Posted on 05/20/2002 7:25:01 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother
Please excuse me if I have posted this incorrectly. I have lurked since '98 but have only recently dared to post. (insert mental picture here of middle aged lady cautiously putting foot into water)
I need the help of the many talented and articulate pro-life advocates I know are on FR.
My daughter's "ethics" class discussed abortion today. Out of 20 kids in her class in a supposedly religious church school, she was the ONLY one that took a pro-life stance.
She came home somewhat annoyed and disturbed, but with a mission. "Mom," she said, "for every argument I have they have a snappy comeback. Can you help me?" Mom: "I think I know some folks who can."
The primary arguments they made to her were:
"The baby is not separate from the mother until the umbilical cord is cut." I know this one's nonsense because my obstetrician told me (while I was HAVING my daughter) that the placenta is already separated at the time of delivery.
"It doesn't have a brain, can't think for itself yet." (Babies can't do much on their own for months . . . isn't this Peter Singer's argument?)
"It's not right if the mother can't support the child, and once she holds the baby she'll want to keep it and it will have a miserable life."
I know that these kids are just parroting what they hear from their parents (indeed you could say that that is also true of my daughter, I suppose.) The most pathetic comment was from a kid who was adopted, the child of a 16 year old girl. He said, "I'm pro choice, but it's kind of scary to think that if my mother had decided to have an abortion, I wouldn't be here." Another kid responded, "Well, you wouldn't be here to know about it." That just gives me cold chills . . .
(I can't believe this is a church school, but I suppose since it's Episcopalian I'm not surprised. She isn't going back next year.)
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live..." Deut. 30:19
I'll bet it's got great academics, and that's why the parents send their kids there. Who cares about Christian ethics? You know, there's a mom looking for a good school for her kindergartener.....
Lets start with scientific facts.
The Unborn human being is biologically alive. It is a life. Only the most Uneducated Pro-Aborts will not admit that the Unborn are alive, it has been proven as a scientific fact.
The zygote fufills the 4 criteria needed to establish biological life, (1) Metabolism, (2) Growth, (3) reaction to stimuli, (4) reproduction. This life is HUMAN Life. the human conceptus — that which results from conception and begins as a zygote — is the sexual product of human parents. Hence, insofar as having human causes, the conceptus is human. not only is the conceptus human insofar as being caused by humans, it is a unique human individual, just as each of us is. Resulting from the union of the female ovum (which contains 23 chromosomes) and the male sperm (which contains 23 chromosomes), the conceptus is a new — although tiny — individual. It has its own unique genetic code (with forty-six chromosomes), which is neither the mother's nor the father's. From this point until death, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity a unique individual human. Her (or his) genetic make-up is established at conception, determining her unique individual physical characteristics — gender, eye color, bone structure, hair color, skin color, susceptibility to certain diseases, etc. That is to say, at conception, the "genotype" — the inherited characteristics of a unique human being — is established and will remain in force for the entire life of this individual. Although sharing the same nature with all human beings, the unborn individual, like each one of us, is unlike any that has been conceived before and unlike any that will ever be conceived again. The only thing necessary for the growth and development of this human organism (as with the rest of us) is oxygen, food, and water, since this organism — like the newborn, the infant, and the adolescent — needs only to develop in accordance with her already-designed nature that is present at conception.
The unborn are HUMAN. The old abortion argument that "this is not human life." is now known by scientific communities and even most abortion advocates to be false. There are still some uneducated baffoons who still hold to this premise, but they are easy enough to shut down.
It is important to realize that abortion advocates have been beaten on both of these fronts, I can list numerous sources from secular scientists and individuals that states life begins at conception. Any expert in genetics can tell you that the unborn are human. In fact you can take a newly formed zygote from a human and a chimp and any genetic expert could easily tell you which was which because the DNA identifies which is monkey life and which is human life.
Most logical abortion advocates realized that they lost on both of the above issues, they then retreated to this popular and most common argument.
"The unborn is human, and it is alive, but it is not a person until birth."
Lets examine this argument, and the popular arguments that stem from it.
A popular argument is this " The fetus is just a part of the woman's body, like her tonsils or appendix."
The problem with this is that a body part is identified by a common genetic code, the unborn's genetic code is different from its mothers.
Every cell of the mother's tonsils, appendix, heart, and lungs share the same genetic code. The unborn child also has a genetic code, distinctly different from his mothers. Every cell of his body is uniquely his, each different than every cell of his mother's body. Often his blood-type is also different, and half the time even his gender is different.
Half of the childs 46 chromosomes come from his father, half from his mother. Except in the rare cases of identical twins, the combination of those chromosomes are unique, and distinct from even a brother or sister coming from those same parents.
Just as no 2 people have identical fingerprints no 2 people have identical genetic fingerprints. If one body is inside another, but each has its own genetic code, then there is not one person, but 2 seperate people. John Jefferson Davis states:
"It is a well established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existance at conception. Once fertilization takes place, the zygote is its own entity, genetically distinct from both mother and father. The newly concieved individual possesses all the necessary information for a self-directed development and will proceed to grow in the usual human fashion, given time and development. It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely "part of the mother's body." In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn possess seperate circulatory, nervous, and endocrine systems."
A chinese zygote implanted in a swedish women will always be chinese not swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code not that of the body in which he resides. If there were only one body involved in a pregnancy then that body has 2 noses, 4 legs, 4 arms, 2 sets of fingerprints, 2 brains, 2 circulatory systems, and 2 skeletal systems. Half the time the child is male, clearly his sexual organs are not part of his mother's body, but his own. In reality, it is a scientific fact that the mother is one distinctive and self-contained person, and the child another.
A second point, the child may live and the mother may die, or the mother may live and the child die.
The child is a temporary resident of the mother. He will leave on his own as long as he is not prematurely evicited. In may cases where a mother has been fatally injured a child has been delivered without complications. The mother's body dies yet the child lives. If it were part of the mother's body it would have died with her. In California a child was born several months after his mother was declared brain dead.
Being inside of something is not the same as being part of something.
One's body does not belong to another's body because of proximity. A car is not part of a garage because it is parked there, a loaf of bread is not part of the oven because it is baked there. Louise Brown the first test-tube baby was concieved when egg and sperm were joined in a petri dish. She was no more part of her mother's body when she was implanted than she was part of the petri dish where her life began.
The other popular argument is this:
" The unborn isn't a person with meaningful life, it is only inches in size, and can't even think, it is less advanced than an animal."
Personhood is defined by membership in the human species, not by a stage of development in that species.
A living beings designation to a species is determined not by a stage of development, but by the sum total of its biological characteristics, actual and potential, which are genetically determined. If we say that the fetus is not human, a member of Homo Sapiens we must say that it is a member of another species, but this cannot be.
Dictionaries define person as a "human being", "Human individual," Or "Member of the human race." What makes a dog a dog is the fact he comes from dogs. His father was a dog, his mother was a dog. What makes a human being a person is that he comes from human persons. His father was a person and his mother was a person, he can be nothing else than a human person.
Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or development.
Proaborts often argue that a child aborted in the first trimester may be less than an inch or 2 in size, or less than an ounce or 2 in weight. But what measure of personhood is size? Is an NBA Player more of a person than someone half his size? If a 200 lb man loses 50lbs did he lose 1/4 of his personhood? Scales and rulers are no measure of human worth.
Joseph Fletcher maintains that an individual is not a person unless he has an IQ of 40. British anthropolgist Ashely Monatague says no one becomes a person until they are molded by social and cultural influences. By this he means that more intelligent or educated people (like himself.) are more human that the inferior elements of society, (Like the rest of us.) This is a fatal flaw in liberal thinking.
If personhood is determined by one's current capacities, then someone who is unconscious or sick could be killed immediatly because he is not demonstrating superior intellect and skills. "But give a man time and he'll be able to function like a person." Give a baby time and so will they.
Age, Size, IQ or stage of development are simply differences in degree, not kind. Our Kind is humanity. We are people, human beings. We Possess certain skills to differing degrees at different stages of development. When we reach maturation there are many different degrees of skills and levels of IQ. But none of these make some people better or more human than others. None make some qualified to live and others unqualified.
The unborn's status should be determined on an objective basis, not a subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.
The 14th Amendment says the state shall not deprive any person of life without due process of law. Of course when this was written the word human was a synonym for the word person, and could just have easily been used. The Supreme Court Admitted in Roe V Wade that:
"Of the suggestion of personhood is established, the appeallant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus's right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the 14th amendment."
To solve the problem the court chose to abandon the historic meaning of personhood. In the years that have followed, artifical distinctions have been made by pro-abortion advocates to differntiate between humans and persons. Part of the reason for this was the scientific fact that life begins at conception paints the pro-abort movement into a corner. The old and still popular argument "this isn't human life." is now known by most pro-aborts to be erroneous. They realize that it is only a matter of time before the public (sheeple) learn the truth. The newer position is "Ok it is a life, but it is not a person." Once someone is committed to the pro-abort position, rather than abandon it in the light of scientific fact, they tend to come up with another line of defense.
We must not reduce issues of life and death and basic human rights to a sematic game in which we are free to redefine our terms. Changing the meaning of words does not change fact. The concept of personhood is now virtually worthless as an ethical guide in the matter of abortion.
The only objective questions we can ask are:
1. "Is it Human ,that is, did it come from human beings?"
2. "Is it a gentically unique individual?"
3. "Is it alive and growing."
If the answers are yes, then "it" is a "he" or "she" a living person worthy of protection.
I think this will get you/her started.
The abortion debate does rise and fall on the personhood issue. Everything else is irrelevent if the unborn child is a person. There can be no justification for murdering an innocent person. All the other popular pro-abort arguments (Rape, Incest, retardation, not-able to support the child, the child will not be wanted, ect...) Go out the window, if the unborn is a person.
Your daughter should focus the issue on the personhood aspect. This is the most difficult for the pro-aborts to attack.
One more thing, Your daughter is to be commended, encouraged, and honored for taking an unpopular stand and standing for what is right.
The murder of innocent unborn children can never be tolerated.
You must have misunderstood. Placenta abruptus is a life threatening condition. It separates after delivery, or should.
Exactly. My answer to that is what good is it to send your kid to Christian school if she is being taught that it's ok to grow up and NOT live a Christian life?
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
"The baby is not separate from the mother until the umbilical cord is cut." I know this one's nonsense because my obstetrician told me (while I was HAVING my daughter) that the placenta is already separated at the time of delivery.
Absurd. Among other points to make here are that the child's DNA is unique from conception. There may be some question as to whether or not it is a person yet (hey, I said I was not pro-life, remember), but it is certainly distinct from the mother. The baby may not be able to survive outside the mother, but it is by no means the same person. The best analogy I've come up with is worms and other parasites that live in our stomachs and intestines - they cannot survive without us, but they are clearly not us. I would not recommend using that analogy, as the comparison of the child to a parasite is going to come up, but you may be able to start there and come up with a better analogy. The DNA, by the way, I would consider definitive on this point.
"It doesn't have a brain, can't think for itself yet." (Babies can't do much on their own for months . . . isn't this Peter Singer's argument?)
The child does have a brain before birth. If I recall correctly (you may want to check this before using it in an argument), the child begins developing nerve cells at the 2-3 month point. By the 5-6 month point, it has a recognizable brain, albeit one that will continue to develop. Before birth, the child is able to respond to its environment - kicking and reacting to disturbances (verified by ultrasound). I seem to remember seeing EEG type readings on a fetus, which indicated definite brain activity. Anyone who claims this the child is not thinking should be required to provide proof that they are - this is not facetious, these are the only measures of thought we have for non-verbal creatures.
"It's not right if the mother can't support the child, and once she holds the baby she'll want to keep it and it will have a miserable life."
People actually offer this as an argument? If we're posing hypotheticals, remember that we can also posit the outcomes we desire. She may hold the child and still be willing to put it up for adoption (there are more than a few adoptions every year, remember) which may enrich another couple's lives immeasurably. She may decide to keep the baby, and learn the responsibility necessary for same, and do quite well. Or she may keep the baby, and get married, perhaps out of necessity, but statistically it will still improve her prospects in life over that of a single woman, with or without children.
Hope this helps, and maybe she will get to hear better arguments than those. Best of luck,
Drew Garrett
Prolife Answers to Prochoice Arguments by Randy Alcorn
I'd Speak Out on the Issues If I Only Knew What to Say by Jane Chastain
Terriergal, I may have misunderstood him because I was kinda busy at the time (I went natural, silly me) but when my husband asked if he could cut the umbilical cord, I think my OB responded, "it's purely symbolic, it isn't doing anything now." (Or words to that effect!) Perhaps he meant that the placenta had ceased transmitting blood or oxygen to my daughter once she began to breathe on her own, or that it was now not necessary for life. Abruption I had always understood to be a life-threatening event earlier on in labor, not after the infant is born!
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.