Abortion Debate: 1 of 7 - Alan's Opening Argument

[TherionNLD]

You're in a burning building. You have a choice to save one of two things:

1. A case of 50 frozen IVF embryo's

2. A 2-year old child crying in the corridor

Which do you choose and why?

[GGDFan777]

@TherionNLD This arguement/question fails to establish that abortion should be legal. See the article "Can Embryos be Human even if Pro-Lifers are Inconsistent?" on the website of Stand to Reason (str (dot) org) where this 'objection' is dealt with.

[TherionNLD]

@GGDFan777 I read the article, but the my point isn't that pro-lifers are inconsistent or that embryo's aren't human life, it's that embryo's aren't 100% equal to already born people. How can something you can't even see without a microscope be equal to a person you can hold and touch?

We live in an imperfect world, abortions will happen regardless of legality. In my opinion the pro-lifers think in unrealistic utopian terms while the pro-choicers are more pragmatic and want real solutions.

[me25422]

@TherionNLD so do you think the unborn "thing" is a human or not? if so, then when you say that pro-choicers are more pragmatic you really mean that they are simply justifying killing an innocent human. I am hoping that you respond. Peace.

[TherionNLD]

@me25422 My opinion is that an embryo is human life but not a person yet. I don't think a woman who took a morning-after pill committed an equal crime as someone who walks up to a person on the street and blows their brains out with a shotgun. I don''t think she committed a crime at all.

I don't think there is a point where the fetus suddenly becomes a person, it's a continues process. And I don't think parents of IVF babies are accessory to multiple murders due to the unused fertilized eggs.

[me25422]

@TherionNLD so you are okay with killing an innocent human. saying a human lacks "personhood" is semantics. I can't justify taking the life of an innocent human. define person.

[TherionNLD]

@me25422 With "person" I mean a living human being that has been conscious, self-aware. For example if a baby is born without a brain I wouldn't consider it to be a person. If a siamese twin is born but one twin's head is missing I wouldn't consider that 2nd twin to be a person and for the same reason I don't consider a fertilized egg to be a person.

[me25422]

@TherionNLD i disagree that a baby is a conscious being and it certainly is not aware of itself. that is why we dont remember being a newborn. and if simply having a brain equalls personhood then what about those with brain damage or lobotomies. or what about people who are in a coma who are unaware and unconscious.

[TherionNLD]

@me25422 You don't think a baby is conscious? I know babies don't remember being a baby but they're certainly conscious, they cry! Read my definition of being a person again: "A living human being that has been conscious, self-aware." I put the words "has been" in there otherwise you could argue that going to sleep or fainting meant you stop a person, which would be ridiculous of course.

So the way I see it is: Personhood starts when consciousness starts, and it ends when you die.

[me25422]

@TherionNLD so your point is that its ok to kill an innocent human but not an innocent person. still sounds like semantics to me but whatever, im done.

[me25422]

@TherionNLD you are also assuming when consciousness start

[tbeld]

@TherionNLD I don't know exactly how you define conscious, but infants aren't really self-aware the first few months after birth.

[tbeld]

@TherionNLD If you had two 30 year old twins in comas where one was born that way and the other recently became that way, despite the fact they are indistinguishable only one would be a person? It seems strange to define something by what it was instead of what it is.

[me25422]

@TherionNLD you also contradicted yourself. 1st you said that a fetus is not a person and then you said that personhood is a continuous process. if it is a continuos process then the fetus is as much a person as at any other age. whats up now baby killer? just kidding peace.

[TherionNLD]

@me25422 lol, I don't think I contradicted myself. For example there's a ditch in the ground and it starts to rain: first the ditch gets wet, and a puddle of water will form eventually but there is no puddle of water as soon as the first drop of rain hits, it's a continues process.

Just because a process leads from A to B doesn't mean it's already B as soon as the process starts. I could think of some other examples but you probably get what I mean.

[tbeld]

@TherionNLD In the past it was incorrectly argued that blacks were human but not 100% equal to white people. That black people didn't pass the "looks like a person" test.

[me25422]

@TherionNLD okay if the mother is going to die than okay kill the fetus but if not then the scenario is no the same

[tbeld]

@TherionNLD I would choose number 2 because i would save an active 2 year old over a frozen 2 year old. If the choice was one adult in a coma and one alert child, i would save the alert child.

Also, the embryos have a low survivability. People would be less likely to save a terminally ill child but that doesn't mean that the terminally ill are less of a person.

I have herd it argued that a fetus is a parasite. What about?

1. Pregnant woman

2. Woman with tubeworm

[TherionNLD]

@tbeld Yeah, I've heard of the parasite argument and I think it's a silly argument, perhaps it has some merit in cases of rape though. I've also heard pro-lifers compare legal abortion to the holocaust which to me shows how strange a consistent pro-life position is.

[prochoicecliniescort]

@TherionNLD try googling - granthamcollection

[PreachReality]

This is one of the best presentations of the Pro Life view I have seen. Very well structured, holistic arguments. Great job.