179439 commentshttp%3A%2F%2Faristophrenium.com%2Fadam%2Fhow-to-respond-to-empty-pro-choice-rhetoric%2FHow+to+Respond+to+Empty+Pro-Choice+Rhetoric2010-05-06+10%3A13%3A23Adamhttp%3A%2F%2Faristophrenium.com%2F%3Fp%3D1794

1. 

   Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 6 May 2010 at 21:54

   I love you, Adrian.

2. 

   Comment by tavarish on 9 May 2010 at 11:42

   Ouch.

   I have a few things to add.

   1. Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I support the woman's right to choose what she wishes to do with the unborn child, but I don't condone abortions. Just because it's not something I wouldn't choose from my point of view doesn't mean it should be illegal for someone else to do so based on their circumstances.

   As a loose example to clarify my point, I am pro-free speech, but I don't condone using that speech to promote hate.

   2. At what point is this a human rights issue? Conception – If so, are morning after contraceptive pills forms of abortion?

   Sometime in the term – If so, when?

   3. “No Bill of Rights should protect people from natural events, like breathing, eating, or being pregnant. You’re getting ridiculous. “

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

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

   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.

3. 

   Comment by Mathew on 9 May 2010 at 17:59

   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?

4. 

   Comment by tavarish on 10 May 2010 at 22:16

   And I offer up a few answers to your questions.

   “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?”

   I asked you at what point does it become a human rights issue. At what point is it another person?

   Personally, I've seen many circumstances in which people have considered aborting unborn children, and it's not a black and white issue, but I digress.

   As I don't consider abortion equal to murder, your question is a bit irrelevant. As for the analogy, I don't agree with the speech one may say, but I recognize the person's right to say it.

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

   No, they don't.

   “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?”

   What does intention have to do with anything? Would you waive your right to defend your state of well-being in any other situation other than self-defense?

   ” 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.”

   The goal of such a termination is to remove the fetus, the reasons for doing so vary greatly.

   “Socially and economically – there's help in those areas that does not require the termination of the unborn.”

   Not necessarily. There are many avenues in which an unwanted pregnancy is simply social suicide. I understand the options available, as I've worked in an inner city medical clinic for a few years, and they are far from perfect or ultimately beneficial for the child.

   It may be cold, but it isn't the best thing (to either party) to bring a child into the world when you can't fathomably support it.

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

   Again, equating abortion to murder, which isn't necessarily the case.

   Emotion aside, 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?

   Not necessarily. Moving into the third trimester it can closely resemble a child, but in the beginning weeks of the pregnancy, it's barely distinguishable as anything resembling a baby. This is the main issue, and it's taken a little while to get here.

   Personally, I don't consider an unborn baby to have human rights, because it cannot function on its own without its mother, in any facet of life. It necessarily depends on the mother for all of its vital life functions. Only when the child is born does it break the physical bond with the mother and become its own, independent entity capable of sustaining itself. Although babies can be dependent on the mother for years after birth, they don't necessarily need the mother to be present – any older person will suffice. 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.

   Here's a question:

   1. At what point in the pregnancy does the fetus develop human rights?
   2. If your understanding of the issue is based on societal interpretation, then why would it be unreasonable to see that abortion would be more socially acceptable in another society and not necessarily equal to murder?
   3. Why call it “empty rhetoric” when you fail to address the main underlying issue – the fact that you disagree with others on necessarily calling abortion murder?

5. 

   Comment by Mathew on 11 May 2010 at 09:21

   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).

6. 

   Comment by Mathew on 11 May 2010 at 09:28

   Let me also just briefly (promise!) respond to the three questions you posed at the end of your comment, too.

   1. At the point where a human being begins to exist: conception.
   2. That's not my position.
   3. This actually isn't my post (hence, not my title) and the context is the discussion of Ms Nina's Funnell's comments to a commenter on her own article. This post's title therefore fits neatly in with the dialog made between Adrian and Nina.

7. 

   Comment by Duane on 11 May 2010 at 18:53

   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.

8. 

   Comment by tavarish on 12 May 2010 at 01:59

   Here's a concise rebuttal to your arguments:

   “1. Resemblances are important. If the unborn doesn't look like a child, it ain't a child, therefore feel free to kill it.”

   Not at all. I made the point that late in the pregnancy, the unborn fetus can have distinct child-like traits, but in itself is not a separate entity until it is removed from its mother, which I clarified in the next paragraph. I contend that it isn't a child until it is born, but I really don't want to get into a futile exercise in semantics or empty rhetoric.

   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 reponse to your question “Is the unborn an innocent human being”.

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

   “2. The unborn has no rights because it is dependent on it's mother for survival, therefore kill it if you want to”

   The unborn has no rights because is it wholly dependent on its mother for every single vital components of its physical development. The unborn is literally a part of the woman, affecting her chemical balances and general state of health, among many other things.

   It's not a clear cut case of “kill it if you want to”. The fetus has the potential to grow into a fully developed child, and that should not be ignored. Again, the point here is to weigh the options on a very thorough level and make a decision based on the pros and cons of the possible pregnancy. Not all abortion stories are the same, and there is a LOT of emotion involved, I've experienced this on a few occasions, but I digress.

   “Ontologically the human beingness of each has not altered. “

   And which one of those that you mentioned is nothing more than a sperm and an egg combined? According to your assertion further in the text, as soon as a man deposits sperm into an ovulating woman, there are three people in the room, which is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

   But on a less personal note, we come to another crossroads:

   What constitutes a human being?

   “A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong.”

   I disagree.

   “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.”

   I won't argue with you on the somewhat improper usage of non-viability – as it is commonly referred in medicine as describing the condition of an unborn entity, but I will take issue with your assertion that constant care equals the relationship of a pregnant woman and her unborn fetus.

   The fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for its development, stemming from physical to instinctive. After the child is born, it breaks the bond and starts a new life, independent of the mother as its own entity, not requiring nourishment and oxygen through the confines of the womb, but through its fully functioning respiratory system. The child's body is responsible for its own development. In this respect, it is very much viable (which, by definition, means “capable of living outside the uterus”).

   Of course it needs help to form complex constructs and a healthy personality, not to mention food, water and shelter, but none of that has any effect on the child's ability to live in favorable conditions. 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.

   “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.”

   Actually, that's not a good analogy, as people die all the time from family members discontinuing their life support for the sole purpose that they were too much of a burden on the family with no end in sight. If someone becomes braindead, with hope waning and reality setting in, the rights of that person are put into the hands of the family and close relatives, as that person cannot speak for his or herself. If the family chooses to end the life of a braindead relative for any reason, should they be charged with murder as a result?

   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 – there are huge gray areas, just as I have illustrated thus far.

   ” It is a completely separate, uniquely genetic human being and has been since conception).”

   You're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Yes, the fetus has unique characteristics, but what it represents is the potential to become human, something that is realized when it is born. The fetus is a human in the same way that an acorn is an oak tree, a seed is a flower, and an egg is a chicken. It doesn't follow that just because an entity has unique genetic traits, it doesn't somehow wholly depend on its mother for survival and no one else. This isn't a village raising a child, this is one woman necessarily developing this fetus as a very literal extension of her body – and it is solely her responsibility to bear this – she can't ask anyone for help, unlike the case with children after birth.

   “1. At the point where a human being begins to exist: conception.”

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

   What makes an egg and sperm mating together necessarily a human being?

9. 

   Comment by Mathew on 12 May 2010 at 09:18

   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.

10. 

    Comment by tavarish on 12 May 2010 at 10:14

    One more time 'round the carousel. :)

    “#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.”

    It is a developing fetus. That's what kind of being it is, in the same way an egg is not a chicken.

    They don't grow on their own, they require the nourishment their mother's body provides them. They are non-viable and unable to sustain life outside of the womb.

    “#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. Duane touched on this also with his comment above.”

    I don't understand. I was making the point that the point of conception (sperm and egg combining) doesn't a human make, you said it was a genetically different entity, and I agreed with you, but it was irrelevant to the point. Just because it's genetically different doesn't mean the mother's role is downplayed as a host.

    “#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.”

    So you're arguing that the mother isn't responsible for the child's development? Are you being serious?

    “#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.”

    The relationship of fetus and woman resembles a parasitic organism – “Drawing upon another organism for sustenance”, or it “obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host”

    I already explained to you what type of being it is – a fetus. A fetus with the potential to become a human, but is a fetus nonetheless until it is born.

    “#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.”

    So your position is abortion is morally wrong because you believe the unborn to be an innocent human being. What exactly do you call the killing of an innocent human being?

    I don't agree that it's murder – and the law agrees with me, as it, by definition is the “unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being”, and abortion doesn't fulfill these requirements.

    You still didn't answer my question – “What constitutes a human being?”

    “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.”

    I disagree that blastocysts are human beings.

    “Also, you seem to think that pulling the plug on a brain dead family member is analogous to abortion.”

    No, I used it as an example that the taking of innocent life isn't a black and white issue.

    Your assertion that “adults may become non-viable except without the intervention of certain medicines and / or medical equipment” tries to make a parallel between unborn fetuses and dying people – which isn't the case, as someone who has lost the ability to take care of him/herself isn't the same as something that doesn't yet have it.

    “I don't believe it is: in the former, you allow a life come to it's natural end”

    And who's saying it's natural? Many patients have made recoveries from persistent vegetative states in the past, who is to say that pulling the plug would be the natural way of going about it? I digress – yet again.

    “in the latter, you crush and dismember a life that, all things being equal, was far from the end of its natural life span.”

    I like the imagery of “crush and dismember”. Sounds tough. I'll ask you this. When you take a shower and kill bacteria, do you have a memorial service? Should you be charged with murder for eliminating verifiably innocent lifeforms?

    You're not understanding the point.

    ” 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.”

    One is a human being that has lost its ability to take care of itself. The other is a developing fetus that has the potential to become and human and is absolutely dependent on the mother alone for that development.

    There is a world of difference between them.

11. Pingback by Sex without consequence? |:| The Aristophrenium on 12 May 2010 at 07:27

    [...] weekend, our very own Adam brought to our attention an article that was published in Australian’s Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday 5 May. The author, Ms [...]

12. 

    Comment by Adam on 12 May 2010 at 22:45

    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.

13. 

    Comment by tavarish on 12 May 2010 at 23:45

    “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?”

    First, I'm a guy. I can't physically have one. I wouldn't want it for my partner as a means of terminating a pregnancy because there are more viable options in my opinion. Though I don't acknowledge it as another human being until it's born, it still has the potential to become one, and that should be taken into account. Abortion, in my opinion should be an option for last resort only.

    “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?”

    I don't consider the unborn to have human rights until it becomes its own entity, slight difference.

    “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.”

    I don't understand what you're getting at. Do I think it's OK for someone to willfully terminate a pregnancy without the consent of the mother? Of course not.

    The potential for the unborn to live should be weighed, but in relation to the mother's physical and mental well being, not necessarily a premeditated act of murder. It doesn't make it any less malicious in the least however.

    “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.”

    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 can you determine definitely no when your argument is “may not have” and “it sure can resemble one” but definitely isn't.”

    'May not have' is a general statement in which humans impose emotions onto things, such as inaminate objects, animals, and other living things. I wasn't talking about specifically a fetus. In the actual case of the fetus having emotions, 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.

    “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?”

    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?

    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.

    “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.”

    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.

14. 

    Comment by Adam on 14 May 2010 at 00:09

    “…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.

15. 

    Comment by tavarish on 14 May 2010 at 23:14

    Another rebuttal:

    1. “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.”

    I outlined exactly what I think the unborn is, and provided reasons for thinking in this manner. It is not an independent entity and has no “human rights” until it leaves the womb and is responsible for its own physical development. It isn't hard to understand.

    2. “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?”

    First, I never said it wasn't valuable – quite the contrary. I said the potential to become human is important and should weigh heavily on an abortion decision.

    Second, it's not only nourishment from the mother. The unborn is nearly 100% dependent on the mother ALONE to guide its development from a fetus into a full grown child. This is a bit different than the simple “nourishment” that you make it out to be. The mother and unborn undergo physiological changes, and have a special physical relationship that no other person can replicate. She absolutely has to take this responsibility if the child is carried to term – she can't delegate her responsibilities. That's why it isn't a person yet – it's not responsible for its development and vital physical functions and depends NECESSARILY on its mother for nearly everything.

    3. “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.”

    First, the relationship is parasitic by definition in some aspects.
    Second, how would those two cancel each other out? I don't see how having a parasitic relationship can prevent a person from doing something about it.

    4. “Is it a parasite or is it part of her body?”

    Let me make this clear for you, since you seem to construct false dichotomies around pretty often.

    An unborn child is not a parasite. The relationship that the unborn child holds with its mother, however, can be parasitic in some aspects, such as the transfer of vitamins and hydration. Ever wonder why pregnant women are “eating for two”?

    I'm not calling a fetus a ringworm, so let's get off the soapbox for a minute.

    5. “We have demonstrated that the baby defends itself from its mothers T-cell attacks and has a distinct genetic human DNA code which you seem to agree with. So drop the “her body” rubbish.”

    And I came back to that same argument with the fact that differences in DNA don't change the fact that the unborn necessarily depends on the mother for all its vital life components and developments in utero. The unborn is an extension of her own physical systems, and this is physically demonstrable. 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.

    6. “HOW it happens is morally irrelevant to WHAT happens; the termination of a human life by an outside agency.”

    First, it's not termination of human life. It's the termination of what could be a human life. Difference.
    Second, are you trying to make the point that punching an unwilling pregnant woman in the stomach is the same as a pregnant woman that makes a decision to get an abortion? Seriously?

    7.”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.”

    Don't quote mine. I said intention is irrelevant as to the nature of the unborn in regards to the pregnancy. This was a direct result of Mathew's question: “do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers?”

    This is 180 degrees removed from an attacker that does harm to the mother and unborn by force, against her will.

    Also, fetal homicide is already law in many states – which don't necessarily grant human rights to in utero fetuses, but recognize the potential for human life. It doesn't necessarily need to recognize the unborn as a seperate entity.

    8. “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.”

    Why are you just repeating yourself? I addressed this already in the last post.

    See here:”The potential for the unborn to live should be weighed, but in relation to the mother's physical and mental well being, not necessarily a premeditated act of murder. It doesn't make it any less malicious in the least however.”

    9. “Further, this points to an inconsistency in the law, not my argument; that selective abortions are ok, but forced miscarriages are not.”

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

    10. “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?

    http://www.buzzle.com/articles/brain-developmen...

    11. “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.”

    And the nervous system comes together in week 23, and only after that can the brain regulate body functions. Rudimentary concepts such as emotions or dreams are formed in week 27.

    12. “So how can anyone say that there is no brain function, emotions or even a soul present. Hence my demolition analogy.”

    Your definition analogy still fails in the same way. I never said anything about brain activity, I said emotion, and I outlined the reasons why. In the first trimester, when most abortions are performed, the nervous system isn't even fully developed and the brain isn't even capable of developing neurons at that point.

    13. “You completely missed my point. It was an analogy. “

    And you missed the point of my analogy.

    14. “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?”

    First, this sounds like a weird Pascal's wager.

    Second, I just gave you specific examples of how you can know what facets of physical development the unborn undergoes. It's not an unknown unknown. It's quite a studied topic. Here's a compilation of the studies performed:

    http://primal-page.com/mf3-7.htm

    15. “For starters it showed you a first trimester unborn human; what you thought only looked human in the third trimester.”

    And this isn't news to me, and nowhere did I say it ONLY resembles a child late in the pregnancy.

    16. “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 would be beneficial in “weighing” up all the options. “

    It is when you propagandize your views with added shock value to a public who doesn't necessarily like seeing a bloody fetus. Not to mention twisting the words of a civil rights leader and throwing in religious overtones. It's not educational or informational. It plays on emotions instead of facts and testimony. This is by the same types of people that hand out brochures of dead babies on college campuses and public parks trying to shove their ideology down everyone else's throat.

    Perhaps they should make the woman wear her aborted fetus as a necklace, because after all, reality isn't a scare tactic.

    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. It would be a hell of a lot more change than watching videos of tiny baby parts next to quarters.

    I'll post this up on my blog, I think it qualifies.

16. 

    Comment by Adam on 15 May 2010 at 19:20

    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.

    You did not even need to link to it, just stating your position would have sufficed. Not that I consider an unqualified author writing on buzzle.com as an authority on medical issues, but for the sake of argument I'll accept that you believe it to be true and accept the data.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

17. 

    Comment by Adam on 16 May 2010 at 04:14

    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.

18. 

    Comment by Christine on 16 May 2010 at 04:48

    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.

19. 

    Comment by Marc on 16 May 2010 at 08:09

    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.

20. 

    Comment by René Mulder on 16 May 2010 at 14:50

    Okay, so I see what the different positions are on the matter, and why people have their view/opinion/standpoint.
    One thing I don't think is very clear is: where do people get the idea that we have the RIGHT to live? Who gave us that right? Is it a law? Who wrote that law? And before that law was written, who gave the right to live to that person?

    If no one can really answer that, the entire argument over 'right' is void in my opinion. You have to have some firm ground under your feet before you can even make a claim of 'right'.

    I think you guys will understand where I'm going with this…I think the conclusion is the very problem to this particular issue and many, if not all “moral” issues…

21. 

    Comment by Adam on 16 May 2010 at 21:23

    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.

22. 

    Comment by Adam on 16 May 2010 at 21:27

    Rene,

    That's probably a topic for a completely separate post. And if I would hazard a guess, is more in line with Ryfts area of expertise. He may have something that addresses this already in an old post? What say you Ryft?

23. 

    Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 16 May 2010 at 22:08

    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).

24. 

    Comment by Mathew on 17 May 2010 at 00:55

    What is a human being?
    Our 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. And yet, you as an adult have the same DNA as when you were an adolescent, and you as an adolescent had the same DNA as when you were a child, as when you were an infant, as when you were a fetus, as when you were a blastocyst, as when you were zygote. There's an unbroken line of biological development that clearly defines that you are the same creature at conception as you will be at death. What sort of creature? A human being.

    What is a human being? A Homo sapien, a given member of that specific genus. Human beings are not defined by level of development, their size, their degree of dependency on others or their physical whereabouts (inside or outside the womb) – they are defined by their biology. They always remain human beings. As soon as you begin to superimpose other criteria to the biological definition you immediately begin to discriminate. And when you begin to discriminate, you give cause for some groups of human beings to consider other groups of human beings to be of a lesser value (the enslavement of blacks by whites comes to mind).

    (Incidentally, Rene: if a right to life does not come from the simple fact of one's human beingness, then no human being has a right to life – or certainly has no guarantee of having it protected. And if there is no right to life, all other rights carry no consequence.)

    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. Duane'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.

    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.

    An argument from bodily autonomy (as this is where I believe your convictions lie) has yet to be explicitly established by you. But again, irrespective, the unborn are (biological) human beings.

    Abortion: Good for you, not for me?
    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.

    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.

    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”.

25. 

    Comment by Mathew on 17 May 2010 at 03:02

    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.

26. 

    Comment by tavarish on 17 May 2010 at 10:34

    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.

27. 

    Comment by tavarish on 17 May 2010 at 10:37

    “No, I don't support putting Jews in death camps, why would I? I don't agree with killing Jews in death camps, 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, like being persuaded that the Jews have caused all the financial woes in Germany.”

    Perhaps it's a trend going on that people constantly compare apples to oranges, but the systematic killing of millions of independent people based on their religion and political affiliation in a time of war is a bit different from a woman making a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

28. 

    Comment by tavarish on 17 May 2010 at 10:40

    “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.

29. 

    Comment by tavarish on 17 May 2010 at 11:12

    Christine,

    “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.”

    And where did I say that the unborn is like an organ?

    “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)”

    Again, I never said a fetus was an organ or had similar qualities. Your unborn baby is dependent on your body for its sustenance, development, and shelter. It requires your body alone to fulfill its potential.

    “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.”

    So?

    “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.”

    You haven't presented any evidence to suggest that they are. You just stated that fetuses aren't organs, and I agree with you.

30. 

    Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 17 May 2010 at 19:18

    It is recognized that a straw man fallacy is committed when you attack an argument that is different from and usually weaker than your opponent’s actual argument. But I’m not sure what fallacy Tavarish committed here by fabricating out of whole cloth a ridiculously asinine argument that I never made but he nevertheless pretends I did. That takes straw man building to a level that is rarely encountered and, quite frankly, embarrassing to witness.

    Beyond the fact that it was René I was speaking to, not one of my remarks equated to “Christians are morally superior.” Nor is it something I even believe. Neither is that something the Bible teaches. Nor is it anything Tavarish believes. And yet here he is imaginatively pretending that was my argument, imposing himself on the dialogue between René and myself to add his intelligent and helpful contribution. “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it,” to quote from Billy Madison.

31. 

    Comment by tavarish on 17 May 2010 at 19:37

    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.

32. 

    Comment by René Mulder on 17 May 2010 at 20:50

    I'd like to go search the Bible for actual Word from God on human rights in regards to living, and untill I do, I'm taking the stance that no one has a right to live: it is a gift given by God. By law, we are all supposed to be dead but by His grace we are able to gain eternal life. It is an act of mercy.

    I say this, not because I think it might convince people, but because at the end of a long discussion that is designed to never really go anywhere but in circles, it always seems appropriate to go to proclaiming God.

    After that, of course the discussion just goes on…:P

33. 

    Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 17 May 2010 at 21:10

    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.)

34. 

    Comment by René Mulder on 18 May 2010 at 06:13

    You're right, I stand corrected :)

35. 

    Comment by Mathew on 18 May 2010 at 09:20

    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.)

36. 

    Comment by Mathew on 21 May 2010 at 02:43

    While Tavarish may accuse this comment of yet again returning to the same point, it is required and important to do so. If not because our arguments have been lost amongst the general busyness and tangents within the comments thus far, then because none of us at The Aristophrenium have formally defined the two critical contentions regarding elective abortion that allow us to then answer the question: what does abortion kill?

    The humanity of the unborn
    When arguing that abortion deliberately kills an innocent human, it helps to define how we arrived at the humanity of the unborn, that is, to have a clearly defined, logically consistent argument that produces such a conclusion:

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

    As the staff and others here have previously argued, when two humans conceive it is only another human that they reproduce. When we talk of the unborn (i.e. zygote, embryo and fetus) and then about the born (I.e infant, adolescent and adult) we use these terms to define developmental stages. They are not species terms. Human development begins at conception and ends at adulthood (biological maturity). Throughout every stage, we have a human and cannot have anything else.

    Therefore, we state that the unborn are human.

    The immorality of abortion
    If the unborn qualify as being human, as we've reasoned above, we can then offer up the next syllogism addressing the immorality of abortion.

    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

    It follows that if the deliberate killing of an innocent human is morally wrong then such a criterion as dependency – which Tavarish argues to advocate for abortion – is an irrelevant criterion for justifying abortion. The fetus is no less human than the child or the adult.

    That abortion kills something no one should be in doubt; we reason that what abortion does kill is an innocent human. And there's no place to doubt about that, too. Therefore, if there's no doubt that the unborn are human and if we hold that the deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally abhorrent, then elective abortion is a morally abhorrent procedure.

    During the discussions above, it's been difficult to decipher how Tavarish definitively views the unborn. It would be interesting to see which of the following he agrees with:

    1). The unborn is human and we know it
    2). The unborn is human and we don't know it
    3). The unborn is not human and we know it
    4). The unborn is not human and we don't know it

    Based on our arguments above, it remains difficult to see how he could choose any option other than #1. He may elect option #3, but then he must argue how the unborn are not human. We'd be surprised if he chose the other two. He must still, of course, then argue how elective abortion could be justifiable no matter which option he chooses.

37. 

    Comment by tavarish on 21 May 2010 at 13:39

    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.

38. 

    Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 21 May 2010 at 22:38

    Tavarish wondered what the point of the first argument was, viewing it as practically tautological that humans reproduce only humans, failing to provide any new piece of information. The point of the first argument, however, is made quite clear a little later in his response: as an egg is not a chicken, so “a fetus is not a human.” That is precisely why the first argument is relevant and necessary. A fetus is indeed a human, because humans reproduce only humans.

    The first premise is definitional, such that ‘human’ means ‘Homo sapiens’. The second premise is falsifiable, that Homo sapiens reproduce only Homo sapiens. The conclusion is what logically follows from those two premises. And Tavarish helps us understand what the point of this argument is.

    Is a fetus dependent on its mother for oxygen and nourishment? Yes. Does that mean the fetus is therefore not a human? It’s difficult to see how that would follow. Perhaps Tavarish could provide an argument that produces his conclusion, similar to how we provided one that produces ours.

    Then Tavarish wondered if a pregnant woman who falls down some stairs should be held morally culpable, given the conclusion of the second argument. His question is tremendously irrelevant, of course, as losing a baby from falling down some stairs is neither “deliberate killing” nor an “elective abortion.” If she threw herself down some stairs with the intention of losing the baby, then that would be “deliberate killing” and morally wrong. (The same analysis applies to his twins scenario; i.e., it is likewise not “deliberate killing.”)

    And Tavarish should know better than to say that all Mathew “regurgitated is pro-life talking points,” because he should recognize the difference between formal arguments and talking points. Taking a formal argument and calling it names is an intellectually bankrupt way of conceding, “I have no rational defeater against that.”

    (As for the five counter arguments he presented, I will be publishing a separate article that deals with each one. I will include a link in this comment once it is published.)

39. Pingback by Further response to pro-choice rhetoric |:| The Aristophrenium on 22 May 2010 at 04:29

    [...] is thus far the most commented article on this site, penned by our newest staff member Adam (see “How to respond to empty pro-choice rhetoric”), one of our regular visitors and a gentleman I enjoy talking with, Tavarish, recently posted [...]