The most common arguments against abortions are the 'sanctity of life' argument and the 'the unborn feels pain' argument. I think I can refute both.
As regards the first argument, it claims that a zygote is a human, and therefore shouldn't be cancelled from further developing. I think what underlines this line of thought is severe anthropocentrism: a "human" whose size is almost as that of a microbe is sacred, while a microbe isn't. What is practically the difference between the two? Face it: there's no difference, except that the former happens to belong to our species. After all, we kill myriads of microbes every day, and that doesn't make us murderers. Some would argue that a zygote has the potential to become a full person. That's irrelevant, however, because this potential is not actualized, ergo no actual human is hurt. The mere belonging to the human species doesn't make one superior to anyone else; it matters who / what the person / creature is, not its mere racial identity. That's why we have animals' rights groups.
As regards the second argument, it claims that the fetus is capable of sensing physical pain, and inflicting such pain is immoral. However, as far as I'm concerned (and I may be wrong here), only at very late stages of development, it can actually sense anything, and I think it's not crystal-clear that inflicting some pain on the 'unborn' is immoral. First, because morality is subjective in the first place (at least from my perspective), but second, because just as it is a human right to, say, punch oneself in the face, I think it is a woman's right to inflict whatever pain / injury she chooses on a being that is physically attached to her and is dependant solely on her, in other words, functions as a mere organ of her body (like a third nipple), while she may do without it. If it is within one's rights to do whatever one wishes with one's organs (as long as it doesn't cause oneself to die, and even that is debatable), and the 'unborn' is part of a woman's body, logically she is entitled to do with it as she wishes.
Gar0369: Do my refutations make any sense? Discuss please.
They do, but the anti-abortion mob won't adress them, because they can't. They know quite well their arguments are far fetched, biologically impossible and hypocritical.
Won't stop them from ever annoying all other people with repeating them though.
You're not going to get anywhere with this. It's basically the same arguments that are presented in every abortion debate, and the anti-abortionist's response is almost always as follows:
Gar0369: As regards the first argument, it claims that a zygote is a human,
It is
and therefore shouldn't be cancelled from further developing.
You aren't cancelling its development: you're killing it.
I think what underlines this line of thought is severe anthropocentrism: a "human" whose size is almost as that of a microbe is sacred, while a microbe isn't.
The size of the human doesn't matter. It's still a human, created by God.
What is practically the difference between the two?
One is human, is created in God's image, and has a soul
Face it: there's no difference, except that the former happens to belong to our species. After all, we kill myriads of microbes every day, and that doesn't make us murderers.
Because the microbes don't have souls.
Some would argue that a zygote has the potential to become a full person.
It is a person just as valuable as you and I
That's irrelevant, however, because this potential is not actualized, ergo no actual human is hurt.
Is too.
The mere belonging to the human species doesn't make one superior to anyone else;
Yes it does.
As regards the second argument, it claims that the fetus is capable of sensing physical pain, and inflicting such pain is immoral. However, as far as I'm concerned (and I may be wrong here), only at very late stages of development, it can actually sense anything, and I think it's not crystal-clear that inflicting some pain on the 'unborn' is immoral. First, because morality is subjective in the first place (at least from my perspective), but second, because just as it is a human right to, say, punch oneself in the face, I think it is a woman's right to inflict whatever pain / injury she chooses on a being that is physically attached to her and is dependant solely on her, in other words, functions as a mere organ of her body (like a third nipple), while she may do without it. If it is within one's rights to do whatever one wishes with one's organs (as long as it doesn't cause oneself to die, and even that is debatable), and the 'unborn' is part of a woman's body, logically she is entitled to do with it as she wishes.
The argument that a fetus can feel pain is one that I've never come across before. However, a woman can not feel the things you do to her fetus. Their circulatory systems may be connected, but their nervous systems (brains) aren't. The fetus, when it develops to the level of a miniature person, is a separate person that has its own set of senses. Is it the mother's right to abort her baby two days before it's due, just because it is living off of her? Of course not.
Gar0369: The most common arguments against abortions are the 'sanctity of life' argument and the 'the unborn feels pain' argument. I think I can refute both.
As regards the first argument, it claims that a zygote is a human, and therefore shouldn't be cancelled from further developing. I think what underlines this line of thought is severe anthropocentrism: a "human" whose size is almost as that of a microbe is sacred, while a microbe isn't. What is practically the difference between the two? Face it: there's no difference, except that the former happens to belong to our species. After all, we kill myriads of microbes every day, and that doesn't make us murderers. Some would argue that a zygote has the potential to become a full person. That's irrelevant, however, because this potential is not actualized, ergo no actual human is hurt. The mere belonging to the human species doesn't make one superior to anyone else; it matters who / what the person / creature is, not its mere racial identity. That's why we have animals' rights groups.
As regards the second argument, it claims that the fetus is capable of sensing physical pain, and inflicting such pain is immoral. However, as far as I'm concerned (and I may be wrong here), only at very late stages of development, it can actually sense anything, and I think it's not crystal-clear that inflicting some pain on the 'unborn' is immoral. First, because morality is subjective in the first place (at least from my perspective), but second, because just as it is a human right to, say, punch oneself in the face, I think it is a woman's right to inflict whatever pain / injury she chooses on a being that is physically attached to her and is dependant solely on her, in other words, functions as a mere organ of her body (like a third nipple), while she may do without it. If it is within one's rights to do whatever one wishes with one's organs (as long as it doesn't cause oneself to die, and even that is debatable), and the 'unborn' is part of a woman's body, logically she is entitled to do with it as she wishes.
Do my refutations make any sense? Discuss please.
Sure, they make sense, but they're severely flawed. Your argument for the first is 'It's small and similar to a microbe, therefore not human' The implication being that if you do not appear to be Human, you are not Human. Define Humanity. Seriously, define humanity in a way that excludes zygotes without either A: including animals in your definition of Humanity or B: excluding infants and children from being considered truly Human.
And for your second, that suggests that siamese twins have the right to do whatever they want to their twin for as long as they're attached, with no consequence.
As regards the first argument, it claims that a zygote is a human, and therefore shouldn't be cancelled from further developing. I think what underlines this line of thought is severe anthropocentrism: a "human" whose size is almost as that of a microbe is sacred, while a microbe isn't. What is practically the difference between the two? Face it: there's no difference, except that the former happens to belong to our species. After all, we kill myriads of microbes every day, and that doesn't make us murderers. Some would argue that a zygote has the potential to become a full person. That's irrelevant, however, because this potential is not actualized, ergo no actual human is hurt. The mere belonging to the human species doesn't make one superior to anyone else; it matters who / what the person / creature is, not its mere racial identity. That's why we have animals' rights groups.
The problem with this argument is where do you draw the line that an organism's potential is actualized? In other words, when does it gain the right to live? Born babies are human, but are still entirely dependent. This may sound harsh but they are more like an animal or a really inconvenient machine than they are people. Young children are still fairly dependent, have a blurred line between fantasy and reality, still don't really contribute anything of value (for the most part, I know prodigy's exist, but are outliers).
Kant made an ethical model entirely centered around the idea of actualized person hood. He was a professional ethical philosopher, highly regarded, and still is, yet he still was able to rationalize genocide and slavery due to his perception of actualized potential of certain groups of people. I don't mean to make a slippery slope argument, but I think defining when it is a sacred life is impossible to do in a world with widely ranging perceptions.
I really doubt that there will ever be a consensus on abortion. And I am actually okay with that. People are free to believe what they want to believe and practice what they want to practice.
The problem I have is all of these people getting into other people's business about what they are doing with their own lives.
It is literally none of their concern what a woman and her partner decide to do in this situation. If you dislike abortion, then make the choice to never get one.
While I certainly don't like the notion of abortion and such, I really think that this shit should be left up to the woman and her family. The state should just get the fuck out of their business. If making sure our food isn't poisoned when it goes on store shelves is the government going too far to regulate things, then this is definitely too far. Abortion makes me queezy, sure, but I also believe in a woman's rights and her family's rights to make decisions for themselves without being thrown in jail.
Besides which, is anyone on here really stupid enough to believe that a majority of women who have aborted came to the decision lightly? They probably debated with themselves and everyone around them for days before coming to that conclusion. Not to mention her maternal instinct hormones are now going to be causing her constant depression for the next month or so. Do you really think most people just decide willy nilly to get an abortion? Hello, it involves major surgery you dumbass. What if the pregnancy is life threatening to both mother and child? What then? What about if it's going to be stillborn anyways? Sure, there's always going to be one or two people who take advantage for casual sex, but they don't represent any majority in the slightest.
Abortion is not a state matter. I don't care what anyone says. I don't think a woman who just had to have her own baby removed from her and snuffed out wants to then be taken to jail by the police officer who was present for the whole thing. Besides which, jails should be filled by real criminals.
Jonluw: You're not going to get anywhere with this. It's basically the same arguments that are presented in every abortion debate, and the anti-abortionist's response is almost always as follows:
Gar0369: As regards the first argument, it claims that a zygote is a human,
It is
and therefore shouldn't be cancelled from further developing.
You aren't cancelling its development: you're killing it.
I think what underlines this line of thought is severe anthropocentrism: a "human" whose size is almost as that of a microbe is sacred, while a microbe isn't.
The size of the human doesn't matter. It's still a human, created by God.
What is practically the difference between the two?
One is human, is created in God's image, and has a soul
Face it: there's no difference, except that the former happens to belong to our species. After all, we kill myriads of microbes every day, and that doesn't make us murderers.
Because the microbes don't have souls.
Some would argue that a zygote has the potential to become a full person.
It is a person just as valuable as you and I
That's irrelevant, however, because this potential is not actualized, ergo no actual human is hurt.
Is too.
The mere belonging to the human species doesn't make one superior to anyone else;
Yes it does.
As regards the second argument, it claims that the fetus is capable of sensing physical pain, and inflicting such pain is immoral. However, as far as I'm concerned (and I may be wrong here), only at very late stages of development, it can actually sense anything, and I think it's not crystal-clear that inflicting some pain on the 'unborn' is immoral. First, because morality is subjective in the first place (at least from my perspective), but second, because just as it is a human right to, say, punch oneself in the face, I think it is a woman's right to inflict whatever pain / injury she chooses on a being that is physically attached to her and is dependant solely on her, in other words, functions as a mere organ of her body (like a third nipple), while she may do without it. If it is within one's rights to do whatever one wishes with one's organs (as long as it doesn't cause oneself to die, and even that is debatable), and the 'unborn' is part of a woman's body, logically she is entitled to do with it as she wishes.
The argument that a fetus can feel pain is one that I've never come across before. However, a woman can not feel the things you do to her fetus. Their circulatory systems may be connected, but their nervous systems (brains) aren't. The fetus, when it develops to the level of a miniature person, is a separate person that has its own set of senses. Is it the mother's right to abort her baby two days before it's due, just because it is living off of her? Of course not.
well done showing the point i often make about anti-choice people. a very large majority are religious and pretty much all their reasoning is based on the teaching of their religion and not science. this is a perfect example of why america has a secular government in name only, policy is dictated by religious beliefs so often in america it would be funny if it wernt for the fact that it hurts 100s of millions of people.
Gar0369: The most common arguments against abortions are the 'sanctity of life' argument and the 'the unborn feels pain' argument. I think I can refute both.
As regards the first argument, it claims that a zygote is a human, and therefore shouldn't be cancelled from further developing. I think what underlines this line of thought is severe anthropocentrism: a "human" whose size is almost as that of a microbe is sacred, while a microbe isn't. What is practically the difference between the two? Face it: there's no difference, except that the former happens to belong to our species. After all, we kill myriads of microbes every day, and that doesn't make us murderers. Some would argue that a zygote has the potential to become a full person. That's irrelevant, however, because this potential is not actualized, ergo no actual human is hurt. The mere belonging to the human species doesn't make one superior to anyone else; it matters who / what the person / creature is, not its mere racial identity. That's why we have animals' rights groups.
I'm pro-choice, but I don't think that is a particularly good argument. Why must we reject anthropocentric views? You identified it as such, then simply dismissed it apparently just for that reason.
Also you presented two different anti-abortion arguments there. One claims it is a human, another claims that it has the potential to become human. I'm inclined to think the second one is a slight misunderstanding of their view, I would expect them to still consider it human.
Lastly, 'That's why we have animals' rights groups' is a complete non sequitur. First, there is no automatic link from one to the other. People can have other reasons for supporting animal rights. Secondly, people can disagree with those animals' rights groups.
But I don't understand this- This practice had been common in the USA even when it was illegal (Before it was legalized) and women suffered greatly from it, preforming abortions in back-alley clinics with shady doctors. Reversing the law and making abortion illegal will only cause women to resort to these drastic measures and risk hurting themselves. I think that the safety of the woman is greater than of the fetus. . A quick comment- Most of the Republicans disallow talk of contraception and say that abstinence is the only way to go. They have implemented such philosophies in some states in the USA. Furthermore, since these states lean greatly to the Religious Republican side, there are no, or very little abortion clinics. These Republicans are the same that want to cut social spending, including that of single mothers. Which brings me to this sad conclusion - You are not told how to use a condom, you get pregnant by mistake, you are literally forced to carry your baby to term unless you are in danger and then when you are a single mother you have little benefits. I do not understand how women can vote for this party and I pity the women that fall into what I describe. Shit, this had been a long comment.
Okay. Generally speaking, I'm pro-life, though the exceptions to the rule are compelling enough that even though I believe some forms of abortion are immoral, the process needs to remain legal and available to women despite the risk of it being used for reasons I disapprove of. There are legitimate medical and social reasons to have an abortion, and criminalizing abortions does more harm than good.
I'm also a contrary monster. For instance, I'm pretty sure I have an irrefutable argument that a fetus is a human life, but I won't tell it to anti-abortion advocates because most of them drive me insane and I just plain don't want to give them more ammunition to use. Maybe it's just a hazard of living in the Bible belt, but I have only ever met like three people who argue pro-life from any stance other than a religious one, and that makes me want to pull my hair out. How do those people not realize that, by making it about God, they have guaranteed that they will never convince anyone of their position, that the only people who will ever agree with them are the ones who already do?
So, bearing that in mind, Jonluw, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to answer a question for me:
Gar0369: I think what underlines this line of thought is severe anthropocentrism: a "human" whose size is almost as that of a microbe is sacred, while a microbe isn't.
The size of the human doesn't matter. It's still a human, created by God.
How do you define "human" such that the term also applies to a microscopic organism?
Gar0369: I think what underlines this line of thought is severe anthropocentrism: a "human" whose size is almost as that of a microbe is sacred, while a microbe isn't.
The size of the human doesn't matter. It's still a human, created by God.
How do you define "human" such that the term also applies to a microscopic organism?
From the point of view of the pro-lifer I was impersonating, do you mean? Or do you mean from the point of view of pro-choice, non-religious, me? (Although I think calling myself pro-choice is misleading. The abortion debate was had in the '70s over here. We're past that stage.)
In the context of me imitating a pro-lifer: A human is any being which has been created by God in his image with a soul. i.e. Any lump of cells with a human genome which is the result of a sperm and egg combining.
In reality: I don't know if defining "human" is very useful. A zygote is certainly human, as it holds a unique set of genetic material within its cells which identifies it as such, but it is a human zygote. It doesn't have a mind of its own, and it is not capable of suffering, so I do not see killing it as any worse than stepping on an ant. As the zygote/fetus develops, the moral ambiguity of aborting it grows. Soon it might be more akin to killing a field mouse. This all depends on how the central nervous system develops though; not on how the body develops.
Some of the arguments the later Christopher Hitchens made with regards to abortion
Absolutely this.
Generally I'm pro-choice, although I don't particularly like that term. I'm anti-criminalisation on what is a difficult, stressful and sometimes dangerous last resort. But the arguments from the pro-choice crowd are getting absurd. A fertilised egg is human, and it is alive. That is the biological answer. Arguing otherwise is kettle logic.
Jonluw: From the point of view of the pro-lifer I was impersonating, do you mean?
Actually, I was asking from the point of view of the pro-lifer I thought you are, since I don't do well with detecting dry irony through a textual medium.
Jonluw: I don't know if defining "human" is very useful. A zygote is certainly human, as it holds a unique set of genetic material within its cells which identifies it as such, but it is a human zygote.
I do, just because if anti-abortion advocates (I refuse to call them "pro-life" unless someone can prove to me they also oppose capital punishment) actually want to convince anyone that abortion is murder, then they have to define a human being in a way that includes the fetus and that is actually convincing to people other than those they sit next to in the pews at church.
Jonluw: From the point of view of the pro-lifer I was impersonating, do you mean?
Actually, I was asking from the point of view of the pro-lifer I thought you are, since I don't do well with detecting dry irony through a textual medium.
It wasn't so much sarcasm as it was demonstrating how a pro-lifer would deal with the arguments. I even said so in my post.
You're not going to get anywhere with this. It's basically the same arguments that are presented in every abortion debate, and the anti-abortionist's response is almost always as follows:
Jonluw: I don't know if defining "human" is very useful. A zygote is certainly human, as it holds a unique set of genetic material within its cells which identifies it as such, but it is a human zygote.
I do, just because if anti-abortion advocates (I refuse to call them "pro-life" unless someone can prove to me they also oppose capital punishment) actually want to convince anyone that abortion is murder, then they have to define a human being in a way that includes the fetus and that is actually convincing to people other than those they sit next to in the pews at church.
I personally don't think something simply being of the human species is no reason to call its killing a murder.
Hazy992: Jonluw's right. You won't convince the pro-lifers no matter how hard you try.
You also have to remember that TC's range of offered opposition is extrememly limited. There are many other reasons to oppose abortion, such as, it turns a "crisis preganancy" into a matter we can, as a society, be blase about. "Oh, she's pregnant? Her choice, her problem."
Jonluw: It wasn't so much sarcasm as it was demonstrating how a pro-lifer would deal with the arguments. I even said so in my post.
Yeah, I misread you a bit. You just never said, even by implication, that you didn't agree with the arguments you were presenting, so it never occurred to me that you weren't taking the anti-abortion position. I should have thought that it was weird for an anti-abortion advocate to phrase it the way you did, though.
Jonluw: I personally don't think something simply being of the human species is no reason to call its killing a murder.
Okay, but I'm not challenging you on that topic...or any topic, for that matter. I'm just explaining why I think the anti-abortion lobby would be well served by explaining what they think a human being is, such the cluster of cells in some woman's ladyparts counts as one. At the end of the day, abortion is a fight about terminology (what counts as a human, what counts as a baby, what counts as a life), so let's get specific with our definitions.
I read a very interesting logic test once, that went something like this:
One day you wake up to find yourself hooked up to a man in a nearby bed with tubes. The man explains that he is dying and needs to have your blood channeled through him to provide him with sustenance if he is going to survive. You are the only one who can provide him with this sustenance and if you do not let him feed off of you for the next several months he will die.
Do you think you should agree to let him stay hooked to you or do you think it would be morally excusable for you to take the tubes away and let him die?
(My answer was that I'd disengage him, my logic being that he didn't ask for my permission before attaching himself to me, what right does he have to do that?)
The next question in this test was, do you think that abortion should be allowed?
The test was, of course, trying to see how many people would say it would be okay to let the man in the first scenario die but not the fetus, as (if the woman was raped or had contraception fail on her, at least) it is the same idea of another life attaching itself to you without you saying it could.
Interesting.[1] But I think there needs to be another question in there, too. Not just "would you do X or Y?" but also "do you think it should be law to do X?". Because a person can be of the opinion that they would help in this hypothetical but would still want others to retain their choice. Just like plenty of pro-choice women want to keep their babies but want other women to have the choice to keep or abort. It's an important distinction between the actual pro-choice and the made-up pro-abortion positions.
[1] Although those who like me argue that zygotes don't qualify as persons yet wouldn't consider it an appropriate analogy, at least not for early term abortions.
The best argument for abortion is that if a 14 year old girl was raped, it would be stupid to force her to bring up that child.
lisadagz: I read a very interesting logic test once, that went something like this:
One day you wake up to find yourself hooked up to a man in a nearby bed with tubes. The man explains that he is dying and needs to have your blood channeled through him to provide him with sustenance if he is going to survive. You are the only one who can provide him with this sustenance and if you do not let him feed off of you for the next several months he will die.
Do you think you should agree to let him stay hooked to you or do you think it would be morally excusable for you to take the tubes away and let him die?
(My answer was that I'd disengage him, my logic being that he didn't ask for my permission before attaching himself to me, what right does he have to do that?)
The next question in this test was, do you think that abortion should be allowed?
The test was, of course, trying to see how many people would say it would be okay to let the man in the first scenario die but not the fetus, as (if the woman was raped or had contraception fail on her, at least) it is the same idea of another life attaching itself to you without you saying it could.
I thought it was interesting, anyway.
There's a big difference between a foetus and a fully grown man. He has memories, feelings, probably many friends and family who love him and self-awareness. He knows he could die, the foetus does not. Saying that I'm worth just as much as something that probably isn't aware of it's own existence is offensive.
Squidbulb: There's a big difference between a foetus and a fully grown man. He has memories, feelings, probably many friends and family who love him and self-awareness. He knows he could die, the foetus does not. Saying that I'm worth just as much as something that probably isn't aware of it's own existence is offensive.
Indeed, which is why it's even more telling if people said they'd let the man die but that they were anti-abortion. I don't actually know what the results of the test were, but it could be an interesting experiment to ask pro-lifers the same question.
Jonluw: It wasn't so much sarcasm as it was demonstrating how a pro-lifer would deal with the arguments. I even said so in my post.
Yeah, I misread you a bit. You just never said, even by implication, that you didn't agree with the arguments you were presenting, so it never occurred to me that you weren't taking the anti-abortion position. I should have thought that it was weird for an anti-abortion advocate to phrase it the way you did, though.
Jonluw: I personally don't think something simply being of the human species is no reason to call its killing a murder.
Okay, but I'm not challenging you on that topic...or any topic, for that matter. I'm just explaining why I think the anti-abortion lobby would be well served by explaining what they think a human being is, such the cluster of cells in some woman's ladyparts counts as one. At the end of the day, abortion is a fight about terminology (what counts as a human, what counts as a baby, what counts as a life), so let's get specific with our definitions.
From what I gather, christians (who do make up the majority of anti-abortion advocates) believe that a human is anyone who has a unique soul. This unique soul is granted to the person at conception.
lisadagz: I read a very interesting logic test once, that went something like this:
One day you wake up to find yourself hooked up to a man in a nearby bed with tubes. The man explains that he is dying and needs to have your blood channeled through him to provide him with sustenance if he is going to survive. You are the only one who can provide him with this sustenance and if you do not let him feed off of you for the next several months he will die.
Do you think you should agree to let him stay hooked to you or do you think it would be morally excusable for you to take the tubes away and let him die?
(My answer was that I'd disengage him, my logic being that he didn't ask for my permission before attaching himself to me, what right does he have to do that?)
The next question in this test was, do you think that abortion should be allowed?
The test was, of course, trying to see how many people would say it would be okay to let the man in the first scenario die but not the fetus, as (if the woman was raped or had contraception fail on her, at least) it is the same idea of another life attaching itself to you without you saying it could.
I thought it was interesting, anyway.
I took that test as well (100% moral consistency by the way). As I recall, the scenario was "A famous football player has a disease that can only be cured by your immune system. You wake up one day to find that his fans have hooked him up to you. If he can stay attached to you for a few months, he will live." I answered I'd let him. Not because I think he has the right to use my body for his own gain, but because I wouldn't doom him to death just because he/his supporters didn't ask my permission.
Jonluw: From what I gather, christians (who do make up the majority of anti-abortion advocates) believe that a human is anyone who has a unique soul. This unique soul is granted to the person at conception.
Do you know what they think about twins stemming from the same zygote? Do they have half a soul?
Jonluw: From what I gather, christians (who do make up the majority of anti-abortion advocates) believe that a human is anyone who has a unique soul. This unique soul is granted to the person at conception.
Do you know what they think about twins stemming from the same zygote? Do they have half a soul?
From what I remember from a previous debate, they do believe identical twins have unique souls. It's an interesting question though. If you have a soul from coneption, do identical twins have identical souls?
If I were to guess, I think they would say something along the lines of "God gives a new soul to the second zygote when one splits into two" or "When God wants to make identical twins, he gives the fertilized egg two souls. Then they split up into two different zygotes later."
First off I'm pro choice but your arguments don't fly:
Gar0369: As regards the first argument, it claims that a zygote is a human, and therefore shouldn't be cancelled from further developing. .
This is your opinion, nothing else. Being small or incopmlete isn't a prohibition from them being considered human, otherwise you could consider children and the disabled that way.
However, as far as I'm concerned (and I may be wrong here), only at very late stages of development, it can actually sense anything, and I think it's not crystal-clear that inflicting some pain on the 'unborn' is immoral
Well the last part is an opinion, it could be used on adults too. The first part is debatable at best. It is "unlikely" but not impossible or unproven that babies feel pain before the third trimester. It's unwise to hang your hat on anything so unclear. Would your opinion change on abortion if one day they proved first timester pain existed?
Gar0369: I think what underlines this line of thought is severe anthropocentrism: a "human" whose size is almost as that of a microbe is sacred, while a microbe isn't.
The size of the human doesn't matter. It's still a human, created by God.
God hath apparently decreed that somewhere between 20 and 50% of all those precious little blastocycts will never live to see their zeroth birthday, because that's how many fail to grab on to the uterine wall and get flushed out when the Fetus-Generation Unit woman has her period.
NICE DESIGN THERE, GOD. But it's no surprise, if you read the Bible, you'll see that He's JUST FINE with killin' babies. I'm not sure why we're supposed to be held to a higher standard...
Jonluw: From what I gather, christians (who do make up the majority of anti-abortion advocates) believe that a human is anyone who has a unique soul. This unique soul is granted to the person at conception.
Do you know what they think about twins stemming from the same zygote? Do they have half a soul?
From what I remember from a previous debate, they do believe identical twins have unique souls. It's an interesting question though. If you have a soul from coneption, do identical twins have identical souls?
If I were to guess, I think they would say something along the lines of "God gives a new soul to the second zygote when one splits into two" or "When God wants to make identical twins, he gives the fertilized egg two souls. Then they split up into two different zygotes later."
Pfft, I can top that. Human Chimeras are what you have when a single human being matures from two or more fused fetuses. Do they have two souls? If not, where'd the second one go? Under Fetucentric government, should they legally be entitled to two votes?
Gar0369: I think what underlines this line of thought is severe anthropocentrism: a "human" whose size is almost as that of a microbe is sacred, while a microbe isn't.
The size of the human doesn't matter. It's still a human, created by God.
God hath apparently decreed that somewhere between 20 and 50% of all those precious little blastocycts will never live to see their zeroth birthday, because that's how many fail to grab on to the uterine wall and get flushed out when the Fetus-Generation Unit woman has her period.
NICE DESIGN THERE, GOD. But it's no surprise, if you read the Bible, you'll see that He's JUST FINE with killin' babies. I'm not sure why we're supposed to be held to a higher standard...
Because we can sin, while God is perfect and works in mysterious ways. God's ways may not be understood by mortals, but you can rest assured they are good.
The size of the human doesn't matter. It's still a human, created by God.
God hath apparently decreed that somewhere between 20 and 50% of all those precious little blastocycts will never live to see their zeroth birthday, because that's how many fail to grab on to the uterine wall and get flushed out when the Fetus-Generation Unit woman has her period.
NICE DESIGN THERE, GOD. But it's no surprise, if you read the Bible, you'll see that He's JUST FINE with killin' babies. I'm not sure why we're supposed to be held to a higher standard...
Because we can sin, while God is perfect and works in mysterious ways. God's ways may not be understood by mortals, but you can rest assured they are good.
And an abortion CAN'T be part of God's Ineffable Plan? I knew iron chariots were JHVH's Kryptonite, but apparently He's helpless against abortionists, too.
The most common arguments against abortions are the 'sanctity of life' argument and the 'the unborn feels pain' argument. I think I can refute both.
As regards the first argument, it claims that a zygote is a human, and therefore shouldn't be cancelled from further developing. I think what underlines this line of thought is severe anthropocentrism: a "human" whose size is almost as that of a microbe is sacred, while a microbe isn't. What is practically the difference between the two? Face it: there's no difference, except that the former happens to belong to our species. After all, we kill myriads of microbes every day, and that doesn't make us murderers. Some would argue that a zygote has the potential to become a full person. That's irrelevant, however, because this potential is not actualized, ergo no actual human is hurt. The mere belonging to the human species doesn't make one superior to anyone else; it matters who / what the person / creature is, not its mere racial identity. That's why we have animals' rights groups.
As regards the second argument, it claims that the fetus is capable of sensing physical pain, and inflicting such pain is immoral. However, as far as I'm concerned (and I may be wrong here), only at very late stages of development, it can actually sense anything, and I think it's not crystal-clear that inflicting some pain on the 'unborn' is immoral. First, because morality is subjective in the first place (at least from my perspective), but second, because just as it is a human right to, say, punch oneself in the face, I think it is a woman's right to inflict whatever pain / injury she chooses on a being that is physically attached to her and is dependant solely on her, in other words, functions as a mere organ of her body (like a third nipple), while she may do without it. If it is within one's rights to do whatever one wishes with one's organs (as long as it doesn't cause oneself to die, and even that is debatable), and the 'unborn' is part of a woman's body, logically she is entitled to do with it as she wishes.
Do my refutations make any sense? Discuss please.