10 FALLACIES IN THE ABORTION DEBATE

Conservative Commentary ^ | 8 November 2002 | Peter Cuthbertson

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It isn't, I'm only trying to argue that drawing it at conception is a religious distinction.

Life begins at mitosis...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

How is drawing the line at, e.g., implantation any more arbitrary than drawing it at fertilization?

Mitosis is the beginning of life, not fertilization.

Abortion is ritual mass murder in sacrifice to pagan idols...

[supercat]

Cat, would you care to address the issue of twinning?

If the soul joins the body at or after the moment of implantation, twinning is a non-issue, since from what I understand implantation triggers changes that make twinning impossible (or at least ensure that it cannot produce two viable individuals).

Actually, while life exists as a continuum, I tend to regard implantation as being a biologically more significant event than fertilization, since it marks a point beyond which the individual must develop continuously until it dies. Prior to implantation, a zygote/inimplanted blatocyst can survive for years under the right conditions without developing at all. Very soon after implantation occurs, however, the embryo will either develop into a full-fledged baby within ~10-11 months [some may develop slowly] or will die completely. There's no way an implanted embryo can be born 2 years later. If it's not born within ~10-11 months, it never will be.

Frankly, though, I really don't think this issue is nearly as important as some people here think it is. The vast majority of people in this country think a 24-week fetus is a baby, and would like for them to have some significant degree of legal protection. Even if someone thinks a 12-week fetus is not a baby, and not worthy of protection, if they agree that a 24-week fetus is a baby it would be good to regard them as a friend rather than an enemy, at least until such time as the status quo will protect a 24-week fetus.

The fact is that the majority of the people in this country do not support the "official" Republican position on abortion, but they would support a position far to the right of the status quo. If Republicans had the sense to capitalize on this, they could be far more effective than they are now.

[MHGinTN]

I'm curious: why do you choose the first division of the original new nucleus as the beginning of individuality for the newly conceived?... mitosis is a duplication of the original nucleus as you well know.

[Think free or die]

"The other day when this article was first posted, I sat at my computer reading it with my 20 month old son in my lap. He pointed at the first picture - 7 weeks gestation - and said "baby." I had NOT yet scrolled down far enough for either of us to see the second picture, which of course got the same response once I did. "

I had a similar experience with our 7 year old son. He peeked over my shoulder when I had just opened this thread. He saw the image of the 7 week gestation baby and immediately said "that's a baby before it hatches from its egg". It seems our youngsters think more clearly than many adults.

[w.t.sherman]

Let's see, just because you proclaim that 1 = 0 in smug and selfrighteous tones doesn't make it true. And of course anyone who disagrees with you is on the "left".

[demosthenes the elder]

thanks for bringing this to my attention. I find the initial article compelling, overall, though there are a couple of points where it is vulnerable to debate. I think your reply #143 is very cogent. I would be pleased to discuss this and related issues with you and other reasonable persons, but doubt that such could be done on a wide-open forum without having the extremists from both sides jumping in and making a mess of it.
It is possible, in my opinion, to find a working solution to this ugly problem, but only if people of good will come together to discuss it reasonably and realistically, without falling back automatically on ingrained and emotional biases. I do not see that this is likely to occur here or elsewhere. The passions run too deep, the assumptions are too deeply rutted, and the people are too in love with the sound of their own voices to actually listen to what others have to say, or read with an eye for comprehension rather than selecting bones to hurl at their opponents.
It is a pity, but it is what it is.

[supercat]

I'm curious: why do you choose the first division of the original new nucleus as the beginning of individuality for the newly conceived?... mitosis is a duplication of the original nucleus as you well know.

Since the first few cell divisions happen very quickly after fertilization, I don't see the distinction as being terribly relevant in practical terms. Nonetheless, I think the idea may be that the beginning of mitosis after fertilization would serve as confirmation that fertilization was "complete".

To be sure, that's somewhat arbitrary, but so is any other like one might care to draw. Fertilization, after all, represents a sequence of steps which occur in fairly rapid succession. If the sperm has just touched the egg, but not yet completely penetrated it, is the egg fertilized? Does it really matter? If the fertilization works, it will be apparent soon enough; likewise if it fails.

[supercat]

Now, that said, flame on, but know this: the vast majority of the American people are moderate in their politics; a more resonable criteria to deal with legal abortion is coming, the question is, will extreme beliefs hold the field and abort humane policy?

Republicans need to recognize that support for the 'pro-choice' position is a mile long, and in many places very deep, but only an inch wide: the vast majority of the population believe very strongly that a woman should be able to opt for an abortion in certain cases; they feel strongly--though slightly less so--that abortion in certain other cases is wrong and should be restricted.

Democrats have been able to portray Republicans as wanting to forbid abortion even in those few cases where a supermajority of the public strongly believe it should be legal. If the Republicans were to shift their focus so as to escape such portrayals, it would then be the Democrats who would be seen as being out-of-touch with the public.

Republicans, sad to say, manage to consistently lose votes on the abortion issue. If they took a measured, but principled, stand, they should win votes on the issue; unfortunately, they seem unable to do so.

[MHGinTN]

In re-reading your posts, I found this, which I find interesting because I suppose what I'm appealing to with the life support perspective is empathy:

I believe that respecting and appealing to this empathy gives us the strongest argument for protection. #130 posted by palmer

[MHGinTN]

Thank you supercat, I suppose one can be pro-life and still allow for terminations in the cases of incest and rape, if the abortion is early in gestation. When a minor is impregnated that way, the parents ought make the decision based on what is best, least endangering, to the girl. BUT, there must be a point beyond which abortion is prohibited if not to save the woman's (girl's) life, deferring instead to the innocent prenatal for at least as equal a right to life. Our nation has a long way to go however, to affirm with pocketbooks, as well as rhetoric, the right of the unborn to continue in life.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I'm curious: why do you choose the first division of the original new nucleus as the beginning of individuality for the newly conceived?... mitosis is a duplication of the original nucleus as you well know.

Growth is necessary for life.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

First, wait, did you say signifieth?

No, Thomas Hobbes said that. Didn't notice the quotation marks?

[palmer]

what I'm appealing to with the life support perspective is empathy

I have thought about it, but I can't empathize with a zygote.

[palmer]

While my use of emotions like empathy for my decision is imperfect and fallible, I would not consider it arbitrary (e.g. growth=life).

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

While my use of emotions like empathy for my decision is imperfect...

Imperfect = arbitrary. The only thing that is for certain not arbitrary on this earth, is death. Everything on the earth that is alive, dies at some point. Death is perfect and not arbitrary.

For anything to be considered alive by the current standards of terran biology, it must have cell division, DNA replication, mitosis. All living things on the earth have this. All living things on this earth have DNA. This has been shown so far not to be an arbitrary quality.

In order to have death, something has to first be alive. This is the major sticking point in the abortion argument. The unborn child from the point of that first mitosis is indeed alive. Most people aren't intellectually honest enough to admit that they are killing with abortion.

My argument here is deductive and supported by facts. Arguments I have seen to the contrary are inductive, invalid argument forms of logic and only supported by emotion - - something imperfect and arbitrary.

Your imperfect and arbitrary argument comes from empathy, pathos, despair, phantasms in the brain of the maker (you), which does have a similitude to a religious belief or an ethereal foundation (per Hobbes, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kierkegaard, Aquinas, Augustine, et al). I'm an atheist and I won't let you slide on that.

This is, in part, why I say abortion is a practice of ritual mass murder, a collective sacrifice to pagan idolatries.