Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[gakroeger]

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).

Thats because the images are not of one abortion, but many from various stages of development. I can assure you the images are real. Can you still deny they are human?

 

[gearhead]

Thats because the images are not of one abortion, but many from various stages of development.

No, that’s not it. The video shows things like an arm set on top of a coin with a full hand, but if you look up a chart of fetal development milestones, you can see that fingers aren’t that well differentiated until the fetus is much larger.

Also, the video raises other questions, like how an anti-abortion filmmaker would be able get ahold of a bunch of aborted fetuses. My instict is that it might be easier to just fake them.

I can assure you the images are real.

Unless you made the video yourself, I don’t see how you’d be in a position to do that.

Can you still deny they are human?

A fetus (as opposed to whatever was in that video) is human in the same sense that a human spleen is human.

But to look at this from another angle: if we were to assume that the video is true, what bearing would it have on abortions at the early end of the spectrum, for instance with the “morning after” pill?

 

[CWBetts]

No, that’s not it. The video shows things like an arm set on top of a coin with a full hand, but if you look up a chart of fetal development milestones, you can see that fingers aren’t that well differentiated until the fetus is much larger.

Also, the video raises other questions, like how an anti-abortion filmmaker would be able get ahold of a bunch of aborted fetuses. My instict is that it might be easier to just fake them.

Unless you made the video yourself, I don’t see how you’d be in a position to do that.

A fetus (as opposed to whatever was in that video) is human in the same sense that a human spleen is human.

But to look at this from another angle: if we were to assume that the video is true, what bearing would it have on abortions at the early end of the spectrum, for instance with the “morning after” pill?

Life begins at the very moment of conception. The zygote has DNA distinct from the mother, and is therefore its own organism at that point, though still wholly dependent on the mother, a dependence that does not end at birth I might add. Any form of contraception that prevents implantation is just as much an abortion as ripping a fetus apart and extracting the pieces.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

This is what I was thinking…

Human life is now being given worth based on “productivity” as though people were nothing more than a machine. “Oh the lack of humanity of it”!!!

Amen. But it didn’t start just now. Satan’s army has been at work for centuries.

I refuse to give ground to the enemy. I refuse to agree with his terms.

And I will repeat to all and sundry: It is not pro-CHOICE. It is pro-ABORTION.

Funny how the nitwits arguing for abortion were all ‘permitted’ to live.

 

[fix]

A fetus (as opposed to whatever was in that video) is human in the same sense that a human spleen is human.

That is like saying a teenager is a human the same way a spleen is a human.

 

[gearhead]

Life begins at the very moment of conception. The zygote has DNA distinct from the mother, and is therefore its own organism at that point,

An unfertilized egg also has DNA distinct from the mother. Why do you draw the line where you do? Why don’t you consider an unfertilized egg “its own organism”?

though still wholly dependent on the mother, a dependence that does not end at birth I might add.

Are you assuming that I’m making some claim that the value of life is based on its degree of autonomy?

Any form of contraception that prevents implantation is just as much an abortion as ripping a fetus apart and extracting the pieces.

In the sense that they both end a pregnancy, maybe. But would you say that preventing this small group of cells from implanting in the uterine lining is of the same nature and magnitude as the abortion of a fetus (which, by definition, would occur at least 9 weeks after conception and when the fetus is at least ~30 mm long)?

 

[gearhead]

That is like saying a teenager is a human the same way a spleen is a human.

No, it’s not. Pay attention:

1. a human: noun
2. human: adjective

The first one implies personhood and can only be validly used to describe people.

The second one doesn’t necessarily imply personhood and can be validly used to describe something that is human, is related to humans or has to do with humanity. The thing in question might be a person (e.g. “human being”), or it might not (e.g. “human spleen”, “human nature”, “human growth hormone”).

Now… I realize that we’re using the same word in two different senses, but we all learned about homonyms in grade school, so we should all know well enough that confusing the two words and equivocating between their meanings is a logical error.

As for the teenager, I base my judgement of whether he is a person on things other than whether the adjective “human” can be validly applied to him.

 

[fix]

No, it’s not. Pay attention:

1. a human: noun
2. human: adjective

The first one implies personhood and can only be validly used to describe people.

What is personhood?

The second one doesn’t necessarily imply personhood and can be validly used to describe something that is human, is related to humans or has to do with humanity. The thing in question might be a person (e.g. “human being”), or it might not (e.g. “human spleen”, “human nature”, “human growth hormone”).

Now… I realize that we’re using the same word in two different senses, but we all learned about homonyms in grade school, so we should all know well enough that confusing the two words and equivocating between their meanings is a logical error.

So, we agree an unborn baby is in no way like a spleen other than claiming the spleen is part of a human. Great.

As for the teenager, I base my judgement of whether he is a person on things other than whether the adjective “human” can be validly applied to him.

So, the meaning of words change depending on what you want them to mean? Like Alice in Wonderland. I get it now.

 

[gearhead]

So, the meaning of words change depending on what you want them to mean? Like Alice in Wonderland. I get it now.

No, words have meanings based on their established definitions. The adjective “human” no more means that the thing described must be a person than the adjective “orange” implies that the thing described must be a citrus fruit.

 

[fix]

No, words have meanings based on their established definitions. The adjective “human” no more means that the thing described must be a person than the adjective “orange” implies that the thing described must be a citrus fruit.

Your point is pedantic and proves what?

 

[Christopher68]

Any form of contraception that prevents implantation is just as much an abortion as ripping a fetus apart and extracting the pieces.

No, they are two totally different things.

 

[sauce]

No, words have meanings based on their established definitions. The adjective “human” no more means that the thing described must be a person than the adjective “orange” implies that the thing described must be a citrus fruit.

zzzzzzzzzzz

Your brand is eroding.

 

[CWBetts]

No, they are two totally different things.

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Any form of artificial contraception that prevents implatation is an abortifacient. I did not expect a pro-abortion stance from a Catholic. The cafeteria is closed.

 

[gearhead]

Your point is pedantic and proves what?

The fact I had to make it proves that there are participants in this thread who either didn’t pay attention in grade school or are deliberately making false arguments.

 

[fix]

The fact I had to make it proves that there are participants in this thread who either didn’t pay attention in grade school or are deliberately making false arguments.

I am trying to understand your point. Let us make this simple. When is an unborn baby a “human being”?

 

[Christopher68]

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Any form of artificial contraception that prevents implatation is an abortifacient. I did not expect a pro-abortion stance from a Catholic. The cafeteria is closed.

So if we assume that half the population practices some form of birth control, do you consider half the population to be ‘baby killers’? You likely interact with these people on a daily basis.

 

[gearhead]

I am trying to understand your point. Let us make this simple. When is an unborn baby a “human being”?

What relevance does my position have?

Here’s what I think you’re trying to do: you want me to give a point so you can attack it, implying that if my position is wrong, yours must be right.

It doesn’t work like that. If you want your position to prevail and if you want to restrict people’s rights, it’s up to you to justify this restriction on its own merits.

 

[fix]

What relevance does my position have?

It shows what you believe. That matters because we need a starting point.

Here’s what I think you’re trying to do: you want me to give a point so you can attack it, implying that if my position is wrong, yours must be right.

Are you saying your position is too weak?

It doesn’t work like that. If you want your position to prevail and if you want to restrict people’s rights, it’s up to you to justify this restriction on its own merits.

I do not want to restrict any person’s rights. I do not call unjust killing a right.

 

[gearhead]

It shows what you believe. That matters because we need a starting point.

But we already have a starting point. Hence 200-odd posts worth of discussion.

Are you saying your position is too weak?

No, I’m saying I don’t want to shift the focus from the real issue by getting into this game with you.

I do not want to restrict any person’s rights. I do not call unjust killing a right.

Legally, we have the right to do any action until it’s prohibited by law. People have the right to abortion now; you want a new law to take this away. Justify it.

 

[fix]

But we already have a starting point. Hence 200-odd posts worth of discussion.

So, the starting point with you is that unborn life deserves no protection. Got it.

No, I’m saying I don’t want to shift the focus from the real issue by getting into this game with you.

The real issue is that you, and others, do not value unborn life as equal to born life.

Legally, we have the right to do any action until it’s prohibited by law. People have the right to abortion now; you want a new law to take this away. Justify it.

They have no authentic right. The state is not a god. Yes, I want the law to be just and protect the life of innocent. Not a radical position, simply a logical one known to people of good will.