Why Reality Blows Up Anti-Abortion Rhetoric

It starts with the idea that the abortion debate, a debate which is fundamentally rooted in the philosophical concept of personhood, is in any way impacted by conception.



The idea that personhood starts at conception is complete nonsense. It becomes even more head-scratching when the reasoning for such a notion is tied to another nonsense idea of "life beginning at conception". Life does not magically begin at conception. It is an unbroken chain billions of years old (that we know of). Even if you wanted to posit the idea of a "separate biological entity" at conception, you would be hard pressed to deny that same distinction to gametes. Either way, granting separate biological entity status =/= personhood.



The bigger problem here is that you are trying to frame this as science debate; it is not. No different than when the new atheists tried to frame theology as a science debate. It doesn't work because these are not sciencfic questions.



Finally, distinction of something being alive is rather meaningless in debate about personhood. Even still, your list of requirement to be require for life was nonsense and another reason why science cannot answer these questions.

When you call it my list of requirements and claim they’re nonsense, you should first accept that it’s not my list and it’s a pretty common list you’d find in any biology text book. You can disagree and believe it’s nonsense, but it’s not me who developed it.

Based on your replies I feel you believe I’m arguing in no abortions because life begins at conception. That’s not my argument. I was simply pointing out the flaws in the previous person’s claims that life doesn’t begin until birth.

As far as “personhood” are you talking about from a legal standpoint?

Yes, when life begins is a question we should look to science for. That’s not saying abortion itself is a science debate, but clearly we should also look to science to understand fetal development when making abortion laws.

Finally you keep bringing up the distinction of something being alive. Once again, not my argument. At no point have I claimed we should ban abortion because the child is alive. Clearly it’s alive. My entire point was a response to a 3rd poster claiming he didn’t consider them alive until birth.
 
When you call it my list of requirements and claim they’re nonsense, you should first accept that it’s not my list and it’s a pretty common list you’d find in any biology text book. You can disagree and believe it’s nonsense, but it’s not me who developed it.

Based on your replies I feel you believe I’m arguing in no abortions because life begins at conception. That’s not my argument. I was simply pointing out the flaws in the previous person’s claims that life doesn’t begin until birth.

As far as “personhood” are you talking about from a legal standpoint?

Yes, when life begins is a question we should look to science for. That’s not saying abortion itself is a science debate, but clearly we should also look to science to understand fetal development when making abortion laws.

Finally you keep bringing up the distinction of something being alive. Once again, not my argument. At no point have I claimed we should ban abortion because the child is alive. Clearly it’s alive. My entire point was a response to a 3rd poster claiming he didn’t consider them alive until birth.

My daughter is a RN at the NICU here in Chattanooga. They currently have a baby that weighs in at less than a pound, the baby at the present is doing better than anticipated, and they are optimistic that the baby will survive. So apparently, life begins at less than a pound.
 
Last edited:
When you call it my list of requirements and claim they’re nonsense, you should first accept that it’s not my list and it’s a pretty common list you’d find in any biology text book. You can disagree and believe it’s nonsense, but it’s not me who developed it.

You quoted it for your argument! Jeez.

Based on your replies I feel you believe I’m arguing in no abortions because life begins at conception. That’s not my argument. I was simply pointing out the flaws in the previous person’s claims that life doesn’t begin until birth.

Ok. Your retort to it is also wrong; both from a "life" standpoint and a personhood standpoint. It does no good to be right with faulty arguments.

As far as “personhood” are you talking about from a legal standpoint?

A legal ought.

Yes, when life begins is a question we should look to science for. That’s not saying abortion itself is a science debate, but clearly we should also look to science to understand fetal development when making abortion laws.

It is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. Once the terms and delineations have been established (philosophical questions), science can execute via the scientific method as to which entities qualify based on experimentation. This complete lack of understanding the basics of the philosophy of science is why there is so much pseudoscience nonsense floating around right now.
 
You quoted it for your argument! Jeez.

Ok. Your retort to it is also wrong; both from a "life" standpoint and a personhood standpoint. It does no good to be right with faulty arguments.

A legal ought.

It is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. Once the terms and delineations have been established (philosophical questions), science can execute via the scientific method as to which entities qualify based on experimentation. This complete lack of understanding the basics of the philosophy of science is why there is so much pseudoscience nonsense floating around right now.

How’s it a faulty argument? I’ve not been arguing for or against, personhood, a legal term, at any point. I’ve stated that it’s obviously human. I have little respect for liberal women, but even I wouldn’t disparage their kids enough to claim they’re less than human. If you’re using personhood as a legal term, it doesn’t do us much good because legal definitions aren’t really grounded. They can and do change.

I’m also not incorrect in claiming life begins well before birth. Idk how anyone can proclaim otherwise.

It’s a legal question that requires scientific insight to understand.
 
My daughter is a RN at the NICU here in Chattanooga. They currently have a baby that weighs in at less than a pound, the baby at the present is doing better than anticipated, and they are optimistic the the baby will survive. So apparently, life begins at less than a pound.

That’s something I’m curious about. So many on the left will admittedly defend Roe v Wade which set its definition of viability based of medicine from 50 years ago.

As technology improves, will they be willing to accept that viability is a moving target and agree to new standards? I have a feeling that answer is no, but it’s an interesting topic
 
That’s something I’m curious about. So many on the left will admittedly defend Roe v Wade which set its definition of viability based of medicine from 50 years ago.

As technology improves, will they be willing to accept that viability is a moving target and agree to new standards? I have a feeling that answer is no, but it’s an interesting topic

Fetal viability has never been a concern for the abortion on demand crowd so I feel your assessment on target adjustment is spot on.
 
How’s it a faulty argument? I’ve not been arguing for or against, personhood, a legal term, at any point. I’ve stated that it’s obviously human. I have little respect for liberal women, but even I wouldn’t disparage their kids enough to claim they’re less than human. If you’re using personhood as a legal term, it doesn’t do us much good because legal definitions aren’t really grounded. They can and do change.

"Human" is meaningless in this debate. Your toe nail clippings are "human".

I’m also not incorrect in claiming life begins well before birth. Idk how anyone can proclaim otherwise.

Life neither starts at birth or before birth. Personhood, what constitutes personhood, and when personhood starts is the crux of issue.

It’s a legal question that requires scientific insight to understand.

Incorrect. It is a philosophical question with legal implications.
 
"Human" is meaningless in this debate. Your toe nail clippings are "human".



Life neither starts at birth or before birth. Personhood, what constitutes personhood, and when personhood starts is the crux of issue.



Incorrect. It is a philosophical question with legal implications.

My toe nails are dead and are not a separate human life so that’s a pretty poor comparison.

I’ve never attempted to argue for or against abortion based on when life occurs.

I have no interest in arguing semantics with you about the difference between a legal question or a philosophical question, but the scientific aspect obviously matters greatly. I would hope any philosophical/legal argument for taking another would look to the science to determine how developed that life form is.
 
Last edited:
My toe nails are dead and are not a separate human life I’m taking, so that’s a pretty poor comparison.

I’ve never attempted to argue for or against abortion based on when life occurs.

I have no interest in arguing semantics with you about the difference between a legal question or a legal question, but the scientific aspect obviously matters greatly. I would hope any philosophical/legal argument for taking another would look to the science to determine how developed that life form is.
You can't win debating on a message board my man. State your argument and then stand back and watch them try and destroy it.
Believe in what you believe in and don't worry about what the others think. Trust me, you'll add years to your life.
 
You can't win debating on a message board my man. State your argument and then stand back and watch them try and destroy it.
Believe in what you believe in and don't worry about what the others think. Trust me, you'll add years to your life.
Wise words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
Yes, I believe yes an unborn child has rights. A fetus is a different story.

This is some weird double speak. Idk how I didn’t notice this gem of nonsense.

“Yes an unborn child has rights” but a fetus (an unborn child from 8 weeks until birth) does not.

??
 
The bottom line to the abortion rights side is that it's a form of birth control,

That is 100% wrong. Even Luther feels bad for how wrong you are

This is absolutely true. 99% of abortions elective. If you’re having an elective abortion, you’re having an abortion to control (prevent) the birth of a child. That’s not even debatable unless you can provide data showing the vast majority are not performed for the purpose of birth control but rather due to medical necessity
 
As a pro-choicer, I listen to the rhetoric of anti-abortionists with great interest. I respect their tenet that having an abortion is akin to 'murder', but naturally I don't agree with it. I also respect their tenet that having an abortion is 'wrong', and agree that ending a life via abortion is very sad and absolutely a last resort.

However, I also recognize that from a pragmatic standpoint, their vision of an "abortion-free America" is simply short-sighted and wholly unworkable. Why?

Most of the problems with the anti-abortion view stem from their position that a human fetus is, in fact, a human being with the same inalienable right to life that you and I have as living, birthed people. The position is that both a fetus IN THE BODY and a delivered baby OUT OF THE BODY both have the right to life, and that their lives should not be ended by the mothers. Unfortunately, here's where the train falls off the tracks...

(1) If a fetus and a (birthed) baby have equal rights, then by definition, a fetus has all the legal rights of a birthed baby;

(2) These rights include - amongst other guaranteed rights to all Americans - the right to citizenship and to a social security number. As such, once a mother is determined to be pregnant, the fetus is now a citizen and must immediately be issued a SSN by the government;

(3) Under the Affordable Care Act, the fetus is now also required to have health insurance, so parents must enroll the fetus upon determination of pregnancy. Also, the fetus is now a dependent, and can be deducted when filing income taxes;

(4) Further, within our legal system, all citizens have the right to due process and a fair trial when crimes have allegedly occurred. Moreover, it's illegal to incarcerate an American citizen without due process. Consequently, if the mother of a fetus commits a crime and is found guilty, it's illegal for the citizen fetus to be incarcerated in any institution - given the obvious presumption that the fetus did not, and could not - commit a crime. Net result: No pregnant women can be legally held in any institution;

(5) As no pregnant women can be incarcerated with an innocent fetus inside the mother, it stands to reason that any rational woman facing potential incarceration will, therefore, become pregnant to avoid incarceration;

(6) Similarly, no legal citizen of the United States can be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Therefore, no fetus conceived within the United States can legally be deported, as that fetus has all the rights of other 'normal' citizens. End result: No illegal immigrants who are pregnant in the US can be deported. See also (5) above;

(7) Further, the loss of any fetus for any reason that includes 'malignant behavior' by a mother shall be considered from a legal standpoint as manslaughter or potentially murder. For example, a mother gets drunk, wrecks her car while driving, and loses her fetus to stillbirth from injuries sustained in the accident. Given the equal legal rights of the fetus, the state would have to proceed with prosecution of the mother on manslaughter charges or murder if the act was premeditated. Regardless, the mother would face significant incarceration equivalent to the manslaughter/murder of a birthed human.

These are just some of the absurd realities awaiting an America where we consider fetuses to have the same rights as birthed humans. Our country is based on a clear system of inalienable rights to all citizens. Exceptions are not made. Period.

Having said that, I believe the better route for anti-abortionists is as follows: Volunteer to adopt an unwanted baby. If, as some anti-abortionists claim, there are legions of like-minded folks in our nation who don't want another single fetus aborted, then set up a National Adoption System. Have everyone sign up to adopt a fetus that would otherwise be aborted.

Until when and if this ever happens (it won't), then feel free to live and breathe by Roe v. Wade and the law of the land that 60% of the American public supports.
Similar arguments to deny the fully human status of Africans and to obsfusgate the issue by pointing out the practical and legal complexities of such designation were quite common in the days of slavery and resulted in the obscene horror that was the 3/5 compromise. So go ahead and play sophistic games with legal definitions of citizenship and twist the basic question of humanity into a logical pretzel. Just substitute the word „Slave“ for „fetus“ and you will do just great in the antebellum South. There is clear separation between a moral definition of human status and a legal question of citizenship and attendant rights.
 
Similar arguments to deny the fully human status of Africans and to obsfusgate the issue by pointing out the practical and legal complexities of such designation were quite common in the days of slavery and resulted in the obscene horror that was the 3/5 compromise. So go ahead and play sophistic games with legal definitions of citizenship and twist the basic question of humanity into a logical pretzel. Just substitute the word „Slave“ for „fetus“ and you will do just great in the antebellum South. There is clear separation between a moral definition of human status and a legal question of citizenship and attendant rights.
Good point. Shapiro does a great job of making this argument as well.
 
Similar arguments to deny the fully human status of Africans and to obsfusgate the issue by pointing out the practical and legal complexities of such designation were quite common in the days of slavery and resulted in the obscene horror that was the 3/5 compromise. So go ahead and play sophistic games with legal definitions of citizenship and twist the basic question of humanity into a logical pretzel. Just substitute the word „Slave“ for „fetus“ and you will do just great in the antebellum South. There is clear separation between a moral definition of human status and a legal question of citizenship and attendant rights.

I would disagree that the 3/5th compromise was a horror, but rather an important anti slavery compromise
 
Professor Holds Machete To Reporter's Neck After Destroying Student's Pro-Life Display: report

The New York City professor who went on an expletive-filled rant and destroyed a student group's pro-life display has now allegedly threatened a reporter who was covering the story by putting a machete to his neck.

Shellyne Rodriguez, a Hunter College adjunct assistant professor of art, responded to a New York Post reporter who knocked on the door of her Bronx apartment Tuesday morning by holding a machete to his neck and allegedly threatening to "chop" the man up, according to a New York Post report Tuesday.

"Get the f--- away from my door, or I’m going to chop you up with this machete," the professor reportedly shouted at the reporter, who was identified as Reuven Fenton.


professor-nyp-fox.jpg

Shellyne Rodriguez allegedly threatens a New York Post reporter, Tuesday, May 23, 2023, in the Bronx. Rodriguez is the Manhattan professor who flipped out on a group of students who set up an information table opposing abortion inside Hunter College. (Robert Miller for the NY Post)

Professor holds machete to reporter's neck after destroying student's pro-life display: report
 
Professor Holds Machete To Reporter's Neck After Destroying Student's Pro-Life Display: report

The New York City professor who went on an expletive-filled rant and destroyed a student group's pro-life display has now allegedly threatened a reporter who was covering the story by putting a machete to his neck.

Shellyne Rodriguez, a Hunter College adjunct assistant professor of art, responded to a New York Post reporter who knocked on the door of her Bronx apartment Tuesday morning by holding a machete to his neck and allegedly threatening to "chop" the man up, according to a New York Post report Tuesday.

"Get the f--- away from my door, or I’m going to chop you up with this machete," the professor reportedly shouted at the reporter, who was identified as Reuven Fenton.


professor-nyp-fox.jpg

Shellyne Rodriguez allegedly threatens a New York Post reporter, Tuesday, May 23, 2023, in the Bronx. Rodriguez is the Manhattan professor who flipped out on a group of students who set up an information table opposing abortion inside Hunter College. (Robert Miller for the NY Post)

Professor holds machete to reporter's neck after destroying student's pro-life display: report


The pro-choice crowd is serious about the "healthcare for women"

Apologies... "Birthing person"
 
I was thinking this morning how much the Repubs want the abortion issue to go away. It's clear it's costing them politically. We had some back and forth of the hypocrisy of saying that life begins at conception, but also saying 12 week bans are ok, just to get rid of the issue.

If you say life begins at conception, then anything short of total ban is hypocrisy.
Compare this to LBJ, when signing the 19964 Civil Rights legislation into law he said he did so knowing he had given the South to the Repubs for the next 50 years. But he was committed to ending Jim Crow.

Where do you see this commitment from the Repubs on abortion, an issue you say is life and death?
 
I was thinking this morning how much the Repubs want the abortion issue to go away. It's clear it's costing them politically. We had some back and forth of the hypocrisy of saying that life begins at conception, but also saying 12 week bans are ok, just to get rid of the issue.

If you say life begins at conception, then anything short of total ban is hypocrisy.
Compare this to LBJ, when signing the 19964 Civil Rights legislation into law he said he did so knowing he had given the South to the Repubs for the next 50 years. But he was committed to ending Jim Crow.

Where do you see this commitment from the Repubs on abortion, an issue you say is life and death?

So you’re agreeing we should have a total ban? Or are you simply a denier of science?

At conception a new life is created based on all the standards for life set out by biologists. Can you make an argument for how a zygote is not alive at conception?

You’ve posted this a lot and seem only stuck on the wrong question regarding abortion. Literally no one is debating “is it alive”, because the answer to that is obviously “yes”.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen

Court Orders Abortion For 11-year-old Who Said Pregnancy Made Her Feel ‘special’​

A UK Judge Ruled A Pregnant 11-year-old 'lacked competence' to carry on with the pregnancy​

A U.K. judge ordered a pregnant 11-year-old to get an abortion, ruling that termination was in the girl’s best interest, according to local media reports.

Court documents stemming from a private hearing last month have since been publicly released and show that a 10-year-old girl only identified as AZ was raped by a 14-year-old boy she met online. She was reportedly raped a few weeks later by another 14-year-old boy after her 11th birthday, the Independent reported.

"She became pregnant after being raped by a 14-year-old she met on the internet when she was aged 10, on the 18th or 21st of May 2023," London High Court judge Emma Arbuthnot, known professionally as Mrs. Justice Arbuthnot, said in her ruling.


"She was raped by another 14-year-old boy on the 11th of June 2023, but he did not make her pregnant."

 

VN Store



Back
Top