Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science

"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy." Joel Feinberg Joel Feinberg, Abortion

"Another error is the moment-of-conception fallacy. The joining of a human egg and sperm defines a new and unique human genotype. It does not produce any human hopes and fears and memories or anything else of moral importance implied by the term human. The newly fertilized egg may have the potential for a fully human existence, but that potential was there even before fertilization. The same can be said of all the fertilizations that might have been. The penetration of that egg by one sperm meant an early death for millions of competing sperm. It destroyed all hope for those millions of other unique human genotypes.

The moment-of-conception fallacy implies that fertilization is a simple process with never a doubt as to whether it has or has not happened. In reality, the "moment" is a matter of some hours of complex activity. There are elaborate biochemical interactions between the sperm and various layers of the egg membrane. The sperm gradually breaks up, and only its nucleus is established in the egg. Then both egg and sperm nuclei initiate radical changes before the fusion of the two nuclei. Many of the developmental events following this fusion were predetermined during the production of the egg. Genes provided by the sperm do not have discernible effects until embryonic development is well under way. A strictly biological definition of humanity would have to specify some point in this elaborate program at which the egg and sperm have suddenly been endowed with a single human life." From The Pony Fish's Glow and Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature, by George C. William.




"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION

Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson

Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion

Why Francis Beckwiths Case Against Abortion Fails

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey
 
And yes prohibition was very much a moral issue. But the grounds for ending it were not based on morality but rather on the rights of the people to govern themselves in the choice to consume or not consume alcohol.


The right to self-determination and self-governance isn't a moral issue?
 
Talk about class, Jill, I wouldn't put you at the head of the class either. You lose the argument when you start to throw personal insults out that have nothing to do with the topic.

My point has nothing to do with religious zealotry? Why are you trying so hard to defend people who have abortions if you yourself have an anti-abortion/pro choice view? I can slightly see a point with someone saying that someone else has the right to decide what to do with their body, but would never choose to have an abortion themselves because they see it as morally wrong. But, when a person has the abortion, then they are indeed pro abortion, to say otherwise is ridiculous and to try to defend that is also ridiculous and disingenuous.

And none of those other difficult 'choices' that people people make that aren't necessarily happy, result in the death of someone else's life. To try to parallel them is also being dishonest.

To say they are pro abortion is both ridiculous and disingenuous. I know of three people who had abortions. Not one of them was 'happy' or 'pro' about it. In fact, all three found it a very traumatic experience. So, no, you are way wrong on your assertion/opinion on the matter. You use the term 'pro' to somehow legitimise your POV that people who have abortions do so happily and willingly. You know you do, I know you do, everybody knows you do, when nothing could be further from the truth. I do not know of any person who has had an abortion who is 'pro' the procedure.

As for your 'death of someone else's life' - that is your opinion. The stark, terrible reality is that a huge number of people (but by no means all) who get into the situation of getting an abortion are poor, uneducated and young who are not even in a serious relationship. Check out the kind of backgrounds the vast majority of criminals come from and you will find they come from similar backgrounds. In a lot of cases an abortion has been the best solution all around. Is it ideal? Of course not. But at the end of the day, when you get people in power preaching crap like "abstinence only", the situation is not helped any. Maybe if the Holy Roller brigade (who by far are the majority who are anti abortion and drive these abstinence programs) realised that when puberty kicks in your body and nature is telling you it's OK to have sex, and addressed the issue properly, then there might be some sort of moral high ground to stand on. Until then, it is up to the individual.

BTW, my stand is pro choice, but anti abortion..
 
And yes prohibition was very much a moral issue. But the grounds for ending it were not based on morality but rather on the rights of the people to govern themselves in the choice to consume or not consume alcohol.


The right to self-determination and self-governance isn't a moral issue?

At the end of the day, most, maybe all, things are a moral choice. Whether to have a sandwich or an apple is a moral choice for some people.

The point I'm making is that the Constitution took morality out of it and instilled a principle of unalienable rights as a separate issue from any moral concern. The federal government was never to be feared by the people but rather exist in fear of the people. A right was that afforded every person that required nothing from anybody else but their non interference. It is nobody's right to require any voluntary act of anybody so long as they are tending to their own affairs and not infringing on the right of anybody else.

The Federal government can tax everybody equally as necessary to do the constitutional functions of the Federal government. But once the federal government forces one citizen to contribute to the welfare or benefit of another, however much a good and moral thing that may be, it has overstepped its boundaries as the Constitution intended.
 
And yet, this is exactly what you wish not happen.

No, I do wish for the people to govern themselves and to form whatever society they wish to have. And if they do not wish to have abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they must have that. And if they do want abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they cannot do that.

The whole problem with pro-abortionists is that they do not want to leave that decision up to the people themselves. They are terrified to allow the people to decide. They want an authoritarian government to decide it as THEY want it to be and everybody else just suck it up and accept it as the way it has to be.
I disagree.

I believe the intent of the US Constitution was to guarantee the rights of individual above the rights of the community...unless there is a compelling need. I can see no compelling need to allow a community to decide to be abortion free, birth control free, people with funny noses free...

Yep cause babies dying from Abortion is not compelling, but San Fran Can Ban McDonalds because people die from fat.
 
I'm not sure what kind of honest discussion could be had in the first place when the OP's thread title is "Why Pro-Abortion is Anti-Science."

Funny, I've never met a Pro-Abortion person in my life. Words have meaning, and in this case they are used to mischaracterize the position of those who the author disagrees with even before the discussion is started.

which is why they call themselves 'pro-life'.

a more accurate assessment would be that they're 'pro-birth'

:cuckoo:

Are they giving birth to puppies? Are they giving birth to dead babies? What is the normal result of "birth"?
 
No, I do wish for the people to govern themselves and to form whatever society they wish to have. And if they do not wish to have abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they must have that. And if they do want abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they cannot do that.

The whole problem with pro-abortionists is that they do not want to leave that decision up to the people themselves. They are terrified to allow the people to decide. They want an authoritarian government to decide it as THEY want it to be and everybody else just suck it up and accept it as the way it has to be.
I disagree.

I believe the intent of the US Constitution was to guarantee the rights of individual above the rights of the community...unless there is a compelling need. I can see no compelling need to allow a community to decide to be abortion free, birth control free, people with funny noses free...

Yep cause babies dying from Abortion is not compelling, but San Fran Can Ban McDonalds because people die from fat.
um...I do not agree with that, either.
 
I'm implying that they're acting on their lack of moral convictions when they chose to kill their own child.

I'm implying that there's a huge gulf between having moral convictions, and acting on them.

Newby, one is a heluva lot easier than the other, and I don't wish that anyone ever need to find this out the hard way.

I agree with you, and I believe everyone does have to make their own choices, yet in our society whenever those choices harm or kill another, then there are consequences to typically pay, except when a mother kills her own child.

Are you saying we should not PROMOTE abortion or CONDONE it (by using taxpayers' money to pay for abortions)?
I think it would be hard to enforce a law against abortion, because abortions can be done in so many different ways, both intentionally and unitentionally (miscarriages).
I find it interesting in a culture that celebrates events and aniversaries, that people, that had abortions, rarely talk about the true feelings they have after the abortion. The people that do talk about it, seem to still grieve, or hide from the facts and talk about "imagined" hardships if they would have had a child, without ever mentioning "imagined" joys.
I wonder how many people will feel deceived after they lose someone close and realize that abortion is the murder of a child, that could be the closest relationship you can ever have.
 
No, I mean how many unaborted children are you willing to adopt?

How do you know that I haven't already? And that's also a cop out as well, why do you have trouble with people who get pregnant being responsible for the life they bring into the world?

Yet another cop out is that it's better that they be dead than abused or not cared for too, sorry but I don't buy into that game either.

So, you're not willing to take any responsibility for forcing irresponsible people to have unwanted children, but you're quite willing to lecture them about their own irresponsibility?

:eusa_hand:

Sorry, but my moral standards don't allow me to do that.

I don't understand. Who forced "them" to have sex, without taking precautions?
 
The Legislature IS the representative of the people.

The problem is they haven't Legislated, but have instead allowed the courts to decide the legal question of abortion.

Yes, but you can find nothing in the Constitution that addresses social issues of conscience. It was the intent of the Founders that the federal government would NOT decide such issues but rather would focus on securing and defending the rights of the people so that THEY would be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It was a document allowing the people to govern themselves, not be dictated to by government.

Abortion as a legislated 'right' would have been unthinkable to the Founders. To a man, I believe they would have seen that as a disgusting and immoral act, but I think to a man they would not have seen it as the prerogative of the Federal government to legislate.
From what I understand, abortion was quite common in those times. And based on biblical principals, a non-quickening fetus was not a living being.

If the founders cared about the issue at all they would have addressed it.

Book, Chapter and Verse, please.
 
The point I'm making is that the Constitution took morality out of it and instilled a principle of unalienable rights as a separate issue from any moral concern. .

:disbelief::disbelief::disbelief::disbelief::disbelief:


Have you been nipping at the sherry today, dear?

Nope. I think I'm on pretty steady legs with this one.

For instance. To you it may be moral that Citizen A, who has more money that he can spend in a lifetime, be taxed to help out Citizen B who has nothing. But to take Citizen A's money for the purpose of benefitting Citizen B violates Citizen A's unalienable rights to live his life as he sees fit so long as he doesn't violate anybody else's rights. To you it may be moral to shut down fast food restaurants and require everybody to eat a healthy salad every day because that would promote good health, long life, etc. etc. Our Founders, however, saw it as a person's unalienable right to eat in an unhealthy manner if he chose to do that. To you it might be a matter of morality to see that everybody went to church on Sunday and learned only sound doctrine. The Founders saw that as a violation of the right of people to be Atheist or non religious if they chose to do that.

The Founders did not see it as the prerogative of the federal government to decide what was moral and what was not. They did see it as the prerogative of the federal government to protect the right of each person to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as each person saw fit so long as that did not involve unequal contribution from others to achieve.
 
"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy." Joel Feinberg Joel Feinberg, Abortion

"Another error is the moment-of-conception fallacy. The joining of a human egg and sperm defines a new and unique human genotype. It does not produce any human hopes and fears and memories or anything else of moral importance implied by the term human. The newly fertilized egg may have the potential for a fully human existence, but that potential was there even before fertilization. The same can be said of all the fertilizations that might have been. The penetration of that egg by one sperm meant an early death for millions of competing sperm. It destroyed all hope for those millions of other unique human genotypes.

The moment-of-conception fallacy implies that fertilization is a simple process with never a doubt as to whether it has or has not happened. In reality, the "moment" is a matter of some hours of complex activity. There are elaborate biochemical interactions between the sperm and various layers of the egg membrane. The sperm gradually breaks up, and only its nucleus is established in the egg. Then both egg and sperm nuclei initiate radical changes before the fusion of the two nuclei. Many of the developmental events following this fusion were predetermined during the production of the egg. Genes provided by the sperm do not have discernible effects until embryonic development is well under way. A strictly biological definition of humanity would have to specify some point in this elaborate program at which the egg and sperm have suddenly been endowed with a single human life." From The Pony Fish's Glow and Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature, by George C. William.




"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION

Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson

Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion

Why Francis Beckwiths Case Against Abortion Fails

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

So ... women that are glad they are pregnant should be saying "I have a fetus" and someday it will be a baby??????? Unless it dies, "it" becomes a human baby.
 
The point I'm making is that the Constitution took morality out of it and instilled a principle of unalienable rights as a separate issue from any moral concern.

How can 'a principle of unalienable rights' be 'a separate issue from any moral concern'? The entire premise is grounded in ethics and morality.
But once the federal government forces one citizen to contribute to the welfare or benefit of another, however much a good and moral thing that may be, it has overstepped its boundaries as the Constitution intended.

Right...how, exactly, were we to pay for the army and the postal roads? And isn't the entire premise of the army that you give yourself for the good of the country, your family, and your neighbors?
 
Abortion is about choice, and anti-abortionists want to take that choice away. I guess they don't think that the US is the land of the free. They want to live under a white sharia law, govern the country by religion.

If abortion is really about choice why do pro abortionist demonize anyone who chooses not to get an abortion?
 

Forum List

Back
Top