Rational Abortion Support

[jimmy]

Tlaloc:

None of which is based on fear or prejudice.

As with “genocide” you keep just spuriously using words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

Lastly you cannot “dehumanize” something that was never human in the first place. Since the whole question is about how to define “human” that accusation lacks any merit.

Do a DNA test. I don’t think you will find anything but human DNA. That is what the requirement is to be human.

 

[jimmy]

Tlaloc:

None of which is based on fear or prejudice.

As with “genocide” you keep just spuriously using words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

Lastly you cannot “dehumanize” something that was never human in the first place. Since the whole question is about how to define “human” that accusation lacks any merit.

A tissue would have the same DNA as the rest of her. Lets do a DNA test to see if the baby has different DNA than the mother.

 

[jimmy]

Chrissay:

Tialoc >>Consider this the fetus is a fetus from the moment of conception. Is a single cell a human being? No of course not. It may be a cell from a human being but it cannot be a human being in and of itself.>>>

It actually isn’t “a cell from a human being”; rather it is more than one cell after fertilization, which constitute a microcosm of the entire organism with everything contained in those cells, in potential form – including as was mentioned earlier by a previous poster, an entirely separate DNA, blood type, etc.

---

Prolife poster>>As far as the ‘part of the mother’ tripe, in post #109 Fergal provided basic anatomical information showing that the fetus is not connected to the mother by common tissue (your ‘not being able to tell where the mother ends and the fetus begins’ delusion).>>>

Tialoc>>The umbillicus is a delusion? Wow. Shared hallucination indeed.>>>

I doubt that the umbilicus qualifies as “common tissue”? It only exists incidental to the pregnancy, functioning solely as a conduit that is temporary by nature.
I believe “common tissue” would be a shared liver, or a shared heart, in other words tissue that was an integral or permanent part of the body. Thus, Siamese twins share common tissue if they have only one bladder between them, and so on.

Hello Chrissay, welcome to the sight.

good points.

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

Tlaloc:

From many of the comments I’ve read here I get the impression that at least some, if not most, of the posters feel that there is smply no possible way to rationally support abortion. Toward that end i thought I would write a short piece outlining one possible way of constructing a logical world view that indeed supported abortion rights.

The goal is not to convince anyone but simply to provide an opportunity for some here to see that it is possible to reasonably accept abortion. Once both sides recognize that the other has reasonable positions some attempt at finding a compromise can be sought.

Abortion is the removal of a fetus from a woman thus ending a pregnancy. Whether this is seen as murder depends entirely on how we define a person. In this case i would not define a **fetus **before a scertain stage of pregnancy as a person for the simple reason that they are not a separate living organism. They are an extension of the mother’s body. And hence removing them is no more unethical than removing a mole, or a cyst, or a damaged kidney.

Once a fetus has developed to the point that it would survive removed from the mother it can be said to be an actual person. It is at that point a separate living thing (althought temporarily still located within the mother). Where that point comes i couldn’t say, thats up to medical science to determine.

Shooting a dead body isn’t murder because we define murder as taking a life. Removing a cyst isn’t murder because while individual cells die the host organism lives on. Abortion (again before a certain point) would again not be murder because the fetus has no life of its own and the mother (the host) lives on after the operation.

Logically the argument hangs together. Its a matter of what premises we start with. Obviously if you contend that a** fetus** is a separate living thing at conception then your conclusions will be different.

You, (like most pro-aborts) have used the term “fetus” to dehumanize a living, breathing person, a being fully dependent upon his/her mother for life.

Dehumanization of the children murdered in the womb is where the crime of abortion began.

Fact: When a woman wants to give live to her child she refers to the child as a “baby” or “my baby”. When the child is unwanted it is called a “fetus”.

Medical science is a satans’ favorite tool. It makes gods out of complete fools & denies the exsitence of the one true God.

 

[cove]

jimmy:

Hello Chrissay, welcome to the sight.

good points.

I want to add a big (((((Hug)))) and a hearty welcome myself.

 

[Lisa_N]

Dj Roy Albert:

You, (like most pro-aborts) have used the term “fetus” to dehumanize a living, breathing person, a being fully dependent upon his/her mother for life.

Dehumanization of the children murdered in the womb is where the crime of abortion began.

Fact: When a woman wants to give live to her child she refers to the child as a “baby” or “my baby”. When the child is unwanted it is called a “fetus”.

Medical science is a satans’ favorite tool. It makes gods out of complete fools & denies the exsitence of the one true God.

Also realize the term fetus is NOT limited to humans but is an unborn vertebrate, not just an unborn human. So for Tlaloc to call the unborn child a fetus is incomplete. At the very least it is a HUMAN fetus. The operative word being human.

Lisa N

 

[cove]

RATIONAL ABORTION SUPPORT?

Serial killers use rationales to support their reasoning.

Slave traders and owners used rationales to support their reasoning.

Hitler and the Nazis used rationales to support his reasoning.

I am sure you get the picture on what I think of your rationales supporting abortion. I see no difference in your reasoning as compared to these groups.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

A tissue is not an organism, by changing from one to the other I did in fact change the statement.

Glad you admit that you are changing your definition to force a “rational” position. My question is “Why do you so desire to have a rational position? Why not just accept the fact that abortion is wrong? Is it because you want to justify wrong things for some hidden motive?

Tlaloc:

No. A homo sapiens is an organism, the fetus is not. It is certainly homo-sapiens cellular material but not an entire homo-sapiens before reaching some stage of development. Consider this the fetus is a fetus from the moment of conception. Is a single cell a human being? No of course not. It may be a cell from a human being but it cannot be a human being in and of itself.
.

You are incorrect. It is a homo sapien from the moment of conception. Out of the initial meeting of the sperm and egg comes the complete organism. Aside from nutrients from food, some shelter and warmth from the mother, this organism in and of itself grows into what you perceive as a human person. The needs of the baby are the same as an adult’s needs.

Tlaloc:

No indeed it is not before a certain point in the development. An organism has certain features, one of which is the capacity to digest food (WARNING this is an example not the sum total of the definition). A fetus before some stage cannot do that and is not an organism, but part of the mother organism.
.

Ok. Then what is the point of completion? I’m still waiting for that answer. And if you are going to define the point of completion based on functionality(digestion, breathing etc.) then you are going to have to further define what makes a 27 year old that cannot digest temporarily, a complete organism.

Tlaloc:

I wouldn’t know, we’d have to get medical experts to answer that.
.

If you have no line defined then we cannot arbitrarily kill babies. The line must be defined clearly. Otherwise, we risk killing human beings, correct? What “medical experts might say” is far to vague. This shows that you are not clear on what you are arguing so you are not being rational.

Tlaloc:

They indeed were not objective. You choose to call the fetus separate. That’s subjective. You claim the fetus provides the mother nothing in return which is actually just plain wrong.
.

I said the the baby has all the parts necessary and that these parts are not necessary to sustain the mother. Objective facts.

Tlaloc:

Medical science has come to the point where a fetal tissue that is not yet an organism can sometimes be kept alive and allowed to finish growing into an organism by being hooked up to machines, yes.
.

Still waiting for partial to complete definition. Maybe we can term it “the magic moment.”

Tlaloc:

You know the old saying: you can lead a horse to logic but you can’t make him think. Or something like that.
.

I’m thinking. You are not providing adequate material for stimulation. Perhaps either you or I are not complete organisms?

continued…

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

At least as far as this argument has gone, it has only addressed itself to the question of a fetus becoming human and not to any other eventuality.
.

You have to have a definition for complete organism that covers human life whether in a womb or not. You cannot arbitrarily kill human life while saying we are still working out the definition of what a human is.

Tlaloc:

Well once we had a comprehensive list of the attributes of an organism we’d have to rely on medical science to tell us at what point in fetal development they occur.
.

A complete list? Who decides on the list? What if good medical doctors disagree on the list? What do we do then? Vote?

Tlaloc:

As with many things the law ends up having to fudge details. We assume all 18 year olds are mature enough to vote. Most certainly though all 18 year olds are not equally developed. There is a granularity to the degree with which law can faithfully evoke reality.
.

Yes, there is some give and take, most erroring on the side of give. Good example. See how the immature 18 year olds are allowed to vote. We don’t restrict them from voting just as we don’t restrict someone from living if they don’t have the full list of physical components.

Tlaloc:

Really it doesn’t and hasn’t. From the very beginning of this thread I’ve argued from the following standpoint:

Abortion is legitimate if it doesn’t abort a human being
A human being is a complete organism
A fetus in early development doesn’t constitute a complete organism
Therefore a fetus before some stage of development is a legitimate candidate for Abortion.
.

Nope. You are stating a fetus in early development is not a complete organism. You have not defined early development or complete organism. This is where your definition keeps changing or you refer to some vague entity called “medical science”. Sounds a bit subjective to me. I will assume however, that the definition you are working towards excludes partial-birth abortion as a legal option.

Tlaloc:

If you understood them you’d know they weren’t self contradictory.
.

You haven’t shown that they are not self-contradictory.

Tlaloc:

The very first post! And many many since. But I’ve reiterated the gist of it above for you as well.

Still haven’t provided a definition of complete organism. You’ve just said that early “fetuses” are not complete organisms.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

You do whatever you want. Other people have different views though.

Then other people’s views involve life or death of a human being, that’s where I (and many others) get involved. Don’t expect to get away with this type of view easily.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

Sure we can as we both agree that a human being is an organism and I can demonstrate to you that a fetus in early development isn’t. See the single cell example above.

We can both agree that the United States is not China and the United States is not Poland but that gives no real information on what the United States is nor does it give enough information to justify the extermination of the United States.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa4Catholics:

An unborn child is human, he or she is certainly not a puppy.An unborn child can not be anything other than human:nope: That is a rediculous comment,where is your infamous logic?Come on

Human tissue is not a human being. This isn’t a difficult concept. Your blood is human tissue but not a human. Your marrow is human tissue but not a human. Your brain is human tissue but not a human. Your skin is human tissue but not a human. A human is the sum total of all these tissues, an organism unto itself.

Is a fetus an organism? No. Therefor it cannot be a human, only a tissue before some point in it’s development.

 

[Genesis315]

I have a question for an abortion supporter. Let’s say there are adult siamese twins. They can live just fine together, it’s just inconvenient or burdensome. But if they were split apart, one could survive on his own, while the other would die. The dependent one cannot perform some biological function(s) without one or more of his brother’s organs. They both share common tissue. Should the one that can survive independently be able to have his brother cut off?

 

[Tlaloc]

BlindSheep:

My 7 month old, breastfed daughter is too. I guess she’s just part of my body?

No, she’s a complete organism. Again I use this example: she has a working digestive system, she takes in milk breaks it down and extracts the useful parts and eliminates the wastes. The fetus on the other hand before a certain point does none of these. It relies on pre-digested food from the mother and the mother’s ability to eliminate wastes. Thats a fundamental difference.

 

[Tlaloc]

OhioBob:

No one is questioning your right to believe whatever you want based upon whatever world view you have, no matter how erroneous or ignorant the foundations of that world view might be.

The question is whether you will approach the discussion in a respectful mature way. The use of “erroneous” and “ignorant” here doesn’t suggest you are.

But the original premise of this thread was your right to your own believs, it was this supposed “rational argument in favor of abortion”. Apparently you are not really interested in having the “rationality” of that argument criticized or muddled up with a bunch of facts.

I’d love someone to post facts instead of base appeals to emotion. Do you have some?

 

[Tlaloc]

BlindSheep:

Tlaloc -
why don’t you clarify why exactly you feel the fetus is merely a part of the mother’s body? Is it the location? Dependence on the mother for nutrition and oxygen? Or something else? You haven’t explained your reasoning fully.

It’s connected to the mother, depends on her ability to breathe, eat, excrete, etc. In other words it does not carry out all the processes that we consider part of life. After a certain point it develops enough that if removed from the mother it can do all these things on its own. At that point it is a separate organism, before that point it is not.

 

[Tlaloc]

MaggieOH:

It is obvious that you have never gone through pregnancy. The conclusions that you make are garbage.

I have two kids but since I’m male I didn’t physically experience the pregnancy. If you feel like offering some support to your conclusion let me know.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Tlaloc:

The question is whether you will approach the discussion in a respectful mature way. The use of “erroneous” and “ignorant” here doesn’t suggest you are.

I’d love someone to post facts instead of base appeals to emotion. Do you have some?

There have been scientific FACTS by LisaN and others posted, you ignore them.I highly suspect it is to deaden your own conscience over something:nope:

 

[Tlaloc]

Chrissay:

It actually isn’t “a cell from a human being”; rather it is more than one cell after fertilization,

At fertilization it’s one cell, the haploid sperm and ovum form a single diploid cell. Then it starts dividing.

which constitute a microcosm of the entire organism with everything contained in those cells, in potential form – including as was mentioned earlier by a previous poster, an entirely separate DNA, blood type, etc.

Every cell in your body has a whole organism “in potential form.”

I doubt that the umbilicus qualifies as “common tissue”? It only exists incidental to the pregnancy, functioning solely as a conduit that is temporary by nature.

Your welcome to that interpretation, I don’t share it. I see a connecting tissue between mother and fetus. Of course it’s temporary, eventually the fetus become a true organism by itself and is born at which point it’s unneeded.

I believe “common tissue” would be a shared liver, or a shared heart, in other words tissue that was an integral or permanent part of the body.

I never argued that a fetus was a permanent part of the mother, only part of her in early development.

 

[Tlaloc]

jimmy:

Do a DNA test. I don’t think you will find anything but human DNA. That is what the requirement is to be human.

Really? It just has to have human DNA to be a human being? So when you took a shower this morning and scrubbed off a few million skin cells you were actually killing millions of human beings?

No DNA is not the only requirement, it also has to be an organism, and not just a tissue.

A tissue would have the same DNA as the rest of her. Lets do a DNA test to see if the baby has different DNA than the mother.

Incorrect. Transplants, Ovum, and Chimeras are all examples of tissues that are part of the mother and yet don’t match her DNA. A fetus is just one more example.