Need advice for an abortion debate

[cyberwolf001]

Hope this isn’t off topic. But I need help to refute this. Especally the bolded part.

It’s on a scifi board that’s perty much Atheist and pro-choice dominated…

1. Your position that there is nothing wrong with the proposal is dependent on the premise that there is something wrong with abortion. Since not everyone accepts this premise, its up to you to demonstrate what is wrong with abortion BEFORE you can justify the proposal.

1. This potential child argument has been torn to sheds before. Human rights are a property we (society) gives to humans, not potential humans. The justifications as to why humans are given rights say compared to animals is a) our sentience, ie I think therefore I am or b) in the case of mentally retarded humans the sum of experiences they may be able to experience in their life time

A foetus at the early stages does not have anything approaching sentience because its brain is not developed.

If potential humans are held in the same esteem as a human, one would have to consider every ova or sperm would be sacred (to be logically consistent). Yet we don’t punish women for menstrating or guys for jerking off.

**Ask yourself this question as a test of your position. If you were in a fertility clinic which was burning down and you had the choice of saving a) five petri dishes with blastocysts (ie potential humans) and b) a two year old child and for some reason you aren’t physically capable of saving both, which would you choose.

If you apply the “potential humans are sacred” line of thinking, you would choose a), since five > one. However most sane people would choose b), since instinctively they realise a two year old child has more value for want of a better word than five blastocysts. And even those who think potential humans are important realise the logical trap they are in, and do their darnest to avoid it.**

The bolded part they love using every chance they get…

 

[awalt]

If someone said that to me I would argue it’s in illogical argument, as being forced to choose does not imply the other is not worthy to be saved.

By that analogy, if in the same burning building there was an elderly person with the flu who could not get out of the building on their own, and your daughter - if someone helped their daughter out, does that project to a moral belief that all elderly with an illness ought to be killed?

Of course not.

The question about abortion is not one of “who is more important, and let them choose who lives and who dies”. It is exactly the opposite, that every human life has the right to live, and anyone who believes they have the right to choose that is going down a very bad moral path. It is no different than Hitler, Stalin, or others choosing who lives and who dies for the betterment of society in their own eyes. Why is that bad, yet choosing to kill millions of human fetuses ok? That too is illogical.

 

[Em_in_FL]

1. Your position that there is nothing wrong with the proposal is dependent on the premise that there is something wrong with abortion. Since not everyone accepts this premise, its up to you to demonstrate what is wrong with abortion BEFORE you can justify the proposal.

1. This potential child argument has been torn to sheds before. Human rights are a property we (society) gives to humans, not potential humans. The justifications as to why humans are given rights say compared to animals is a) our sentience, ie I think therefore I am or b) in the case of mentally retarded humans the sum of experiences they may be able to experience in their life time

A foetus at the early stages does not have anything approaching sentience because its brain is not developed.

I would argue on the topic of DNA.
Human DNA is Human DNA, no matter what stage of life it’s in. It does not change at any stage of fetal development. It’s ALWAYS human DNA.
What distinguishes a human being from an ape? or a dog? or a tree?.. it’s DNA. It’s so clearly scientific.

“Human rights” belong to ALL HUMANS.
How else can he define “human”??

If this person actually needs to justify that a mentally retarded human is only human because of the “sum of experiences they may be able to experience in their life time” (my God that’s so disturbing it’s sickening)… then he hasn’t even the slightest respect for human life.

If potential humans are held in the same esteem as a human, one would have to consider every ova or sperm would be sacred (to be logically consistent). Yet we don’t punish women for menstrating or guys for jerking off.

Sperm and eggs are not human beings. They do not contain a full set of human DNA. This argument makes no sense.

 

[lumendelumine]

The whole argument has so many biological and philosophical holes in it, you can drive a semitrailer truck through them…

First of all, according to traditional law philosophy, human rights are not accorded to someone, but recognized. ‘We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are equal… etc.’ would not make any sense with an approach that accords people human rights according to a certain set of characteristics, rather than recognising the mere fact that they are humans.

‘Potential human’ is biological nonsense. The fertilized egg is human, period. It can never develop into anything else than into a human being, never into an ape or a dog or a fish. It can also never develop into only an organ or a part of the body. It can only develop into a full human being.

But when I say “develop”, that does not mean that there is a break in this development from the biological point of view. One could also say that a (born) baby “develops” into an adult. Though the exterior changes, the biological identity (the somatic and genetic identity) of this human entity remains the same.

When you were one year old, that was YOU, and when you will be 80 years old, that will still be YOU. When you were a one-day-old fertilized egg, that was also YOU, the same as you are today, complete with your unique set of DNA.

“A foetus at the early stages does not have anything approaching sentience because its brain is not developed.”

The nerve system of the foetus is developed quite early. The are abortion videos (like “The Silent Scream”) that show the foetus fleeing from the abortionist. The foetus is both sentient and is also able to move according to his/her own will at a rather early stage.

The argument also begs the question: Ask the person who states this if he/she then wants to accord the right to life to babies who are unmistakably sentient - such as after the 23rd week or so, when they are already able to live outside the womb. (Recently, a little girl that was born at 21 weeks survived! What would your discussion partner say about that?)

“in the case of mentally retarded humans the sum of experiences they may be able to experience in their life time”

Ask your discussion partner how low the potential “sum of experience” has to be that the mentally retarded person may be killed because they’re not human. (Should they be unable to move? unable to talk? unable to…?).

 

[blessedtoo]

If someone said that to me I would argue it’s in illogical argument, as being forced to choose does not imply the other is not worthy to be saved.

By that analogy, if in the same burning building there was an elderly person with the flu who could not get out of the building on their own, and your daughter - if someone helped their daughter out, does that project to a moral belief that all elderly with an illness ought to be killed?

Of course not…

What a great answer!

 

[Erich]

I would argue on the topic of DNA.

On that note, even science refutes the “it’s my body, I can do what I want with it” argument. The DNA of the mother and the child are different, so it’s clearly not the mother’s body but a separate body.

 

[vern_humphrey]

1. Your position that there is nothing wrong with the proposal is dependent on the premise that there is something wrong with abortion. Since not everyone accepts this premise, its up to you to demonstrate what is wrong with abortion BEFORE you can justify the proposal.

Response:
You are begging the question. You are asking me to accept that the killing of an innocent human being is not murder in order to make the argument that it is morally acceptable. You cannot make your argument if I will not agree to that at the outset.

All living human beings have a right to life – deny rhat and you deny your own right to life. This sets up a 3-part test:

1. Is an unborn child a living human being? Well, if the child is not living, there is no controversy at all, is there?
2. Is the unborn child human? Anyone who doubts that can check the DNA – it is human DNA.
3. Is the child a being? Of course! It has its own DNA.

1. This potential child argument has been torn to sheds before. Human rights are a property we (society) gives to humans, not potential humans. The justifications as to why humans are given rights say compared to animals is a) our sentience, ie I think therefore I am or b) in the case of mentally retarded humans the sum of experiences they may be able to experience in their life time

(My emphasis)

Response:

The right to live is the most fundamental of all rights, and forms the basis for all others. If you do not have a right to live, what good are other rights? How can a person who has no right to live benefit from a right to trial by jury, for example? How can a dead person exercise freedom of speech?

The Declaration of Independence refers to “. . . unalienable rights . . . life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The Constitution, in the 5th Amendment, refers to “life, liberty or property.” In each case, the right to life is always listed first, because of its preeminence.

From whence do we derive the right to life? The Declaration of Independence says that right is “unalienable,” meaning that it is neither granted, nor can it be taken away – it is a part of us as an element of our human condition. Every living human being has a right to life.

Consider the proposition that the government or society somehow grants us the right to live, or decides when we shall enjoy that right. Could the government or society decide that some people – Blacks, Jews, Catholics – would NEVER get the right to live?

What the government or society grants, the government or society can withhold. If we accept that some human agency “grants” us the right to live, it isn’t a right at all, but a privilege, to be granted or withheld at the whim of the grantor.

Who denies that all living human beings have an unalienable right to life denies the very concept of human rights.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This is a terribly flawed argument. First potential life is a bad misrepresentation, sperm, and eggs, DNA can all be listed as potential life. The church has no such teaching I am aware of. Second no one knows when life begins, we use fertilization as our best assessment, others use other dates as implantation, or birth (separation). The assumption the loss of potential life is a sin is simply a false assumption. The loss of a fertilized egg is treated by the church as a loss of life (not potential life) this loss may occur naturally, or through accident. When life is lost through an unjust action of another human being then sin has occurred. As no reasonable justification has been proposed for the lost of a “foetus" no human should lose one intentually. Concerning *” blastocysts (ie potential humans)" *if they are fertilized eggs then their loss is tragic. I can assure you the 2 year old is a life and if lost is tragic. The heart of the dichotomy suggested is given the choice to allow some to live and others to die who will you chose. The best answer is given those unfortunate circumstances I would chose as best as I could, however it is highly improper to assume I chose to allow any death, given the opportunity I would have chosen life for all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is a terribly flawed argument. First potential life is a bad misrepresentation, sperm, and eggs, DNA can all be listed as potential life. The church has no such teaching I am aware of. Second no one knows when life begins, we use fertilization as our best assessment, others use other dates as implantation, or birth (separation). The assumption the loss of potential life is a sin is simply a false assumption. The loss of a fertilized egg is treated by the church as a loss of life (not potential life) this loss may occur naturally, or through accident. When life is lost through an unjust action of another human being then sin has occurred. As no reasonable justification has been proposed for the lost of a “foetus" no human should lose one intentually. Concerning *” blastocysts (ie potential humans)" *if they are fertilized eggs then their loss is tragic. I can assure you the 2 year old is a life and if lost is tragic. The heart of the dichotomy suggested is given the choice to allow some to live and others to die who will you chose. The best answer is given those unfortunate circumstances I would chose as best as I could, however it is highly improper to assume I chose to allow any death, given the opportunity I would have chosen life for all.

Just as the Church rejects the proposition that the human soul “evolved” without rejecting the evolution of the body, so it rejects the proposition that there are “half humans” – beings which may someday be human but are not human now.

The human is formed when the DNA is formed. It is human then, and remains human for its natural life span. Anyone who would justify taking the life of a living human being must meet the highest standard – and that standard does not vary with the age, development, or physical condition of the victim.

The unborn child is just as human as the born infant, the adolescent, the adult and the old person in a nursing home. All have an unalienable right to life, and one who seeks to end their lives must meet the highest standards of justificationi.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Wow!

If I wasn’t already pro-life, I’d be seriously rethinking my position after reading these posts!

A very good job by all of you – kudos, and God bless you all!

:clapping:

Peace,
Dante

 

[timotheos]

1. This potential child argument has been torn to sheds before. Human rights are a property we (society) gives to humans, not potential humans.

Wow (smacking head)! I get it now - I had no idea it was this easy!

Hey - can I draw the line wherever I want? /(sarc off)

I pray these are just misguided kids in the throes of sophomoric arrogance.

-Timotheos

 

[cyberwolf001]

The sad thing is I’m really losing my debate with this person…

He especally loves to mock my dyslexia “nice to see dyslexic retards arnt in short supply”

 

[llowwelll]

Ask yourself this question as a test of your position. If you were in a fertility clinic which was burning down and you had the choice of saving a) five petri dishes with blastocysts (ie potential humans) and b) a two year old child and for some reason you aren’t physically capable of saving both, which would you choose.

If you apply the “potential humans are sacred” line of thinking, you would choose a), since five > one. However most sane people would choose b), since instinctively they realise a two year old child has more value for want of a better word than five blastocysts. And even those who think potential humans are important realise the logical trap they are in, and do their darnest to avoid it.

Run this scenario by your misguided opponent as a test of his position and see how he answers. Let’s say the year is 1840 and you live in the American South. You are a white slaveowner. Your plantation house is on fire. Inside your home is a) your four black slaves (ie not fully human). Also inside are b) your beautiful white son and daughter and your beautiful white wife. For some reason you aren’t physically capable of saving both groups, which would you choose?

If you apply the “all humans are sacred” line of thinking, you would choose a), since four > three. However most sane and honorable white men of the era would choose b), since instinctively they realised white women and children had far more value, for want of a better word, than four black slaves.

That was the historical reality of the time. Did that mean the white perception of blacks as less human than whites was correct? No, of course not! Black, yellow, red, brown, white, and tan people have always been fully human. Simply because they have not always been recognized as such at different times throughout history by certain misguided groups of people does not, in any way, mean they were ever less than fully human.

You can make a similar analogy to the time of the Holocaust in Nazi-held Europe. And…drumroll please…you can draw a very similar parallel to the current issue of abortion.

Also, ask this guy to prove ***to you ***that life does not begin at conception. He must use scientific evidence to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that life does not begin at conception. He cannot resort to his feelings, or what he thinks, or how he feels. He cannot prove it. Tell him that if he cannot prove it, then according to the tradition of American jurisprudence, we must err on the side of a defending what might be a life.

Ask him to consider the worst-case alternatives in the two sides of the abortion issue. If he is right, and a fetus is not actually a human and abortion is illegal, then the worst case scenario is that a woman must bear a child that she does not want for nine months and then she can be done with “it”. On the other hand, if he is wrong about the fetus, then the worst case scenario is much worse: a living human being is murdered. You cannot undo that murder after nine months. It is permanent. Whereas the mother may have to give up some of her liberty for nine months, the full human baby has to give up his or her life, every last bit of his or her liberty, without consent, forever.

 

[llowwelll]

You might also want to ask him where he draws the line in the sand as to when it is okay to conduct an abortion and where it’s not okay. He cannot do this without being very subjective and seeming to play God.

Ask him if it’s okay to abort a “fetus” during birth when the baby still has one foot left inside of it’s mother. Yes or no? Don’t let him get away with saying it’s not a good question or some other cop-out. Is it okay to abort a “fetus” when the baby still has both legs inside it’s mother? Is it okay to abort a “fetus” up until the point where the baby’s head has emerged from the birth canal? Is it okay when the baby’s head is about crown? How about up until the mother’s water breaks? Where is the line? Is it when the “fetus” loses it’s “tail”. Or maybe when it grows it’s first finger? Is it at cell differentiation? Where is the line?

Wherever he draws the line, how can he justify that this is the point where a “fetus” joins the human race? What about two minutes before that point? Can he guarantee you with the line he draws that some humans might not be mistakenly misidentified as “fetuses” and thereby killed? Yes or no? Is it okay with him if some humans are killed as a result of using his definition of when life begins? Yes or no? If yes, then he has identified himself as rather cold-hearted. If no, then how can he use the line that he himself has defined?

Unfortunately for your opponent, today’s technology simply has not caught up with the pro-abortion crowd who would like to be able to draw a line. The technology does not exist for anyone, regardless of how smart or how many degrees they have, to draw anything but a very shaky, subjective, and unreliable line in the continuum of gestational development as to where human life truly begins. In light of that truth, we must default to the earliest point where we know life can begin: conception.

 

[llowwelll]

Run this scenario by your misguided opponent as a test of his position and see how he answers. Let’s say the year is 1840 and you live in the American South. You are a white slaveowner. Your plantation house is on fire. Inside your home are a) your four black slaves (ie not fully human). Also inside are b) your beautiful white son and daughter and your beautiful white wife. For some reason you aren’t physically capable of saving both groups, which would you choose?

If you apply the “all humans are sacred” line of thinking, you would choose a), since four > three. However most sane and honorable white men of the era would choose b), since instinctively they realised white women and children had far more value, for want of a better word, than four black slaves.

That was the historical reality of the time. Did that mean the white perception of blacks as less human than whites was correct? No, of course not! Black, yellow, red, brown, white, and tan people have always been fully human. Simply because they have not always been recognized as such at different times throughout history by certain misguided groups of people does not, in any way, mean they were ever less than fully human.

You can make a similar analogy to the time of the Holocaust in Nazi-held Europe. And…drumroll please…you can draw a very similar parallel to the current issue of abortion.

Also, ask this guy to prove ***to you ***that life does not begin at conception. He must use scientific evidence to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that life does not begin at conception. He cannot resort to his feelings, or what he thinks, or how he feels. He cannot prove it. Tell him that if he cannot prove it, then according to the tradition of American jurisprudence, we must err on the side of a defending what might be a life.

Ask him to consider the worst-case alternatives in the two sides of the abortion issue. If he is right, and a fetus is not actually a human and abortion is illegal, then the worst case scenario is that a woman must bear a child that she does not want for nine months and then she can be done with “it”. On the other hand, if he is wrong about the fetus, then the worst case scenario is much worse: a living human being is murdered. You cannot undo that murder after nine months. It is permanent. Whereas the mother may have to give up some of her liberty for nine months, the full human baby has to give up his or her life, every last bit of his or her liberty, without consent, forever.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The sad thing is I’m really losing my debate with this person…

He especally loves to mock my dyslexia “nice to see dyslexic retards arnt in short supply”

Here are two replies:

1. “When you resort to personal attacks like that, you forfeit the argument.”
2. “There are almost as many of us as there are of bigoted *holes like you.”

Use them as you see fit. No charge.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The sad thing is I’m really losing my debate with this person…

He especally loves to mock my dyslexia “nice to see dyslexic retards arnt in short supply”

Actually if he is calling you names you are winning. Personal attacks are a sure sign the attacker feels they are losing, so keep that in mind

 

[1ke]

There are several very good books dealing with abortion that I’d suggest if you are frequently in a position of debating the topic:

Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn

Three Approaches to Abortion by Peter Kreeft