Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[gearhead]

But they are all the same human & therefore have the same unalienable rights, whether God given or those construed in our Bill of Rights.

That same human will one day become a corpse, but the corpse has no rights under the Bill of Rights or, presumably, under the rules you attribute to God.

And I’m no lawyers, but the fact that a fetus does not have rights under the Bill of Rights is a strong indication to me that a fetus does not have rights under the Bill of Rights.

You say that such life always has value, even a single hair, but not an unborn baby human, complete w/ a separate beating heart?

Yes, an “unborn baby human” has value… much more value than a single human hair, but still less value than the value of the freedom of the mother, IMO.

 

[gearhead]

gearhead, I have not said, nor do I believe that a fetus is a person per se, but it is human life. Do you have something of substance to show that ‘baby’ implies ‘person’

Not so much. Really, the only objective thing that I can point to is social convention.

or that from the time of sperm-egg fusion, the concept of ‘personhood’ is necessary to determine that the zygote is human & therefore deserving of protection from his/her own mother & doctor?

Well, if you want to bestow protection on it, you have to justify it on some basis. If you want to argue that protection is warranted for some reason other than personhood, you’re free to do it.

 

[sauce]

Who is the best judge on whether some genetic material is a “live person” or not?
Whose call is that? What would make gearhead contented in this area?

Your desires about wanted children and loved children probably isn’t something that you or anybody else can control anyway.

I think everyone needs to have a nice weekend and pick this up come Monday morning.

 

[holy_moly]

If you want to argue that a fetus is a person, fine, but do it on the merits of the issue. It bothers me when people try to win the argument through semantic trickery.

The semantic trickery started when you threw out ‘person’ in a discussion about when human life begins. As a so-called ‘humanist’, you don’t seem to value human life except when it fits YOUR definitions/euphemisms. Personally, I don’t think personhood is the issue, nor can it be determined. The question of when life begins is a matter of biology. Dr Maureen Conic, a senior fellow at the Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person & an assoc. professor of neurobiology& anatomy at the U of Utah says, “multiple scientific studies have examined the earliest stages of human life, and there is only one answer that is consistent with the scientific facts: A new human life commences at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second… Clearly, the facts regarding when life begins have been demonstrated beyond the possibility of any reasonable objection. Therefore, the evidence, the analysis & the conclusions they support should be universally accepted by all the experts in the field… on the question of biology, there can be no substantive disagreement”

to be continued…

 

[holy_moly]

continued…

Dr. Conic continues, "How do we know that a human embryo is a human being from the beginning? This is a simple matter of biology, a question that is much easier to resolve than the issue of whether a human ‘person’, who is the subject of human rights, has come into existence.

When does a human being come to exist? Following sperm-egg fusion, a single cell is generated, the human zygote or one cell embryo. To decide if this cell is a human being, as opposed to merely a human cell, we need to consider the difference between a cell & an organism. The key feature of an organism is that all of the parts of the organism work together in a coordinated manner for the good of the entity as a whole. In the case of the one-cell human embryo, the scientific evidence clearly indicates that all parts of the zygote- those contributed by the mother & by the father work together from the beginning in a highly coordinated way to promote the life, health & maturation of the embryo itself. The one-cell embryo functions like an organism to generate the structures & relationships that are required for its own, ongoing development- and it does this from the very moment of the sperm-egg fusion onward. The embryo functions from the beginning like an organism & is therefore a human being; a whole & complete member of the human species at the earliest stage of life.”

There is no doubt as to when human life begins, only as to when our society values it.

 

[holy_moly]

Not so much. Really, the only objective thing that I can point to is social convention.

Well, if you want to bestow protection on it, you have to justify it on some basis. If you want to argue that protection is warranted for some reason other than personhood, you’re free to do it.

Actually, you should justify the destruction of such life. Throughout human history, the vast majority of societies have had laws or taboos against killing. It is part of innate moral law, that most people know in their heart of hearts the difference between right or wrong, whether it is legislated or not. As to personhood issues see my posts 183 & 184.

 

[gearhead]

The semantic trickery started when you threw out ‘person’ in a discussion about when human life begins.

Actually, that was originally the OP, not me.

As a so-called ‘humanist’, you don’t seem to value human life except when it fits YOUR definitions/euphemisms.

Same for you.

I know animal rights activists who are very adamant that all mammals are “people” that deserve protection under the law. I bet you’d be just as quick to dismiss that position as I would.

Personally, I find it interesting that all the anti-abortion people here have seemed very quick to dismiss the idea that an unfertilized egg or sperm deserve protection. They have all the characteristics that people have been saying demand protection after conception:

• they’re alive - if they weren’t, you wouldn’t be able to get a viable fetus from them.
• they’re human - they certainly aren’t kangaroo or anything like that.
• they’re genetically distinct from the parents - the DNA of an egg does not match that of the woman, and the DNA of the sperm does not match that of the man.

So… are you willing to value that human life even though it doesn’t fit your definitions or euphemisms?

Personally, I don’t think personhood is the issue, nor can it be determined. The question of when life begins is a matter of biology.

But the question of what we should value and protect is not.

 

[gearhead]

When does a human being come to exist? Following sperm-egg fusion, a single cell is generated, the human zygote or one cell embryo. To decide if this cell is a human being, as opposed to merely a human cell, we need to consider the difference between a cell & an organism. The key feature of an organism is that all of the parts of the organism work together in a coordinated manner for the good of the entity as a whole. In the case of the one-cell human embryo, the scientific evidence clearly indicates that all parts of the zygote- those contributed by the mother & by the father work together from the beginning in a highly coordinated way to promote the life, health & maturation of the embryo itself.

The same question for you as I asked before: when a single embryo/zygote develops into identical twins, when is the second “person” created? Were there two “people” right from conception? How would you know?

Did the second “human being” somehow manage to create itself at a point other than conception? If so, then doesn’t this illustrate that “personhood” or the existence of the “human being” does not necessarily occur right at conception?

 

[gearhead]

Actually, you should justify the destruction of such life.

No, actually. We’re legally free to do any action that isn’t illegal. Our actions are limited by laws, and laws have to be justified.

If there were no laws on abortion at all, abortion would be legally permitted.

Throughout human history, the vast majority of societies have had laws or taboos against killing.

And also throughout history, the recognition of a fetus as something warranting legal protection is spotty at best.

It is part of innate moral law, that most people know in their heart of hearts the difference between right or wrong, whether it is legislated or not.

So… since in my heart of hearts I know that abortion isn’t wrong, then abortion isn’t prohibited under “innate moral law”?

 

[Supercatholic]

No, actually. We’re legally free to do any action that isn’t illegal. Our actions are limited by laws, and laws have to be justified.

If there were no laws on abortion at all, abortion would be legally permitted.

And also throughout history, the recognition of a fetus as something warranting legal protection is spotty at best.

So… since in my heart of hearts I know that abortion isn’t wrong, then abortion isn’t prohibited under “innate moral law”?

Just to address some of your previous posts. First, I used to work at a shopping center with an underground parking garage. In the garage a car was on fire. Smoke was billowing rapidly filling the entire level. Two of us went out to check if anyone was in the car. Fortunately no one was. We went back into the shopping center. We weren’t breathing deeply nor were we holding our breath. We kept the breathing shallow. The whole thing took about 30 seconds. That was 15 years ago. So the bottom line is short term exposure to smoke WILL NOT KILL YOU. The next issue is the “wanted and loved babies vs the unwanted and unloved babies”. Your little sound bite is another often used pro-choice argument to garner sympathy to justify the slaughter of innocent babies. Which brings me to my third point. You claim it’s only a baby AFTER it’s born. WRONG! It was just as much a baby the day before it was born, as it was a week before it was born, as it was a month before it was born, and much further back from that. My fourth and final point. To say that in your heart of hearts you know abortion isn’t wrong displays several things. Number 1, You have no heart. Number 2, your knowledge of the basic entity of the human person is practically non-existant. And number 3, you probably are an abortionist looking to drum up business.

 

[Christopher68]

Just to address some of your previous posts. First, I used to work at a shopping center with an underground parking garage. In the garage a car was on fire. Smoke was billowing rapidly filling the entire level. Two of us went out to check if anyone was in the car. Fortunately no one was. We went back into the shopping center. We weren’t breathing deeply nor were we holding our breath. We kept the breathing shallow. The whole thing took about 30 seconds. That was 15 years ago. So the bottom line is short term exposure to smoke WILL NOT KILL YOU. The next issue is the “wanted and loved babies vs the unwanted and unloved babies”. Your little sound bite is another often used pro-choice argument to garner sympathy to justify the slaughter of innocent babies. Which brings me to my third point. You claim it’s only a baby AFTER it’s born. WRONG! It was just as much a baby the day before it was born, as it was a week before it was born, as it was a month before it was born, and much further back from that. My fourth and final point. To say that in your heart of hearts you know abortion isn’t wrong displays several things. Number 1, You have no heart. Number 2, your knowledge of the basic entity of the human person is practically non-existant. And number 3, you probably are an abortionist looking to drum up business.

I think the rhetoric is getting a bit out of control here - in particular with regard to your final sentence. If the objective is to change peoples hearts and minds, calling them names and insulting them is not the way to do it.

 

[Supercatholic]

I think the rhetoric is getting a bit out of control here - in particular with regard to your final sentence. If the objective is to change peoples hearts and minds, calling them names and insulting them is not the way to do it.

Since gearhead vehemently supports promotes and endorses abortion it is obvious that he has a great deal of respect for that profession. So how can being called an abortionist be an insult?

 

[gearhead]

Just to address some of your previous posts. First, I used to work at a shopping center with an underground parking garage. In the garage a car was on fire. Smoke was billowing rapidly filling the entire level. Two of us went out to check if anyone was in the car. Fortunately no one was. We went back into the shopping center. We weren’t breathing deeply nor were we holding our breath. We kept the breathing shallow. The whole thing took about 30 seconds. That was 15 years ago. So the bottom line is short term exposure to smoke WILL NOT KILL YOU.

By the same logic, since I survived a car collision, I know that collisions don’t kill people.

I’m glad you came out okay, but that doesn’t make you a fire expert and it doesn’t mean that smoke isn’t dangerous.

The next issue is the “wanted and loved babies vs the unwanted and unloved babies”. Your little sound bite is another often used pro-choice argument to garner sympathy to justify the slaughter of innocent babies.

It’s often-used because it’s accurate.

Which brings me to my third point. You claim it’s only a baby AFTER it’s born. WRONG! It was just as much a baby the day before it was born, as it was a week before it was born, as it was a month before it was born, and much further back from that.

There we have it. For nearly 200 posts, we’ve debated this very issue, but we neglected one thing: “Supercatholic’s” declaration from on high with no argument or support. But now that we’ve received it, I guess the debate’s done and the matter’s settled.

My fourth and final point. To say that in your heart of hearts you know abortion isn’t wrong displays several things. Number 1, You have no heart. Number 2, your knowledge of the basic entity of the human person is practically non-existant. And number 3, you probably are an abortionist looking to drum up business.

Tell me why I should give any more weight to your assessment of my character than a similar claim put forward by a PETA member telling me that I’m a murderer because I’m not vegetarian.

Since gearhead vehemently supports promotes and endorses abortion it is obvious that he has a great deal of respect for that profession. So how can being called an abortionist be an insult?

I don’t consider it an insult; it’s just incorrect. It’s probably not in your best interest to be throwing wild claims around, though. As the old saying goes, “it’s better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

 

[s4angel]

Just a quick question here, How can someone or something (depending on which side your on) be human but not a person? Is there some miraculous event that magicaly happens that bestows personhood on a human being?

Is it in the brain of a unborn child that may not have the ability yet to articulate a want for life but will instictivly draw away from pain? Is it the birth that forces the child from the womb? What makes them a person over just a human? What is the difference?

 

[gearhead]

Just a quick question here, How can someone or something (depending on which side your on) be human but not a person?

Lots of things are human but not a person: human hair, human nature, etc. However, if you mean to suggest that something can be a human but not a person… I don’t think it can.

Is there some miraculous event that magicaly happens that bestows personhood on a human being?

When I try to look at things from a religious pro-life angle, there’d be something that fits that description: ensoulment. I’m surprised that it hasn’t been brought up more in this thread.

 

[gakroeger]

Lots of circular arguments going on here.

Gearhead, have you found a way to view the aftermath of an abortion yet.

 

[gearhead]

Lots of circular arguments going on here.

Gearhead, have you found a way to view the aftermath of an abortion yet.

I watched your video, if that’s what you mean. AFAICT, it’s a fake. I tried to figure out what gestational age those fetuses would be, but it seems that the levels of development they show doesn’t match their size (from what I can gauge by comparing them to the coins in the various shots).

 

[CWBetts]

Go to abortionno.org

 

[Supercatholic]

By the same logic, since I survived a car collision, I know that collisions don’t kill people.

I’m glad you came out okay, but that doesn’t make you a fire expert and it doesn’t mean that smoke isn’t dangerous.

It’s often-used because it’s accurate.

There we have it. For nearly 200 posts, we’ve debated this very issue, but we neglected one thing: “Supercatholic’s” declaration from on high with no argument or support. But now that we’ve received it, I guess the debate’s done and the matter’s settled.

Tell me why I should give any more weight to your assessment of my character than a similar claim put forward by a PETA member telling me that I’m a murderer because I’m not vegetarian.

I don’t consider it an insult; it’s just incorrect. It’s probably not in your best interest to be throwing wild claims around, though. As the old saying goes, “it’s better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

I never claimed to be a fire expert, but I can claim that if a lesser degree of impact in a car collision can result in survivors, then short term exposure to smoke can also result in survival. Now the question arises. If you can reason that smoke and auto collisions, no matter how small are still classified as dangerous, which I agree with you that they are, why do you use a different standard of logic that the human life in the womb is not worthy of protection simply because of it’s size? I have one simple question I would like you to answer. If a woman went to the hospital to deliver a full term “human” but decided to have an abortion just minutes before delivery, did the doctors abort a fetus or murder a baby?

 

[awantz]

No, actually. We’re legally free to do any action that isn’t illegal. Our actions are limited by laws, and laws have to be justified.

If there were no laws on abortion at all, abortion would be legally permitted.

And also throughout history, the recognition of a fetus as something warranting legal protection is spotty at best.

So… since in my heart of hearts I know that abortion isn’t wrong, then abortion isn’t prohibited under “innate moral law”?

Having sex outside of marriage isn’t illegal, but it is still wrong.

Science has proven that life begins as conception. I posted a link to one website in an earlier post. Here is another one.
epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_human_rights/Scientists_Attest_To_Life_Beginning_At_Conception.shtml

If your last sentence is true, you are then saying that you have no conscience.