I love you, Adrian.

Thanks for some of your thoughts, Tavarish. Here's a few questions for you to ponder in light of your points:

“I support the woman's right to choose what she wishes to do with the unborn child, but I don't condone abortions … I am pro-free speech, but I don't condone using that speech to promote hate.”

I”m a little confused: you personally won't kill an innocent human being but you're ok with others killing innocent human beings, just as much as you won't invoke hate speech but are ok with others invoking hate speech?

“Are morning after contraceptive pills forms of abortion?”

Do morning-after pills induce, intentionally, the expulsion of a conceived human being? If so, I believe you have answered the question already.

“Would that same Bill of Rights be able to prohibit you from protecting yourself in a potentially harmful situation (medically, socially, economically)?”

You have a right to self-defence, and to use fatal force if necessary. But tell me, do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers? As to maternal health, the goal of such a termination is to save the life of the mother, not end the life of the unborn. Socially and economically – there's help in those areas that does not require the termination of the unborn.

“If this is primarily a human rights issue and abortion patrons are actively violating rights, what should the penalties be?”

Do you believe people who kill innocent human beings ought to go unpunished? What penalties does society usually dish out in such circumstances?

“This dialogue paints this as a black and white issue, and it is far from that. I contend that it is more gray area than either side is willing to admit.”

The question 'Is the unborn an innocent human being?' leads to a pretty black and white answer from which everything else flows. What's your answer?

Based on your closing comments, I surmise you hold these two views (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or re-state in clearer terms):

1. Resemblances are important. If the unborn doesn't look like a child, it ain't a child, therefore feel free to kill it
2. The unborn has no rights because it is dependent on it's mother for survival, therefore, therefore kill it if you want to

And both of these amount to a singular viewpoint of: undeveloped and / or non-viable human beings can be killed with impunity.

#1 – You say “it's taken a little while to get here.” By that I think you mean that the size / development of the unborn is the real issue. I do wonder how. If we ask, at any stage of its development (be it a blastocyst, zygote or foetus, for instance), what type of being the unborn is, is it not a human being? This is “the main issue”, surely? We have infants, toddlers, children, pre-pubescents, adolescents, adults and the elderly – all of which are human beings at a particular stage of development. Ontologically the human beingness of each has not altered. So if we hold that it is generally wrong to kill innocent human beings (I'm making the assumption that you agree with this – let me know if not), what does it matter at what stage of development they are at? A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong.

#2 – You say “I don't consider an unborn baby to have human rights, because it cannot function on its own without its mother”. You also think there's something special about the physical bond between the mother and the unborn as well. Neither the argument from viability nor the physical bond carry much weight, in my opinion. Here's why:

a) there are instances throughout life where people become non-viable in the sense that you use it. Infants, newly born, are non-viable – they still require constant care by a 3rd party. True, the care does not necessarily need to be of the mother's (as you point out), but we do not assign value to a human being by virtue of who does or does not care for it. We assign value to a human being because they are human beings, not because they are self-sufficient adults. Further, adults may become non-viable except without the intervention of certain medicines and / or medical equipment. Again, their value as human beings is no less because of their ongoing dependency on something / someone else.

b) “During the pregnancy, the child is a developing part of the mother, thus she has the right to do what she wants with her body.” Yet, biologically, the unborn is separate from its mother's body. If it's own blood system were to come into contact with it's mother's, it's mother's immune system would attempt to attack it as a foreign body – which it is (in other words, while it is in it's mother's body it is not a part of it's mother's body. It is a completely separate, uniquely genetic human being and has been since conception).

Mathew said: “If it's own blood system were to come into contact with it's mother's, it's mother's immune system would attempt to attack it as a foreign body”

I think you are referring to T-Cells?

The mother's immune system normally detects any ‘foreign’ tissue in the body and it immediately sets up a defence against it; the ‘killer T cell’ mechanism.

In fact this caused early experiments in organ transplantation to fail because the recipient’s immune system attacked and rejected the donor’s ‘foreign’ organ tissue. The same thing happens in a pregnancy. The baby is not part of the mother’s body and so the mother's immune system tries to destroy the “intruder”. This incidentally, is the cause of many miscarriages.

Research has shown that the developing child puts up a very specific defence against the killer T cell attack, called IDO (or indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase). As long as the defence mechanism works properly, the pregnancy will proceed to full term, else miscarriage results. The IDO is produced on the embryo side of the placental membrane (which separates mother from child) and not on the mother’s side.

I said that a human being is created at the point of conception.

You said: This actually reminds me of the Monty Python song “Every Sperm is Sacred”. Good tune, that.

Except, of course, that a sperm is not a human being, nor even a potential human being (if there can be such a thing). So I hardly see the relevance of this response, even if it was solely to be tongue-in-cheek.

Some interesting things you say are:
1. a foetus “represents … the potential to become human, something that is realized when it is born.”
2. all humans are “nothing more than a sperm and an egg combined”
3. “The fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for its development, stemming from physical to instinctive”
4. “The [born] child's body is responsible for its own development.”
5. “A human is responsible for his/her own development physiologically, and is not symbiotic/parasitic. An unborn “child” is, and is therefore, not human in my honest opinion.”
6. “I understand your point was to point out that these individuals are human, and I agree with you there, but you also made the point quite clearly in my favor that ending innocent life isn't always murder”

Let me address each of these in turn.

#1. If the foetus only represents a potential human, tell me, what is it? If it has been alive from point of conception, it must be a being of some sort, as only beings grow. Tell me what sort of being it is.

#2. Genetically, the sperm and the egg cease to exist when one joins the other – they form a new genetic being, with its own genetic code that is distinct from both its father and mother.

#3 & #4 I'll take together. While in the womb, the unborn derives its nourishment from its mother, not the manner in which it develops. As I allude to in my previous point, the unborn has its own genetic code which is what is responsible for the manner in which it develops.

#5. Did you just call the unborn a parasite? Again, if the unborn is not a human being, please explain to me what type of being it is.

#6. I believe my turn of phrase is “innocent human being”, which I take to be something much more specific than your paraphrase of “innocent life”. And for the record, it has been you who has been equating what I'm saying that abortion is murder. Generally speaking, yes, I believe the killing of innocent human beings is morally wrong – there are exceptions, but none that extend themselves to elective abortions which is the topic at hand.

In parting, I was hoping you could clarify your response here, as you don't make yourself overly clear to what you disagreed to:
me: A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong
you: I disagree.

Also, you seem to think that pulling the plug on a brain dead family member is analogous to abortion. I don't believe it is: in the former, you allow a life come to it's natural end; in the latter, you crush and dismember a life that, all things being equal, was far from the end of its natural life span. Both are human beings. One scenario permits life to succumb. The other scenario orchestrates a violent death. And there's a world of difference between them.

Thanks for your input tavarish. Can you clear up a couple of things for me with regard to your position?

You stated in your first comment that you personally would never have an abortion. What is it then that you personally find abhorrent with getting one yourself. Basically, why wouldn't you have one yourself?

From the arguments you presented, I conclude that you don't consider the unborn to have a “right” to life until it has been born. Right? This being your view then you must be willing to state that laws against foetal homicide are unjust. Whether it be at one month or 8 months, if the unborn is terminated outside of the mothers consent and by a doctor then the law should reflect that it not a being with rights that is terminated. Say, for example, the ex of a woman who does not want to pay child support for the next 18 years, decides to punch the woman in the stomach which results in the loss of the baby. At best a charge of assault on the mother is something you would agree with and (if you are consistent) campaign for. Certainly a charge of murder or manslaughter is not applicable.

You said “Looking like a baby adds to this already multifaceted issue, as humans have a need to necessarily impose emotions onto a being that may not have them. All it does is make the issue more complex – that's the point I was trying to illustrate in response to your question “Is the unborn an innocent human being”.

Simple answer – no, but it sure can resemble one.”

How can you determine definitely no when your argument is “may not have” and “it sure can resemble one” but definitely isn't. If a demolition expert is about to demolish a building and there is a chance that maybe there is someone still inside, should they still go ahead and blow it up on a maybe there isn't anyone inside?

Have you watched the video link that Mathew posted a while back?

http://aristophrenium.com/mathew/abortion-image…

I think you should be able to stomach watching this video (or something equivalent) before making a stand on the pro-abortion front. If you come back from watching this video still in support of abortion then you will get no more argument from me.

“…it still has the potential to become one…”

Potential? This whole argument is about what the unborn IS. Not that one day it may become president. How is value ascribed that way? So far all you have done is disagree with our points and provided very little in response. Your “proof” that the unborn has no rights, is not valuable, is not a person etc, is that it receives its nourishment from its mother. How does the source of nourishment determine what it is?

You claim it is parasitic. And yet in this same conversation you claim that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes. Make up your mind. Is it a parasite or is it part of her body? We have demonstrated that the baby defends itself from its mothers T-cell attacks and has a distinct genetic human DNA code which your seem to agree with. So drop the “her body” rubbish.

“Why wouldn't fetal homicide be applicable? Lots of states already have provisions for this in place and allow abortions to occur. There is a difference between having an abortion in a medical facility with a mother that consents to the act and a guy punching a pregnant woman in the stomach because he doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions. If you can't see the monumental difference, I don't know what else I can tell you.”

HOW it happens is morally irrelevant to WHAT happens; the termination of a human life by an outside agency. After all, you said in an earlier comment that intention is irrelevant. “What does intention have to do with anything?” For the law to identify it as murder or manslaughter, it has to recognise the quality known as personhood and ascribe it to the unborn. You say this does not happen until it becomes its own “entity” apart from its mother. So therefore, under your worldview, no instance of the termination of the unborn can be considered murder or manslaughter, if you are going to be consistent. Further, this points to an inconsistency in the law, not my argument; that selective abortions are ok, but forced miscarriages are not.

“I would argue that there is no evidence to suggest that they have the adequate brain development to have any experiences of emotion. They barely have sensory perception in the womb.”

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Where do you get your medical data on the brain development and subsequent emotion and pain processing of the unborn? The brain and spinal cord begin to form at week 3 and structure has been established by week 5; Well before most abortions are performed. So how can anyone say that there is no brain function, emotions or even a soul present. Hence my demolition analogy.

“I don't understand what you're trying to assert. You're trying to argue that because someone in demolition can't 100% guarantee that someone isn't inside the building, demolition should be illegal. Does that make any sense?”

You completely missed my point. It was an analogy.

“Seeing if someone is inside the building is demonstrable, much like the criteria I assigned the unborn fetus, which is completely removed from a separate, human entity.”

My point is you don’t know for sure. So why kill what may be an innocent, human person with thoughts, feelings and emotions. You can’t know for sure. So why take the chance?

“You'll have to do a bit better than to show me a bunch of aborted fetuses next to quarters being poked by tweezers. Scare tactics don't work, nor should they to anyone that has weighed the options in this issue. Putting Martin Luther King in front of it was a nice touch, but it reeked of poorly put together propaganda with a sprinkling of proselytization. It didn't show anything I didn't already understand or see firsthand.”

For starters it showed you a first trimester unborn human; what you thought only looked human in the third trimester. And reality is not a “scare tactic”. Clearly if someone hasn’t seen the end result then they haven’t weighed all the options in the issue. Even a picture of what it looks like and how it moves etc before an abortion would be beneficial in “weighing” up all the options.

Tavarish,rnrnI was pro-life years before I became a father for the first time at age 50. I became pro-life because I set aside the pro-”choice” rhetoric and engaged with the logic and biological facts, and thus was persuaded by truth.rnrnWhen I first saw my son at age minus 4 months or so in an ultra sound, looked down at my wife, then looked back up at the screen and saw his heart pumping away, I thought, “How can these pro-death people say that they have the right to kill someone like my son?” [I could see his heart beating away and his impressive willy even at that age!]rnrnTwo and half years later my son Eden is a joy. He can’t read Greek, yet, do integral calculus or discuss Plato’s world of ideas[Which of these inabilities discounts him as fully human, by the way?], but he can, quite remarkably, dribble a ball, respond to and in 3 languages, laugh at my idiotic noises and be fascinated by Shaun the Sheep and drive us mad for his obsession with trains through watching Thomas the Tank. rnrnMate, you’ve been sucked in by all those creepy, uber-rich abortionists (who, mind you, are just so altruistic that they make a living out of standing up for a woman’s right to kill her baby!), the sour grapes spiel of multiple aborted “feminists” like Germane Greer [who, in their twilight years publish pervy books of young boys in the nude and call it art and their right!! ], and the sophmoric argument of the half-second TV sound bite.rnrnMy advice to you is to find a wonderful woman, fall in love with each other, promise in front of as many witnesses as you’d be comfortable with (then add a few more!) that your love for each other will be eternal, have a child, and then come back and repeat the same chillingly cold and “scientific” logic that you’re now using to try and convince everyone here that you are right and that it’s perfectly OK to rid the world of unwanted, unplanned, not-just-perfect-enough or a-babyseat-won’t-fit-in-the-back-of-my-Porsche unborn HUMAN.

Although these comments have been wonderfully concluded by Adam, I'd just like to make a comment on the one statement that none of the men can address:

“I really don't understand how you can think an unborn child isn't part of a woman – I'd urge you to actually ask a pregnant woman about her experiences before spouting nonsense.”

Um, I AM a pregnant woman, and I can tell you in all honesty that my unborn child (read; human) is not “part of my body” in the way that my brain, heart or liver is. I am the vessel that carries my baby. My baby doesn't complete my body in a physical way, as the above organs do. (And please don't point out that we can live without a kidney, my point is that a complete human body does not include a baby)

I do not lie in bed with my hand on my heart to feel it pump, I do lay my hand on my stomach to feel my baby move around at his/her (don't know yet) whim.

If you really cannot/will not see that unborn babies ARE human and deserve a right to life at all stages of development, then there is nothing more anyone can say. It really is just very very sad.

And Marc; LOVE the baby seat in the back of the Porsche comment. Gold.

Sadly, Christine, that comment actually comes from the mouth of an abortionist clinic “nurse” I once knew. She told me that one of the rich women popping into her earn-an-extra-bob-on-a-Saturday-morning-Auschwitz clinic gave that as her reason to kill off her inconvenience.

I swear it's true.

To Adam:nn1. “I’m going to ignore all the “small potatoes” nit picking points we’ve been discussing so far and get to the “big kahuna” bombshell you have just unloaded here. All the other issues are irrelevant given your revelation here in my opinion.”nnI’m glad I wasted my time addressing all of your questions and arguments. nnnn2.”You have argued previously that the unborn does not have a right to life until it becomes its own entity when the umbilical cord is cut, which in most cases happens around week 40. But now you have just revealed that by week 27 the unborn has a fully functional brain and nervous system which you admit has, at this point, emotions and dreams. This would also imply that it has thoughts and feels pain.”nnCorrect. I didn’t just reveal this, by the way, it’s not new information. nnnn3.”Given this state of the unborn at week 27 onwards, you are still prepared to stand behind in support of someone who wants an elective abortion at this point and say that it’s morally benign given that it’s currently dreaming dreams, having thoughts and is, now, about to feel immense amount of pain. A completely innocent and defenceless life form. At least you have a chance of defending yourself should someone decide to come at you with a knife. The pro-”choice” camp seems to conveniently ignore the choice of the unborn now eh?”nnNo, I don’t support abortions late in the pregnancy, why would I? I don’t agree with abortion, but this is a different issue than not having it as an option to those who don’t share my convictions in situations I might not have experienced or considered. The fact that it has a nervous system doesn’t mean it is indeed its own entity, it is still a part of the mother just as much as it was in the beginning of the pregnancy. It is still reliant on the mother and only her for development, sustinence, and shelter. Late abortions are tricky because of the harm they can cause to the mother as well. The chances of conceiving again deteriorate – that’s another factor that begs considering. Yes, it’s a being that experiences pain, this should be considered and have heavy weight in the matter. nnnn4. “No wonder you support abortion through all previous stages of pregnancy when you could still abort once the baby has reached this level of development. Given the low value you ascribe to even a fully developed unborn baby, there is nothing more I can put on the table. At least your friend on your atheist forum “Saerules” is honest in saying that they ascribe little value to human beings in general.”nnThe reasons of my argument haven’t changed. I’m not appealing to your emotion, I’m stating the fact that it is not an entity necessarily deserving of human rights until it is ex utero and responsible for its own development. Later abortions present problems, such as physical ones and moral ones (such as the pain and emotion issues), and should definitely be taken into consideration. nnBy the way, what does an unrelated forum have to do with this? Does “Saerules” equal my point of view? Stop obfuscating the issue and conclude that you’ve taken a moral high ground, when all you’ve done is hidden behind a wall of ideology and condemned anyone else who doesn’t share your views. nnnnn5. “I’ll let you have the last word on this if you like but, I can’t see how anyone could consider anything else you have said worth considering if you think that for whatever reason (no matter how hard that decision may have been or whatever options may have been considered) a thinking, dreaming and feeling unborn baby has no right of existence.”nnYou’re arguing from personal incredulity. This isn’t a valid argument. nnnn6. “If the unborn is not a precious human person then no reason/excuse for abortion is necessary. But if it is, then no reason/excuse is sufficient.”nnAnd again with the black and white comparison. How about this: The potential life of the unborn must be weighed in regards to the physical, social, moral, and economic situations of the mother. Although I don’t agree with such an option, I don’t think it should be taken off the table completely for those who don’t share my convictions. nnnn

Tavarish, rnrn1. u201cI don’t understand how having convictions beforehand, and allowing those convictions to be strengthened by childbirth has any merit in refuting any argument I’ve presented.u201drnrnNo, I suppose at this present moment in your life you wouldnu2019t let other peopleu2019s life experiences dissuade you from your present view, would you now, no matter what they said? rnrn2. u201cYou can appeal to emotion all day every day, it doesn’t convey the truth of your argument any better. Your beliefs concerning the matter aren’t universal or absolute. Many others have different ideologies, not to mention social situations and physical issues that will force them to consider other options.u201d rnrnSo now youu2019re telling people HOW they MUST argue.rnrnAnd as for emotion, if you were a father youu2019d understand. But youu2019re not, are you!?rnrn3a. u201cI’m glad your son likes Thomas the Tank Engine, but it is irrelevant to the conversation.u201d rnrnNot if you were a parent it wouldnu2019t be.rnrnb. u201cThe comment about the “willy” is a bit disconcerting though. I digress.u201drnrnNot if you were a parent it wouldnu2019t be. All the folks I know who have shared (and not shared) in an ultra-sound, including the nurse, laugh at the story.rnrn4. I said this: “My advice to you is to find a wonderful woman, fall in love with each other, promise in front of as many witnesses as you’d be comfortable with (then add a few more!) that your love for each other will be eternal, have a child, and then come back and repeat the same chillingly cold and “scientific” logic that you’re now using to try and convince everyone here that you are right and that it’s perfectly OK to rid the world of unwanted, unplanned, not-just-perfect-enough or a-babyseat-won’t-fit-in-the-back-of-my-Porsche unborn HUMAN.”rnrna. u201cFirst, thanks for telling me how to live my life. It’s not enough that someone tries to impose their beliefs onto you, but they already assume things about you. Here’s a question: How do you know this hasn’t already happened?u201drnrnSo, my suggestion = imposing my belief on you? How do you rationally get from the left to the right side of that equation?rnrnI doubt very much that you are a father. But feel free to prove me wrong.rnrnb. u201cSecond: Logic is cold – it’s amoral. However, I don’t rely just on logic to form my arguments, I use experience and the better use of my judgement. That’s why it’s an opinion matter. I clearly define my reasons for thinking as I do, and try to use as little logical fallacies as possible. Appeal to emotion doesn’t work. Ad hominems against the “uber-rich abortionists” don’t work. Strawmen and red herrings don’t work.u201drnrnSans emotion! Impressive! More human than I! rnrnActually, the richest u201cdoctorsu201d in North America are abortionists. And you really reckon theyu2019re not into it solely for the dosh? Or do you believe that theyu2019ve got the best interests of all those poor black girls from the u2019hood in mind when they charge a few grand to do their humanitarian work? I mean, really, we canu2019t have more liu2019u2019le black children born into poverty, can we?rnrnc. u201cMy advice to you is to stop assuming you can tell others how to live their lives.u201d rnrnrnYouu2019ve just told me that I shouldnu2019t tell others how to live their lives, no matter what theyu2019re doing (including killing innocent children), because telling people how to live their lives is wrong. However, itu2019s OK if youu2019re the one telling people (those who object to people killing the unborn) how to live their lives (i.e. telling people that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being), but anyone else (i.e. pro-Life people) claiming that itu2019s perfectly acceptable to point out that someone elseu2019s actions are unacceptable (i.e. killing the defenceless unborn) is itself unacceptable because Tavarishu2019s Commandment for a Life of Moral Probity says that no one but the author of the commandment may tell others how to live their lives. For those who object that the Commandment is itself illogical, its author would remind us to refer to the commandment itself for guidance. rnrnFor a man who has supposedly made it his life goal to set himself free from logical fallacies, youu2019ve sure hit the big time with that beauty i.e. the self-refuting proposition. Strike 1!rnrnd. u201cPro-choice isn’t pro-death or pro-abortion. I don’t even LIKE abortion, I think that it should be reduced as much as possible, but I think it’s a violation of human rights for the government to say what a woman can and can’t do with her body.u201drnrnWhat an odd statement.rnrnBut the government CAN and DOES say what a woman can and canu2019t do with her body. A woman canu2019t turn up at a doctoru2019s and say, u201cLook, Iu2019m having trouble with my game and want to reduce my handicap from 10 to as little as possible. Iu2019ve worked out that it all comes down to how I perform on the putting green. My breasts, as you can see, are somewhat enormous, and they impede my motion as I try to gently tap the ball into the hole. I really donu2019t need them anymore so I want you to cut both of them off and that should give me a chance to play in the US Open. What do you think? Iu2019m willing to pay top dollar.u201d The doctor would be struck off the medical register if he began surgery like this merely on the basis itu2019s regarded as a fundamental right for a woman to do with her body what she will.rnrnThe unborn have different genetics to the mother, its own blood supply, they chemically tell the mother when theyu2019re ready to be born, the mother may die but the unborn may live, they create the placenta and regulate the amniotic fluid level etc etc. Biologically the unborn cannot be equated to the womanu2019s body. Another logical fallacy: the straw man. Strike 2.rnrnPro-choice isn’t pro-death or pro-highly-suped up sportu2019s cars. I don’t even LIKE speeding, I think that it should be reduced as much as possible, but I think it’s a violation of human rights for the government to say what a woman can and can’t do with her fast car.rnrnrne. u201cIt should be used as a last resortu201du2026.particularly if the woman canu2019t put her partying ways on hold for a few years.rn rnf. u201cYou say logic is cold?u201drnrnNo, YOUR USE of logic is cold.rnrnAs someone who has a degree in logic I fully appreciate its use. However, someone who uses logic to pursue their ends without regard for others and its effects on others is usually called a machine. rn

Thank you Taravish for your contributions to this discussion. It has been lively. Hopefully we have achieved clarity if not agreement in any of our views and those who may be following along have found the debate informative even if our arguments have not persuaded anyone to switch sides. Please feel free to continue commenting with other commenter's on this post and on any other posts that come up. But I will honour my promise to let you have the last word on this one as far as the conversation between us on this post goes. If conversation dies a natural death on this post altogether then the comments section will get closed off. Depends on if comments are frequent and don't just keep going around and around in circles. Thank you again for you contributions.

Where do people get the idea that we have the ‘right’ to live? […] You have to have some firm ground under your feet before you can even make a claim of ‘right’.

As you suggested, René, it depends on your world view. The children of God understand that human rights are absolute and inalienable, rooted in the will and purposes of the Creator who made us in his image. And so we write them into our laws reflecting that absolute nature, living as the sovereign Creator wills.

Whereas for God-denying sinners, human rights are relative, arbitrary legal fictions under the gavel of state power; i.e., such rights are only as real as the ink and paper on which they’re written, at the mercy of whoever holds power. If you are really lucky, that state power is subject to election forces.

But like Adam said, that’s a subject too heavy for a Comments field, especially in one regarding a different subject (how ever related).

Tavarish said: “You want to change the world? Find a pregnant woman that wants to abort and tell her you'll adopt her child and give it the home it deserves. Then do that a few times over.”

For argument's sake, you're saying that if a pro-lifer should convince a pregnant teen to birth rather than abort then the pro-lifer should take care of the child? Firstly, this argument doesn't negate what it is that we are actually discussing here: what is the unborn and can we kill it? Secondly, are you equally prepared to assist the pregnant teen if she decides to keep the baby? After all, you're pro-choice, right? And that was the choice she made – maybe it was the “wrong” one, but you'll help her out, yeah? Oh wait! This is what pro-life community and charity groups and crisis pregnancy centres already do. Looks like you're off the hook after all.

Marc, I'll make a few points so I don't quote your whole text.

Appealing to emotion is a logically invalid method of arguing your point. Whether I'm a father or not has no bearing on the truth of the statement. Do you understand? Emotions tend to vary from person to person. Just because you've had an experience as a father doesn't mean everyone MUST have it.

Your son's preference for watching a cartoon about a talking train has nothing to do with the conversation, the same goes for any anecdotes you may have about a baby's “impressive” genitalia.

You imposing your beliefs on me = telling me I've been duped by some elitist agenda and that I don't value human life as much as you do because of your life experiences. Your suggestions come off as condescending and seem to assume much about my life – something to which I have provided no information.

Have I told anyone here how they SHOULD live their lives? Have I disallowed anyone to do anything? Please understand your argument before you post it.

I didn't “hit a self-refuting proposition” when it's you making a straw man argument. If you can find a context in which I tell you, or anyone here, how to live their lives in regards to this issue, please present it.

Logic is without emotion, deal with it.

The wealthiest doctors in America are Orthopedic Surgeons.

http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2006/07/top-five…

Where are you getting your information?

A woman who wants to remove her breasts is more than welcome to do so. Have you not heard of plastic surgery? Breast reduction? Voluntary mastectomy? This isn't illegal, and has happened on numerous occasions. You can get pretty much anything removed/added with the wonder of medical science nowadays.

Did I not agree that the unborn has a different genetic makeup? It seems you need to re-read my text. This does not change the fact that the unborn is still absolutely dependent on the mother alone for its nourishment, development, and shelter. If the mother dies in the middle of the pregnancy, what will happen to the unborn? It is not its own entity. It is entirely dependent.

What do cars have to do with an organism that is completely dependent on you? Does a car have potential to become a living, independent organism? Are cars only able to be driven by you alone? And you're talking about straw men?

Look up the definition of irony – it fits your argument quite well.

You make a bald-faced assertion that the woman is a partying maniac and gets abortions without issue. There are so many things wrong with this statement I doubt a step by step rebuttal would register with you.

“As you suggested, René, it depends on your world view. The children of God understand that human rights are absolute and inalienable, rooted in the will and purposes of the Creator who made us in his image. And so we write them into our laws reflecting that absolute nature, living as the sovereign Creator wills.”

= Christians are morally superior.

“Whereas for God-denying sinners, human rights are relative, arbitrary legal fictions under the gavel of state power; i.e., such rights are only as real as the ink and paper on which they’re written, at the mercy of whoever holds power. If you are really lucky, that state power is subject to election forces.”

= Christians are morally superior. I love the “God-denying sinners” as an extra special touch. I'd say something, but I doubt your moderators would publish expletives.

How very humble of you.

Mathew:nn”What is a human being?nOur position, affirmed by scientific data, is: from the moment of conception, a distinct human being is created. As it is distinct, it is its own biological entity. It’s DNA is unique from its mother’s and father’s. When asked what type of being the fetus was, you replied, in effect, that it is a fetus-being. I can take this as only meaning that you believe that the unborn, in the fetal stage, is a different species altogether from its mother and father – you’ve certainly not clarified otherwise.”nnSo you take it from my argument that I believe a fetus to be of another species. Perhaps you weren’t paying attention of I misspoke. In either case, I’ll clarify. nnYes, DNA is distinct in the fetus, which makes sense, because it is the potential for a developed human, but it is not realized until it is born. I don’t contest this fact, but it does not change the fact that the fetus relies solely on the mother to guide its development and various processes in the womb. nnNotice we, as a society recognize a birthday not from time of conception, but from the time that you leave your mother’s womb – signifying an independence of prenatal conditions and life as a separate entity. This is not an admission that my view is necessarily true because other people embrace it, but it does illustrate the fact that there is a difference, both phycially and socially, when you are born. nnAs far as what is a human being? It’s also not a black and white issue. nnThere’s actually an organization that holds annual conferences on this topic, and still they haven’t reached a consensus. nnhttp://www.whatmakesushuman.info/wmuh/home.htmlnnAgain, not saying it is true, just contending that it isn’t a black and white issue, as ideologies differ greatly. nnYou say that DNA in conception constitutes a right to life. What happens if the unborn develops without a brain to regulate its bodily functions? At what point is it alive, and what point does it die? nnLOL @ you comparing qualities of humans to slavery. Full steam ahead for the slippery slope fallacy. nn”As the unborn are human beings, they cannot simply be a physical extension of the mother’s body. This is another point you continually tripped yourself over. Yes, the unborn draws nourishment from its mother; yes, the unborn is physically attached to it’s mother – yet it still remains a biologically separate human being.”nnI think you missed the key point here – “the unborn is physically attached to it’s mother”. It is necessarily dependent on its mother. I don’t know how else I can put it. I’ve said it about a million times. Its body isn’t fully responsible for its own development. nnDuane’s mentioning of the mother’s killer t-cells highglighted this; the unborn’s own defense mechanism in producing IDO to shield against the t-cells highlights this. You, however, are taking the awkward stance of: the mother’s body doesn’t just provide nourishment and a place to grow, it drives the development of the unborn – which then means that the mother’s body both attacks the unborn as well as facilitates the unborn’s development of its IDO to fend off its attack. Huh.nnActually, yes. nnMaternal effects on fetal growth and development:nhttp://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/5/1741SnnAnd about the mother’s killer T cells:nnhttp://ask.doctoroz.com/question/how-body-not-reject-fetusnnThe embryo creates an enzyme that prevents the immune system from attacking, not as a defense against attacking T-cells. nnnn”These are irrefutable biological precedences to know that the unborn at any stage of development are human beings and are also separate biological entities from their mothers.”nnI can’t understand why I have to repeat myself so much. It’s getting a bit out of hand. Yes, the DNA of the unborn is different, but they are still dependent on the mother alone for nearly everything in the womb. Fetuses contain the necessary building blocks to become human, but are not human until they leave the womb – that is when they become responsible for their own development physiologically. The same way in which an egg is not a chicken until it hatches. The mother is responsible for the unborn, and can make decisions for it. It is not its own entity because it depends solely on her. nnnn”The problem with your relativistic “I’m personally against abortion, but you can have one if you like” argument is that you are equating the situation with people declaring what flavor of ice-cream they prefer. “I personally hate pistachio, but you are free to eat it.” Such an argument ignores the fact of what abortion does: it is not a matter of personal preference, but it is an act that ends the life of a human being.”nnAnd I outlined that the mother can make a decision of what she wants to do with the potentially independent lifeform growing in her uterus. It isn’t its own entity capable of surviving outside of the confines of the womb. We’ve been going around in circles for far too long. nnnn”If abortion ends the life of a human being, and human beings have a right to life, then it is not a matter of preference, but of morals.”nnAbortion ends the development of the fetus – an organism that can potentially become an independent human entity. Morality is subjective, why base your argument on that? nnnn”We are yet to hear why you believe being a human being is not enough to be afforded a right to life. Perhaps rather than suffer us here, you could type up a post about that on your blog. It would seem it “qualifies”.”nnAnd where did I construct such an argument? At what point does this “right to life” necessarily impede on the mother’s ability to make decisions for herself? nnAnd did I not post every single one of my comments here, rather than anywhere else first? Don’t be coy. I’m trying to be as upfront as possible. nnHere’s my argument in a nutshell, so you can do what you wish to it. nn1. The unborn is necessarily dependent on the mother alone until it is born. n2. Because of this, the unborn is not an independent entity until it is ex-utero, although it does contain DNA that differs from the mother. n3. The mother is fully responsible for providing the nourishment, development, and shelter of the unborn, therefore she can make decisions that reflect this development/nourishment/shelter, including termination of the pregnancy. nnnnnnn

You clearly established that Children of God understand that human rights are absolute (did not mention WHICH rights), then went on to say God-denying sinners abide by “arbitrary legal fictions”, as if the rest of the world somehow doesn't “get it” and is somehow sub-standard.

You made the point that you, being a child of God – among others, answer to a higher power, and not the rules of some society that is only as real as the ink and paper it's written on.

I don't know where you got a straw man argument from me- it's pretty clear you're claiming a moral high ground.

If I'm mistaken, please explain yourself with a bit more detail.

Nowhere in my remarks to René did I say or even imply that God-denying sinners are “somehow sub-standard” morally. Nor does your tortured logic come anywhere close to giving us any reason to think my remarks said anything of the sort. And I also did not say or imply that believers don’t answer to “the rules of some society,” something else that your bewildering mental gymnastics (although very impressive) failed to give us any intelligent reason to follow. Your gratuitous imposition on my dialogue with René could be tolerable if it had contributed something at least rational.

This web site is called the ‘Aristophrenium’ because it is supposed to be a place “where thoughtful and intelligent ideas can be shared and critically engaged, far above the clamor of superficial rhetoric and inane caricatures.” So when you come here spewing gratuitous invective, I won’t hesitate to expose it for the incoherent twaddle that it is. Drop the sardonic irrationality and my tone with you will change.

I said the children of God have a firm foundation for their view on human rights, while God-denying sinners do not. The former produces human rights that are absolute and inalienable. The latter, relative and arbitrary. Any intellectually responsible reader can see that precisely zero references to moral issues are implicated. Your bewildering invective came out of left field, defying any semblance of reason.

(If you wish to respond, you shall have to do so at your blog, as your commentary on my remark to René has zero relevance to the article that this Comments field attends. I won’t publish any further off-topic commentary. It’s akin to hijacking a thread and bad form.)

None of what you say here has any relevance to the topic of the article which is, ultimately, about the question: what does abortion kill? You reminded me of this when you raised the question “And what does pro-choice have to do with me helping people?” – which is strange as, irrelevant as my question posed to you is, you might recall you posited the same question of the pro-life view, also equally irrelevant.

As such, I've removed your links to mitigate others from becoming thus side-tracked of the issue. We won't publish any further responses made in reference to this comment – if only to effect a more concerted effort to keep the discussion from diverging too greatly.

This is to also serve as a reminder and caution to the rest of our other commenters also; this is not the first instance – though hopefully it will be the last. (Mods – be mindful of what comments are being posted.)

Once again, Mathew, we have gone around full circle and I can see that you have grossly misunderstood, or simply ignored my argument.

Let's address your assertions.

1. “1). All humans are homo sapiens
2). Homo sapiens reproduce only homo sapiens
3). Therefore, all humans reproduce only humans”

Who is contesting this? Why just assert a tautology? “Humans are humans! Wow, how could I have been so blind?

Humans make more humans. That's not a new piece of information or explanatory in any way, as I didn't assert that they necessarily weren't human as far as SPECIES is concerned. I said that they were necessarily dependent on the mother in utero, and therefore not deserving of rights reserved for a standalone human entity.

2. “1). The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong
2). Elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human
3). Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong”

How about for once, let's not paint this as a black and white issue. It's not a true dichotomy, and morals are ultimately relative to their respective societies. Unborn fetuses are not independent physiological entities. It would be a stretch of any imagination to pair them together with other, independent humans, as that is not the case.

Let's grant your premise. If a pregnant woman falls down some stairs and loses her baby unfortunately, should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter? How about a twin that takes resources from its brother in utero that ends with the discarding of that fetus? Did that fetus just commit an act of murder, since we're granting human rights equally across the board?

By the way, you never answered the question of when the fetus is alive and when it dies. If a fetus develops without a brain, at what point is that fetus dead? When was it alive? If the mother knew beforehand that the baby would develop without a brain, would elective abortion be appropriate?

This is not a black and white issue. Stop making fallacious arguments from analogy, as they don't necessarily apply to those who don't share your ideology.

Abortion terminates a pregnancy, which ends the possibility of an independent human life, and that should be taken into account. However, it is still the decision of the mother as to what will be done with the developing organism inside her. However, equating it to murder is ridiculously stretching the term.

An egg is not a chicken. An acorn is not an oak tree. A fetus is not a human. There is a difference.

It's actually pretty ironic that you named the article trying to combat Pro-Choice rhetoric, when all you've regurgitated is pro-life talking points. I outlined my argument in detail in my last post. Nothing has changed, and you've provided no new information, you just repeat the same information as if it's somehow stronger for having been itemized, but hey, I can do that too so you don't have to read so much between the lines, because contextual hints often get lost in the banter.

1. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion or pro-death. It's for the woman's right to choose what she does with her body – including things growing and necessarily developing because of it.
2. A fetus has the potential to become an independent, standalone human entity with human rights. However, since it is dependent on the mother alone, its rights lie with the mother and her discretion until it is born.
3. Abortion is a multifaceted issue, as morality is relative and heavily dependent on the society administering it. What you think is wrong may not be so for another individual. Telling people what they must do according to you ideology is pandering and imposing a belief system.
4. I don't agree with the methods and actions of abortion. I find it needless, but I won't condemn someone else for their decision to have it done, as it is their body, and they shall live with the consequences, whatever they may be.
5. People will have abortions. You can't stop it. Banning it will only make women resort to questionable means for these procedures, and creating many more issues than are currently presented. Making an appeal to emotion doesn't work, as opinions vary greatly. The best method to reducing abortions is an outline of the options available to women that don't wish to keep the pregnancy. Scare tactics are deceitful and make their claims with shock value rather than valuable information.

Feel free to answer my questions, or don't.

You actually think that passing through the cervix is what makes a baby responsible for his or her own development? The only think he is responsible for that he wasn't responsible for before is breathing.

It's actually funny that you can't see the similarity between selective abortion and forced miscarriage. Funny in a disturbing way.

Actually, it's not funny in a disturbing way, it's just disturbing.

What is funny is that you think that we should ask mothers what they think, and you seem to think that they will tell you that the baby is part of their body. So I guess mothers involuntarily kick themselves in the ribs on occasion…. But when a pregnant woman relates her pro-life opinion, you are quick to correct her. Interesting.

If you must insist on calling the unborn baby a fetus because that is the medical term for an unborn baby, I must insist on calling the mother a gravida, since that is the medical term for a pregnant mother.

An egg is not a chicken, but if it is fertilized it has a small chicken inside it. An acorn is not an oak tree, but it has a small oak tree inside it. A pregnant womb is not a human, but it has a small human inside it. Yes, a fetus is a human, even if it is completely dependent on its gravida.

Perhaps another proposition should be added to Matt's syllogism. A human is a person. But humanity and personhood are not the same to abortion advocates of his stripe. This, along with the moral relativism in which this idea is grounded, would seem to be the major reason for the breakdown of understanding that we have seen in this forum, and the reason the arguments keep going in circles. We Christian pro-lifers believe on the basis of scripture that personhood is unconditional to humanity. But for the abortion advocate, personhood is conditioned on independence, therefore rights are not intrinsic to human life, but are related proportionally to independence. Since a fetus is completely dependent upon its gravida, the gravida has the right to determine the life or death of the fetus. Twisted as it may seem, on this line of argumentation the fact that the fetus is a living human being that has committed no crime other than being an inconvenience to its gravida – which is completely out of the fetus's control – is rendered irrelevant. So for the argument to go anywhere, it really has to be about scripture versus moral relativism.

To this end, it should be pointed out that Christians don't claim to be morally superior people, but we do claim to have a morally superior God.