The Great Evil of Abortion

[Up Quark]

Hi. I would like to preface this by saying that I am a pro-life Catholic, and I always have been.

I want to discuss the evil of abortion. I notice that many pro-lifers get hung up arguing about the evil of murdering babies, whether or not a fetus is a human, etc., and they fail to see the greatest evil of it all: the idea that one human life has more intrinsic value than another. This idea has manifested itself through all of human history: as slavery/racism, Nazism, and today, abortion. Slavery in pre-Civil War America was rooted in the idea that a white person's life was more valuable than a black person's life. Once this idea had been accepted, whites (not all whites) could then attack and dehumanize blacks to the point where they would consider them as property, not people. And once they did this, once they reached this point, they could justify the rape, beating, and enslavement of black people "because they're only property, after all."

Similarly, as you most likely already know, Hitler had the idea that the life of an "Aryan" was naturally more valuable than the life of a Jew. (Of course, if you were to ask the Internet why Hitler hated Jews, it would tell you that he believed "Jews were a destructive influence in any society." That comes from the aforementioned idea.) When Hitler came to power, he gradually passed laws restricting the rights of Jews. He eventually began to treat them like cattle, marking them with the Star of David (and numbers at concentration camps).
Hitler felt justified in killing millions of Jews because he had dehumanized them to the point where they were barely more than cattle.

Abortion today is akin to a "sibling" of racism and Nazism. All three are manifestations of the same horrible idea. In order to justify abortion, you must first accept that the life of the mother has more intrinsic value than the life of the baby. Once you accept this, you can dehumanize the baby to the point where you can justify its murder by saying that it is "only a cluster of cells." Furthermore, you can then divert the argument away from the root of the evil and point it elsewhere, wasting time arguing about whether or not a fetus is a human.

In retrospect, we know how evil such things as slavery and the Holocaust were. We look back on these evils and we swear to never let something so horrible happen again: and yet it continues, right before our very eyes. Why do we never learn?

 

[Serving Zion]

Hi. I would like to preface this by saying that I am a pro-life Catholic, and I always have been.

I want to discuss the evil of abortion. I notice that many pro-lifers get hung up arguing about the evil of murdering babies, whether or not a fetus is a human, etc., and they fail to see the greatest evil of it all: the idea that one human life has more intrinsic value than another. This idea has manifested itself through all of human history: as slavery/racism, Nazism, and today, abortion. Slavery in pre-Civil War America was rooted in the idea that a white person's life was more valuable than a black person's life. Once this idea had been accepted, whites (not all whites) could then attack and dehumanize blacks to the point where they would consider them as property, not people. And once they did this, once they reached this point, they could justify the rape, beating, and enslavement of black people "because they're only property, after all."

Similarly, as you most likely already know, Hitler had the idea that the life of an "Aryan" was naturally more valuable than the life of a Jew. (Of course, if you were to ask the Internet why Hitler hated Jews, it would tell you that he believed "Jews were a destructive influence in any society." That comes from the aforementioned idea.) When Hitler came to power, he gradually passed laws restricting the rights of Jews. He eventually began to treat them like cattle, marking them with the Star of David (and numbers at concentration camps).
Hitler felt justified in killing millions of Jews because he had dehumanized them to the point where they were barely more than cattle.

Abortion today is akin to a "sibling" of racism and Nazism. All three are manifestations of the same horrible idea. In order to justify abortion, you must first accept that the life of the mother has more intrinsic value than the life of the baby. Once you accept this, you can dehumanize the baby to the point where you can justify its murder by saying that it is "only a cluster of cells." Furthermore, you can then divert the argument away from the root of the evil and point it elsewhere, wasting time arguing about whether or not a fetus is a human.

In retrospect, we know how evil such things as slavery and the Holocaust were. We look back on these evils and we swear to never let something so horrible happen again: and yet it continues, right before our very eyes. Why do we never learn?

You are absolutely right. I hope you can change some minds by talking about this, rather than just getting into a fight and doing even more hurt. You do have the position of power as being righteous in judgement, but you are criticising people who are powerless against their sin, and who have entered covenant with deception to protect them from the indignation.

Might just drop this video here too, at the mention of the topic .. enjoy!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hi. I would like to preface this by saying that I am a pro-life Catholic, and I always have been.

I want to discuss the evil of abortion. I notice that many pro-lifers get hung up arguing about the evil of murdering babies, whether or not a fetus is a human, etc., and they fail to see the greatest evil of it all: the idea that one human life has more intrinsic value than another. This idea has manifested itself through all of human history: as slavery/racism, Nazism, and today, abortion. Slavery in pre-Civil War America was rooted in the idea that a white person's life was more valuable than a black person's life. Once this idea had been accepted, whites (not all whites) could then attack and dehumanize blacks to the point where they would consider them as property, not people. And once they did this, once they reached this point, they could justify the rape, beating, and enslavement of black people "because they're only property, after all."

Similarly, as you most likely already know, Hitler had the idea that the life of an "Aryan" was naturally more valuable than the life of a Jew. (Of course, if you were to ask the Internet why Hitler hated Jews, it would tell you that he believed "Jews were a destructive influence in any society." That comes from the aforementioned idea.) When Hitler came to power, he gradually passed laws restricting the rights of Jews. He eventually began to treat them like cattle, marking them with the Star of David (and numbers at concentration camps).
Hitler felt justified in killing millions of Jews because he had dehumanized them to the point where they were barely more than cattle.

Abortion today is akin to a "sibling" of racism and Nazism. All three are manifestations of the same horrible idea. In order to justify abortion, you must first accept that the life of the mother has more intrinsic value than the life of the baby. Once you accept this, you can dehumanize the baby to the point where you can justify its murder by saying that it is "only a cluster of cells." Furthermore, you can then divert the argument away from the root of the evil and point it elsewhere, wasting time arguing about whether or not a fetus is a human.

In retrospect, we know how evil such things as slavery and the Holocaust were. We look back on these evils and we swear to never let something so horrible happen again: and yet it continues, right before our very eyes. Why do we never learn?

Your stance partly depends on conflating alternate meanings of the word "human". My blood cells are human. When I submit to a blood test, blood cells are drawn out of my body and tested, and then they are thrown away. Those human cells die.

You wouldn't want to accuse the lab technician of murder for taking a human life, would you?

So lets be clear. We want to find that a person is present in what is killed before calling it murder.

You think a person can be found in a single cell. I don't. Why should all your talk about the cell being "human" bear on that argument?

 

[Not David]

Your stance partly depends on conflating alternate meanings of the word "human". My blood cells are human. When I submit to a blood test, blood cells are drawn out of my body and tested, and then they are thrown away. Those human cells die.

You wouldn't want to accuse the lab technician of murder for taking a human life, would you?

So lets be clear. We want to find that a person is present in what is killed before calling it murder.

You think a person can be found in a single cell. I don't. Why should all your talk about the cell being "human" bear on that argument?

It's scientifically inaccurate to call blood cells human.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi. I would like to preface this by saying that I am a pro-life Catholic, and I always have been.

I want to discuss the evil of abortion. I notice that many pro-lifers get hung up arguing about the evil of murdering babies, whether or not a fetus is a human, etc., and they fail to see the greatest evil of it all: the idea that one human life has more intrinsic value than another.

Not really. When a miserable person experiences a miserable sex life and experiences an unplanned pregnancy and has not the ability to raise or care for a child, they may decide to end the pregnancy rather than expose the unborn to drugs, alcohol, or abandonment. That decision does not require a devaluing of either life.

My daughter, who has brain damage from Chemotherapy at age 5, has not aborted two pregnancies, and the results have been a challenge to all of us. But I don't presume to be the best decision maker in her life. I believe it is her decision.

 

[SkyWriting]

In order to justify abortion, you must first accept that the life of the mother has more intrinsic value than the life of the baby.

A Peruvian Lina Medina gave birth to a baby boy at the age of five in 1939. The pregnancy of world’s youngest mother progressed almost unnoticeably and impalpable and only the growing belly indicated her condition. It was found out only in her 7th month that she is pregnant. The delivery passed successfully by means of caesarean section, the newborn son was healthy, his height and weight normal: 18.8 inches and 6 pounds.

So you really feel that an abortion would devalue the baby? Should we give you the decision then?

 

[Not David]

So you really feel that an abortion would devalue the baby? Should we give you the decision then?

Abortions devalue the unborn child. I have heard multiple reasons to abort: the unborn child isn't a life, that it's part of the woman's body, that she wasn't ready, etc.

 

[redleghunter]

I want to discuss the evil of abortion. I notice that many pro-lifers get hung up arguing about the evil of murdering babies, whether or not a fetus is a human, etc., and they fail to see the greatest evil of it all: the idea that one human life has more intrinsic value than another.

You are correct the entire debate comes down to the bolded above. I agree.

 

[redleghunter]

Your stance partly depends on conflating alternate meanings of the word "human". My blood cells are human. When I submit to a blood test, blood cells are drawn out of my body and tested, and then they are thrown away. Those human cells die.

You wouldn't want to accuse the lab technician of murder for taking a human life, would you?

So lets be clear. We want to find that a person is present in what is killed before calling it murder.

You think a person can be found in a single cell. I don't. Why should all your talk about the cell being "human" bear on that argument?

When your blood is drawn are the human cells yours or morph into another human life?

Your example is flawed in this regard. At conception a new distinct life from the parents begins. It has its own DNA and distinct pairing of chromosomes. Your blood sample does not. It's still "you" genetically.

 

[redleghunter]

Not really. When a miserable person experiences a miserable sex life and experiences an unplanned pregnancy and has not the ability to raise or care for a child, they may decide to end the pregnancy rather than expose the unborn to drugs, alcohol, or abandonment. That decision does not require a devaluing of either life.

The opposing view is why execute a perfectly healthy child for what may happen.

I think your quote above confirms the OP argument.

 

[redleghunter]

So you really feel that an abortion would devalue the baby? Should we give you the decision then?

Again you are actually proving the OP argument as valid.

 

[St_Worm2]

My daughter, who has brain damage from Chemotherapy at age 5, has not aborted two pregnancies, and the results have been a challenge to all of us. But I don't presume to be the best decision maker in her life. I believe it is her decision.

Hi Sky, this question has nothing to do with your daughter (I am very sorry to hear about all the struggles she has faced in her life ), but why would you, particularly as a Christian, ever presume that one human being has the right to take the life another human being (I suppose I should add, particularly the life of another human being who is as completely innocent as an unborn baby is?)

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

"A baby is cradled / carried in the womb of it's mother, to grow and be nurtured until birth. Each baby is a wholly separate person from it's mother: With different DNA, different fingerprints, with possibly a different blood type or the opposite sex. The baby is a person living within a person and not "the mother's body". The mom is appointed to care for the separate life she carries within her and once it's born, find a home for her baby, if she can't provide one." -- Melody Green
.​

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's scientifically inaccurate to call blood cells human.

Of course my blood cells are human blood cells. They aren't dog blood cells, they aren't carrot blood cells . . . they are human blood cells.

Of course they are not human beings. And that is my point. Even a fertilized human egg cell is not YET a human person. For one thing, it doesn't even have a brain.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

When your blood is drawn are the human cells yours or morph into another human life?

Your example is flawed in this regard. At conception a new distinct life from the parents begins. It has its own DNA and distinct pairing of chromosomes. Your blood sample does not. It's still "you" genetically.

Your last to statements seem to imply identical twins are a single person. Since they are not a single person, your reasoning there is flawed.

Suppose, some day, it becomes technically possible to take a blood cell from my body, treat it in such a way as to allow it to begin to express all its genes and grow into a fetus and a baby. A marvelous triumph of science. In such a case, wouldn't every failure to go ahead and do that to all my blood cells be the crime of failing to allow a baby to grow? Of course not. Your reasoning fails in that case as well.

 

[redleghunter]

Your last to statements seem to imply identical twins are a single person. Since they are not a single person, your reasoning there is flawed

Doesn't matter as either one or two are both separate human life from the parents.

Suppose, some day, it becomes technically possible to take a blood cell from my body, treat it in such a way as to allow it to begin to express all its genes and grow into a fetus and a baby.

You mean a direct clone of you with 100% of your DNA and exact match of your chromosomes?

If that happens let Scully and Moulder know.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi Sky, this question has nothing to do with your daughter (I am very sorry to hear about all the struggles she has faced in her life ), but why would you, particularly as a Christian, ever presume that one human being has the right to take the life another human being (I suppose I should add, particularly the life of another human being who is as completely innocent as an unborn baby is?)

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

"A baby is cradled / carried in the womb of it's mother, to grow and be nurtured until birth. Each baby is a wholly separate person from it's mother: With different DNA, different fingerprints, with possibly a different blood type or the opposite sex. The baby is a person living within a person and not "the mother's body". The mom is appointed to care for the separate life she carries within her and once it's born, find a home for her baby, if she can't provide one." -- Melody Green
.​

A woman may not know she is pregnant and can do all sorts of evil
the the unborn leaving it crippled for a short or very long and painful lifetime.
God gives her the right to do that. So that's God's fault?

Mom has the right to die taking the baby with. Mom has the right to take drugs while the baby is developing. Mom has the right to abandon the child. Mom has many rights, all given by God.

 

[St_Worm2]

A woman may not know she is pregnant and can do all sorts of evil the the unborn leaving it crippled for a short or very long and painful lifetime.
God gives her the right to do that. So that's God's fault?

I have no idea what you are talking about here?

Mom has the right to die taking the baby with. Mom has the right to take drugs while the baby is developing. Mom has the right to abandon the child. Mom has many rights, all given by God.

Does Mom have the right to take her 5 yr old and jump off a building, killing them both?
Does she have the right to kill her 5 yr old for any reason?
Will Mom be let off the hook if she takes illegal drugs and her 5 yr old ends up being harmed somehow because she did?
Does Mom have the right to simply abandon her 5 yr old if she wants to?

Quite frankly, if Mom chose to do any of these sins she would certainly be held accountable for them by God (and by us as well).

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Doesn't matter as either one or two are both separate human life from the parents.

It doesn't matter to the twins, it merely destroys your argument from identical DNA.

You mean a direct clone of you with 100% of your DNA and exact match of your chromosomes?
If that happens let Scully and Moulder know.

Truth is you have to resort to empty retorts because you tried to prove an article of faith by logic, which is impossible. It is your article of faith that a newly fertilized egg is a person already and it is my article of faith that it isn't yet a person. There is no logic to prove one way or the other. As a protestant, I go for scripture evidence for my religion, and this topic is not addressed in scripture. As a catholic, you have papal decree on your side, and that is sufficient for you. Not for me.

 

[redleghunter]

It doesn't matter to the twins, it merely destroys your argument from identical DNA.

No I responded to your assertion a human cell from the same human is synonymous with a new conceived life. It's not and that's basic biology.

Truth is you have to resort to empty retorts because you tried to prove an article of faith by logic, which is impossible. It is your article of faith that a newly fertilized egg is a person already and it is my article of faith that it isn't yet a person.

Conception is basic biology. A new human being begins at conception. That's just a fact and not an article of faith.
To assert we are not human beings from conception forward would be denying scientific fact.

There is only one definition of when a distinct (from parents) human being begins. That is at conception.

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQodVZINSA


The French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” [The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981). See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith,Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:

“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.” [The Human Life Bill – S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

To cite just a few examples, the American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “conception” as “the formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.” (For reference, a zygote is the first stage of a human embryo.)

Likewise, the entry for “life” in the American Heritage Dictionary of Science states that life is “the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.”

[The] statement that “human life begins at conception” is consistent with both of these definitions, because human zygotes display all four empirical attributes of life:

1. Growth – As explained in the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”

1. Reproduction – Per Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, zygotes sometimes form identical twins, which is an act of “asexual reproduction.” (Also, in this context, the word “reproduction” is more accurately understood as “reproductive potential” instead of “active reproduction.” For example, three-year-old humans are manifestly alive, but they can’t actively reproduce.)

1. Metabolism – As detailed in the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”

1. Response to stimuli – Collins English Dictionarydefines a “stimulus” as “any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism.” Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to such factors. For example, a 2005 paper in the journal Human Reproduction Updatenotes that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”

Furthermore, the science of embryology has proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is “the very basis of life itself.”

In accord with the facts above, the textbook Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects directly states: “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” This may be controversial from a political perspective, but the sciences of embryology and genetics leave no doubt as to when human life begins.

The science of abortion: When does life begin? - Just Facts

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No I responded to your assertion a human cell from the same human is synonymous with a new conceived life. It's not and that's basic biology.

It could be, with supportive technology.

Conception is basic biology. A new human being begins at conception. That's just a fact and not an article of faith.
To assert we are not human beings from conception forward would be denying scientific fact.

No, it would be denying your assertions. A human person is not finished at conception; that is the continuation of a process that can result in a person.

There is only one definition of when a distinct (from parents) human being begins. That is at conception.

We differ as to how we define words. And here's a news flash . . . changing word definitions doesn't change actual facts.

1. Response to stimuli – Collins English Dictionarydefines a “stimulus” as “any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism.” Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to such factors. For example, a 2005 paper in the journal Human Reproduction Updatenotes that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”

I have a computer that can respond to stimulii and that doesn't prove it is a person.

Furthermore, the science of embryology has proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is “the very basis of life itself.”

Here's an interesting fact. Fertilization of a human egg does NOT determine how many people are going to come out of that fertilization. For example, a single fertilized egg may divide once and those two cells completely seperate . . . low, twins are born. Happens often. Two fertilized eggs might be near enough so as to combine and form, together, a single human being, and in rare cases even different sperm from different fathers have been involved.

Rare, of course, but an interesting oddity difficult to explain from your assertion that a fertilized egg is a new human being.