10 FALLACIES IN THE ABORTION DEBATE

Conservative Commentary ^ | 8 November 2002 | Peter Cuthbertson

[palmer]

Palmer, you continue to use phrases like 'increasingly human and protectable life'. Please note that the embryo is fully human, existing exactly as human individual life is designed to exist at that period in a lifetime. To terminate an embryo is to terminate an individual human lifetime. We ought be honest about that,...

Then we should also admit that it is a religious distinction contrary to "fallacy" #3 in the original article. You want to use "science" to back up your claim of humanity, but also admit science is attempting to make clones to treat disease. Do those clones exist "exactly as human life is designed to exist" in that scientist's test tube?

I probably shouldn't use the phrase "increasingly human" without being more specific. What I mean is: increasingly taking on more human features along with beginnings of human thought. To be even more specific, a human life worthy of some protection should at least include those features that exist at 6 weeks as described in my post #300.

[MHGinTN]

The heart can be detected beating within 15 days after implantation, if memory serves. It would be near impossible to know she was pregnant at that point for most women not testing daily.

There is a reason to hold a seemingly dichotomous position regarding embryonic life and easing restrictions in special cases. We are also in a battle to protect embryonic life from experimental exploitation. By acknowledging that embryonic life is to be protected from murder with the exceptions clearly stated, the problem of supporting the life of embryonic humans is more tenable.

[MHGinTN]

Then we should also admit that it is a religious distinction contrary to "fallacy" #3 in the original article. You want to use "science" to back up your claim of humanity, but also admit science is attempting to make clones to treat disease. Do those clones exist "exactly as human life is designed to exist" in that scientist's test tube? Yes, the stages along a typical human lifetime aren't changed by the clone attempts, merely manipulated for exploitation. That exploitation of individual human life for cures and profits is unconscionable to me, like harvesting helpless humans to benefit the more powerful humans merely because one can do it.

[jwalsh07]

I'm just kidding about the lingo thing... Please don't take me too seriously. Most people don't

I don't take any adult seriously who can't wean himself from the binky bink. :-}

[Tired of Taxes]

The heart can be detected beating within 15 days after implantation, if memory serves.

I don't know. Every source seems to make a different claim. I have childcare books that claim the heart begins beating between 5-6 weeks of pregnancy... which would fall around a month and a half after conception. In fact, the booklet from which I take that number contains the very photos in the article that started this thread. Even at 15 days, though, it's hard to argue against a heartbeat.

[palmer]

like harvesting helpless humans to benefit the more powerful humans merely because one can do it

Although we disagree on what stage of human life should be protected, I must draw the line and prohibit humans of any form in test tubes. Science will inevitably lead itself from microscopic humans in test tubes to recognizable humans in vats. While mothers have strong emotional bonds to their children and are capable of empathy, science is amoral and must be kept on a short legal leash.

[mafree]

bump

[MHGinTN]

Your question caused me to go to an online source,

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html

Keeping in mind that the physician's timeline runs from last assumed day of ovulation, the following is cited:

19 - 21 days post-ovulation; stage 9

If you could look at the embryo from a top view, it would resemble the sole of a shoe with the head end wider than the tail end, and a slightly narrowed middle.

Somites, which are condensations composed of mesoderm, appear on either side of the neural groove. The first pair of somites appear at the tail and progress to the middle. One to three pairs of somites are present by Stage 9. Every ridge, bump and recess now indicates cellular differentiation.

A head fold rises on either side of the primitive streak. The primitive streak now runs between one-fourth to one-third of the length of the embryo.

Secondary blood vessels now appear in the chorion/placenta. Hematopoietic cells appear on the yolk sac simultaneously with endothelial cells that will form blood vessels for the newly emerging blood cells.

Endocardial (muscle) cells begin to fuse and form into the early embryo's two heart tubes.

21 - 23 days post-ovulation; stage 10

Stage 10 reflects rapid growth and change as the embryo becomes longer and the yolk sac expands.

On each side of the neural tube, between four and twelve pairs of somites can exist by the end of Stage 10. The cells which become the eyes appear as thickened circles just off of the neural folds. The cells of the ears are also present.

Neural folds are rising and fusing at several points along the length of the neural tube concomitant with the budding somites which appear to "zipper" the neural tube closed. Neural crest cells will eventually contribute to the skull and face of the embryo.

The two endocardial tubes formed in Stage 9 fuse in Stage 10 to form one single tube derived from the roof of the nueral tube, which becomes S-shaped and makes the primitive heart asymmetric. As the S-shape forms, cardiac muscle contraction begins.

Now you can see why many say abortion stops a beating heart.

[Godel]

This is a good illustration of my previous claim that I've never received a straight answer to the question: "At what point should abortion be illegal?" No one knows; not even I.

Right, so if you don't know, the only responsible course is to err on the side of preserving life. Here's an example, should it be illegal to fire a bullet up into the air in a crowded area? Of course, because it's a reckless endangerment of life. Sure, you might not hit anything, but the fact is you don't know what you'll hit, so in the absence of such certainty, we conclude that it's irresponsible to risk innocent life in such a manner. The same argument goes with driving under the influence. Yes many people drive home drunk everyday without hurting anyone. But we recognize that it puts innocent people at risk and thus outlaw it.

If you can tell me exactly when human life begins and when it deserves protection. Then I'll agree, abortion is fine before that. But short of absolute certainty, you have to admit that abortion is potentially the murder of a child. I don't think it's worth taking the risk when a child's life is at stake.

[MHGinTN]

Ping-a-ling

[palmer]

If you can tell me exactly when human life begins and when it deserves protection. Then I'll agree, abortion is fine before that. But short of absolute certainty, you have to admit that abortion is potentially the murder of a child. I don't think it's worth taking the risk when a child's life is at stake.

Do you want absolute certainty again drunk driving? Then outlaw blood alcohol levels above 0.0% Want 100% certainty that nobody will ever get hit by a stray bullet? Then outlaw all firearms discharges. Obviously the law is a compromise designed to maximize the probability of a moral outcome; it recognizes 100% certainty is both physically and politically impossible.

Laws that protect certain stages of life are going to be compromises over what that stage represents to most people (or their representatives), and I don't believe that religious distinctions are going to be politically acceptable. Science also doesn't say what life stage should be protected, it is amoral. I believe the inevitable compromise will be to protect humanity.

Here's a few crude tests: can you picture holding it in your hand? That's possible with most of the pictures we've seen, but hard to imagine with a cell. Can you feel a sense of loss? I honestly don't know about that for the loss of a cell, but at the very least I think most women would not be aware of it. It would be an abstract loss for them. What would its death be like? A cell can't feel anything, won't react, and won't care. Do these single celled humans die normally? Yes, it happens all the time.

[MHGinTN]

Again, you've raised an interesting point, palmer! In any given menses cycle a woman and her husband might bring about fertilization and a new life, but that new life may fail to implant in the uterine wall. This is the earliest form of a miscarriage and there are devices as well as pills which can cause this process to prevent an ongoing pregnancy. This 'natural' miscarriage process does throw some kink in the argument for life protection from conception onward, but consider this: acknowledging that nature does sometimes fail to support nascent life, does that give we humans the right to force such an action, circumventing nature? And as this issue impacts our manipulations of embryos, should we be messing with individual human life, to manipulate it for exploitative purposes then discard that exploited individual human life?

I'm encouraged by the debates here regarding a possible compromise over legality of something tragic and currently far from humane, abortion policy in America.

[Godel]

Do you want absolute certainty again drunk driving? Then outlaw blood alcohol levels above 0.0% Want 100% certainty that nobody will ever get hit by a stray bullet? Then outlaw all firearms discharges. Obviously the law is a compromise designed to maximize the probability of a moral outcome; it recognizes 100% certainty is both physically and politically impossible.

Are you seriously comparing the threat of someone with 0.00001% blood alcohol level with sucking an unborn child's brains out with a vacuum? The threat from people with 0.00001% blood alcohol level can be studied with statistics and we can definitely state that the threat is virtually nonexistant. You don't have any kind of certainty about when life begins or what the odds are of abortion being a murder. You're willing to put a child's life at risk without ANY evidence or information. That's what I call reckless.

What would its death be like? A cell can't feel anything, won't react, and won't care. Do these single celled humans die normally? Yes, it happens all the time.

At first, the nervous system develops fastest. The ectoderm folds over to form a neural tube, or primitive spinal cord. At 3.5 weeks, the top swells to form a brain. Production of neurons (brain cells that store and transmit information) begins deep inside the neural tube. Once formed, neurons travel along tiny threads to their permanent locations, where they will form the major parts of the brain (Caesar, 1993).

pg. 105, "Infants and Children: Prenatal Through Middle Childhood", by Laura E. Berk, Copyright 1999 Allyn & Bacon

At 3.5 weeks, we know human brain cells are present in the unborn child. I'm not talking about a single cell, I'm talking about a living human organism with functional human brain cells. Is that worthy of protection?

[MHGinTN]

Abortion ends an individual human lifetime already begun, an individual human on life support. But at 3.5 weeks from last ovulation, most women wouldn't know they were pregnant though some would be keeping track closely enough to think something isn't exactly on schedule.

[Godel]

Exactly my point. By the time most women know they're pregnant, the unborn child already has a nervous system and human brain cells. That's why I don't think abortion is morally justifiable. People try to obfuscate the issue by talking about 1 cell or 2 cells, like they can make themselves think that's all that's being killed.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Now, friendly's post brings up the problem with this debate. Argue against me if you must, but this is why you can't lump everybody into one pro-choice group. There is a fundamental difference between myself and these people.

Excuse me sir, I did acknowledge I thought you had a valid argument. So in case you inadvertently missed or purposely ignored it, I will not allow you to attribute to me something that is a hasty generalization on your part. Here is as previous post from me to you:

I say the debate should center on the facts and the law, not some ethereal standard of esoteric idealism or phantasms in the brains of their makers (e.g., morals). The use of "morals" to determine justifiable killing is ritual murder. To do this on a larger, wider scale is ritual mass murder.

I also say, as a matter of law and the US Constitution, the Court cannot legislate, nor can the right to life of an individual be legislated away. This can only be done at a trial by jury of the peers of the accused. As a matter of law, we do have the right to deprive others of their lives - - with due process. This is not a blanket right and must be considered on an individual, case by case basis.

The fact we do know, is that at the first mitosis, there is a uniquely identifiable human organism like no other before it or following it.

(Secondly, aside from the main argument, I favor the application of capital punishment to repeat sex offenders.) In cases of rape and incest, an immediate trial should determine the outcome, not one person should arbitrarily determine who lives or dies.

In a case of rape, it is a woman's societal obligation to immediately report the crime - - period. Failure to do so makes her complicit in future offenses the rapist is involved with, it is aiding and abetting the victimization of others.

In a case such as incest or rape of a minor victim it is a lot more murky. If it can be determined who the offender is, it should be treated as a capital crime. The juvenile should be subject to the wishes of the parents or guardian and an immediate trial convened to decide the case.

The idea that a juvenile be granted a blanket legal permission to get an abortion without a parent's knowledge or a determination of whether a crime has been committed is judicial complicity in the destruction of evidence in a felony.

A case where two juveniles are involved on a consensual basis, the parents should be forced by the law to take the responsibility financially and legally.

The argument you bring forward is indeed a valid one, however, giving a merciless felon an easy way out is not an answer I will accept. Nor is it acceptable to give a consenting man or a woman the right to escape the responsibility for their own actions by using the Court to legislatively force their burden on the rest of society. I simply refuse to accept the "moral" argument in favor of ritual murder. It is not rational or logical.

I have no realistic expectation that the issue will ever be resolved so long as there is a blind emotional devotion to human sacrifice before an altar of pagan idolatry...

Minus any ad hominems equating me with the homosexual DC area snipers (like one asinine response), I'm asking you to address the issue of advancing a logical argument to refute the idea of having a lawful trial that determines if an abortion is to take place and to gather evidence, testimony or information related to a felony.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Science will inevitably lead itself from microscopic humans in test tubes to recognizable humans in vats.

False. Molecular circuits can be built. As I have seen in electronics, the geometry is getting so small, we are soon going to build things on a molecular level. DNA can be constructed mechanically. Why clone something that is going to age at an accelerated rate and die, when you can build the DNA from scratch? Robo-sapiens?

Of course, what you seem to be unwilling to admit is that a societal practice of abortion has blown the doors down to openly practice eugenics.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You appear to be very pro-life, and I'm wondering what your position is.

See #396... I welcome a libertarian perspective - - I am advancing a libertarian resolution...

[MHGinTN]

Bumpity, bump, bump, bump

[Coto]

I wonder...just how nice the world would probably be....

...if all of those that moan -n- wail for Abortions, were aborted themselves.....

Hey - I can dream, can't I ?? ??