choice’ need help. Abortion damages women as well as society and their children.

There is a film coming out soon called ‘22 weeks’ about a woman who aborted her 22 week old baby, the baby was born alive at which point the woman realised the error of her decision. She tried to summon help from the abortion clinic to get medical aid to help her baby but none was provided. When I heard about the film I saw the first picture of an aborted baby I’d ever seen and it completed my change of heart about abortion. The pictures reduced me to tears. **

wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=30006

**This is an article about the film and the one in which I saw the pictures - WARNING - there are 3 pictures of an aborted baby in the article so I would advise anyone squeamish not to view the link.

I just wanted to point out that it is possible to use secular arguments to change people’s views. I’ll bet my boyfriend never guessed his argument with me 6 months ago would lead to my change of heart but it did so continue to make your arguments, you don’t know how they may help someone to realise the truth in the future! Perhaps you could suggest the article I posted here to your colleagues as an argument against abortion? I think too many people don’t equate abortion with a dead baby and that article really brings the truth home! **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top