Rational Abortion Support

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

In the above case, you did not change the essence of what you are saying. In the candy example, you changed the verb to the opposite, which is changing the essense.

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

The baby in the womb is a homo-sapien by scientific definition. You are simply creating your own defintions now and that is even less logical.

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.

It most certainly is a complete organism. You are confusing functionality with actuality. The baby in the womb is a complete organisim that relies on his/her mother to perform certain functions.

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. Let’s just look at your current definition then (which seems to me to be a 3rd definition in 3 posts but for simplicity we’ll just look at this one). When does something become a complete organisim unto itself? When you say so? Again, what is the line to cross for the partial-organism to become a complete organism?

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

Those were completely objective statements that are scientifically verifiable. You can disagree with objective fact, but don’t call this logic please.

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.

Apparently that point of transistion can be made outside of the womb also. Again, what is the definition of a complete organisim? When does partial become complete?

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.

If they were corrected in any manner like you are doing here with changing your mind as you go along, I highly doubt you helped anyone gain understanding.

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

So something is a partial organism when it is dependent prior to X months/years of life but after that it is a complete organism irregardless if it becomes dependent again?

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.

If this is the case, then a complete organisim is a function of time. So you must define not only the physical characteristics of a complete organism but also the age requirement of a physical organism.

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.

What if 2 organisms reach the same age but 1 meets the physical requirements for completeness but the other does not? Isn’t then, the age requirement impossible to require without the physical requirement?

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.

Actually, I’m trying very hard to see what your definition is but it keeps changing.

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.

The fact that your defintions so far have been self-contradictory doesn’t mean that I haven’t tried to understand them.

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

Are you saying there is a different defintion somewhere on the thread? Which post?

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

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

I’d rather error on the sun actually shining and life actually living than assume the sun isn’t shining and the baby isn’t living.

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

The surgeon goes in with the knife to kill the baby. Aren’t they assuming there is a life in there based on the sonigram? Or is the knife unnecessary?

There’s certainly cellular life and if left uninterrupted that cellular life will likely grow into an organism.

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

I scanned the posts and I am still looking for you defintion of complete organism.

I haven’t given a definition of “complete organism.” I leave that to biologists. I know what some of the attributes will be but couldn’t say as to the whole definition.

You can’t educate on something that you don’t even have defined yet.

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.

 

[OhioBob]

I’ve been following this thread waiting for it to collapse from it’s own lunacy, but apparently none of us can resist a good baiting.

Tlaloc, your ‘fetus is not a complete organism’ and ‘fetus is a part of the mother like a mole or an arm’ (I almost can’t type it with a straight face) arguments are two of the most biologically misguided premises that I have ever read. For you to think for a minute that they represent valid positions or logical arguments is nonsense. The fact that you hold those positions doesn’t make them correct or rational.

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). The fetus lives on its own - while it relies on mom for nourishment and protection (much like a newborn) it does not rely upon her for life. The little bugger floats around within the amneotic sack inside the uterus. The umbilical cord is an extension of the fetus’ tissue, it is not part of the mother.

The fetus has it’s own blood supply which is not shared with the mother. The umbilical arteries and veins are not shared with the mother. The placenta serves to allow nutrients to pass from the unique tissues of the mother to the unique tissues of the fetus. If you can’t see that the fetus and the mother are seperate tissues you aren’t really looking.

I’m convinced you are just trying to stir up discontent. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt since I assume that you cannot really be so ignorant of basic biology. But maybe you haven’t studied that in class yet… They might get to it right after recess.

 

[A_Chaoidh]

It comes down to when “you” think an embryo is human. I believe that is at the moment of conception.

If one is unable to recognize or see human life where there is human life it soon becomes easy to murder (for many in our society) and convince oneself that it isn’t murder. A human embryo has a high probability of living to birth and beyond, if nurtured and protected. A fertilized human egg is human. Morality or the lack thereof comes into play.

As someone wiser than me once said, “If it isn’t a baby, you’re not pregnant.”

Newborns and children are also unable to survive without assistance, that is why they have parents, family and society to protect and nurture them until they are able to do so for themselves. There are many adults (e.g., mentally ill) that need assistance of others.

The Nazis viewed others (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, infirm, etc.) as non-human or sub-human which allowed them to kill millions. Pro-abortionists view human embryos as non-human which allows them to kill millions, the similarities are hard to ignore. The Nazis also used euthanasia against the handicapped, mentally ill, etc. Where will this end? the unborn, the sick, the elderly?

May God have mercy on us and on the innocents lost.
Pax vobiscum.

 

[km112482]

Tlaloc:

Ah but what precisely is it you are set in your ways on? Is it your view of Abortion or your view of pro-abortion people or both?

Like I said I have no illusions or really even desire to change anyone’s view of abortion. I would like to promote a health view of pro-abortion people so that both sides can communicate more effectively.

Hopefully you (or really others since this doesn’t seem to apply to you) aren’t set in your ways about viewing anyone pro-abortion as a bloodthirsty ravening monster howling at the moon for the blood of babies.

Let me put it to you as best I can. I am totally against abortion and that is that. I am not judging those who do it, but I do consider it murder so I mean if that is how I feel then of course I think they have commited murder. But it is not my place to judge them. I will just keep praying that people open their eyes and see what a horrible thing this is. When I was in highschool we had to watch an abortion to show us how morally wrong it was and I will never forget what I saw. I was mortified and I just cant see how I can ever justify someone who does this to their unborn child.

God Bless, Kerri

 

[Tlaloc]

OhioBob:

I’ve been following this thread waiting for it to collapse from it’s own lunacy, but apparently none of us can resist a good baiting.

You mean I don’t get a cookie?

Tlaloc, your ‘fetus is not a complete organism’ and ‘fetus is a part of the mother like a mole or an arm’ (I almost can’t type it with a straight face) arguments are two of the most biologically misguided premises that I have ever read. For you to think for a minute that they represent valid positions or logical arguments is nonsense. The fact that you hold those positions doesn’t make them correct or rational.

Definitely not getting a cookie.

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).

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

The fetus lives on its own - while it relies on mom for nourishment and protection (much like a newborn) it does not rely upon her for life. The little bugger floats around within the amneotic sack inside the uterus. The umbilical cord is an extension of the fetus’ tissue, it is not part of the mother.

So then it doesn’t connect to the mother at all? I wonder why they have it then.

The fetus has it’s own blood supply which is not shared with the mother. The umbilical arteries and veins are not shared with the mother. The placenta serves to allow nutrients to pass from the unique tissues of the mother to the unique tissues of the fetus. If you can’t see that the fetus and the mother are seperate tissues you aren’t really looking.

Darn. I could have used a cookie.

I’m convinced you are just trying to stir up discontent. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt since I assume that you cannot really be so ignorant of basic biology. But maybe you haven’t studied that in class yet… They might get to it right after recess.

Aw man! Cookie!

 

[Tlaloc]

A_Chaoidh:

It comes down to when “you” think an embryo is human. I believe that is at the moment of conception.

Precisely! Obviously a graduate.
You believe humanity starts at conception. Thats a well honored perception going all the way back to the Catholic belief that little tiny people lived inside of sperm.

I don’t believe humanity starts at conception, not least of all because I have trouble pointing to one cell and saying “that’s a human being” and pointing to a cell right next to it and saying “that’s part of a human but not a human being itself.” Just seems way too arbitrary especially when you start considering twins, cloning and so on.

But as you said it depends on how we choose to define human. That’s the crux of the entire discussion.

As someone wiser than me once said, “If it isn’t a baby, you’re not pregnant.”

cute but not exactly rigorous.

Newborns and children are also unable to survive without assistance, that is why they have parents, family and society to protect and nurture them until they are able to do so for themselves. There are many adults (e.g., mentally ill) that need assistance of others.

true but as above there is a fundamental difference between a helpless baby (complete organism) and an early fetus (incomplete, merely tissue).

The Nazis viewed others (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, infirm, etc.) as non-human or sub-human which allowed them to kill millions.

The Nazi’s based their decisions on flawed theories of racism and homophobia.

Pro-abortionists view human embryos as non-human which allows them to kill millions, the similarities are hard to ignore.

The differences however are apparently easy for you to ignore.

The Nazis also used euthanasia against the handicapped, mentally ill, etc. Where will this end? the unborn, the sick, the elderly?

The Nazi’s did a lot of things we also do. They breathed, they ate, slept, went to war, made propaganda, and so on. You can’t say something is bad just because the Nazi’s did it. The holocaust was bad, not because the Nazi’s did it, but because people allowed fear and prejudice lead them to kill their fellow man.

 

[Tlaloc]

km112482:

Let me put it to you as best I can. I am totally against abortion and that is that. I am not judging those who do it, but I do consider it murder so I mean if that is how I feel then of course I think they have commited murder. But it is not my place to judge them. I will just keep praying that people open their eyes and see what a horrible thing this is. When I was in highschool we had to watch an abortion to show us how morally wrong it was and I will never forget what I saw. I was mortified and I just cant see how I can ever justify someone who does this to their unborn child.

God Bless, Kerri

Let me ask you a few questions then:
Do you think I have reasons for supporting abortion? Not do you agree with them but do you think I have them?

Do you further believe that we have different perspectives on good/evil, morality, religion, etc? And if so do you believe I should act according to my beliefs?

Assuming the answers above are ‘yes’ then can you not imagine a person with different views from you having morals and a world view that allows for abortion and does not consider it murder?

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

Let me ask you a few questions then:
Do you think I have reasons for supporting abortion? Not do you agree with them but do you think I have them?

Do you further believe that we have different perspectives on good/evil, morality, religion, etc? And if so do you believe I should act according to my beliefs?

Assuming the answers above are ‘yes’ then can you not imagine a person with different views from you having morals and a world view that allows for abortion and does not consider it murder?

Hitler had reasons for killing Jews (reasons I wouldn’t agree with, but he had reasons)

Hitler had a different perspective on good/evil, morality, religion, etc. But, I don’t think he should have been able to act on those beliefs.

I can imagine that. I could imagine people having all sorts of kooky world views. What’s your point?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Tlaloc:

Precisely! Obviously a graduate.
You believe humanity starts at conception. Thats a well honored perception going all the way back to the Catholic belief that little tiny people lived inside of sperm.

I don’t believe humanity starts at conception, not least of all because I have trouble pointing to one cell and saying “that’s a human being” and pointing to a cell right next to it and saying “that’s part of a human but not a human being itself.” Just seems way too arbitrary especially when you start considering twins, cloning and so on.

But as you said it depends on how we choose to define human. That’s the crux of the entire discussion.

cute but not exactly rigorous.

true but as above there is a fundamental difference between a helpless baby (complete organism) and an early fetus (incomplete, merely tissue).

The Nazi’s based their decisions on flawed theories of racism and homophobia.

The differences however are apparently easy for you to ignore.

The Nazi’s did a lot of things we also do. They breathed, they ate, slept, went to war, made propaganda, and so on. You can’t say something is bad just because the Nazi’s did it. The holocaust was bad, not because the Nazi’s did it, but because people allowed fear and prejudice lead them to kill their fellow man.

You mean the fear and prejudice that comes when someone feel an unborn child is a mole or cyst?Or that an unborn child should die becaused they are looked upon as an inconvience or burden?Or to dehumanise a segment of the population and target them for extermination?

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

Hitler had reasons for killing Jews (reasons I wouldn’t agree with, but he had reasons)

Reasons that were demonstrably false. Racism has no basis in fact.

I can imagine that. I could imagine people having all sorts of kooky world views. What’s your point?

If you can recognize a logical position based on different starting assumptions than your own then you may be ready for a mature discussion of the topic. Your use of “kooky” doesn’t fill me with confidence however.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa4Catholics:

You mean the fear and prejudice that comes when someone feel an unborn child is a mole or cyst?Or that an unborn child should die becaused they are looked upon as an inconvience or burden?Or to dehumanise a segment of the population and target them for extermination?

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.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

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.

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

 

[BlindSheep]

Tlaloc:

But it is part of her body. It is a tissue supported and nurtured by her body.

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

 

[OhioBob]

Tlaloc:

Let me ask you a few questions then:
Do you think I have reasons for supporting abortion? Not do you agree with them but do you think I have them?

Do you further believe that we have different perspectives on good/evil, morality, religion, etc? And if so do you believe I should act according to my beliefs?

Assuming the answers above are ‘yes’ then can you not imagine a person with different views from you having morals and a world view that allows for abortion and does not consider it murder?

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.

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.

By the way, I like your signature:

Ignorance never settles a question.
-Benjamin Disraeli

Good advice. Too bad you don’t follow it.

 

[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.

 

[Lisa_N]

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.

Blind Sheep don’t waste your time. Tlaloc although corrected with very rational scientific evidence considers the unborn child “part” of the mother’s body because the child is dependent upon the mother to a certain stage of pregnancy when if removed from the womb could breathe on its own. However the child is virtually as helpless after birth as before birth. So the entire criteria rests on whether the poor kid gets out alive. Tlaloc also posited the incorrect theory that the unborn child and mother share a blood supply. That was proven wrong as well but he refuses to give up his unsubstantiated and misguided opinions.

He also uses the “blob of tissue” theory as if an unborn child is nothing more than an undifferentiated mass of human flesh.

So far he’s not been able to counter any of the well reasoned arguments that a human is human from conception. However by repeating the same misinformation apparently hopes to fool some of us.

Good luck if you wish to debate the issue, been there, done that and it’s a waste of time. Spare yourself.

Lisa N

 

[MaggieOH]

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.

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

MaggieOH

 

[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.