Posted on 02/01/2016 5:38:14 AM PST by Kaslin
Author's Note: The debate discussed in today's column can be accessed on You Tube (see https://ww.youtube.com/watch?v=YdMqmDyOrnw&feature=youtu.be).
Many who hold the pro-choice position subscribe to a postmodern worldview. They are not arguing that we can kill the unborn because a woman's right to choose trumps the right to life of the unborn. They are arguing that ambiguity on the question of when life begins supplies adequate justification for abortion on demand. The argument from ambiguity was central to former ACLU president Nadine Strossen's presentation when I debated her recently on the campus of Oregon State University (OSU).
I was pleased that Nadine's opening argument relied heavily on the claim that we cannot know when life begins. This played into the strategy I had chosen prior to the onset of the debate. Nadine did two other things I had hoped she would do in her opening statement: 1) Argue that Roe v. Wade was a moderate decision that balanced the competing interests of the individual and the state, and 2) argue that the Roe decision was necessary to stop the deaths of women who were dying as a result of unsafe abortions. In my own opening argument, which followed hers, I tried to establish two things:
1. There is clear consensus in the science of embryology that life begins at conception. Scientifically speaking, the unborn are distinct, living, whole human beings actively involved in the process of developing themselves from within from the very point of conception.
2. There is no difference between the adults we are today and the unborn humans we once were that would justify killing us at an earlier stage of development. In other words, there is no essential difference between a "human" and a "person." Furthermore, any effort to justify abortion with philosophical distinctions among the living would invite systematic human inequality. At the end of the day, our society must choose between human equality and abortion. We simply cannot have both.
After we presented our opening statements, Nadine had an opportunity to offer a rebuttal. In that rebuttal, she challenged my claim that there was an absolute consensus among embryologists that life begins at conception. She quoted a source saying that the question could not be answered conclusively. This was a good tactic for Nadine to employ. She was obviously prepared. Fortunately, I had fully anticipated her move.
In my rebuttal, which followed hers, I drew on the work of Francis Beckwith. As Beckwith has previously written, Roe v. Wade concedes that the question of the parameters of a woman's right to abortion is inextricably bound to the question of when life begins. Therefore, if someone is agnostic on the question of when life begins, they are also agnostic on the parameters of a woman's right to choose. I began my rebuttal by establishing this crucial point.
Rather than conceding that there was a legitimate doubt about when life begins, I decided to reassert the point that the matter was settled. I did this by firing off numerous sources. Among them, I included former Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher and Princeton Philosopher Peter Singer. I wanted to establish the fact that many honest pro-choice advocates conceded the point. In fact, they have done so for decades.
Fortunately, OSU Socratic Club debates are structured in such a way as to allow opponents to have an informal half hour exchange following the opening statements and rebuttals. During that exchange, Nadine came across as cordial and well informed. She also impressed me as sincerely interested in my views on a number of issues related to the debate topic. She was a worthy and articulate opponent.
One downside to Nadine's choice of questions was that they sometimes gave the appearance of trying to divert the issue from the question of the status of the unborn. When Nadine interjected the phrase "potential life" into our discussion I tried to seize the moment to refocus the debate. I asked her whether by using the phrase "potential life" she meant to deny that the unborn were humans (in a biological sense) or persons (in a philosophical sense). Her answer was "both."
Having established that the unborn have separate DNA and that there is cell division and metabolism from the point of conception, I replied with the following: "But, Nadine, dead things don't grow." In fact, I said it twice during the exchange.
That statement ended up being the takeaway line from the entire debate. In fact, nearly everyone who saw the debate and spoke to me afterwards quoted that one line. It was effective because Nadine and I were in danger of getting into a war of quoting texts no one has ever read. But "dead things don't grow" was an unmistakable appeal to common sense that I believe solidified my central thesis and allowed the pro-life position to prevail in the overall exchange.
Therefore, I would like to conclude this column by thanking my friend Jay Watts for supplying me with that line, which I saw in a recent episode of "Life is Best" - a series hosted by my friend Scott Klusendorf. That series may be the best thing Scott has ever done for the pro-life movement - and that is really saying something.
My advice to pro-lifers debaters who wish to compete (and prevail!) in debates on hostile turf is twofold. First, read everything Francis Beckwith writes on the topic of abortion. Second, watch every video, speech, and debate featuring Scott Klusendorf speaking and teaching on the topic of abortion.
The best place to start is right here: http://www.lifeisbest.tv.
If one isn’t 100% sure about the answer, the wise choice is to not risk murdering a new life.
1. A better term than “unborn” is “preborn”.
2. A DNA test would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a mother and her preborn child are two separate, distinct human beings.
Amazing you can even talk about this. The blowback from Center for Medical Progress videos will be that conservatives will throw prolifers under the bus as is obvious from an editorial cartoon on Townhall showing the camera man with cartoon powder burns on his face with the legend “indictments”. The abortion sector of the economy cannibalizing our future progeny will soon reassert its stanglehold on the Democrat party and will be even more firmly ensconced in Washington. It will soon be illegal to pray outside abortion businesses.
It's now definitively true: Conservative media have picked up the lesson of Big Biz throwing the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act under the bus.
When Corporations Turned on Social Conservatives: The Indiana Affair
His “dead things don’t grow” is a poor argument. After all, cancers in the body do grow but they certainly are not preborn people.
He should’ve stuck to DNA, which he mentioned in passing, but it should be the main argument by all prolife people.
If that is not Life, what is?
So the decision comes down to do mothers have the right to take a life simply because they decide to?
Habakkuk 3:17-19
Though the fig tree does not bud
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls,
yet I will rejoice in the Lord,
I will be joyful in God my Savior.
Habakkuk 3:17-19
Though the fig tree does not bud
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls,
yet I will rejoice in the Lord,
I will be joyful in God my Savior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_SwjzlMGhw
Unfortunately, cancers are alive, and they have their own unique DNA that is derived from, but not identical to, the DNA of the host. A cancer, however, is not and never will be a person.
I prefer to stick to brain development as a criterion for determining humanity. Cells behave according to the cell type that they are as soon as they differentiate into that cell type. That is, muscle cells contract, heart cells beat, etc. That means that brain cells process information and send signals to the rest of the body. The brain forms between 2 and 5 weeks after conception. That means that between 2 and 5 weeks, an embryo begins to process information about its environment. The older the embryo becomes, the more sophisticated that processing gets. The brain continues to grow in complexity in form and function until about age 25, and its awareness likewise (i.e. information processing) has continuously existed and grown more complex since it formed.
Thanks for the info. Is there a "simple", i.e., common and accepted test for brain cells as there is for DNA? Admissible in court, etc.?
There is not a DNA-like test for brain cells. They are identified based on their shape and behavior. Testing them genetically to determine that they are brain cells is complicated. Furthermore, extracting the genetic material destroys the cells—which defeats the purpose if you are trying to use such tests to determine “personhood.”
In a tiny embryo that is just a few weeks old, you can see the brain. And since it is undeniably there, you can be certain that it is doing brain functions, meaning that the embryo has a rudimentary sense of awareness.
In order to try to discredit the fact that an organism with a brain is aware and feeling, the abortion industry has come up with the notion that the brain is somehow inactive until some event magically turns it on. This is completely untrue, and would be laughable if not for the fact that this lie is meant to promote abortion. Every kind of cell functions according to its cell type, including brain cells. There are no magic switches that keep cells turned off until some arbitrary point. When cells do not behave according to their type, it is because they are dead—and that condition is irreversible.
I call this the liberal's "Poof Theory" of when a preborn person becomes human. Under this theory, when a woman decides she is going to keep her baby and not kill it via abortion, a signal moves out of her brain, moves down the spinal column, crosses over into the umbilical cord, and eventually makes it way to the preborn person, then POOF!, it's a person. Amazingly, this theory holds up in court.
“So the decision comes down to do mothers have the right to take a life simply because they decide to?”
Rights come from God. There can never be a right to anything that offends God, even if He leaves us free to offend him.
How, then, could there ever be a right to kill an innocent person?
Using your terms, then maybe the question can be rephrased as “Do mothers have the FREEDOM to take a life simply because they decide to?”
“Using your terms”
It’s not just terms. There is a substantial difference between a freedom and a right.
“then maybe the question can be rephrased as “Do mothers have the FREEDOM to take a life simply because they decide to?”
If the law says they do, then I guess so. However, we should immediately change the law to protect the lives of the preborn.
Don't you think that cancer is a part of the one who has it? It doesn't have a life of it's own. It is part of the body though the genetic information within that part has gone awry. It lives as part of the body it is growing in. If you had it, it would be you gone awry.
Absolutely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.