Abortion

[dairygirl4u2c]

i went to another theology site. i wanted other people's perspectives. i combined some of my arguments from an abortion thread here. we'll see how that other place fares.
i want arguments against it, here.

i forgot to add, the good comment that Jesus often talks in analogies to make a point. at a certain point you have to accept it or reject it, but i still insist it's not clearly a human person, and only analogies can be given pro and con and not definitive proof.



[quote]i guarantee the arguments i will be making will be new to almost everyone, and probably hard to digest at times. that's the nature of philosophy. a little due to my not explaining well enough at times, i concede.

i don't think it's okay. abortion. it's reasonable to be against it.

but i think it's reasonable to think it's okay early in the pregnancy. to argue that it's not a human person. of course it's human type and not a pig. but, a redblood cell is also human. also, red blood cells have DNA but are not human persons.
to the counter contention that your red blood cell doesn't grow into a person. consider this example, my snowman argument. you have a snowman. if you have a snowball that you're gonna use to get to that snowman before he exists, the snowball obviously isn't a snowman. if you have a cell, like a block, and start building, the cell isn't necessarily a human person either. true, the cell in your arm isn't going to grow into a person, but, the analogy can still exist as it's similar enough to make the point-the initial cell is like a block and not the final product.
so when does a block set become the set? it's a gray question. when does the cell become a person? it's gray, too.
simply asking the question of when it becomes a human isn't answering the question.
bottomline. on one side you have human red blood cells, on the other ameoba type organisms. the eariest human cell is similar and different than both. you can't say for sure it's one way or the other.

as to other arguments, which make it reasonable to be against abortion but that can be reasonably refuted. true, the early cell is: unique (no other DNA like this) an separate (its own entity. important cause twins have the same DNA) DNA. also, organisms can be single celled but that does not mean they are merely cells. like an ameoba is an organism. so the early cell could be an organism.
the question is whether the early cell is rightly called an organism. some text books say it is, others don't say anything.
a distinguishing feature of amoebas and cells early on is amoebas don't grow into greater beings. so, early cells in pregnancy are unique in that they do grow into greater beings. it doesn't prove they're not organisms, but it proves something unique abhout their nature.

would you consider smashing to acorn to be the same as having killed an acorn tree? or eating an egg as killing a chicken? it's reasonable if you do, but this usually, and i think rightly so, is a point/argument in favor of prochoice early on. smashing an acorn i don't think is necessarily the same as killing an acorn tree. (aside from the literal fact that you're not killing it in tree form)

the unique set of DNA stuff is an interesting biological idea that you might think since it's unque it's a person, but it's simply not necessarily the case. i'd put it more in favor of saying it's a person but not definite.

saying it's growing into a person isn't enough, cause potential life isn't necessarily human life. you have to argue all the stuff i've been arguing.


ethically, should we simply defer to human life such that not deferring would be irrational?
*i think it's reasonable to think reasonably disputed life can be valued less than the freedom to choose.* (most "choose" arguments are very lacking but i think this one is not so much) no one knows, so who should decide? should the government? why not the individual? of coruse, the government could decide a point it thinks it's a person cleary, but that's not necessarily the early organism/cell. give the person the dignity to decide themself, respect it.
*it's often the moral thing to do to defer to allowing others the freedom to do something* here's it's unclar whether it's hurting another but the principle still is here and needs weighed.

at a certain point, it clearly is a human and it's unreasonable to think otheriwse. at a certain point it's reasonbly not a human, clearly reasonably not. so we have to take the cell v. the baby, and the points of uncertainty in between should be deferred to be baby. (if we as a government will choose a point, this is how i'd do it. i guess i'd pick the moment heartbeats forms, with roof for error on the side of person, cause i think that's when the first substaintial thing happens to the embryo. whatever is the first substanital thing, if i'm mistaken.)

i'm not by saying all this saying that we can kill people on life support. they're not reasonably diputued to be human life. could there be a point when it's unclear, like when machines start taking over a body? i think so, because machines can make a person function when they are clearly dead (this creeps out family of the dead if they see it; they do it for saving organs etc sometimes), and if you start using machines one by one on a person, their heart and brainwaives (the things that make them clinically alive or not) can be usurped by machines and later they're vital signs would be working again. would it be wrong to kill them when not working?
i guess you could argue that it wouldn't be, that life was not in them then, but how are you sure? it's a gray area. like this is a gray area, shouldn't whether the early cell is human be gray too? yes it should. reasonable to think either way. and if all the person is is machines and a beating heart, are theyu alive? it's uncelar.
and in a way the machine argument goes beyond the idea that the early cells are in questionable form, and shows that the mother cuold be like a machine on a lifeless body.

how do i define person? that's a loaded question. and the fact that it's a loaded question is my point.
i'd set as definition, as science tries to do. then, things at the frays of the definition would make our definition seem suspect. then scientists would disagree with how to define a person. they'd agree as far as generalities go, for sure. but when things get complicated, they'd disagree.


also some biological functions of the early cells. early cells split. i'd use that as an argument that it's not a human person. of course, a person could split, but. it just does not seem like something God would do. yes, i'm using a faith standard here. it could go either way, but just saying.
in that vein, i'd also point out that. most cells do not get implanted after conception and they die. it doesn't seem like a person would die in this regard, even though it is a natural phenomenon and not the same as abortion. granted, it could just be something God would do to naturally weed out bad cells. but still, just doesn't seem like something God would allow.
not to get into soul arguments, which are separate from these observations.

now, i don't think it's unreasonable to simply insist we defer to life, and by that to say i'm wrong and that it's not reasonable to think it's okay. but, i simply disagree and think it's a reasonable position to have.[/quote]

[Farsight one]

My short argument:

1. At conception, it is biologically alive.

2. At conception, it is biologically human.

yes, a red blood cell is alive and human, but it functions only as a red blood cell. It is not a complete and functioning human being.

3. The generic legal definition of "person" is "a living human"

I say "generic" for a reason. There are, in legal circles, many different definitions of "person". Often, the word is defined specifically for a certain law, and its definition is included in the document. In some cases a "person" can refer to an entire corporation. So, since it fluctuates some, you have to use a generic one.

4. Therefore, even at one cell, it is a person.

5. The constitution states that all persons have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

6. Therefore, even at one cell, there is a right to life, which usurps all other rights.

7. Abortion violates this right to life.

8. Thus, abortion is wrong.

[rkwright]

[quote]also some biological functions of the early cells. early cells split. i'd use that as an argument that it's not a human person. of course, a person could split, but. it just does not seem like something God would do. yes, i'm using a faith standard here. it could go either way, but just saying.
in that vein, i'd also point out that. most cells do not get implanted after conception and they die. it doesn't seem like a person would die in this regard, even though it is a natural phenomenon and not the same as abortion. granted, it could just be something God would do to naturally weed out bad cells. but still, just doesn't seem like something God would allow.
not to get into soul arguments, which are separate from these observations.[/quote]

I don't have too much time to get into all this...

1) Cells split whether the person is 2 weeks old, 2 years old, or 30 years old. How do you think people grow... That argument is based on a faulty premise.

2) God wouldn't allow some cells to implant, so therefore they must not be a person? Does not follow.

3) I think you make the biggest mistake in the last line. Its because we have souls that makes us valuable. If we ignore the soul we are nothing more than animals. Without including the soul in the equation, humans have no more value than my dog.

[dairygirl4u2c]

hm, your arguments don't seem to respond to the arguments i've made. they just repeat things i've addressed.
i like hte arguments i'm getting at the other sites..... (like why and when to defer to human life etc)

i often take the liberal position here. but, i often take a conservative at other sites. here's an example.

[quote]I agree privacy should be implied into the constitution. All the amendments you cite imply it. I would also add, the conservatives like to go on and on about how soverign immunity, that states generally cannot be sued technically, is implied in teh constitution, because of the states rights stuff like the tenth amendment. the court has implied it... so if that can be done, surely privacy can be implied too, to be fair.

You cite Court authority, and following stare decisis or precedent, you would be correct that it's technically the law of the land. But, much like brown versus the board of education overturned segretation type laws, these current cases can be overturned as well. you are not resting your argument on a techincal basis that the cases cannot be overturned?

so, i assume you think it's good policy that it be that way. i say it's a policy argument, because there's competing legal theories. one is privacy, the other is protecting human life. surely, you do not have the privacy to kill a person who is born? techincally, they are born, i admit. and not expressly included in the constitution, the unborn. but, are you being a technicalist such that the framers didn't intend to protect a baby five minutes before the baby is born? get real if that's the case.
there's a burden you're putting on people to change the constitution, whatever the court decides. who should the burden be on? are you giong to be a technicalist and say the burden should be on the framers because they didn't clarify later babies are included too? it seems natural they'd include the baby at later points at least. it's at least a reasonable person standarnd to read into it given that the baby is clearly a person later on.

now, i suppose given that it's a policy argument, the states could decide like the first one or two semesters since it's arbitrary anyway. we can't avoid arbitrariness afterall, because the standards roe made are themselves arbitrary. this all simply illustrates are laws are man made, and the practical consequences of them bore full face when implmenting and interpreting them. so, policy is a sound way to proceed.

anyway, ultimately, if you disagree, you're drawing an arbitrary line at the birth canal, just as much as i'm being arbitrary saying a point the baby is at least a person at the second or third trimester etc.

if not anything else, the issue should be given to the states. the states have dealt with it up until the 1900s. some had abortion laws, others didn't. the tenth amendment relegates stuff not in the constitution to the states.

i say, don't be a techinalist with the presumption for death[/quote]

Edited December 22, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Anthony]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1437452' date='Dec 22 2007, 03:18 AM']i went to another theology site. i wanted other people's perspectives. i combined some of my arguments from an abortion thread here. we'll see how that other place fares.
i want arguments against it, here.

i forgot to add, the good comment that Jesus often talks in analogies to make a point. at a certain point you have to accept it or reject it, but i still insist it's not clearly a human person, and only analogies can be given pro and con and not definitive proof.[/quote]

Whatever! You sound rediculous. How can you assume that just because you cannot see the child, it is no a human being? By the way, Jesus speaks in parables. That is not the same thing as analogies. Before you spout off about stuff you have no idea about, you better get your facts straight.

[Anthony]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1437452' date='Dec 22 2007, 03:18 AM']i went to another theology site. i wanted other people's perspectives. i combined some of my arguments from an abortion thread here. we'll see how that other place fares.
i want arguments against it, here.

i forgot to add, the good comment that Jesus often talks in analogies to make a point. at a certain point you have to accept it or reject it, but i still insist it's not clearly a human person, and only analogies can be given pro and con and not definitive proof.[/quote]

Don't compare babies to snowmen. That will never stand up. There is no justification for abortion. All abortion is murder.

[Anthony]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1437526' date='Dec 22 2007, 01:34 PM']hm, your arguments don't seem to respond to the arguments i've made. they just repeat things i've addressed.
i like hte arguments i'm getting at the other sites..... (like why and when to defer to human life etc)

i often take the liberal position here. but, i often take a conservative at other sites. here's an example.[/quote]

You're writing is all over the place and the sentences are runon sentences. I lost interest half way through. Your arguments make no sense anyway.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i would probably classify you guys are insisting that it's a person the whole time, based on the facts. you've not presented new facts or arguments, so i assume it's just an inherent difference of opinion as how to address the facts.

as ot the soul argument..... the fact that the cell splits, and the cell dies often... are actually more forcefully against the cell being a person for the reassons i stated above, if it has the dignity of being ensouled, IMHO.

Edited December 22, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1437526' date='Dec 22 2007, 01:34 PM']hm, your arguments don't seem to respond to the arguments i've made. they just repeat things i've addressed.
i like hte arguments i'm getting at the other sites..... (like why and when to defer to human life etc)

i often take the liberal position here. but, i often take a conservative at other sites. here's an example.[/quote]

I don't know if you're talking to me or not, but my earlier post was only aimed at your last porition. At that part you made arguments against cells being considered human, which is what I responded to.

I read your arguments based on public policy that you posted on the other site (where you claim to be more conservative). But they're completely contradictory. In the first line you claim that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. Then later, possibly in a more conservative approach, you say that states should be allowed to regulated aborition. The wholy purpose of the constitution is lay out rights which the government, federal or state, cannot regulate. And if you believe there is an implied privacy right, then a state government can never outlaw it.

Your basic argument is that aborition should be ok until some point. What is that point? The left has said aborition till its out. The right has said none at all. Both have reasons. You're putting foward something 'new' (I know these are huge generalizations, but in the bottom line you're the one puting foward the argument here, so you have the burden of proof). What point to you say its no longer a clump of cells and is now a human?

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1437536' date='Dec 22 2007, 02:06 PM']as ot the soul argument..... the fact that the cell splits, and the cell dies often... are actually more forcefully against the cell being a person for the reassons i stated above, if it has the dignity of being ensouled, IMHO.[/quote]

So because cells die off, the thing must not be a person? Look the whole cells splitting and dieing off goes no where. It happens throughout our entire life. Do I cease being a person because I lost some skin cells at age 5? or some brain cells? Some of my cells have split today, and some have died. Does that mean I don't have a soul or am not a person??

[prose]

I am wondering how one can compare a red blood cell to a human embryo.

The function of the blood cell is its only function.

The function of a human embryo is to be human.

Seems like comparing apples to oranges to me.

And for the record, that argument is not so original. I have heard it many times before.

[Deb]

[quote name='prose' post='1437815' date='Dec 23 2007, 01:12 PM']I am wondering how one can compare a red blood cell to a human embryo.

The function of the blood cell is its only function.

The function of a human embryo is to be human.

Seems like comparing apples to oranges to me.

And for the record, that argument is not so original. I have heard it many times before.[/quote]

You are right, it is not original.
Stating that an early abortion is just removing a bunch of cells and it is not a human being is what was put out heavily when abortion was legalized to convince women it was okay to do. Somehow, saying something is legal, made it seem okay. Saying it a billion times made people believe it is okay. My question is always, who really wanted women to abort their children? Who even came up with that?
Pray for all the women who had abortions because they fell for the lies and covered their inner knowledge that it was wrong by saying, "it was legal." What a curse this has been on the human race. We have millions of women out there who had abortions, who are the walking wounded and most do not even know why.

[N/A Gone]

The only ontological change is the change at conception, every other change that happens is adding onto the organism. Thus that organism is what it is at its ontological change. There is not ontological change at birth or at other various points of development. The ontological change is at conception when it changes its essence from one thing to another thing. When it is that "thing" it is developing as that "thing" but never changes to another thing. Thus if you acknowledge it is living at any moment as a "thing" they the moment it becomes a "thing" it has the right of life that it will always have as a "thing" for there is no other factor that would determine its elligability for life. It is not "being born" and it is not a magical week in the womb. Those are just part of the continous growth of a human.

[Adrestia]

Red blood cells are just bags of hemoglobin. The do not carry DNA.

The human life carried in a zygote is as precious as that carried in a baby, adolescent, or adult. What's so confusing?

[MissScripture]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1437536' date='Dec 22 2007, 02:06 PM']i would probably classify you guys are insisting that it's a person the whole time, based on the facts. you've not presented new facts or arguments, so i assume it's just an inherent difference of opinion as how to address the facts.

as ot the soul argument..... the fact that the cell splits, and the cell dies often... are actually more forcefully against the cell being a person for the reassons i stated above, if it has the dignity of being ensouled, IMHO.[/quote]
Just because facts are not "new" does not mean they are not legitimate.


[quote name='tgoldson' post='1445383' date='Jan 13 2008, 05:46 PM']Red blood cells are just bags of hemoglobin. The do not carry DNA.

The human life carried in a zygote is as precious as that carried in a baby, adolescent, or adult. What's so confusing?[/quote]
Yeah, I didn't think red blood cells had DNA in them. It kinda kills the rest of the argument when a major fact is incorrect.

[quote]or eating an egg as killing a chicken?[/quote]
Well, since the eggs we eat aren't fertilized, and therefore would never grow into chickens, no, it would not be considered killing a chicken.