outlawing abortion

Great Debates
161

Pepperlandgirl, it sounds to me like you’re saying that we shouldn’t be objecting to abortion unless we are personally prepared to sto adopt these children, or to stop these millions from dying each year.

No offense, but that sounds remarkably like saying “Unless you are willing to personally take care of my wife, you have no business complaining that I abuse her” of “Unless you are personally prepared to adopt my children, don’t you dare complain that I’m not treating them right!” Dr. Francis Beckwith discusses this fallacy more thoroughly in this article, under the sub-section titled “Why Don’t Pro-Lifers Adopt the Babies They Don’t Want Aborted?”

Besides which, I think you’re laboring under a grave misconception. Do pro-lifers take care of babies that might otherwise be aborted? In fact, there are over three thousand such organizations across the nation. Do these agencies provide mentoring programs, or help the young parents stay in school? Many of them do. In fact, I’ve been involved with almost a dozen such organizations, all of which had programs to help these parents in various ways.

Do these agencies teach birth control? Natural birth control, certainly, and they routinely go to schools to teach about abstinence. Now you might not personally agree with that particular approach, but you can by no means accuse them of being apathetic, and failing to warn the children about the dangers of getting pregnant.

Yes, you’ll often hear Planned Parenthood and the like claim that pro-lifers do nothing for the children after they have been born. Such statements are simply false, and are uttered out of either ignorance or outright malice.

162

I’m saying it’s very hard to tke your protests and arguments seriously when it appears that you really aren’t all that concerned about it. Lecturing me on how immoral abortion is isn’t really doing much to stop it…Working on the social problems and education is what’s going to stop it. I don’t care if you do think it’s immoral, it just sounds like a bunch of hot air if youdon’t have anything to back your words up. After all, actions do speak louder than words.

Yes, as we can see by the millions of pregnant teenagers, abstinence and “natural” birth control is really effective. Could you imagine how much more effective real birth control would be? I mean, the Pill is so effective that less than 1 in 100 people will get pregnant a year when its taken correctly. Shoot, simple condoms stop nearly as many unwanted pregnancies. When something as easy as a condom can stop unwanted pregnancies, why aren’t you teaching them about it? What i don’t understand is why pro-lifers are also anti-birth control. To me, it’s a bizarre paradox that is probably making things worse. Warning children about the dangers of getting pregnant is something all together different from teaching them how to avoid it.

I’m not asking what all the other pro-lifers do, I’m asking what you do. I didn’t say you didn’t do anything, I’m starting from the assumption that you do, because after all, you do believe that millions of innocent children are dying every year. You must be doing something to stop it.
Abortion isn’t an isolated incidence that has no roots in other sociological phenomenon. (One of which, apparently, is the lack of education and the puritan attitudes still plaguing this nation.)

163

p’girl, I think you’re being disingenuous here. I, for one, am actively involved in helping troubled families with counseling, financial support, education, skills training, and so forth. I’ve been doing this for over ten years now. I have sometimes gone for months without employment, volunteering full-time at a crisis pregnancy center which needed help badly. I don’t think anyone can claim that I am not “all that concerned about it.”

You say that it’s hard to take pro-lifers seriously when they don’t attempt to help the families in need. In point of fact, many of them DO help – sacrificially so. Crisis pregnancy centers are typically run on shoestring budgets, unlike abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood, which have huge operating budgets.

And what of pro-choicers who oppose world hunger, slavery or the spread of STD’s? How many of them are giving sacrificially to help stop these terrible things? Should we dismiss their arguments against world hunger, slavery and STD epidemics, simply because most of them don’t put their money where their mouth is?

Should pro-lifers do more? Certainly so… undeniably so. But the same thing can be said of pro-choicers. How many pro-choicers are actively involved in supporting all choices – not just abortion? For that matter, how many of them are actively working toward more abortion-sympathetic legislation, not just in the USA, but around the world? How many of them were actively promoting pro-choice laws, prior to Roe v. WAde? Some do, and some were, but as with most controversial issues, there is doubtlessly a silent and relatively inactive majority.

164

Uh, that’s why I asked what you were doing. I said it appeared you weren’t concerned, and since I didn’t want to assume, I asked.

165

No offense, pgirl, but I think that’s absurd.

Did I give any indication that I was doing nothing to help these parents in need? Any indication whatsoever? I think you’ve have to look pretty hard to find the slightest hint of such.

You may say that I appeared to be unconcerned, but I gave no indication of my activities outside this board. No indication whatsoever. In that respect, I think it’s seriously disingenuous to even voice the suggestion one appears to lack concern for these parents in need.

If you must know though, I served for four years on the board of a crisis pregnancy center, three of which I spent as the chairman. I’ve also provided computer technical support on a regular basis, and developed databases to help with client data registration, fund raising, community networking, mailing lists and so forth. I have gone to public schools and youth detention centers to speak on the dangers of STD’s and the limitations of birth control methods. I have written newsletter articles, and have spoken on the radio (several times!) to promote single-mother support groups and financial needs. I have scoured garage sales for baby furniture and maternity clothes. I have served as a volunteer counselor, and manned a 24-hour crisis hotline. I have even led several training sessions for volunteers from other pro-life organizations.

Could I stand to do more? Probably so… but I daresay that I’m demonstrating my concern in more concrete, more sacrificial ways that someone who just says, “Why don’t you go have an abortion?”

166

Well, then, pepperlandgirl, now that JThunder has answered your question, do you intend on taking his pro-life arguments more seriously, as you implied, or are your opinions on the subject unchanged?

Chaim Mattis Keller

167

Except I had to ask three times before I got an answer. The first time you ignored me, the second time you gave me a very short, non-specific answer that really didn’t answer my question at all, and the third is when I finally got something from you.

No, cmkeller, I don’t, because I still don’t agree with them, and I still think he’s wrong. However, I take JThunder more seriously, whether or not I agree with his arguments.

168

I feel like there are 2 seperate threads going on in here. To answer beagledave’s slanderous charges.
Yes an embryo is different than a zygote, which is different than than an oocyte. None of these are people, however. They are human life, in the same way that my follicles are human life. They are human genetically, and alive. Personhood is not conveyed. And don’t put all your trust in chromosome counting, lest you exclude people with chromosomal abnormalities from personhood.
Re the fertility clinic: sorry if I associated anyone with the extremists in your midst. You still didn’t adress my main point. Why don’t you care about the fertility clinics the way you care about Ausch-
Close one. Nearly got nailed by Godwin. The way you care about serial murderers, then? Or do you? And please, in laymen’s terms, if possible, what makes z-e-fs human, in spite of empirical evidence?

169

Only because (a) the question had a fallacious premise, which I chose to address first, (b) my time is limited, and so I can not immediately answer every point that you raise, and © the word “you” can be either plural or singular, which made your question ambiguous. My initial answer assumed the plural form, as that was the formulation which would have had the greater bearing on the issue at hand.

Once again, I’d like to point out that I gave absolutely no indication that I cared nothing for the parents, or that I was doing nothing to help parents in need. I think the statement that I “appeared” to be unconcerned is clearly without foundation. In other words, with all due respect, I think that statement is an example of careless projection, rather than a reasonable inference from anything which I have said or done.

170

How did you come to the conclusion that personhood is not conveyed? Citation, please?

171

—How did you come to the conclusion that personhood is not conveyed?—

I should say: the claim YOU are making is the extrodinary one: that a mass of barely undifferentiated cells is a person, in any more sense than a recipe and collection of ingredients is a cake. It is you that needs to explain why a zygote should be given any more moral consideration than a culture of my skin cells.

172

I slandered you, how?

**

Well no. Just saying that does not make it true. For shits and giggles, can you cite any biology text/developmental embryology text/genetics text which supports your position (that a zygote/embryo are similar to hair follicles when it comes to human life) ? Note that my cite referenced several biology/embryology/genetics texts.

Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994). See also, Bruce M. Carlson, Human Embryology and Developmental Biology (St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994), and Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998).

William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), pp. 4, 8, 11.

B. Lewin, Genes III (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983), pp. 9-13; A. Emery, Elements of Medical Genetics (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1983), pp. 19, 93.

Go ahead. Seriously. I’ll wait for the scientific cites to back up the claims that you made. (Otherwise, of course… I’ll await a retraction)
**

I answered your point. You earlier stated

“Also, while we’re on the subject, what about fertility clinics. They take sperm and eggs, mix 'em up, and throw away the ones they don’t want. Yet, no one has bomed the fertility clinic near my house.”

My reading of that kind of hyperbole is that you’re asking why pro lifers don’t care about fertility clinics. I gave you several web sites of pro life organizations opining on fertility clinics. What don’t you get about my response. Did you go to the web sites I listed?

**
[/quote]

And please, in laymen’s terms, if possible, what makes z-e-fs human, in spite of empirical evidence? **
[/QUOTE]

Ummm what empirical evidence have you brought to bear in this thread? (Oh. that’s right…none. :rolleyes: )
I’ve answered this question twice, pointing out the differences between gametes and zygotes, and why zygotes are a unique human…and gametes (or hair follicles) are not. I’ve sourced my answer with a site that references standard genetic/biology/embryology texts.

173

—I’ve answered this question twice, pointing out the differences between gametes and zygotes, and why zygotes are a unique human…and gametes (or hair follicles) are not. I’ve sourced my answer with a site that references standard genetic/biology/embryology texts.—

But none of your sources have brought the least bit to bear on the question at hand.
For goodness sakes, everyone knows that skin cells are not EXACTLY like zygotes, and one doesn’t need citations to demonstrate that. The point is whether or not zygotes are, in any MORALLY RELEVANT way different from skin cells. Obviously you believe they are, and indeed, you believe that the fact that they have genetically unique DNA is indeed a morally relevant fact. But I just don’t see how.

My DNA can be sequenced and placed on a computer disk. On the disk, it can be altered until it is “unique.” But that doesn’t make it a moral wrong to destroy that information. Hypothetically, this information could even be re-sequenced and placed in a cell via the cloning technique. But again: why would it be wrong to destroy this, as yet, unused recipe? Who’s moral interests is it violating? Certainly not the interests of a potential being who does not even have the basic characteristics necessary to even begin to have interests yet (a nervous system at least, in my estimation).

My allusion to “recipies” here is not accidental. Too many people seem to have the idea that DNA is a point-to-point blueprint of a human being. This is quite misguided. The information stored in DNA is actually far better understood as a set of instructions for how to go about building a human being: it describes mostly the construction process necessary to construct a particular individual, not simply a tiny snapshot of the end result. This may or may not make a difference to how people think about the issue, but I thought it was worth adding, even if irrelevant.

174

The question at hand is whether a z-e-f is a unique human individual (as opposed to a skin cell, or hair follicle, or gamete which isn’t)

The source that I’ve reference twice now does address that exact notion…scroll down and read Myth #1 (and Myth 2 also) …and read the section about fertilization which discusses the distinction between zygotes and gametes.

**

Again…From the same source

So the authors of two standard embryology texts (Moore and Larsen) refer to the product of fertilization as a new human individual. Sorry, but I think that this does exactly address the issue of whether a zygote is different from the other examples in a relevant manner.

**

I don’t think I or JThunder or other pro lifers in this thread have claimed that the specific coding/sequence of DNA stored at the Human Genome Project in Maryland constitutes a human.

The product of fertilization is not potential , it’s an actual unque human organism (see Moore and Larsen above) …(although it certainly does have potential development…much like a embryo, fetus or baby or 8 year old have “potential” development ahead of them.) Again, I don’t think that JThunder or I have claimed in this thread that a zygote is developmentally equivalent to an embryo…or that a fetus is developmentally equivalent to a baby…or that a newborn baby is developmentally equivalent to a teenager.

Ascriptions of “personhood” on an organism, like I said earlier, are generally an arbitrary notion heavily influenced by societal mores. Even pro choicers can’t agree on a definition…some say viability…some say sentience…some say “any” brain wave activity (others seem to think that appearance is important)
**

Again, I don’t think that I or JThunder or other pro lifers in this thread have made that claim about DNA (although discussion of genetics and DNA certainly is part of the discussion of embryology and development…right?)

175

—The question at hand is whether a z-e-f is a unique human individual (as opposed to a skin cell, or hair follicle, or gamete which isn’t)—

That is nothing more than linguistic subterfuge. If your entire line of argument relies upon having terms defined a certain way, then it is baseless.
The question at hand is whether a zygote has moral interests, period.

—So the authors of two standard embryology texts (Moore and Larsen) refer to the product of fertilization as a new human individual. Sorry, but I think that this does exactly address the issue of whether a zygote is different from the other examples in a relevant manner.—

How so? How does just being genetically human make something of moral concern? It has to be different in a way that demonstrates that it has moral qualities that the other things lack.

—The product of fertilization is not potential , it’s an actual unque human organism (see Moore and Larsen above)—

So? Why does something being “human” or not have anything to do with morality? We often use “human” as shorthand for this, but surely the morality of killing or not killing rests on something to do with WHAT most humans are, not the other way around. Since we are discussing a contentious issue, we can dispense with the shorthand and get right to talking about WHY certain things are of moral worth, and others are not, whether or not zygotes/etc. are or are not.

—Ascriptions of “personhood” on an organism, like I said earlier, are generally an arbitrary notion heavily influenced by societal mores.—

And that is why I have zero interest in discussing whether something has “personhood” or not.
What I want to know is: does a particular thing have moral interests against being killed, and why?

176

beagledave is correct. It is clear that the beliefs of pro-lifers are not being accurately represented in this thread. (As evidenced by beagledave’s examples, and by the accusation that I claim pro-choicers to be endorsing infanticide.)

177

You didn’t answer my question. How did you come to the conclusion that personhood is not conveyed in the unborn? Please provide detailed specifics of the technique that you used, so that we may examine its validity.

Besides which, your statement falsely characterizes the fetus as “a mass of barely undifferentiated cells.” While this may be true at the blastocyst stage, it is not true of most fetuses – and certainly not true by the time most abortions occur. In fact, the fetus will typically have its own heartbeat, nervous system, and musculatory system long before the mother is even aware that she’s pregnant.

178

Actually, I should amend my previous statement to say “It is certainly not true of fetuses” (as opposed to “most fetuses”) – the salient point being that the fetal stage is distinct from the blastocyst stage.

Either way though, the point remains. Even if you grant that the zygote and blastocyst (or even the embryo!) are merely “undifferentiated cells” (a claim which is clearly untrue with regard to embryos)… and even if you grant that they have no personhood (a separate claim altogether)… this still does not justify abortion, especially since the vast majority of abortions occur long after those stages.

179

Oh I see… you mean your question at hand. Well you initially responded to a post I made to robertliguori (scroll up and you’ll see what I’m talking about) . His post said nothing about “moral interests”…but I guess you better go correct him that “moral interests” are the issue at hand?

I was responding to robertliguori’s notion that zygotes were not fundamentally different from gametes or hair follicles, when it comes to a discussion of what constitutes a new human organism. He didn’t mention morality in his post…so I didn’t address it in my response and sites.

180

This thread has nearly convinced me to become pro-life.