Reasons not to consider the foetus human life

[TarkanAttila]

In light of the call by Canadian parliamentarian Stephen Woodworth to reexamine section 223 of Canadian criminal code, which states that "a child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, " I wondered to myself why anyone would not consider a conceived embryo a human being.

Examine a human embryo and compare it to an adult human - or at least their concepts.

An argument canot be made that an embryo is not genetically human. It shares the same 46 chromosomes adults have.

What about organs, arms, and limbs? Many beings outside of the womb are considered human even though they are missing limbs - or were never born with them - or organs. Some people, literally, are missing their hearts and have artificial ones. Are they not human because they don’t have a natural heart? Nonsense.

What of a brain or intelligence, then? There are many outside of the womb whom are invalids, or mentally incapacitated. Some are not capable of making good choices - or almost any at all. Are they less human? Should we slaughter invalids alongside foetuses? Of course not. Not only would that be barbaric and merciless, but even the mentally retarded are capable of loving others.

What of that, then? Love? There are many adults outside of the womb who choose not to love others - indeed, who choose to be very hateful to others (even if they’re just the neighbor next door and not Stalin, Hitler, or Nero). I might also argue that people in comas are immediately incapable of loving - even if they will wake up eventually. Should we be allowed to kill people who are in comas, even if there is certainty they will wake up?

Of course not.

Any other arguments or counterarguments? I’m trying to wrap my head around what logical reason our pro-choice brothers could possibly have for thinking the embryo is not human. To deny its humanity, it seems they would have to make an argument against some other human life outside of the womb, as well.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Sadly, some very prominent “ethicists” believe that invalids, etc. aren’t people and should be euthanized. If you haven’t before, and you have a strong stomach and a morbid curiosity, read up on Peter Singer.

 

[DaveBj]

I’ve been having this same argument on a facebook friend’s timeline with him and some of his friends. They just don’t see it. It’s so-o-o-o frustrating. Granted, it’s not a fully functional adult human, but then neither is a neonate. But if it’s not a human being, what is it – a puppy-dog or a kitty-cat? And where’s the scientific proof that it’s not a human being? And in the absence of proof that it’s not a human being, why should we not give the benefit of the doubt to that whose life is about to be sacrificed on the altar of human convenience?

GRRRRRRRR!!!

 

[LegoGE1947]

I’ve been having this same argument on a facebook friend’s timeline with him and some of his friends. They just don’t see it. It’s so-o-o-o frustrating. Granted, it’s not a fully functional adult human, but then neither is a neonate. But if it’s not a human being, what is it – a puppy-dog or a kitty-cat? And where’s the scientific proof that it’s not a human being? And in the absence of proof that it’s not a human being, why should we not give the benefit of the doubt to that whose life is about to be sacrificed on the altar of human convenience?

GRRRRRRRR!!!

If a fetus is not a human being, at what point does it magically become a human being?

 

[Momofmyangels]

I’m trying to wrap my head around what logical reason our pro-choice brothers could possibly have for thinking the embryo is not human. To deny its humanity, it seems they would have to make an argument against some other human life outside of the womb, as well.

There are no “logical reasons”. There are only lies, deceit, and delusions. One cannot believe that an embryo is a human being, AND believe that it is reasonable to kill it. You have to convince people it is not a human, you have to lie and withhold the truth. I recently read an article advocating the removal of the fact that the pill prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, from the package insert. Too many women were questioning this, and rightly concluding that the pill does cause abortions. Not to worry though, this may be stricken from the package insert, therefore the pill will no longer cause abortions.

I, too wonder how such evil could enter someone’s heart and allow them to commit such a heinous act. The pro-abortion people are very cunning at promoting their agenda. They have continually denied the embryo is a human being. We are bombarded with this fallacy. People believe it, because it is easy, it eases their conscience and it allows them to live their lives as they choose without consequences, without being held accountable for their actions.

If they only knew how accountable they will have to be one day, when they meet their Creator.

 

[LegoGE1947]

There are no “logical reasons”. There are only lies, deceit, and delusions. One cannot believe that an embryo is a human being, AND believe that it is reasonable to kill it. You have to convince people it is not a human, you have to lie and withhold the truth. I recently read an article advocating the removal of the fact that the pill prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, from the package insert. Too many women were questioning this, and rightly concluding that the pill does cause abortions. Not to worry though, this may be stricken from the package insert, therefore the pill will no longer cause abortions.

I, too wonder how such evil could enter someone’s heart and allow them to commit such a heinous act. The pro-abortion people are very cunning at promoting their agenda. They have continually denied the embryo is a human being. We are bombarded with this fallacy. People believe it, because it is easy, it eases their conscience and it allows them to live their lives as they choose without consequences, without being held accountable for their actions.

If they only knew how accountable they will have to be one day, when they meet their Creator.

It seems very much like during a war one side is taught to deny that their enemies are human beings!

 

[Robert_Caritas]

I live in a hyper-liberal environment, so I think that I can help you out a bit. In general, pro-choice people have not thought the human-ness of the embryo through. They almost find it irrelevant. So they see things in terms of context, and not in terms of if this is could be the life and death of an actual human being. A baby is probably the largest commitment one can make in one’s life, and when it occurs too early and out of wedlock it will cause a lot of foreseeable difficulties, for the mother in particular.
Since pro-choice people have generally not thought through the issue of this being a human life or not, their reasoning is swayed by the heavy difficulties that a baby will bring on.

It is not a matter of considering the embryo human or not, but of being swayed from the rational conclusion before being able to reach it.

 

[slotty]

If a fetus is not a human being, at what point does it magically become a human being?

When it’s not an inconvenience to she who helped bring about its conception

 

[LegoGE1947]

I live in a hyper-liberal environment, so I think that I can help you out a bit. In general, pro-choice people have not thought the human-ness of the embryo through. They almost find it irrelevant. So they see things in terms of context, and not in terms of if this is could be the life and death of an actual human being. A baby is probably the largest commitment one can make in one’s life, and when it occurs too early and out of wedlock it will cause a lot of foreseeable difficulties, for the mother in particular.
Since pro-choice people have generally not thought through the issue of this being a human life or not, their reasoning is swayed by the heavy difficulties that a baby will bring on.

It is not a matter of considering the embryo human or not, but of being swayed from the rational conclusion before being able to reach it.

By extension some of them might begin to think the same about senior citizens or invalids since these two groups can bring on some heavy difficulties as well.

 

[DaveBj]

If a fetus is not a human being, at what point does it magically become a human being?

When it’s not an inconvenience to she who helped bring about its conception

:sad_yes:

 

[Momofmyangels]

By extension some of them might begin to think the same about senior citizens or invalids since these two groups can bring on some heavy difficulties as well.

Yes. When you devalue one group so much that murdering them becomes acceptable, then all other vulnerable groups are at risk for a similar fate.

 

[Joe_5859]

In light of the call by Canadian parliamentarian Stephen Woodworth to reexamine section 223 of Canadian criminal code, which states that "a child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, " I wondered to myself why anyone would not consider a conceived embryo a human being.

Examine a human embryo and compare it to an adult human - or at least their concepts.

An argument canot be made that an embryo is not genetically human. It shares the same 46 chromosomes adults have.

What about organs, arms, and limbs? Many beings outside of the womb are considered human even though they are missing limbs - or were never born with them - or organs. Some people, literally, are missing their hearts and have artificial ones. Are they not human because they don’t have a natural heart? Nonsense.

What of a brain or intelligence, then? There are many outside of the womb whom are invalids, or mentally incapacitated. Some are not capable of making good choices - or almost any at all. Are they less human? Should we slaughter invalids alongside foetuses? Of course not. Not only would that be barbaric and merciless, but even the mentally retarded are capable of loving others.

What of that, then? Love? There are many adults outside of the womb who choose not to love others - indeed, who choose to be very hateful to others (even if they’re just the neighbor next door and not Stalin, Hitler, or Nero). I might also argue that people in comas are immediately incapable of loving - even if they will wake up eventually. Should we be allowed to kill people who are in comas, even if there is certainty they will wake up?

Of course not.

Any other arguments or counterarguments? I’m trying to wrap my head around what logical reason our pro-choice brothers could possibly have for thinking the embryo is not human. To deny its humanity, it seems they would have to make an argument against some other human life outside of the womb, as well.

It sounds like you’re thinking along the same lines as the [SLED test (http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/2.1_four_top_arguments.pdf?docID=861). The pro-life group Stand to Reason came up with it. Basically, they say that the only difference between a fetus and an adult is:

• Size
• Level of Development
• Environment
• Degree of Dependency

That’s it. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors. And any of these differences does not change a person’s humanity. Someone who is 6 ft tall is not “more human” than someone who is 5 ft tall. An adult is not “more human” than a toddler. Someone who lives in a 3 bedroom house is not “more human” than someone who lives in a 2 bedroom house. And a teenager is not “more human” than a baby simply because they don’t need their parents as much.

If you’re looking for a logical reason why pro-choice people think an embyo is not human, I think you’re out of luck. There really isn’t any. But not all of us recognize when something is illogical.

 

[edwest2]

We were lied to. Here’s the story:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Dr. Nathanson later converted and became a Catholic.

Peace,
Ed

 

[markeverett49]

I live in a hyper-liberal environment, so I think that I can help you out a bit. In general, pro-choice people have not thought the human-ness of the embryo through. They almost find it irrelevant. .

I know, and this is a sea-change since the passage of Roe, when argument FOCUSED on the humanity of the fetus. That was the whole point. If the fetus ISN’T human, then there’s no problem with abortion, but if the fetus IS human, well, abortion cannot be justified. The science all came out on the side of the-fetus-is-human-from-conception. Rather than take this proof that all direct procured abortions are unjustifiable, they switched the argument to ‘the woman’s right to choose.’ The humanity of the fetus is irrelevant to this point of view.

This practice—allowing abortion despite knowing that the fetus is a human being—has clouded the thinking of millions of people. Sadly, many people who think this way consider themselves morally enlightened.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I live in a hyper-liberal environment, so I think that I can help you out a bit. In general, pro-choice people have not thought the human-ness of the embryo through. They almost find it irrelevant. So they see things in terms of context, and not in terms of if this is could be the life and death of an actual human being. A baby is probably the largest commitment one can make in one’s life, and **when it occurs too early and out of wedlock it will cause a lot of foreseeable difficulties, for the mother in particular. **
Since pro-choice people have generally not thought through the issue of this being a human life or not, their reasoning is swayed by the heavy difficulties that a baby will bring on.

It is not a matter of considering the embryo human or not, but of being swayed from the rational conclusion before being able to reach it.

Hm. Very good post. It seems to me they take something else into consideration - the lives of the other parties involved.

Let’s examine this, then. Given the embryo is human, for the aforementioned reasons, and given the mother is also human, what other possible justifications could exist for aborting the child?

I wish we could get ringil or Hokomai or someone else in here to give us a slant.

Hm. Well, sheer inconvenience is not reason enough to kill someone. So what other reasons could there be?

I should like to create an organised list. But basically it seems to come down to an appeal to emotions based on a perceived cruelty toward the mother should abortion be made illegal again. Basically, “why should one little moment of irresponsibility put a woman in bondage for nine months? Or die for this?”.

It is, like the question of whether an embryo is a human or not, a very complex topic. But if we think about it, I am sure we can come up with a good, clear understanding of the woman’s rights in all this, as well. I’m sure it would appease our pro-choice brothers if they knew we cared as much about the woman as the child. They are both human, after all.

I’ll think on it a bit more.

 

[manualman]

If there were logical reasons, the main battle strategy of theabortion defenders would NOT be to change the subject from the plight of the baby to the plight of the mother.

Unfortunately, people today make decisions mostly by emotion rather than principled reasoning, so the plight of the mother (who votes, tells stories, has friends and family who love her, etc.) incites much more sympathy than the plight of the unborn child whom nobody can see, hear, touch or communicate with.

This has been the pattern of genocide throughout human history:

1. Dehumanize the intended victim class. They aren’t really human, they are something less.
2. Isolate the victim class from the larger populace so that people don’t come face to face with the fallacy of item #1.
3. Explain how the extermination of the victim class will solve a vexing problem that affects many people.

This pattern happens over an over again. Take the history of slavery in the US:

1. "Negroes aren’t like us. They are savages unable to achieve civilization on their own. It’s better this way.
2. Make it illegal to teach blacks to read or write. Sell spouses and children to distant buyers without regard to family ties or structure (perpetuates the “predicted” lack of civilizational cohesion.
3. Demonize the evil northern industrialists intent on economically dominating the south if plantation owners are ‘deprived’ of the low cost labor they need to economically succeed.

See the pattern? Even the ever-handy Nazis used this system.

1. Propagate stereotypes of Jews as selfish, acquisitive, manipulative, secretive scoundrels willing to sell anyone or anything for money. Invent a mythology in which Jews and their sympathizers conspired to mire Germany in a ruinous WWI peace treaty in which only Jews would profit while the rest of the populace was saddled with onerous reparation costs. “They aren’t like US, they only care for themselves and their own interests.”
2. Prohibit Jewish participation in larger society. Segregate them into ghettos. Force them to wear insignias marking them as Jews, close their businesses, steal their belongings. Gather them into concentration camps where they cannot “harm” the Reich.
3. Extend the propaganda to envision a society totally without the parasitical and manipulative presence of THOSE people to make people unconsciously open to government efforts to make it a reality.

Same pattern.

Now look at the history of abortion. Most of us were alive in the days when Roe was decided. Did you NOT observe the following pattern?

1. “It’s not a baby, it’s just a blob of tissue, part of the woman’s body?” (A total and obvious lie to anyone who took biology 101, but widely propagated anyways) Or this more recent one: “It can’t be a human person if it isn’t self aware and able to express this to others.” (Nice work guys, coma vicitms aren’t persons anymore then???)
2. Ever notice that it’s both legal and common for biology students to see pictures and videos of open heart surgery (plenty of blood and gore), but a public school teacher that showed students photographs of the results of an abortion would be fired instantly? If abortion is just a medical procedure, what’s the difference? What are they trying to hide? Answer: the basic humanity of the baby. People don’t WANT to look and they get angry if you try to make them. It’s much nicer not to know. Germans living near concentration camps felt the same way.
3. Obama himself put this one in the best one liner I can imagine. “Why should my daugher be PUNISHED with a child…?” See the mindset? Change the subject away from the moral issues at hand to the benefits of the “solution” proposed and you’ve finished the genocidal sales job. Mission accomplished. Over and over again. There really is nothing new under the sun. I find it especially apalling that our first black president somehow has NOT learned history’s harsh lesson on this subject.

 

[markeverett49]

Hm. Well, sheer inconvenience is not reason enough to kill someone. .

In the case of abortion, it is. Sadly, even worse reasons are offered, such as ‘we already have a girl and we’ll try again for a boy…’

 

[TarkanAttila]

If there were logical reasons, the main battle strategy of theabortion defenders would NOT be to change the subject from the plight of the baby to the plight of the mother.

Well, then. Clearly we’ve got to show we’re the reasonable ones. Even if we seem a bit cruel.

A parent seems a bit cruel when he punishes his child. Yet the child is the better off for it because he learns some things have consequences. It is better to learn that sooner rather than later. And that’s what a lot of people are going to be learning when/if the economy falls through the roof when/if we don’t refresh our human population.

Contraception and abortion have the dire consequence of undermining the economy.

 

[boldlygo]

Yes. When you devalue one group so much that murdering them becomes acceptable, then all other vulnerable groups are at risk for a similar fate.

This happened years ago in Colorado. The governor Publicly stated that the old, “unproductive” people should get out of the way and make room for the younger, more productive ones. This preceded Columbine.

 

[Nate13]

I think its important to point out the similarities between abortion and slavery. A lot of people considered slaves human, they just thought they were a lesser human. Based on this they allowed people to own slaves. Allowing a woman to get an abortion is in essence saying she owns the child in her womb. Pro-choice advocates essentially are saying this in a round a bout way when they say “its the woman’s body”. They are claiming the child is owned by her, and thus she has a right to do with the child as she wishes. People who say they believe abortion is wrong but is necessary are the same as those who said they believed slavery was wrong but necessary for society to function.