Abortion Unfiltered

bquinn

F.A. wrote: »

I have questions, mainly for tallaght01 and others who believe a woman has not got the right over her own body when there is an embryo involved. You say she does not have the right to abort because that would kill another human being. Basically, you deny her the right to do with her body as she sees fit, and you demand she carry on with the pregnancy because another life depends on that.

Now, if presented with a severly ill person who depends on your donating them half of your liver in order to live, do you think you are and ought to be obliged to donate half of your liver, seeing that the liver can regenerate and that another human being's life depends on this donation? In other words, does their right to life override your right to decide over your own body?

AS Tallaght01 has said, this is a rediculous anaolgy. But in case you were really serious, it's based on Natural Law. Natural Law is law based on the natural course of things. If you are next to someone who needs a liver transplant, your body doesn't automatically infuse part of your liver into it. Right? The pre-born child and the mother's body if allowed to follow their natural course, would allow the baby to be born. You have to interfere with nature to kill the pre-born child. If my neighbor was being rude, interfering with my ability to sleep because he was lud in the middle of the night, do I have a right to kill him. His presence is an inconvenience to me. His right to life is just a philisophical matter of opinion. What makes his life more precious than my own convenience?? Answer that. Oh, I'll kill him while he's sleeping, that way he's not concious. So what that he would be concious in a little bit of time, given the natural order of things... From your argument there would be nothing wrong with that. ALL law is based on something greater than ourselves. There is a real truth, a real order to things, regardless of opinion.

If someone put poison in your drink. You can choose to say it's not really poison. But guess what, if you drink it, you will die. You can deny the truth that all human beings regardless of their age or level of development, is life worthy to be protected. And fighting for the ability to kill a pre-born child does not help the women. It helps the abortionist get rich; it helps the men in our society to degrade women and think of them as sexual objects, instead of people of value; it helps the psychologist who treat the women for depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies and eating die-orders. It does not help the women.

bquinn

F.A. wrote: »

Oh, I do. I think it is a human at an extremely early stage of development. Early enough for nature to decide that it is not capable to turn into a kid. Many pregnancies are naturally terminated before the end of the 12th week. I have said it before: I simply trust nature in that the embryo or fetus is not developped enough for a termination to be considered 'cruel' on the life that is terminated.

So because 'nature' terminates the life of some at 12 weeks gestation, you think it's ok to kill others at 12 wks?? People die at all ages. 2 yr olds die. 5 yr olds die. 12 yr olds die... So because people die from natural causes at any age, we should be able to kill them too???????? What kind of argument is this????

bquinn

F.A. wrote: »

Hi tallaght01, you are right, it is very interesting. I understand your point (I think). The link I gave earlier, however, says the following:

"Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. ...

What about Eastern Europe, where the abortion rate was higher than the birth rate? 105 abortions to 100 live births?

F.A.

bquinn wrote: »

The pre-born child and the mother's body if allowed to follow their natural course, would allow the baby to be born. You have to interfere with nature to kill the pre-born child.

I think you will find that if nature is allowed to go ahead, 25 - 75% of pregnancies (depending on the age of the mother) end in the death of the embryo. So no, you do not have to interfere with nature at all. Nature happens to be the biggest abortionist of all times.

If my neighbor was being rude, interfering with my ability to sleep because he was lud in the middle of the night, do I have a right to kill him. His presence is an inconvenience to me. His right to life is just a philisophical matter of opinion. What makes his life more precious than my own convenience?? Answer that. Oh, I'll kill him while he's sleeping, that way he's not concious. So what that he would be concious in a little bit of time, given the natural order of things... From your argument there would be nothing wrong with that.

You are missing the point entirely. My neighbour's survival will not depend on me giving/sharing with him a part of my body. A physical contribution from my body in order to survive. In your scenario, the neighbour is alive and well and can live without the support of anybody else's body coming into it. This is a major difference to what I described, and a difference that I have pointed out, actually.

ALL law is based on something greater than ourselves. There is a real truth, a real order to things, regardless of opinion.

And what makes you think that you are privy to that 'real truth'?

If someone put poison in your drink. You can choose to say it's not really poison. But guess what, if you drink it, you will die. You can deny the truth that all human beings regardless of their age or level of development, is life worthy to be protected.

I cannot quite follow you. What has poison, me denying that it is poison, drinking it and dying got to do with me denying that human beings are worthy of protection regardless of their age or level of development? Are you trying to tell me that I will die because I deny that?

And fighting for the ability to kill a pre-born child does not help the women. It helps the abortionist get rich; it helps the men in our society to degrade women and think of them as sexual objects, instead of people of value; it helps the psychologist who treat the women for depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies and eating die-orders. It does not help the women.

Please refrain from speaking for all women who have ever had an abortion. I think you will find that many of them will disagree with you.

F.A.

bquinn wrote: »

So because 'nature' terminates the life of some at 12 weeks gestation, you think it's ok to kill others at 12 wks?? People die at all ages. 2 yr olds die. 5 yr olds die. 12 yr olds die... So because people die from natural causes at any age, we should be able to kill them too???????? What kind of argument is this????

Right then, funerals for all embryos nature decided were unfit for life! In fact, make that funerals for tampons, just in case!

I will stick to my notes now, so 'argue' away as you please. Your posts are far from rational.

tallaght01

I said it before, but I'm convinced these comparison arguments get us nowhere, as you never really get a comaprison that's the same, with all other things being equal.

But I'm also intrigued by the Eastern European figures. Why are they so high?

Poverty?

Access to contraception?

Geneder inequality?

bquinn

F.A. wrote: »

I think you will find that if nature is allowed to go ahead, 25 - 75% of pregnancies (depending on the age of the mother) end in the death of the embryo. So no, you do not have to interfere with nature at all. Nature happens to be the biggest abortionist of all times..

We're not talking about a miscarriage, which is a natural act. Just because people die, it does not give us the right to kill.

You are missing the point entirely. My neighbour's survival will not depend on me giving/sharing with him a part of my body. A physical contribution from my body in order to survive. In your scenario, the neighbour is alive and well and can live without the support of anybody else's body coming into it. This is a major difference to what I described, and a difference that I have pointed out, actually. .

But the woman's body is carrying out it's natural function. If a mother decides she no longer wishes to care for her 5 month old, and it's too much trouble to find someone else to take care of that child, should she be allowed to kill it? I mean she does have to change it's diaper, feed it, bathe it, clothe it...so it is very much dependent on her to live? She has to make a physical contribution, which may actually be exhausting to her.

And what makes you think that you are privy to that 'real truth'?
I cannot quite follow you. What has poison, me denying that it is poison, drinking it and dying got to do with me denying that human beings are worthy of protection regardless of their age or level of development? Are you trying to tell me that I will die because I deny that?.

The point is, there is an absolute truth, and denying it doesn't make it untrue. At conception, a new living organism begins. That organism is human. It is genetically unigue, making it a being. Therefore a living, human being, which because of it is an individual human being, must be protected as we would any other human being. It is our nature not to kill others of our species, unless in danger of our own lives. When a society says it is ok to kill some, it begins the slippery slope of some deciding who is more important than others. Who has the right to decide that one should die and another can live?? Under what authority?

Please refrain from speaking for all women who have ever had an abortion. I think you will find that many of them will disagree with you.

Where did I say I was speaking for all women? Go to www.silentnomore.org and you will see the testimonies of many women who have had abortions and now regret them. In all my years of working with post abortive women, and speaking to women's groups, I've only met two woman who did not regret their abortions. One said she believed it was wrong, but that she enjoyed the life she has now, so wouldn't want things changed... The other said she made the right decision, but her story is too complicated to get into here.

tallaght01

bquinn wrote: »

In all my years of working with post abortive women, and speaking to women's groups, I've only met two woman who did not regret their abortions. One said she believed it was wrong, but that she enjoyed the life she has now, so wouldn't want things changed... The other said she made the right decision, but her story is too complicated to get into here.

See, I doubt your "only 2 women" statistic is really representative.

If you work with post abortion womens groups, then you're likely to meet mostly women who attend these groups.

The women who attend these groups will be the women who need support, as they regret their actions.

I guess the women who are at peace with their decision don't need to go to conselling groups or whatever they are.

Ultravid

tallaght01 wrote: »

S
I guess the women who are at peace with their decision don't need to go to conselling groups or whatever they are.

At peace? What testimonies have you got on those women? Can they sleep soundly in their beds at night (without sleeping tablets)?

Can they function in their daily lives without drugs/alcohol etc...?

Are they at peace? Or are they very angry, hurt, and bitter?

Bquinn has first hand experience with women who've had abortions. I'm guessing you haven't.

tallaght01

Ultravid wrote: »

At peace? What testimonies have you got on those women? Can they sleep soundly in their beds at night (without sleeping tablets)?

Can they function in their daily lives without drugs/alcohol etc...?

Are they at peace? Or are they very angry, hurt, and bitter?

It depends on the person

Ultravid wrote: »

Bquinn has first hand experience with women who've had abortions. I'm guessing you haven't.

You can guess what you like, to be honest.

bquinn

tallaght01 wrote: »

See, I doubt your "only 2 women" statistic is really representative.

If you work with post abortion womens groups, then you're likely to meet mostly women who attend these groups.

The women who attend these groups will be the women who need support, as they regret their actions.

I guess the women who are at peace with their decision don't need to go to conselling groups or whatever they are.

Actually, it is groups of women who regret their abortions, but it's also women groups in general. Although you may be right, in that if they think it was ok, they have no need to come over to me to speak, although I would think someone who has had an abortion and is completely at peace about it, would at some point want to make the point that they are at peace... I don't know for certain, but I do know for certain, that a lot of women are suffering a great deal because of abortion.

tallaght01

Of course a lot of women suffer in silence. I'm merely saying that statistically you're describing a self selecting population.

Anecdote merely describes the tip of what's called "The iceberg of illness", where visible disease only represents a tiny portion of the actual burden within a community.

bquinn

tallaght01 wrote: »

Of course a lot of women suffer in silence. I'm merely saying that statistically you're describing a self selecting population.

Anecdote merely describes the tip of what's called "The iceberg of illness", where visible disease only represents a tiny portion of the actual burden within a community.

And I'm saying why propagate something which causes so much 'silent suffering' in the name of freedom. These women were lied to. They were told it's a blob of cells, then they see the arms and legs. They were told it will be quick, and take away their problems. But then they have an emptiness inside them that won't go away. They cry every time they see a new born baby, and wonder why. Many turn to alcohol and self abuse through cutting to alleviate the internal pain. Meanwhile the men move onto other women. (I'm not talking about all men, many are wonderful people, but those who go around pretending to care for a woman just to have sex, and when she gets pregnant, tells her an abortion will solve everything, then when she is an emotional wreck, says goodbye, I'm off to find another easy romp in the bed..let's just say, I don't think they are the ones who should be allowed to make the law of the land.

tallaght01

IN principle, I'm very much anti abortion.

But I think the key to this debate os to move away from radicalism. We need to stop painting these pictures of men walking away from women while the jizz is still dripping from them, abandoning them to the boat to England. The poor woman suffers. The man is already nailing her sister before she puts her cacks back on.Then the bastard-man heads off to run the country, before impregnating his secretary.

What's wrong with reasonable debate? Why not accept that there is an argument on both sides?

If you make an attempt to see other people's point of view, they'll be more receptive to yours.

The only thing the 2 sides will agree on, I'm pretty sure, is that we all want to see less women who feel they have to opt for abortion.

Hence why I get interested in looking at abortion stats, and trying to find out why they happen, and what can prevent them.

Zombrex

tallaght01 wrote: »

1) Saying consciousness is the central issue isn't the easy way out. Saying that I can't prove on boards what people have been trying to prove for donkeys years in universities around the world is the easy way out.

tallaght01 wrote: »

2) You can communicate with animals

As can you, you probably do it all the time. Do you own a dog?

What I assume you mean is communicate with animals to a level that we can judge if they share similar brain activity that we identify with being conscious or self-aware. As I mentioned this is possible, through things like the mirror-test, up to a point that is still being debated by scientists. It does lead to a more fundamental question of what is consciousness.

tallaght01 wrote: »

3) I can't assign legitimacy to the value of human life unless I can tell you why that's the case.

You can do anything you want Tallaght, but assigning value to a human life without having any rational or logical reason that you can explain to others means that your opinion is rather uncommunicative and as such is rather pointless from the point of view of a debate on the subject. If I don't know why you believe something I can't discuss with you whether or not your reasons are good or convincing to me.

tallaght01 wrote: »

4) Hitler wasn't an exceptional case

He certainly wasn't. It is also important to remember that Hitler did not work in isolation, he had a large number of Germans working with him. It is quite scary how easily and quickly people can over ride the instincts of empathy when it is framed in such a way (i.e the Jews are hurting Germany)

tallaght01 wrote: »

5) We both agree that we value human life life because of the human-ness, not because of consciousness or potential.

No, I value human life because of the consciousness that the human brain can product. Something non-human that produces a similar system (such as a self-aware ape or a super computer) I would value equally. I don't value potential that much at all, every time I have sex there is a potential baby I don't (or try not to) have, but I don't consider that as yet non-existent thing to be of any value at all.

tallaght01 wrote: »

6) You're arguing about how evolution encourages us to kill people outside our family in a debate about killing our own fetuses.

Yes, though possibly you didn't get the point I was making. Your assertion is that we, as a species, have a natural emotional instinct to value human life. I raised the point that we have a natural emotional instinct to value some human life, and not others. We have evolved an emotional system to value the life of those close to us, in family and tribe, but not so much others (strangers) that we feel little connection to. In fact we have developed instincts to feel threatened by humans distant to us, which is where concepts like racism and xenophobia probably originate from.

So you can't really take the first instinct and go that is how we are supposed to be, without taking the second either. My point was that we need to, when discussing ethics, rise above these evolutionary instinctive emotional feelings because they are so flawed in guiding us ethically. They serve an evolutionary purpose but not a moral one.

tallaght01 wrote: »

7) You have presented your rational framework. Though I still don't understand what that is, with respect. Other than an opinion on evolution.

Well it is kinda long, if you like I will go over it again but in another post.

tallaght01 wrote: »

8) It's OK to terminate an adult if they are brain dead, on the basis of a lack of consciousness.

Yes. If it has been determined that the consciousness, the memories, the higher functions, the self-awareness, of the person is destroyed beyond repair (in terms of computers I think of it as smashing the hard drive with a drill) then the person is gone/dead. The rest of the life form, the heart the lungs the skin the eyes etc can still be alive and even functioning, but it is literally just a collection of cells and organs.

tallaght01 wrote: »

9) It's not OK to terminate an unconscious adult on the basis of their consciousness, because they will return to consciousness in the future.

When I say consciousness I am not talking about being physically awake. I don't think it is perfectly fine to kill a sleeping person because they are not conscious. Even an unconscious person still has a brain with all the systems required for consciousness ticking away, even if they are not being used at that moment.

As I mentioned above, it is the difference between turning your computer off (all your data and OS and stuff is all still there) and throwing your computer out the window and driving over it with a truck.

tallaght01 wrote: »

10) It's OK to terminate babies who are conscious to a varying degree, as it doesn't matter that they will become conscious in the future.

It is not ok to terminate any babies that are conscious to any degree, including mentally handicapped babies. As soon as a foetus has developed the systems that can form consciousness (a brain with systems for higher brain functions), that is game over for abortion. You cannot morally abort that foetus (in my opinion of course). It now possess the "valuable" quality of human life, human existence. It might still be very primitive in terms of what is has compared to say the collective memories and experiences of a 60 year old, but it is still too valuable to destroy. It doesn't matter that it hasn't been born yet.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I just wanted to make sure that I'd actually read your argument correctly!!!! Coz I couldn't quite believe what i was reading.

I hope my post puts forward my position a bit clearer. I am for early term abortions only. I think the time of birth is largely irrelevant to the issue (as is conception). The only issue that I consider important is the development of the brain in the foetus.

Ultravid

To the pro-abortion people:

If I had stated the information in my own words, someone would have asked for a source. Provide the source and someone tells me to state it myself. Some sort of cycle seems to be prevalent in this discussion.

Please stop avoiding the information I supply and find the logical flaws in those arguments if you can. When it comes to logic, it is not the source that matters, but the content.

Unless you attempt to refute the logic I presented, I'll take your silence as an acceptance of the argument.

Here are links to the arguments:

An Open Letter from a Pro-Life Atheist
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/jones1.html

and

The Apple Argument Against Abortion
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

To the pro-abortion people:

If I had stated the information in my own words, someone would have asked for a source. Provide the source and someone tells me to state it myself. Some sort of cycle seems to be prevalent in this discussion.

If i remember correctly it was one of your own pro lifers that told you to quit passing off links as opinion and instead at least try to give and explain your own.
And also please, do try call us pro-choice.Its incredibly rude that you dont.
What if we started using anti-choice for your side?

Ultravid wrote: »

Unless you attempt to refute the logic I presented, I'll take your silence as an acceptance of the argument.

You can do whatever you like mate, we'll just go ahead and discuss this with some of the more reasonable pro-life people like zulu and tallaght mmmkay?

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

If i remember correctly it was one of your own pro lifers that told you to quit passing off links as opinion and instead at least try to give and explain your own.
And also please, do try call us pro-choice.Its incredibly rude that you dont.
What if we started using anti-choice for your side?



You can do whatever you like mate, we'll just go ahead and discuss this with some of the more reasonable pro-life people like zulu and tallaght mmmkay?

I can't in good conscience call you 'pro-choice' because there is never a legitimate choice to kill an innocent human life, and there is never a 'right' to do the same. That leaves 'pro-abortion' or 'pro-death' if you prefer.

As regards what you call me, I am not concerned. I stand only for the Truth.

Zombrex

Ultravid wrote: »

Unless you attempt to refute the logic I presented, I'll take your silence as an acceptance of the argument.

They aren't particularly good arguments, but sure I'll give it ago

Ultravid wrote: »

An Open Letter from a Pro-Life Atheist
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/jones1.html

There are very little arguments in that piece actually related to the issue of the rights of the foetus. He (she?) gets a bit distracted by things like the methods that abortionists use and the arguments that abortion is a choice that you don't have to take.

As far as I can see his main (only) argument in terms of the foetus as a being with rights is that if it can feel pain it is a separate person with rights.

There are a few obvious flaws with that. Firstly, for some period after conception the fetus cannot "feel" pain in any meaningful sense since it hasn't yet developed a nervous system.

Secondly even after the nervous system has developed there is a period where the fetus is in a state that we would consider "knocked out". If a doctor puts you under and then performs heart surgery on you your body senses this and reacts in a manner to protect itself but it is doubtful one would consider this "feeling pain"

So is the author saying that a foetus is not to be considered a person with rights until the point when they have developed the ability to consciously process sensations of physical pain?

Ultravid wrote: »

The Apple Argument Against Abortion
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm

This piece largely misrepresents most pro-choice arguments, so it is hard to take it that seriously. For example it doesn't understand the argument about the difference between a living human and a human person. It is not the difference between a white person and a Jew (but I can see why they would want to paint it as that), a clearer example is between a brain dead human who is still living, and a normal person. Or a single cell human life form (a zygote) and a 53 year old woman.

It also stumbles at the first hurdle, because "we" (I assume the human race) don't all know what an apple is. And we certainly don't all know what a human is, or at least we don't all share a common well defined definition.

How someone interprets how we classify a human will determine the next bit, the statement that we all know humans have rights because they are human.

The problem with this is clearly seen by taking the opposite of what the author is trying to do (give all "humans" rights). Say that based on the definition of what a human is we leave out a new born child that has mutated its DNA some how to a point where they are outside of a definition of "human" (one based on DNA). Is that new born therefore not deserving of rights because it doesn't match the definition set out of what a human is?

The point I'm making is that the idea that we get rights simply for being human is fundamentally flawed. One has to look more closely at the properties humans have, because we may not be the only things in the universe that have those properties.

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

I can't in good conscience call you 'pro-choice' because there is never a legitimate choice to kill an innocent human life, and there is never a 'right' to do the same. That leaves 'pro-abortion' or 'pro-death' if you prefer.

As regards what you call me, I am not concerned. I stand only for the Truth.

Thats it , just assume you're completely right in everything you say and do.And you wonder why people ignore your points? :rolleyes:.In fact you know you're right regardless of what i or anyone else says, why are you here at all? This is a discussion(humanities in particular) board,its not to advertise your opinion as fact in blatant disregard of everyone elses.
You my friend, i feel , are the heart of why there is often a breakdown in proper,logical, debate between pro choice and pro life.

Ultravid

I'm off now, but a few last points before I go.

Somebody a while back mentioned this:

a tadpole (even frogspawn) is not a frog. Describe a frog. 4 legs,Amphibian etc Tadpole-not a frog. But is potential to become a frog. If i killed a tadpole,i killed a tadpole,i didn't kill a frog. I killed a potential frog. I kill a bunch of cells,i didn't kill a human. Thats my opinion.

If you squish a frog or a tadpole, you've still killed something from the Order Anura. This is the importance of using precise language. Even though frogs and tadpoles look different, they are the same animal.

Human life ('being') begins at conception: any other 'point' is purely arbitrary.

The right to life is enshrined in article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, making it a legally enforceable right in every UN member state.

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

—Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Note the term 'human being' - not 'person'. Wordplay is used by pro-abortion advocates to muddy the water and justify the crimes against the unborn.

Partial birth abortion: Why not legalize infanticide? In the Roe v. Wade decision the "justices" cited that the Hippocratic oath was influenced by Phygarean beliefs on the sacredness of life. What they omit that he was writing in a society in which abandonment of infants and children was acceptable: it plays a large part in many myths (e.g. Oedipus). In Sparta, every child was inspected and those which didn't fit the definition of the state on fitness were thrown off a cliff outside of town, no matter the parents desires on the matter. In Rome the pater potestas (head of the family) had the right to put to death any member of his family, regardless of age.

One final piece from Peter Kreeft:

Human Personhood Begins at Conception:

read here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

Non-Christians and even Christians can take opposite positions on abortion even when they think rationally, honestly, and with good will. The continuing controversy over abortion shows that it is a truly controversial issue. It is not simple and clear cut, but complex. Just as the choices for action are often difficult for a woman contemplating abortion, the choices for thought are often difficult for open-minded philosophers.

Everything I have said so far is a lie, in fact a dangerous lie.

There is one and only one reason why people argue about the topic of this paper, whether human personhood begins at conception: because some people want to justify abortion.

Therefore I begin with some remarks about abortion.

Abortion is a clear-cut evil. Anyone who honestly seeks "peace on earth, good will toward men" will see this if only he extends it to include women and children. Especially Christians should see this very clearly, for their faith reinforces their natural reason and conscience, a faith that declares that every human being is sacred because he or she is made in the image of God. The fact that some people controvert a position does not in itself make that position intrinsically controversial. People argued for both sides about slavery, racism and genocide too, but that did not make them complex and difficult issues. Moral issues are always terribly complex, said Chesterton—for someone without principles.

....

Personhood is indeed unclear - for Functionalism. Such questions as the following are not clearly answerable: Which features count as proof of personhood? Why? How do we decide? Who decides? What gives them that right? And how much of each feature is necessary for personhood? And who decides that, and why? Also, all the performance-qualifications adduced for personhood are difficult to measure objectively and with certainty. To use the unclear, not-universally-accepted, hard-to-measure functionalist concept of personhood to decide the sharply controversial issue of who is a person and who may be killed, is to try to clarify the obscure by the more obscure, obscuram per obscurius.

Perhaps not many people know this, but Roe*, of Roe v. Wade, is a member of the pro-life movement (and the Roman Catholic Church). She has stated that the pro-life and Christians have always treated her like a person, whereas the pro-abortion people treated her as a thing.

A Symbol and a Prophecy
[SIZE=+1]The decision of any person to convert to Christ, to become pro-life, and to join the Catholic Church is a momentous decision in the life of that individual, and is a blessing for the entire Church and the pro-life movement. In the case of Norma McCorvey , the decision is also a prophecy. It has been my conviction from doing pro-life work in all 50 states that the abortion industry and the mentality behind it are collapsing. The days of abortion are numbered, because no lie can live forever. Jane Roe's abandonment of the pro-choice cause is one of many signs of this.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Full article: http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/story2.html[/SIZE]

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey
TruthTV is also a good resource, including testimonies from abortionists themselves:
http://www.truthtv.org/

Zombrex

Ultravid wrote: »

Human life begins at conception: any other 'point' is purely arbitrary.

Well that statement itself is rather arbitrary. A sperm and egg are after all both human, and alive.

From the point of view of nature life doesn't really "begin", it merely changes. Life is an unbroken chemical process that can be traced back over 3 billion years. At no point were you dead, you were simply part of your parents.

The question then of course becomes then at what point do we decide that the "life" is no longer your parents and is now you. Conception is a rather arbitrary point to pick, people who do tend to pick it because of the rearranging of the DNA as a significant event, and because thinking of a single entity being made up of two cells separated by distance (in the case of the sperm and egg) as too difficult. Personally I find that argument through rather weak. The idea that the sperm and egg are not "you" two seconds before conception but they are you two seconds afterwards is a bit silly in my opinion.

Ultravid wrote: »

Note the term 'human being' - not 'person'. Wordplay is used by pro-abortion advocates to muddy the water and justify the crimes against the unborn.

The water is already muddy. This is a very complicated issue with a lot of things to think about (see above). I think some people would rather pretend that the issue if more clear cut, with statements like "life begins at conception!" that sound very definite and exact but are in fact rather inaccurate and misleading. I can see the appeal of this exactness, it allows people to make rather absolute and easy decisions, but it some what betrays the reality of the situation.

Ultravid wrote: »

One final piece from Peter Kreeft:

There is one and only one reason why people argue about the topic of this paper, whether human personhood begins at conception: because some people want to justify abortion.

Well yes, why else would people argue about it?

Ultravid wrote: »

One final piece from Peter Kreeft:

Abortion is a clear-cut evil.

Simply stating that over and over again is not an argument. It is though rather tiresome. You may feel it is true but without the ability to articulate why it is true it is rather pointless to quote it in a discussion forum.

I could just as easily say -

"Abortion is not a clear-cut evil"

There, that was easy. Are you convinced yet :pac:

Phototoxin

All the pro-life arguments would be very convincing, both from theists and atheists, if I believed a foetus was a person. The really is the crux of the matter, and so far all their arguments, however well thought and argued, have failed to convince me of this. I guess I have such a high regard for what a person is I can't lower its stature by giving something barely alive the same definition.

why does being outside a womb make you a person ?

No, I value human life because of the consciousness that the human brain can product. Something non-human that produces a similar system (such as a self-aware ape or a super computer) I would value equally. I don't value potential that much at all, every time I have sex there is a potential baby I don't (or try not to) have, but I don't consider that as yet non-existent thing to be of any value at all.

what about unconcsious people ? If I go into unconsciousness should I be killed ?

9) It's not OK to terminate an unconscious adult on the basis of their consciousness, because they will return to consciousness in the future.
When I say consciousness I am not talking about being physically awake. I don't think it is perfectly fine to kill a sleeping person because they are not conscious. Even an unconscious person still has a brain with all the systems required for consciousness ticking away, even if they are not being used at that moment.

As I mentioned above, it is the difference between turning your computer off (all your data and OS and stuff is all still there) and throwing your computer out the window and driving over it with a truck.

but the embryo will be conscious in the future if left alone..

And also please, do try call us pro-choice.Its incredibly rude that you dont.
What if we started using anti-choice for your side?

pro/anti choice are idiotic terms as we choose lots of things. Abortion is the issue so its pro/anti abortion as opposed to anything else

At no point were you dead, you were simply part of your parents.

not true as sperm is being constantly made and reknewed, as opposed to eggs which were actually present inside your mum while in your grandmothers womb! You weren't dead but you didn't always exist as two seperate pieces.

Virgil°

Phototoxin wrote: »

why does being outside a womb make you a person ?


what about unconcsious people ? If I go into unconsciousness should I be killed ?
.

wicknight wrote:

When I say consciousness I am not talking about being physically awake. I don't think it is perfectly fine to kill a sleeping person because they are not conscious. Even an unconscious person still has a brain with all the systems required for consciousness ticking away, even if they are not being used at that moment.

phototoxin wrote:

why does being outside a womb make you a person ?

It doesnt, neither have we said it does. Its the brain that makes you a conscious, self aware person. SO as long as that is there or in the process of developing, its game over abortion.

phototoxin wrote:

but the embryo will be conscious in the future if left alone..

Wicknight would argue differently, but i dont think that i can convince anyone that a potential conscious person has no value. This is where i agree to disagree on its value.

stakey

Virgil° wrote: »

It doesnt, neither have we said it does. Its the brain that makes you a conscious, self aware person. SO as long as that is there or in the process of developing, its game over abortion.

Wicknight would argue differently, but i dont think that i can convince anyone that a potential conscious person has no value. This is where i agree to disagree on its value.

It's not necessarily that a potential conscious has no value. It's the fact that a developed conscious, ie. the mothers conscious carries much more value than that of a potential conscious.

The two should never be valued on an equal footing until the embryo has a conscious. Even in the later stages of the pregnancy if a termination is needed to save the mothers life then the mothers conscious should be valued more than the embryo's.

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

It doesnt, neither have we said it does. Its the brain that makes you a conscious, self aware person. SO as long as that is there or in the process of developing, its game over abortion

The problem I have with this logic is: how do we know when consciousness occurs? And is this the short edge of the wedge, ie: how do you define conciousness to ensure it's protected?

I understand that it must happen as some stage after the brain in some form has begun developing, but what's that 6 weeks*? I'd suggest there exists a strong possibility that the majority of would be abortion seeking mothers wouldn't know they were pregnant until after 8 weeks!

*number may have been picked from my ass

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

It's not necessarily that a potential conscious has no value. It's the fact that a developed conscious, ie. the mothers conscious carries much more value than that of a potential conscious.

Well where do you draw you arbitrary line there? A newly born baby isn't protected by that rationality. Neither is a small child.
And again, how do you measure when someone is "fully conscious".

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

Well where do you draw you arbitrary line there? A newly born baby isn't protected by that rationality. Neither is a small child.
And again, how do you measure when someone is "fully conscious".

If you've read through the last few pages you'll see that I pointed out that the foetus has a brain, heart and some organs. However brain activity is slim to none suggesting a lack of consciousness and self-awareness. As well as that the foetus is unable to feel pain at this stage.

I think you'll agree that the rights of someone who can feel pain, is completely self-aware and conscious of their existance (i'm referring to the mother here in case you're wondering) supersede the rights of something that doesn't?

A small child is protected (and so too is the foetus) once it reaches a certain level of development. However, up to 17 weeks there should be no question of the choice to abort.

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

I pointed out that the foetus has a brain, heart and some organs. However brain activity is slim to none suggesting a lack of consciousness and self-awareness.

The key word here being "suggesting". So you are speculating, which is fine.

It's just not fine for me when it comes to choosing to kill someone.

As well as that the foetus is unable to feel pain at this stage.

Has this been proven?

I think you'll agree that the rights of someone who can feel pain, is completely self-aware and conscious of their existance (i'm referring to the mother here in case you're wondering) supersede the rights of something that doesn't?

You don't really think I'll agree do you?
And anyways, don't you mean someone? No I don't think the mothers right to "choose" to kill her unborn child supersede the childs right to life. Obviously. Otherwise I'd be all for abortion.
I believe she should exercise her choice not to be pregnant around the same time a penis is produced.

A small child is protected

...but why? (according to your logic?)

(and so too is the foetus) once it reaches a certain level of development.

Well it's fully protected here in Ireland. Thankfully.

However, up to 17 weeks there should be no question of the choice to abort.

Well there should always be a "question". Questioning things is what makes us great.

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

The key word here being "suggesting". So you are speculating, which is fine.

If you want to be specific about it, foetal brain development doesn't come close to anything we'd refer to as conscious until the last three months of pregnancy, ie. the foetus can apparently recognise voices, sounds and visions. Up until the 17th week the brain is literally forming with different neurological pathways connecting.

This isn't any sort of high end brain activity that one would deduce consciousness from, this is literally the organ growing. Please don't mistake an organ growing with consciousness.

Zulu wrote: »

I believe she should exercise her choice not to be pregnant around the same time a penis is produced.

Wow, just wow! The world must look so simple and easy to relate to when you put it into such black and white categories. Sure life isn't complicated at all. :rolleyes: