I just realized something about abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter anon16282382
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anon16282382

Guest
I was thinking about how some pro abortionists say it’s not killing because they’re not people. But then it occurred to me, even if they weren’t, they will be, therefore even by their logic you are killing someone by killing a future someone. I hadn’t heard anyone point this out, have you?
 
I have come across this argument , but then the counter-argument was “then do we have to protect every egg and sperm”.

The science is pretty settled on whether it’s a new human being at the time of conception.

The question is do we, as a society want to confer personhood and legal protections to the unborn and at what stage

BTW I’m pro life
 
Yeah, could be, but I find it becoming more and more common that the pro-choice people are using arguments no longer based on the fetus not being a person, but that they are a person and it’s OK to kill them anyway for a variety of reasons. That’s the argument you have to be ready for. 👍
 
Yeah. To quote my sister: “Yes, it’s murder, but…”

I trust and know that the fifth commandment is written on her heart and on all hearts so that no one can be pro choice in good conscience. If that makes sense.
 
Can you point me to a study or consensus among scientists that I can use if needed .
 
A particular study?

No.

However, we know that conception (fertilization) causes the chromosomes from the egg to combine with the chromosomes of the sperm to form a new and unique human.

This is simply fact. You can find it in any biology book. Or talk to a doctor who performs IVF (yes, I know the RCC is against IVF).
 
I think the much more common argument is that even if the fertilized embryo/fetus is a human being, its imposition on the woman without her will violates her autonomy and endangers her health (and sometimes life); thus, a woman is entitled to defend herself against such invasion. Many arguments are related to the sick-violinist hypothetical scenario dreamed up by Judith Thompson.

 
Ah, but it is not solely DNA differences that make us unique individuals, or identical twins/triplets/etc would have one soul “split” between them.
 
heidi_storage said:
Many arguments are related to the sick-violinist hypothetical scenario dreamed up by Judith Thompson.
Click to expand...
If you want to hear a great discussion about defending Pro life and rebutting the violinist argument watch this:

The rebbuttle for the violinist argument is that the baby has a right to your womb but no one has a right to your lung since its function is to keep you alive. But the womb is the rightful space of the baby and its function is to keep the baby alive.

This might be slightly off the topic from the original post but just thought I’d bring it up.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it’s a very important argument, and one that some find it hard to wrap their minds around. I’ve very rarely, but occasionally, heard it argued well. A fertilised egg will, with time, and left alone, become a fully grown human being (although it already is a very small human being).
The rebuttal that someone else mentioned regarding the sperm and egg is easily rebutted as the sperm and egg left alone and given all the time in the world, will never become a human being.
 
I agree, but then you have people complaining that a woman being reduced to her biological function is terrible, and besides pregnancy can mess up your body. I discussed abortion in a couple of blog posts; this one emphasizes that the debate is not and can never be ONLY about biology:

 
But whether we’re looking at one human being or several, were still looking at human being(s).

So I don’t think that disproves the humanity of the fertilized zygote.
 
This is what some of us call the “Monty Python” argument.

Personhood is an argument that fails, in fact, used to be that even NRTL would not support any personhood legislation.

I’d suggest listening to Trent Horn debate on this topic. He approaches solid arguments without ever making a religious case.

I’d also read Feminists for Life and https://www.secularprolife.org/
 
Just out of curiosity, if you are already in a discussion about abortion, how would the person feel about China, that allows couples to find out the sex of the baby and abort girls. With the one child per couple government policy, couples have overwhelmingly chose to have a boy.
 
I am pro life all the way, but that argument doesn’t hold up. Using that logic you are killing a future someone every time you choose not to get pregnant but could.
 
anon16282382 said:
But then it occurred to me, even if they weren’t , they will be, therefore even by their logic you are killing someone by killing a future someone. I hadn’t heard anyone point this out, have you?
Click to expand...
Yes. Some dude named Aristotle. 😉
 
The violinist analogy is a terrible one for many reasons that have been posted here in the past.

Deciding who lives and dies based on an arbitrary man made criteria like “personhood” is also dangerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top