https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BH8dM3xVr/
"Abortion Arguments Series: Day 2 of 10
"The fetus isn’t a person so it doesn’t have human rights"
In this 10 day series, I'm addressing the top 10 abortion arguments with non-religious rebuttals. (schedule and links in the comments to the other 9)
Yesterday we covered the biology. Many pro-choice people agree the unborn child is alive, human, and a distinct organism.
Which is why they’ll argue this instead:
"Sure, it's biologically human. But being human isn't what gives someone rights. Being a person is. It's just a 'potential person'. A person needs more than DNA. It needs to be born, or viable, or conscious, or able to feel pain. An embryo is none of those things."
Let's take each of those four lines and see if any of them hold up.
—---------------
Line #1: Personhood begins at birth.
Tell me exactly what changes in the 30 seconds between being inside the womb and outside it.
The child's DNA doesn't change. Its brain activity doesn't change. Its heartbeat doesn't change. Its capacity for pain doesn't change. The only thing that changes is its location.
Clearly, traveling a few inches can't be what turns a non-person into a person.
—---------------
Line #2: Viability
They’ll claim: "Once the baby can survive outside the womb, then it's a person."
But think about what this actually measures.
When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, the Court put viability at about 28 weeks. Today, in a top hospital, a baby can be viable around 22 or 23 weeks.
So did babies at 24 weeks become people sometime in the last 50 years?
And in a rural hospital without a NICU, a baby born at 24 weeks may not survive. In a major city hospital, the same baby might. Does that child have personhood in one zip code but not another?
Viability doesn't measure anything about the child. It measures the medical technology available to the adults around it.
—---------------
Line #3: Consciousness or sentience
They’ll say: "A person needs to be aware. An embryo can't think or feel anything."
Well, you're not conscious when you're asleep. Or under anesthesia. Or in a temporary coma. Nobody thinks you stop being a person during those times.
We know it’s wrong to kill someone in those scenarios not because of what they’re experiencing right in that moment, but because it robs them of their future. Everything they would have thought, felt, loved, and done.
But here's the biggest problem with the "consciousness" argument.
How do we even know?
None of us remember being in the womb. None of us remember being a newborn either. How certain are you that you had consciousness even as a newborn?
So if consciousness is your threshold, at what exact moment does it switch on? And how confident are you in that answer?
Because if you can't say for certain, you're deciding life or death based on a guess.
That's like throwing a grenade into a room without knowing whether anyone's inside and just hoping nobody is. That's quite a gamble.
So notice the pattern. Every time someone raises the bar high enough to exclude the unborn, it starts excluding born people too.
Every one of these lines is a sliding scale. There's only one line that isn't a judgment call…
Fertilization.
It doesn't slide with technology or depend on someone's opinion: the moment a new human organism comes into existence is scientifically clear.
—---------------
Line #4: "It's a potential person."
This sounds sophisticated, but it isn't.
Here's the distinction that matters. A sperm is not a human being. An egg is not a human being. Those are potential. They're parts of someone else, and neither one will ever become a person on its own.
But once fertilization occurs, you don't have a potential anything. You have a living organism of the human species with it’s own DNA that will keep developing into an older version of itself.
And notice how selectively we apply this “potential person” reasoning.
Look at fetal homicide laws which we already have in the majority of states.
When a stranger kills an unborn child, prosecutors don't charge him with destroying a "potential person". They don’t just charge him with assault on the mother. They charge him with the separate death of the unborn child. In at least 38 states.
Somehow that same child is only "potential" when the mother is the one who wants to kill it.
To recap…
Every line drawn to exclude the unborn from personhood... birth, viability, consciousness, "potential," either slides with technology, can't be measured, or strips rights from born people too.
Fertilization is the only line that doesn’t move.
If you can't say exactly when a human being becomes a person, the answer isn't "so it's fine to kill it." It's "don't throw the grenade."
Tomorrow I'll address: "Abortion is healthcare." "
So this person is right that there's no dispute, really, that the unborn fetus is a living human fetus. That's not in question. The question is, indeed, personhood. Or at least that's one of the questions.
ReplyDelete1. This person, presumably a fella, as they usually are, is saying we don't know that the fetus 30 seconds before birth isn't a human. Rather he asked the question, "What changes in those last 30 seconds?"
He then says "Clearly, traveling a few inches can't be what turns a non-person into a person."
But that's not objective proof of any sort. The thing is, we just don't objectively know. We all agree that once a baby is born it is a living human being with some rights, personhood. What we don't authoritatively and objectively know and can't agree upon is: IS there at some point in the womb that that fetus gains human rights? That is an answer that remains a question that remains unanswered.
2. The second question that we don't have an objective authoritative answer to is regarding the notion that human rights are graduated. The 2-year-old has no right to self-determination. The 2-year-old has no right to live autonomously or drive a car, etc. There are all sorts of rights in childhood that children don't have that we do have as an adult.
Is there not rationally a presumed continuance of this limitation of rights into fetushood? There just is no objective answer to this. This guy may be confident in his position but it is his position. He does not get to speak for everyone on this point. Different religions and different people have different ideas about personhood. Why would his singular opinion outweigh everyone else's?
Answer, it doesn't or shouldn't.
He does fine as far as it goes but he doesn't deal with these questions, which undermines his arguments and theories.
Dan
"So this person is right that there's no dispute, really, that the unborn fetus is a living human fetus."
DeleteHow reasonable of you to accept and acknowledge this reality and agree with the scientific consensus.
1. So, what is your answer? What Changes between the human baby in the change of location between the birth canal and being held by it's mother? By all means, demonstrate that his premise is incorrect. Answer his question(s). Simply asserting that we "don't objectively know) is merely an excuse that enables laws like what MA just passed which allow abortion up to the moment of birth. It's just an excuse to kill babies that are born alive during a botched abortion.
It's not intended to be "objective truth", it's intended to point out that the pro abortion folx insist (as an objective fact) that the baby is NOT a "person" in in the hour before birth but somehow becomes one by traveling less than a foot from one place to another.
Is it not an important question, "IS there at some point in the womb that that fetus gains human rights?"? Is it not a question that those who want to abort a unique, human, child up to the very moment of birth should answer?
Why is there not a definitive answer from the pro abortion side?
2. What nonsense. What we are really talking about in this conversation is one single right, life. Without life, any other rights are irrelevant. If I grant that the right of "self determination" is a right (as you assert), then isn't the entire process that leads to birth an example of nature/biology/YHWH/evolution engaging in "self determination" to perpetuate the human species? Can we not presume that the unborn human baby would prefer to not be dismembered and have it's brain sucked out right before birth?
"Is there not rationally a presumed continuance of this limitation of rights into fetushood?"
Yes, there are rights that accrue with age. But the right to life, is foundational to every other right. That is the only right that matters to this discussion. By depriving an unborn human of it's right to life, you automatically deprive it of all rights. FYI, "fetus.phoetus" is merely a descriptive term that indicates one (of many) stages of natural human development. It's a HUMAN fetus, not just a fetus. It's a HUMAN "clump of cells". Oh, you are a "clump of cells" also.
"He does fine as far as it goes but he doesn't deal with these questions, which undermines his arguments and theories."
The point of the series of posts he is doing is to "deal with" the questions he got from his initial post. His comment section is wide open for people to ask any question they like, and he has a history of answering questions. So, your entire concluding premise is false. It's merely using your presumptions base on only the text of the post, not on objective reality.
That is why I always include the link to the source. If you want to ask these questions (not that they are original or particularly interesting) of the author, feel free. That's on you.
I'll simply note that you pretending that "there is no objective answer..." or the "different religions/people have..." actually answers the questions he's asked or makes a counter argument somehow means that his argument somehow "fails" is a cop out. By all means, prove your assertions.
The simple reality is that MA is only the most recent state to pass a law allowing abortion up to the moment of birth. So, given that reality that it is legally permissible to abort a human child literally 30 seconds before it is born, it seems reasonable to ask the question, "What changes?" in that short period of time and over that short distance.
You asserting that no answer exists, doesn't mean that no answer exists.
"But that's not objective proof of any sort."
DeleteYet, in states like MA that matter of a few inches and a few minutes is the legal dividing line between life and death. Should we not have some level of understanding of this matter before we codify the killing of a baby minutes and inches before birth?
"The 2-year-old has no right to self-determination. The 2-year-old has no right to live autonomously or drive a car, etc."
1. You cannot objectively prove either of these claims, but please try.
2. There is not right to drive a car.
"Is there not rationally a presumed continuance of this limitation of rights into fetushood?"
I would assume that you would agree that every living human being has the right to continue to live. If that is the case, the unborn child is a living human being and therefore should have the right to continue to live. By what standard would you deny the right of a living human being to continue to live?
Craig...
ReplyDelete"So, what is your answer? What Changes between the human baby in the change of location between the birth canal and being held by it's motrari"ty1. Reality: abortions an hour or even a day or even a week before a baby is to be born are statistically nonexistent. From AI:
Late-stage rarity: Third-trimester procedures happen in a tiny fraction of cases (under 0.3% of the total total), and terminations in the final month near term are practically non-existent as elective procedures, reserved strictly for severe medical emergencies.
2. When it does happen it is to save the life of the mother or because of severe fetal development problems. In such cases it's not a question of the personhood of the fetus, but what is best for the mother and for the child. Who do you think gets to decide?
When it does happen, it is to save the life of the mother or because of severe fetal development problems. In such cases, it's not a question of the personhood of the fetus, but what is best for the mother and for the child. Who do you think gets to decide?
The vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. Why don't we deal with that question? In such cases, who do you think should get to decide the personhood of the fetus and what rights that fetus has?
Dan
Whether they are currently rare or not, is not the issue. The issue is that they are LEGAL.
DeleteSo, answer the question, what changes in those few minutes and few inches?
You know what else is extremely rare? Abortions for rape, invest, and to save the mother’s life. Yet that’s what y’all use to justify the other 99% of abortions.
2. In those exceedingly rare occasions, the best option is a C-section. At least according to doctors.
What an interesting line of attack. You choose to not even attempt to answer the question, but ask me the same question multiple times expecting me to do what you won’t.
FYI, (per US founding documents) rights are inalienable and given by the Creator, not granted or removed at a whim by the government or a patent.
The notion that personhood is a decision for an individual to make for convenience is absurd and contrary to the personhood argument being made.
By all means, let’s apply your logic to grandma in a coma now.
C
"Who do you think gets to decide?"
Delete1. As noted, (per multiple OBs) there is no medically necessary reason to abort an almost fully gestated human child in the third trimester.
2. Under the (incredibly rare) circumstances you mention, the medical procedure recommended is called a Cesarean section. You make be familiar with this procedure.
3. Your question is vague, so I'll try to cover a couple of possible options.
A. The mother, father, and doctor would likely be the ones to choose how best to handle this incredibly rare medical situation. The most likely medical recommendation would be a Caesarean section to deliver the baby.
B. I cannot see how anyone gets to arbitrarily decide whether or not another human being has achieved personhood. I cannot imagine a situation where death is ever "best for the child", despite the arguments put forth by Lindsey Clancy's sycophants. If, it is possible for one human to choose to bestow personhood on another, then what would stop someone like Clancy from arguing that she has removed personhood from her children and that they we just "clumps of cells"?
"Why don't we deal with that question?'
1. Because we now have a growing number of states which have legalized abortion at any time, for any reason, up to the point of birth. For some reason I object to killing a viable, 38 week old child in it's mother's womb at the whim of the mother.
2. Who says we aren't? Over 99% of abortions are for the convenience of the mother or father. Less than one % are for rape/incest/risk of maternal death.
3. One of the excuses given for abortions at any stage is that the individual, unique, growing, developing, human child is not a person.
4. If, as you insist, it is impossible to determine when personhood and the right to life begin to attach to an individual, unique, growing, developing, human child how is it possible to argue that they are not persons? It seems like knowledge of when personhood begins is critical to making the personhood argument.
"In such cases, who do you think should get to decide the personhood of the fetus and what rights that fetus has?"
As noted, the US founding documents are clear that human rights come from our Creator. I'll go with the correct answer being that our Creator is the one who gets to decide when personhood begins. But, given your assertion that there is no definitive answer to when personhood begins, why would you then make the leap that bestowing personhood is somehow a decision that one human gets to make for another? Under your logic (presumably that the mother gets to decide when personhood begins) then why could Lindsey Clancy not argue that her dead children lacked personhood? Professor Peter Singer (Yale I believe) is quite adamant that personhood does not attach until years after birth, do you agree with him?
Craig...
ReplyDelete"Why is there not a definitive answer from the pro abortion side?"
Because a definitive answer is simply not possible, not authoritatively, not objectively. Do you recognize that reality?
Dan
Says you, speaking for the entire pro abortion side.
DeleteIf there’s no definitive moment when personhood magically appears, how can anyone make the “it’s not a person” claim definitively?
"Do you recognize that reality? "
DeleteNo, I do not. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one human is making a life or death decision for another human when they cannot possibly know whether or not the human they want to kill is a person. Let's say it's a 50/50 chance that the baby to be killed is a person. Is it a moral/rational choice to kill that baby which has a 50/50 chance of being a person?
Why, is simply being a unique, individual, developing, human being not enough for the most basic right to live to attach? Why add some vague "personhood" requirement? If we don't know when it starts, what else don't we know about it? If we don't know when it starts, how do we know that it exists at all?
I'm not sure what you're not understanding. They can't. It's an unanswerable question with the data we have on hand. Some religions disagree with your religion and some philosophies disagree with your philosophies. Neither one can prove their opinions.
ReplyDeleteI'm answering your questions. Feel free to start answering mine. Do you acknowledge that neither you nor the person who does not believe that a fetus has a soul can objectively prove their positions? It's a simple reality-based question.
Speaking of...
"So, answer the question, what changes in those few minutes and few inches?"
I DID answer the question. Read my response again and read for understanding.
Dan
If it’s “unanswerable” how can you or anyone else make the claim that “a fetus is not a person”?
DeleteIf there’s no definitive answer, why is the pro side so confident in their claims that the baby is not a person?
If you claim there is no definitive answer, then maybe Clancy’s children weren’t all persons.
As personhood seems to be a legal construct, not a metaphysical one, it seems like defining it would be of some importance.
No one is making a religious argument at all, so I’m not sure why you introduce it. Likewise, why introduce the notion of a soul?
I’m unaware of the “fetus has a soul” argument being made, perhaps you could provide an example of that argument.
If that was your answer “It’s an unknowable mystery.”, then y’all are making some significant claims based on an unknowable mystery.
I do like your insistence that rights and personhood are granted by the “owner” of the child. It opens up some interesting doors, that I’ll explore when I’m not on my phone.
Likewise I’ll deal with your question when I have time and am not on my phone.
C
"Do you acknowledge that neither you nor the person who does not believe that a fetus has a soul can objectively prove their positions?"
DeleteIf the premise behind your question is True, which is currently unproven, then why would anyone choose to err on the side of killing an individual, unique, growing, living, human being if there is any possibility of it having a "soul".
Is someone asserts that no human being in utero is a "person" would they not be required to provide proof that their claim is factually accurate?
Is the "no soul" side can't prove it's position, why is there an assumption that their position is correct?
There are many things that we cannot "prove" yet functionally accept and live as if they are True, this very well could be one of those things.
This question seems to apply equally to both sides, maybe you should answer it as well.
"If it’s “unanswerable” how can you or anyone else make the claim that “a fetus is not a person”?"
ReplyDeleteSpeaking for myself I'm not.
"If there’s no definitive answer, why is the pro side so confident in their claims that the baby is not a person?"
We're not. We're confident that we don't know the answer and therefore are leaving it to the people who are actually involved. What do you propose? That YOU make the decision for everybody? The pervert you voted for?
Dan
Unfortunately there are millions more people out there who regularly make that claim. So, you can pat yourself on the back for dodging that reality, or you can acknowledge that those who make that claim are objectively wrong to do so.
DeleteNow, if personhood is the defining characteristic that makes abortion wrong, then why would folx on your side of the aisle legalize it up to the moment of birth?
Is that not an acknowledgment that personhood magically appears at birth?
There you go, speaking for other people again. Why not stop the royal we bullshit and speak for yourself?
No,
No.
I opposed SCOTUS legislating from the bench, I supported SCOTUS striking down Roe, I support it being decided at the state level as it always should have been.
I appreciate you confirming that you believe that the mother has the sole discretion to give or remove a basic human right, with absolutely no idea whether or not the baby is a person. (You at least agree with the science that it’s a living human being). Or no idea when personhood appears, what it is, and presumably no reason not to abort if it is a person.
"We're not. We're confident that we don't know the answer and therefore are leaving it to the people who are actually involved."
DeleteBy all means, prove these claims to be factually True. Or retract them. As noted Professor Peter Singer vehemently disagrees with you, why should I believe your claims over his?
You seem to be proposing a standard that leaves the decision about when personhood attaches to "the people who are actually involved", am I correct in my understanding of your position. Failure to answer this question will result in my concluding that I have accurately understood your position and moving on from that point.
"What do you propose?"
For starters, I'd propose that those who are making the "personhood" argument provide definitive answers as to when "personhood" attaches so that everyone is clear on what they specifically are arguing. I'd propose that you clarify your seeming position as noted above. I'd propose that we err on the side of "personhood" when deciding to kill a human being.
"That YOU make the decision for everybody?"
No.
"The pervert you voted for?"
No.
Likewise I’ll deal with your question when I have time and am not on my phone...
ReplyDeleteQuestionS. Plural.
Fair enough.
That’s the difference between us. I’m not demanding and complaining when you don’t answer my question on my schedule. I usually give you enough time to have answered before I say anything. Until you start bitching, then all bets are off.
DeleteDo whatever you want, you will no matter what I do.
I'll believe it when I see it. I suspect that your "deal with" will be a lot if repeating "We don't know" or complaining about the questions, with very few actual answers.
DeleteUntil you start opposing deliberate killings, like those that happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of people that we knew to be living human beings, including babies, and the extrajudicial killings of people in boats off the coast of Venezuela, it's hard to take your concern about human life and respect for it seriously. You should know that. That is, you're starting off with no credibility because you can't defend the right to life for actual living human beings who are already born, including babies.
ReplyDeleteDan
I’m not going to abort this despite the many problems with it. I’ll have to give you credit, it’s a creative and interesting way to give yourself an excuse to avoid answering questions down the road.
DeleteAs I’ve addressed this idiocy and how out of context it is, I see no reason to deal with it further.
I’ll leave it up in case anyone wants to ridicule it.
Because there is no difference at all between a (per you) sinless, perfect, good, unborn, living, unique, individual, human being and those who were engaged in or supported a war which saw their country engage in atrocities. Or between drug smugglers who were interdicted under current international maritime law, and the innocent, unborn, human baby.
DeleteYou do love a good false equivalence though.
This is a stupid line of BS, so don't expect any further engagement with it. My suggestion is that you spend your time actually answering the questions that have been asked instead of pursuing this line of bullshit.
Craig...
ReplyDelete"I usually give you enough time to have answered before I say anything.."
1. And nothing that I said was about rushing you to answer questions. I merely noticed that you could answer questions too, the way I'm answering your questions. I gave you no timeline. I was not rushing you. That you read into my words incorrectly that I was rushing you is on you and further testimony of your reading comprehension deficits.
2. ...says the guy who literally deleted my answer to the very question you asked because I waited for half an hour before I posted it. Again it's hard to take you seriously.
Dan
1. Yeah, that just slipped out.
Delete2. I was quite clear about why I aborted your comment. Perhaps you should have read and paid attention rather than making shit up.
1. To clarify, you complaining about my “not answering your questions”, just slipped out. Not my response.
DeleteThere, all of your questions answered. Your turn. Take your time, there are a few.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to become Dan and start demanding immediate answers to my questions, yet it has now been a couple of days without the answers Dan promised. I hope that he is OK.
ReplyDeleteI'm very pleased that Dan seems to be recovered from whatever kept him away for the last 4 days. As noted above, I was concerned for him. I certainly hope that he will be so kind as to return to this thread and fulfill his promises as he has time.
ReplyDeleteTwo things. 1 Dan is clearly OK and back to engaging on various blogs. 2. Dan's promise to answer all of the questions asked here has gone by the wayside. Nothing surprising in that, but I do feel that it is worthwhile to point out after Dan's insistence that he would definitely answer questions here.
ReplyDelete