I need Help answering an abortion argument

[estesbob]

udral:

estesbob:

udral:

Well, even though I disagree with your views I still think you’re a sentient being, and you won’t have to worry about me taking away your rights. I would fight to protect them, in fact, simply because you are a conscious self.

But you would have happily fushed me down the sink before I met “your” defnition of life. That, my friend, is where we differ. You respect life only when it suits you .

 

[BlindSheep]

An egg or a sperm doesn’t have the innate ability to develop into a complete human being, an embryo does. If it is kept alive it will inevitably develop a brain, brainwaves, consciousness, all that because it is a human being, and these are qualities of a human being. Just because they are temporarily inactive does not change the fact that it is a human being: if someone is temporarily in a coma, are they not a human being? Just because they are not manifesting all their potential as a human being at any given time, does not mean they are not human. A child cannot reproduce - reproduction is one of the criteria for life - does this mean a child is not alive? No, a child is a human being, and a human being can reproduce when it is mature enough. Human beings have the potential to create art - does this mean that those who are not creating art at this moment are not human? Are people who are asleep not human? Or is a living being more than it’s state in a static moment - is it everything it will be over its lifetime?

 

[Pauli]

udral:

Look, I don’t know too much about embryology. But I said repeatedly, whenever the human becomes sentient, even in a very minor way, is when killing it becomes murder.

I’m no embryologist either, but this is what I learned long ago in school:

When the egg and sperm unite, the cells split lengthwise, and then unite into one new creature, a complete new combination. Half the genes come from the mother, half from the father. Everything that is inherited begins when the egg and sperm unite, which then proceeds to grow, at first microscopic, more and more formed as it grows within the womb. It’s growth and development doesn’t stop when it’s born. Every trait that’s inherited is decided at the moment of conception. What color of eyes, what color of hair, whether its right handed or left handed, etc. Some of these things inherited won’t be evident until years later, like for instance how tall the person will be, or whether it’s voice is bass or tenor or baritone, but it’s already there in the genes. Mothers who have lots of children can confirm how different one is from the other.

In other words, it’s not just a generalized human being, but a one-of-a-kind, not to be repeated, creature. The person who it’s going to be is already there in embryo, and growing. Whether it suffers pain or not is not the question.

 

[Palamite]

Sentience alone is a poor argument for human dignity, for there are times in our normal, healthy lives where all manifestations of consciousness are nil (ex. deep sleep). The same would be true of those who go into a coma.

The powers of the soul may not always be active, but the foundation for their existance is ever present so long as there is a human life. If not cut off prematurely, most people will wake up from sleep, and most fetuses (fetii?) will grown into conscious, rational adults. Thus killing someone in their sleep doesn’t absolve one from the charge of murder - the same is true of a newly conceived child.

Some facts…

• newly conceived fetus is biotic (alive), not inanimate.
• newly conceived fetus has a unique DNA sequence which will not change until the day they die (whether that be in a couple of weeks due to a miscarriage or 90 years surrounded by their great grandchildren). It will determine most of their physical characteristics, as well as many of their psychological ones.
• if undisturbed, the end of the fetus is to mature into the manifestly “conscious” person. This cannot be said of either a sperm cell or an egg; you can sit one in a dish at the “right temperature” and stare at it till you turn blue and die, it will never do this…ergo, the comparison is false.

 

[Eden]

If it’s alive and you take it’s life, it’s murder.

Sometimes I think these pro-abortion people would have more sorrow over killing a plant they forgot to water.

QUIZ

Which one is alive?

http://cms.co-active.rroom.net/uploads/images/seedling_1.jpg

http://www.depts.ttu.edu/hillcountry/research/images/Chinkapin Oak tree.jpg

Which one is alive?



http://www.squarespace.com/universal/images/external/relaxing-person.jpg

 

[Forest-Pine]

It seems to me that those who are pro-abortion have a moving target of what “personhood” is. Whenever science makes their arguments a moot point, they move on to another concept that science currently doesn’t have the ability to prove. As soon as they’re proven wrong again, the bar is yet again moved.

Anyone remember that the argument use to be self-sufficience? Viability? That was pretty late in the third trimester at the time. Now viability is possible much sooner. So then it became the ability to feel pain. That was proven to be much younger than conventional wisdom of the pro-abortionist’s opinion, so it too was abandoned. Others used “the first breath” argument to arbitrarily say that it isn’t murder to deliver a full term baby in the feet first position and shove scissors into the base of its neck and scramble its brains into oblivion so long as the head wasn’t out of the birth canal. When people were faced with the reality and brutality of this, they recognized it for what it was: murder.

Now we have “thought” and “emotion” and “sentience.” Unfortunately, it is the same argument used to murder Terri Schiavo. What do you argue with someone who recognizes the human life and decides that it isn’t worth living and feels justified in killing it? That’s what we are up against with Planned Parenthood. There is no question at all that they recognize the life present. They’ll argue that is isn’t of value unless it is wanted.

Interestingly enough, this is the mentality that PP was founded on. They didn’t want black babies, so they had no value to the white population and therefore could justifiably be killed. Planned Parenthood came into being during the height of the eugenics movement (popularized by Hitler). Its stated and well publicized purpose was to sterilize and eradicate minority peoples and those with mental retardation, etc. A full third of the African American population in our country has been killed through abortion. The truth of the matter is that it is working. Eugenics is alive and well!

The rhetoric has always used the latest science of the day to support its cause and has always moved the bar as soon as science is against it. Nothing has changed from the very first days it came into being.

 

[D_Quintero]

Mom of one:

And you have been very helpful as well. I love what Peter Kreeft had to say. Where did you get this? ]

here

 

[JimG]

Personhood is more of a philosophical concept than a biological one. I prefer to forgo philosophy in favor of biology, and just protect every individual human being–human being defined as any distinct individual of the human species.

 

[UKStudent]

It seems to me that those who are pro-abortion have a moving target of what “personhood” is. Whenever science makes their arguments a moot point, they move on to another concept that science currently doesn’t have the ability to prove. As soon as they’re proven wrong again, the bar is yet again moved.

This is a strangely similar criticism as to the atheist’s criticism of the ‘God of the Gaps’. The reasons theists argue for the existence of God is increasingly pushed back by science so theists ‘move on to another concept that science currently doesn’t have the ability to prove.’

But at the same time - what qualifies as a person varies from person to person. While the view of the Church may be that a human being is present from conception, others may have differing views. Sentience is as good a place as any - and there are some people who would not classify an embryo (or fetus) as a human person until it is born. You cannot simply disregard other people’s beliefs.

Interestingly enough, this is the mentality that PP was founded on. They didn’t want black babies, so they had no value to the white population and therefore could justifiably be killed. Planned Parenthood came into being during the height of the eugenics movement (popularized by Hitler). Its stated and well publicized purpose was to sterilize and eradicate minority peoples and those with mental retardation, etc. A full third of the African American population in our country has been killed through abortion. The truth of the matter is that it is working. Eugenics is alive and well!

While interesting (I cannot judge as to its facutal accuracy) it has little bearing on the discussion in hand.

I’d also like to know why Udral was banned. Reading through his posts he did nothing against the forum rules.

 

[wcknight]

Udal, you’re on a very slippery sloop. At conception, the developing embryo takes on a life of its own. Thinking and self awareness is only one sign of life. No one but God knows when a person receives a soul. The intelligent assumption to make is that it could very well be at conception and not when they become self aware.

Your guess is no better than anyone elses. It may sound logical, but that is fool’s gold. Far better to let life continue from conception to natural death than to guess and commit murder.