Why Abortion is Immoral

[redleghunter]

Hypotheticals are always speculations. What's your answer to the hypothetical?



No... This is what I'm talking about.

"Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."

K.J.S. Anand, NEJM

The above is the bare minimum conditions in which we should call anything a "person". Before that, there's nothing going on in the brain to warrant such a designation.

Show me a brain in which can survive outside of it's own body and I will answer such. Mary Shelley novels don't count.

Yes, your subjective approach to personhood determination is brain function at the rudimentary levels. Yet others say that is not enough, as bioethicist Peter Singer says one can kill a newborn because it does not have self awareness. See my other post.

So you now sit in the supreme seat of the personhood Magisterium and will make a proclamation that embryologists are wrong and that at conception there is no human being. So neurologists are now the Council of Cardinals and you are our Pope?

Name one that makes logical sense other than what happens in our brains.

No conception no chance of brain function. The precursors of brain function happen when? Yes at conception. If one in premeditation destroys or kills an embryo at the earliest stages then no brain will ever fully develop. So in effect any voluntary abortion before your 20 weeks would be a pre-emptive strike before the little critter (that's Texan for young'ins) can even think about it. How ethical is that?

Back to your science fiction. It is like Skynet coming back in time to kill Sarah Connor and whoever else over and over again. I tend to side with Sarah Connor and the good guys and let 'fate' decide. I despise Skynet and the machines trying to figure out ethics and morality according to their automaton worldview.

"Human being" is a term used as a (extremely predicable and tiring) smoke screen by anti abortionists. Fetal tissue is human. There's no argument against that. And it's not relevant. My arm is human tissue. It's not a person by itself if removed. It can only be part of an existent person. If you remove the brain, however, it would be ludicrous to call the rest of the body a person.

No, your arm is YOUR human tissue. An embryo and fetus are their own distinct human life with human genomes different than you or the mother. 23+23=New Human Being. It's not you or someone else it is its own.

Continue with the bad science, we see where this is going to. You are just another poster who is now saying embryologists and the textbooks they write are now wrong.

Nothing changes that at conception a NEW human being is formed. Your view and those who would willingly dispose of these human beings have the burden of explaining.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Show me a brain in which can survive outside of it's own body and I will answer such. Mary Shelley novels don't count.

The fact that you refuse to answer the hypothetical shows me that you realize that the answer you'd give doesn't help your position. Which is what I was expecting...

Yes, your subjective approach to personhood determination is brain function at the rudimentary levels. Yet others say that is not enough, as bioethicist Peter Singer says one can kill a newborn because it does not have self awareness. See my other post.

I couldn't care less what Peter Singer says. My position makes more palatable sense than his.

So you now sit in the supreme seat of the personhood Magisterium and will make a proclamation that embryologists are wrong and that at conception there is no human being. So neurologists are now the Council of Cardinals and you are our Pope?

As I've already pointed out, you're using language to obfuscate the point. At least you're consistently dishonest. "Human being" is a phrase that I don't use, precisely because it's too vague to be useful. At conception there is human tissue. There is no personhood.

No conception no chance of brain function. The precursors of brain function happen when? Yes at conception. If one in premeditation destroys or kills an embryo at the earliest stages then no brain will ever fully develop. So in effect any voluntary abortion before your 20 weeks would be a pre-emptive strike before the little critter (that's Texan for young'ins) can even think about it. How ethical is that?

Perfectly ethical because we don't base ethics on possible potentiality. We don't lock up potential rapists. We don't let potential voters vote.

And you didn't really answer my question. Name one trait to logically base personhood off of that isn't what goes on in our brains.

No, your arm is YOUR human tissue. An embryo and fetus are their own distinct human life with human genomes different than you or the mother. 23+23=New Human Being. It's not you or someone else it is its own.

You didn't address what I wrote at all. Is my, or anyone else's, severed arm a separate person or not?

Continue with the bad science, we see where this is going to. You are just another poster who is now saying embryologists and the textbooks they write are now wrong.

What embryologists are discussing personhood? Because that's the only real issue.

Nothing changes that at conception a NEW human being is formed. Your view and those who would willingly dispose of these human beings have the burden of explaining.

New human tissue is formed. Again, no one disputes this. You have the burden of explaining why human tissue unable to have any higher level brain functions should be given rights as a person.

 

[VirOptimus]

I mentioned such in previous posts. The goal is dehumanize. Same goal as the slave states and the same goals of despots who wanted to dispense of their supposed 'problem' ethnic groups.

And you base this on?

 

[redleghunter]

The fact that you refuse to answer the hypothetical shows me that you realize that the answer you'd give doesn't help your position. Which is what I was expecting...



I couldn't care less what Peter Singer says. My position makes more palatable sense than his.



As I've already pointed out, you're using language to obfuscate the point. At least you're consistently dishonest. "Human being" is a phrase that I don't use, precisely because it's too vague to be useful. At conception there is human tissue. There is no personhood.



Perfectly ethical because we don't base ethics on possible potentiality. We don't lock up potential rapists. We don't let potential voters vote.

And you didn't really answer my question. Name one trait to logically base personhood off of that isn't what goes on in our brains.



You didn't address what I wrote at all. Is my, or anyone else's, severed arm a separate person or not?



What embryologists are discussing personhood? Because that's the only real issue.



New human tissue is formed. Again, no one disputes this. You have the burden of explaining why human tissue unable to have any higher level brain functions should be given rights as a person.

You ignored the science I posted over 20 times on this thread every atheist and anti-theist ignored.

Embryologists define a new human being distinct from another human being's tissue at conception.

Yes you are in the Peter Singer group. You are using a subjective point of consciousness to determine "personhood."

There could be thousands of views and that is unacceptable as we are talking about a life.

At the very least we should all realize we could be wrong and if so then you let the developing human being alone.

But that life gets in the way of someone's personal preferences and somehow Liberty trumps Life.

Due to the above those who choose liberty over another human life must find a rationalization to kill the life.

Thus you have your theory, Peter Singer has his and thousands more rationalize. Just as those who stuck their fingers in their ears when the trains passed by with human freight going to concentration camps.

 

[redleghunter]

And you base this on?

Easy to answer and you will.

At conception is a new distinct human being created?

 

[SteveB28]

You ignored the science I posted over 20 times on this thread every atheist and anti-theist ignored.

Embryologists define a new human being distinct from another human being's tissue at conception.

Tissue, yes. The tissue of an embryo is distinct from the cells which united to form it. But there is nothing distinct about the condition of 'life' between those entities. People like you have made an arbitrary decision, based upon ancient superstitions, that the particular moment of union of those other 'living' entities creates a new 'life'. It doesn't. It transforms something that was already alive into another form.

And on the cycle continues.

Yes you are in the Peter Singer group. You are using a subjective point of consciousness to determine "personhood."

There could be thousands of views and that is unacceptable as we are talking about a life.

And you are using a "subjective point" in the cycle of life to drive your beliefs. So what?

At the very least we should all realize we could be wrong and if so then you let the developing human being alone.

At the very least we should realise that we all have different views about what constitutes a "human being".

But that life gets in the way of someone's personal preferences and somehow Liberty trumps Life.

As it always has done in the affairs of mankind!

Due to the above those who choose liberty over another human life must find a rationalization to kill the life.

Thus you have your theory, Peter Singer has his and thousands more rationalize. Just as those who stuck their fingers in their ears when the trains passed by with human freight going to concentration camps.

Just as those who stand and cheer as soldiers march off to war?
Just as those who nod as the condemned man climbs the gallows steps?
Just as those who were granted the 'Promised Land' slaughtered their enemies?

 

[redleghunter]

Tissue, yes. The tissue of an embryo is distinct from the cells which united to form it. But there is nothing distinct about the condition of 'life' between those entities. People like you have made an arbitrary decision, based upon ancient superstitions, that the particular moment of union of those other 'living' entities creates a new 'life'. It doesn't. It transforms something that was already alive into another form.

And on the cycle continues.



And you are using a "subjective point" in the cycle of life to drive your beliefs. So what?



At the very least we should realise that we all have different views about what constitutes a "human being".



As it always has done in the affairs of mankind!



Just as those who stand and cheer as soldiers march off to war?
Just as those who nod as the condemned man climbs the gallows steps?
Just as those who were granted the 'Promised Land' slaughtered their enemies?

Well look at you. Still saying the biology textbooks are wrong and embryologists have it all wrong.



Who is relying on superstition? You are the one asserting some nebulous philosophical theory for what constitutes a human being. Why is your nebulous definition which contradicts science any better or worse than the assertions of slave states, and genocidal maniacs who killed people at will because they thought other races and colors were subhuman.

A human being starts at conception. Science agrees with me.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well look at you. Still saying the biology textbooks are wrong and embryologists have it all wrong.



Who is relying on superstition? You are the one asserting some nebulous philosophical theory for what constitutes a human being. Why is your nebulous definition which contradicts science any better or worse than the assertions of slave states, and genocidal maniacs who killed people at will because they thought other races and colors were subhuman.

A human being starts at conception. Science agrees with me.

I think you will find that, of course, some scientists are on both sides of the debate. We could both say "science" agrees with our side, but we would be lying to say that . . . taking a stand on when an embryo is adequately formed to be called a person is not a scientific issue. It has to do with what we consider a person to be.

Once we know what we consider a person to be, we can scientifically consider if our candidate matches that definition. But that's all science can do for us.

Does God issue a soul to a fertilized egg? Or does an embryo develop into a soul? That is the question and there are a few things science can share on the subject. But ultimately science cannot make that call. The heart has its reasons that reason cannot understand.

 

[SteveB28]

Well look at you. Still saying the biology textbooks are wrong and embryologists have it all wrong.

No, I'm agreeing with science - at least as you quoted it. I agree that the tissue of an embryo has a different structure than the components that were joined to form it. That's what you said, I agreed with that.

Who is relying on superstition?

You are of course. All religions are based on superstitious beliefs.

You are the one asserting some nebulous philosophical theory for what constitutes a human being.

No, I am asserting what I consider to be a human being. You have a different view. And this is why we have a wide divergence of opinion about abortion. There is no one 'correct' view, which is why we need to permit people, particularly women, the right to make their own decisions about this question. And, thankfully, the bulk of the citizens and the courts of most modern countries agree with that view.

Why is your nebulous definition which contradicts science any better or worse than the assertions of slave states, and genocidal maniacs who killed people at will because they thought other races and colors were subhuman.

Quite simply. Because, as communities of humans, we have reached a consensus that the latter examples you provide are not in the best interests of the communities as a whole, whereas the former is.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

You ignored the science I posted over 20 times on this thread every atheist and anti-theist ignored.

You're required to say that at least 7 times before some can remember you said that...

It's up to 20 now, wow some people are hard headed...

 

[fhansen]

Quite simply. Because, as communities of humans, we have reached a consensus that the latter examples you provide are not in the best interests of the communities as a whole, whereas the former is.

Actually it was the supreme court that decided; polls show that Americans aren't at all so comfortable with the idea of abortion. And even then the court wasn't consistent, since it still placed the right to life for the fetus over the right of the woman (based on her "right to privacy", the best they could come up with) early on in the development of the fetus meaning well before natural parturition and even at that Blackmun, the justice who wrote the majority opinion, acknowledged that the first trimester limit to a woman's right to abort vs the unborn's right to life was an "arbitrary" one! And killing ones own kind is never good for the whole, even as it may seem convenient at the moment for the few.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

I wonder if there are, in fact, many people who don't have much of a problem with infanticide, even if they wouldn't admit it openly.

I've heard the comment made from some people that "It's only those on the Left who are doing it so who really cares"...

 

[Armoured]

I've heard the comment made from some people that "It's only those on the Left who are doing it so who really cares"...

You'd be shocked how many die hard anti-abortion right wing people have had abortions.

 

[KCfromNC]

I wonder if there are, in fact, many people who don't have much of a problem with infanticide, even if they wouldn't admit it openly.

It is condoned in certain cases in the Bible, of course, but luckily modern believers tend to ignore those passages.

 

[KCfromNC]

And you base this on?

An unwillingness to actually understand the reason people don't want to criminalize a medical procedure?

 

[SteveB28]

Actually it was the supreme court that decided; polls show that Americans aren't at all so comfortable with the idea of abortion.

I don't know anyone who is "comfortable" with the idea of abortion, but you are wrong about public opinion and the right of a woman to control her own reproductive system. A majority of your populace in the USA (and much higher elsewhere in the world) support that right.

 

[redleghunter]

I think you will find that, of course, some scientists are on both sides of the debate. We could both say "science" agrees with our side, but we would be lying to say that . . . taking a stand on when an embryo is adequately formed to be called a person is not a scientific issue. It has to do with what we consider a person to be.

I believe you are addressing the various philosophical views (thousands of them!) on what constitutes 'personhood.' They reflect worldviews but not science.

Scientists who are embryologists don't disagree on the science of when a new life, a new human being begins. It's conception. The only rebuttal I received here was from a bioethicist who is not an embryologist. And that rebuttal showed the person's opinion based on his membership in International Planned Parenthood and also is a eugenicist author.

So the science is clear. A new human being is created at conception.

 

[redleghunter]

No, I'm agreeing with science - at least as you quoted it. I agree that the tissue of an embryo has a different structure than the components that were joined to form it. That's what you said, I agreed with that.



You are of course. All religions are based on superstitious beliefs.



No, I am asserting what I consider to be a human being. You have a different view. And this is why we have a wide divergence of opinion about abortion. There is no one 'correct' view, which is why we need to permit people, particularly women, the right to make their own decisions about this question. And, thankfully, the bulk of the citizens and the courts of most modern countries agree with that view.



Quite simply. Because, as communities of humans, we have reached a consensus that the latter examples you provide are not in the best interests of the communities as a whole, whereas the former is.

So you are asserting you do not agree with embryologists and biologists that at conception we have a distinct human being?

 

[redleghunter]

It's up to 20 now, wow some people are hard headed...

What usually happens when a Christian says 'the science is wrong?' Yep you guessed it they are called backwards, science deniers etc. I guess we found the leftist Achilles heel.

 

[VirOptimus]

Easy to answer and you will.

At conception is a new distinct human being created?

What I think is not what I asked. If you cant answer please just say so.