Refuting a Pro-Abortion Argument

[Dottiepo]

Any ideas on refuting the following? It is from an atheist. I replied noting the arbitrary nature of the argument, but looking for other ideas from such smart folks out there!


Prior to 24-26 weeks, the fetus has no bilaterally synchronous EEG patterns. By all medical definitions, it is braindead. Prior to this point (typically 18 or 20 weeks to be safe) I do not believe a “human life” is being taken. There is no brain… No sentience or conscience to kill.

 

[Palm_Tree]

Any ideas on refuting the following? It is from an atheist. I replied noting the arbitrary nature of the argument, but looking for other ideas from such smart folks out there!


Prior to 24-26 weeks, the fetus has no bilaterally synchronous EEG patterns. By all medical definitions, it is braindead. Prior to this point (typically 18 or 20 weeks to be safe) I do not believe a “human life” is being taken. There is no brain… No sentience or conscience to kill.

Show him these pictures of a baby taken during week 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html

 

[Della]

Human beings are not valued simply for their brain power or lack thereof. A human being is a human being from the moment of conception. That too is a scientific fact.

Also, when do we determine when a person is “useful” enough to be called a person? When it’s newborn and can’t even raise it’s own head? Before it can walk or feed itself? Should we be allowed to kill someone because he can’t yet/can no longer care for himself?

The “brain power” argument is just an excuse to kill a helpless human being. Where is the honor, the courage, the meaning in that?

 

[Spirithound]

Any ideas on refuting the following? It is from an atheist. I replied noting the arbitrary nature of the argument, but looking for other ideas from such smart folks out there!


Prior to 24-26 weeks, the fetus has no bilaterally synchronous EEG patterns. By all medical definitions, it is braindead. Prior to this point (typically 18 or 20 weeks to be safe) I do not believe a “human life” is being taken. There is no brain… No sentience or conscience to kill.

It is growing on its own. Dead things do no grow.

 

[Oreoracle]

Human beings are not valued simply for their brain power or lack thereof. A human being is a human being from the moment of conception. That too is a scientific fact.

Also, when do we determine when a person is “useful” enough to be called a person? When it’s newborn and can’t even raise it’s own head? Before it can walk or feed itself? Should we be allowed to kill someone because he can’t yet/can no longer care for himself?

The “brain power” argument is just an excuse to kill a helpless human being. Where is the honor, the courage, the meaning in that?

It doesn’t matter how useful they are, they just have to desire the continuation of their existence. As noted, a fetus doesn’t seem to gain sentience (and, consequently, desires) until at least 18 weeks into the pregnancy.

Killing a lifeform that doesn’t have desires can’t be immoral, or at least not necessarily. Would you complain this much if I killed a plant?

 

[Della]

It doesn’t matter how useful they are, they just have to desire the continuation of their existence. As noted, a fetus doesn’t seem to gain sentience (and, consequently, desires) until at least 18 weeks into the pregnancy.

And who are you to judge that a human being that is not sentient may be killed? A human being is a human being at any stage of life. If we begin to say we may kill the developing fetus then we can also kill you or me or anyone else we want to label as an inconvenience. Down that road lies madness–the kind of madness that sent millions to their deaths in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, and the war on the unborn since the 1970’s.

Killing a lifeform that doesn’t have desires can’t be immoral, or at least not necessarily. Would you complain this much if I killed a plant?

A plant is not a human being. Science 101. But even a plant deserves some consideration. To wantonly kill living things just because we can is senseless and short-sighted. Not quite as senseless and short-sighted as destroying a human life before s/he even has the chance to draw breath, but still important enough to take proper care of life on this planet.

 

[Oreoracle]

And who are you to judge that a human being that is not sentient may be killed?

We’re all the judge of our own morality.

A human being is a human being at any stage of life.

Yeah. And? Why does it matter that they’re human? Having a certain genetic code makes one’s life valuable?

If we begin to say we may kill the developing fetus then we can also kill you or me or anyone else we want to label as an inconvenience. Down that road lies madness–the kind of madness that sent millions to their deaths in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, and the war on the unborn since the 1970’s.

Thank you. I hadn’t quite had my fill of baseless slippery slope arguments today.

A plant is not a human being. Science 101.

Duuhhr…Ize didn’t know dat!

What do humans have that makes them valuable that a plant does not? If you say “a soul” I’ll expect you to define “soul” and provide evidence for the existence of such.

But even a plant deserves some consideration.

Yes, because it affects the lives of sentient beings.

 

[st_lucy]

I would send him this video.

 

[canne]

Any ideas on refuting the following? It is from an atheist. I replied noting the arbitrary nature of the argument, but looking for other ideas from such smart folks out there!


*Prior to 24-26 weeks, the fetus has no bilaterally synchronous EEG patterns. By all medical definitions, it is braindead. *

I find it interesting that among neonatal specialists , there is debate about how much "discomfort’ or “pain” to subject very premature babies through in order to try and save them outside the womb…clearly if they are feeling pain and discomfort while outside at this stage, would they not feel it while still within the womb? abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=2890242&page=1

Hmm…I would ask this person …And what of very pre-mature babies? are they braindead? Is a premature baby not a sentient life? Is it not capable of suffering? Is it not a separate consciousness?

and Certainly there are children that have been born during /prior to 24-26 weeks and have survived …are they not sentient?

Here is just one babies story at 23 weeks
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/6242735.stm

 

[livi]

A person is a person from the moment of conception, regardless of brain power or whatever. If you have two human parents and human DNA, then you can’t be anything other than human. To suggest anything else is illogical and erroneous.

 

[Gusto]

Any ideas on refuting the following? It is from an atheist. I replied noting the arbitrary nature of the argument, but looking for other ideas from such smart folks out there!


Prior to 24-26 weeks, the fetus has no bilaterally synchronous EEG patterns. By all medical definitions, it is braindead. Prior to this point (typically 18 or 20 weeks to be safe) I do not believe a “human life” is being taken. There is no brain… No sentience or conscience to kill.

I suggest to people that the human heart beat starts at around 22 days old. It is the same heart beat that the person that has grown into adulthood has. It is not a different heart beat. So what does it mean when you purposely stop a human heart beat? Murder?

There are many examples where ‘brain dead’ people on machines have lived as their brain ‘started up’ again to the amazement of doctors.

God bless you,
Gary

 

[Contarini]

It doesn’t matter how useful they are, they just have to desire the continuation of their existence. As noted, a fetus doesn’t seem to gain sentience (and, consequently, desires) until at least 18 weeks into the pregnancy.

Killing a lifeform that doesn’t have desires can’t be immoral, or at least not necessarily.

This is a moral pronouncement on your part, based on presuppositions that most of us (and most humans for most of history) would not share. I had no desires when I was a fetus, but the fetal version of me developed into a “me” who does have desires and wishes, and one wish I have is not to have been killed in the womb!

Yes, I know that you can respond that I obviously wish to have been conceived, and yet my parents were not obligated to conceive me. The prolife position is based on the argument that the fetus is the same person as the infant or adult, while the sperm and egg are in no sense a person but the materials from which a person will be formed. But my point here is simply that the absence of desire doesn’t show that the “lifeform” in question is not a person. (I do not have desires while unconscious, for instance.)

Would you complain this much if I killed a plant?

You are begging the question, assuming that an individual, genetically human organism in the course of developing into a fully sentient being is no different from a plant.

Your definition of personhood is untenably simplistic (not to mention that it violates basic moral intuitions, since it implies not only that fetuses can be killed but that newborn infants can be as well).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

We’re all the judge of our own morality.

And of one another’s.

Yeah. And? Why does it matter that they’re human? Having a certain genetic code makes one’s life valuable?

Absolutely.

What do humans have that makes them valuable that a plant does not? If you say “a soul” I’ll expect you to define “soul” and provide evidence for the existence of such.

For the purposes of arguing with someone who doesn’t believe in a soul, what humans have that a plant doesn’t is a set of capacities characteristic of the species as a whole. (I would say that the soul is the ontological principle that gives the human organism these capacities, but you probably think that’s gobbledygook so I’ll set that language aside). The possession of these capacities gives human beings dignity.

Furthermore, humans are of the same species with us, and thus have a claim on us. Aliens who are just as sentient as humans would also have moral claims on us of the kind mentioned in the previous paragraph, but the claims of kinship also matter even if you reject the prior argument. We owe more to our relatives than to other humans, for instance.

Yes, because it affects the lives of sentient beings.

And also because plants have an intrinsic dignity of their own, though much less than that of humans (or of animals in general, for that matter).

Edwin

 

[Eucharisted]

According to science, human life begins at conception.

Case closed.

 

[BobCatholic]

Any ideas on refuting the following? It is from an atheist. I replied noting the arbitrary nature of the argument, but looking for other ideas from such smart folks out there!


Prior to 24-26 weeks, the fetus has no bilaterally synchronous EEG patterns. By all medical definitions, it is braindead. Prior to this point (typically 18 or 20 weeks to be safe) I do not believe a “human life” is being taken. There is no brain… No sentience or conscience to kill.

Well, if killing a conscience is wrong, then recreational drug use is morally wrong - I’m sure that the atheist would defend legalizing certain drugs.

If the unborn child is not human, I’d like the scientific term for what he/she is. If not homo sapiens, then which family please? You won’t get an answer, because science say the unborn are human beings.

If conciousness is a requirement for having human rights, then killing someone in their sleep is not murder. If someone passes out from drinking too much, you can kill them.

Also, if no brain denies human rights to people, please explain why we certain politicians have human rights?

 

[Luke65]

Any ideas on refuting the following? It is from an atheist. I replied noting the arbitrary nature of the argument, but looking for other ideas from such smart folks out there!


Prior to 24-26 weeks, the fetus has no bilaterally synchronous EEG patterns. By all medical definitions, it is braindead. Prior to this point (typically 18 or 20 weeks to be safe) I do not believe a “human life” is being taken. There is no brain… No sentience or conscience to kill.

Tell him that’s easy for him to say, he wasn’t aborted!

 

[Luke65]

We’re all the judge of our own morality.

No, some of us humbly submit our personal judgment to the authority of the Church of God. The proud make themselves their own judge, and God has a place reserved for them.

 

[BobCatholic]

Yeah. And? Why does it matter that they’re human? Having a certain genetic code makes one’s life valuable?

Human rights for all, not just for the chosen.

If it is OK to dehumanize one group, why not expand the scope? History has shown when one group can be dehumanized, others get added to the list. “First they came for the Jews…” is the most famous example.

There was a time when black people were not considered worthy of human rights. We even had a civil war about it.

History doesn’t necessarily repeat itself, but boy is it rhyming. Now unborn children, and severely disabled no longer have human rights. There are movements to take away human rights from others, so more will be added to that list.

 

[St_Francis]

Any ideas on refuting the following? It is from an atheist. I replied noting the arbitrary nature of the argument, but looking for other ideas from such smart folks out there!


Prior to 24-26 weeks, the fetus has no bilaterally synchronous EEG patterns. By all medical definitions, it is braindead. Prior to this point (typically 18 or 20 weeks to be safe) I do not believe a “human life” is being taken. There is no brain… No sentience or conscience to kill.

Brain waves start at 6–7 weeks.

But the main thrust of your argument should not rest on *the atheist’s *definition of when human life begins but on the *reality *of when human life begins. Who is *he *to come up with a definition of when life begins? What makes *his *idea the defining factor in when life begins?

If on considers that a human life consists of the following: **individual-- **proven by the fact that the unborn child has, at the very moment of conception, his or her own individual DNA; **living-- **proven by the fact that the unborn child, from the moment of conception, is growing; and **human-- **proven by the fact that the parents are human and that he or she has only human DNA.

At what other point could a person argue that life begins other than conception?

(Of course, you want to take it more slowly than that with the atheist!)

 

[Oreoracle]

Human rights for all, not just for the chosen.

If it is OK to dehumanize one group, why not expand the scope? History has shown when one group can be dehumanized, others get added to the list. “First they came for the Jews…” is the most famous example.

There was a time when black people were not considered worthy of human rights. We even had a civil war about it.

History doesn’t necessarily repeat itself, but boy is it rhyming. Now unborn children, and severely disabled no longer have human rights. There are movements to take away human rights from others, so more will be added to that list.

I’m not dehumanizing a group. I’m saying that all life that lacks the trait of sentience is morally irrelevant, human or not. You can compare me to a Nazi or a slave-owner all you want, but your analogies are inaccurate. (*fun fact: I don’t support rights either! Ohhh…Seriously.)

And frankly, I don’t see what anyone means when they say that humans are valuable because they have “dignity.” What gives us (or anything) dignity?