Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, this is an opinion piece I'm linking to. I'll admit that up front. But the writer makes some very good points quite as well as I could have made them myself, and I think they should be considered and discussed.

Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science - HUMAN EVENTS

In their “Pledge to America,” Republicans are promising to repeal Obamacare, which has imposed taxpayer-funded abortion on the nation. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 67% of the American people do not want their tax dollars to pay for abortion. A poll of likely voters put the number at 72%.

Liberal counter-attacks are resorting to the old slur that Republicans are anti-science. The current issue of Nature bemoans the “anti-science streak on the American right.”

----

In the past, abortion supporters simply denied that the fetus is human: “It’s just a blob of tissue.” Today, however, due to advances in genetics and DNA, virtually no ethicist denies that the fetus is human—biologically, genetically, physiologically human. Even the arch-radical Peter Singer acknowledges that “the life of a human organism begins at conception.” How do liberals get around that scientific fact? By denying the relevance of science.

Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a “person,” generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities.

----

Ethicists disagree even on the point when personhood begins: Is it when the fetus starts to exhibit neural activity, or feels pain, or achieves a certain level of consciousness?

Or even after the child is born? According to British bioethicist John Harris, “Nine months of development leaves the human embryo far short of the emergence of anything that can be called a person.”

----

Pro-lifers have long been castigated for bringing private values into the public square. But actually it is the pro-abortion position that is based on merely personal views and values.

----

Liberals bring the same anti-scientific stance to other life issues, such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and genetic engineering. According to personhood theory, just being part of the human race is not morally relevant.

----

The concept of personhood is so malleable that anyone at any stage of life could be demoted to the status of non-person and denied the right to live.

Anyone care to comment, or even to try to dispute these points?

 

[Greenbeard]

Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a “person,” generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities.

The first question, of course, would be if you're approaching this issue from the position that abortion should be forbidden in all circumstances without exception, including in instances of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake. If not, then you've already conceded the point that it isn't about "life" in any biological sense but rather about answering a social question.

So are you starting from the extreme hardliner stance?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a “person,” generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities.

The first question, of course, would be if you're approaching this issue from the position that abortion should be forbidden in all circumstances without exception, including in instances of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake. If not, then you've already conceded the point that it isn't about "life" in any biological sense but rather about answering a social question.

So are you starting from the extreme hardliner stance?

No, I don't think that's the first question at all. In fact, I don't even think that's a relevant question in this case, since the topic is "which side is ignoring science?" and that answer doesn't change according to opinion or position. Scientific fact isn't subjective.

 

[manifold]

Funny, I've still never met a single person that is "Pro" abortion.

 

[Greenbeard]

No, I don't think that's the first question at all. In fact, I don't even think that's a relevant question in this case, since the topic is "which side is ignoring science?" and that answer doesn't change according to opinion or position. Scientific fact isn't subjective.

First you have to show that there's a science question on the table. As your article itself notes, the philosophical underpinning of the pro-choice position (besides holding a right to privacy supreme, at least in this instance) is that the question is not one of biological life, it's a question of social personhood. In that view, a frozen embryo, for example, is not a person entitled to rights, regardless of whether it meets a scientific definition of life and thus there is no need to restrict scientific research on it, even if that were to result in its destruction.

So what I'm asking you is, do you actually believe the issue here is merely one of science and anything that meets the definition of life must be protected? In other words, do you oppose abortion in cases of rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother? Do you oppose embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds?

I would hope you can see that these aren't irrelevant questions at all but are central to the point here. If you're endorsing the view in the article that science is all that matters, you should have no trouble answering in the affirmative to any of these questions.

Do you agree with the viewpoint in the article (i.e. do you take an extreme hardliner stance on these issues)?

 

[JBeukema]

In the past, abortion supporters simply denied that the fetus is human: “It’s just a blob of tissue.”

Fail.

Where is a quote showing that they deny it's a blob of human tissue?

Human =/= A Human =/= Person

no ethicist denies that the fetus is human—biologically, genetically, physiologically human.

And? So is this guy

But he has something in common with your (early) foetus. Do you know what it is?

Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection

What legal protection does my arm have? Or a random corpse? Can it vote?

Also, you fail to recall that just because something is the law doesn't mean it should be. How long did blacks have no meaningful rights?

Ethicists disagree even on the point when personhood begins: Is it when the fetus starts to exhibit neural activity, or feels pain, or achieves a certain level of consciousness?

When it breaths, if it's Jewish. Never if it's not. Didn't you ever read your bible?

Liberals bring the same anti-scientific stance

Fail. You never showed them to be 'anti-science'

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, I don't think that's the first question at all. In fact, I don't even think that's a relevant question in this case, since the topic is "which side is ignoring science?" and that answer doesn't change according to opinion or position. Scientific fact isn't subjective.

First you have to show that there's a science question on the table. As your article itself notes, the philosophical underpinning of the pro-choice position (besides holding a right to privacy supreme, at least in this instance) is that the question is not one of biological life, it's a question of social personhood. In that view, a frozen embryo, for example, is not a person entitled to rights, regardless of whether it meets a scientific definition of life and thus there is no need to restrict scientific research on it, even if that were to result in its destruction.

Nice try, Chuckles, but it only works on people with a liberal five-minute memory span. For anyone who can actually remember several decades of abortion debate - or the entire debate from the handing-down of Roe v. Wade, for some folks - this is disingenuous horseshit. We already know there's a science question on the table, because the pro-aborts laid it there way back when their argument was "just a blob of tissue". And they keep periodically laying it there when they make remarks like “anti-science streak on the American right" (Nature magazine). It's only a metaphysical question to pro-aborts when they get confronted with the fact that they lost the science debate.

So what I'm asking you is, do you actually believe the issue here is merely one of science and anything that meets the definition of life must be protected? In other words, do you oppose abortion in cases of rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother? Do you oppose embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds?

Sorry. You don't get to do the old liberal bait-and-switch this time and run away from the science to make this all about emotions and opinions. And you definitely don't get to make this about attacking my personal beliefs. This thread is about the science, and which side has it.

I would hope you can see that these aren't irrelevant questions at all but are central to the point here. If you're endorsing the view in the article that science is all that matters, you should have no trouble answering in the affirmative to any of these questions.

They may be central to YOUR point, but your point is to change the subject as fast as possible, isn't it? And it's not your thread, so you don't get to set the point.

By the way, the article isn't saying that science is all that matters. The article is saying one side won the science argument, and the other side tries to change the subject. Just like you.

Do you agree with the viewpoint in the article (i.e. do you take an extreme hardliner stance on these issues)?

Not about me, Junior, no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

 

[Greenbeard]

Not about me, Junior, no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

If you're not even willing to commit to and defend the position in the OP, what's the point of starting this thread?

Do you believe that the legality of abortion should hinge on a scientific definition of life (i.e. no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother)? Is embryonic stem cell research morally wrong due to the scientific definition of life? Do you take the extreme hardliner position on these issues?

If you think these questions are a "bait-and-switch" then I think this subject is a little over your head.

 

[JBeukema]

My views are expressed here and here

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not about me, Junior, no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

If you're not even willing to commit to and defend the position in the OP, what's the point of starting this thread?

Do you believe that the legality of abortion should hinge on a scientific definition of life (i.e. no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother)? Is embryonic stem cell research morally wrong due to the scientific definition of life? Do you take the extreme hardliner position on these issues?

If you think these questions are a "bait-and-switch" then I think this subject is a little over your head.

Oh, I'm willing to commit to and defend their position. What I'm NOT willing to commit to and defend is YOUR DEFINITION of the position, which is completely incorrect.

Once again, the point of this thread is to discuss which side is truly anti-science, not for you to try to avoid that topic and make it all about opinion and emotion, or to try to make it a personal attack.

You don't get to sit there and say, "I'm not answering that question, but YOU BETTER ANSWER ALL OF THESE!" It's a simple question. Which argument is based on science, and which one is all about opinion?

 

[JBeukema]

Neither side is anti-science. There might be anti-science folk on both sides, but on the whole it's a philosophical disagreement over the value of tissue and the value of mind.

Science simply can't answer such philosophical questions.

 

[Greenbeard]

Which argument is based on science, and which one is all about opinion?

Neither is based on science, as I've argued above and you've so helpfully demonstrated. As the poster above noted, these are questions of philosophy and social definitions of value. That's why even a "pro-lifer" like yourself will obviously--though apparently self-consciously--allow the termination of a non-socially sanctioned life (i.e. one conceived through rape or incest), despite the fact that they meet the biological definition of life.

This is ethics, not biology.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a “person,” generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities.

The first question, of course, would be if you're approaching this issue from the position that abortion should be forbidden in all circumstances without exception, including in instances of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake. If not, then you've already conceded the point that it isn't about "life" in any biological sense but rather about answering a social question.

So are you starting from the extreme hardliner stance?

It is really pretty simple. Abortion should only happen if there is a legitimate medical reason to preform one. It is not a method of birth control, nor is it a quality of life issue. Only pro abortion activist ever ty to argue that it is either, or that it is a social issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny, I've still never met a single person that is "Pro" abortion.

Sure you have. They either lie to you, or you lie to yourself about it. Not being a mind reader I have no idea which is true, but one of them is.

 

[Chris]

Anti abortionists are pro child abuse.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yes, this is an opinion piece I'm linking to. I'll admit that up front. But the writer makes some very good points quite as well as I could have made them myself, and I think they should be considered and discussed.

Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science - HUMAN EVENTS

In their “Pledge to America,” Republicans are promising to repeal Obamacare, which has imposed taxpayer-funded abortion on the nation. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 67% of the American people do not want their tax dollars to pay for abortion. A poll of likely voters put the number at 72%.

Liberal counter-attacks are resorting to the old slur that Republicans are anti-science. The current issue of Nature bemoans the “anti-science streak on the American right.”

----

In the past, abortion supporters simply denied that the fetus is human: “It’s just a blob of tissue.” Today, however, due to advances in genetics and DNA, virtually no ethicist denies that the fetus is human—biologically, genetically, physiologically human. Even the arch-radical Peter Singer acknowledges that “the life of a human organism begins at conception.” How do liberals get around that scientific fact? By denying the relevance of science.

Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a “person,” generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities.

----

Ethicists disagree even on the point when personhood begins: Is it when the fetus starts to exhibit neural activity, or feels pain, or achieves a certain level of consciousness?

Or even after the child is born? According to British bioethicist John Harris, “Nine months of development leaves the human embryo far short of the emergence of anything that can be called a person.”

----

Pro-lifers have long been castigated for bringing private values into the public square. But actually it is the pro-abortion position that is based on merely personal views and values.

----

Liberals bring the same anti-scientific stance to other life issues, such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and genetic engineering. According to personhood theory, just being part of the human race is not morally relevant.

----

The concept of personhood is so malleable that anyone at any stage of life could be demoted to the status of non-person and denied the right to live.

Anyone care to comment, or even to try to dispute these points?

You noticed that too eh. According to dems the tiniest single cell organism is life, but a human fetus, Not such much

When Missouri wanted to pass a law saying life begins at conception. Several Libs on this board responded with comments about them choosing religion of science.

The fact is Science is on Missouri's side. There is no denying that a human fetus after conception begins growing and dividing, and scientifically that is LIFE!

 

[rdean]

I've never met anyone who is "pro abortion".

I have met many who are "pro women's rights".

Then there are the Republicans, most of whom are insane and dishonest.

 

[Samson]

I've never met anyone who is "pro abortion".

I have met many who are "pro women's rights".

Then there are the Republicans, most of whom are insane and dishonest.

Thanks, Robot.

 

[Charles_Main]

I've never met anyone who is "pro abortion".

I have met many who are "pro women's rights".

Then there are the Republicans, most of whom are insane and dishonest.

You forgot white, Christian, and Confederate there bud.

They say pro Choice or woman's rights to avoid the fact that they indeed are Pro Abortion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've never met anyone who is "pro abortion".

I have met many who are "pro women's rights".

Then there are the Republicans, most of whom are insane and dishonest.

You are a liar. You are pro abortion, and anyone that can stand to be in your presence for longer than 5 seconds must be pro abortion also, or you would be calling them racists.