Lets look at abortion then:
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th Ed.)(Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud, W. B. Sanders Company, Philadelphia, PA, 1998), which asserts:
“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte is fertilized by a sperm.” (page 2)
More to the point, the authors write:
“Human development begins at fertilization [with the joining of egg and sperm, which] form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized…cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (page 10)
The authors of another embryology textbook:
Human Embryology and Teratology (Third Ed.)(Ronan O’Ramilly and Fabiola Muller (Willey-Liss, New York, NY, 2001), also state on page 8 that upon the completion of fertilization:
“a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed.”
So the pro-abortion position that a fetus is not human is anti-science; pro-abortionists maintain that a fetus at some arbitrary stage of development magically becomes human – this is a metaphysical claim, in principle unobservable and clearly against the empirical evidence. This position, therefore, does not reveal when a fetus becomes human but a personal preference for when we want to ACCEPT the child’s humanity. Abortion is therefore also anti-reason – it is the support of the killing of an innocent human and this is the absolute test case for rationality. If you do not know why it is wrong to take innocent human life then there is nothing I can say to you.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
I liked Martin's comment over at Secular Right:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are gun owners mentally ill?
Some anti-gun people think owning a gun is a sign of some kind of mental abnormality. According to General Social Survey data, gun owners ...
-
Which factor reduces family size the most? Below are the standardized OLS regression coefficients for a sample of whites ages 40-59: Stand...
-
More on trust: As a follow-up to the last post, I wondered about the level of trust in Asian and Muslim countries. Based on World Values Sur...
-
The plot thickens: As a follow-up to the last post, I wanted to see if the risk of arrest varies by hair color. I found that people with red...
You forget infanticide is an accepted right of parents in some cultures.
ReplyDeleteOf course all "pro choice" advocates forget the same thing so your criticism applies to them.
My own position is that I would not want to live in a human ecology where abortion was practiced but where infanticide by the parents is accepted.
However, I would also defend to the death the right of others to allow neither or both, or the reverse of my preference (which is the present regime's preference).
What I find objectionable about the current regime is the abuse of the 14th Amendment, and not just in the case of "pro choice" opinions such as Roe v Wade.
It's just a fancy circular argument. Obviously if you start out with the assumption that it's wrong to kill any innocent "human life" than abortion is wrong.
ReplyDeleteMaking important moral decisions based on word games ("Zygotes are technically human organisms! And clearly they're innocent!") is silly... unless you've reached your conclusion before you began, that is.
Yes, what JA said. Plus what Carl Sagan said:
ReplyDeleteAbortion: Is it Possible to be both "Pro-life" and "Pro-Choice"?
Sagan's piece is orders of magnitude more thoughtful than the simple-minded Christian approach to the subject, where the conclusions have indeed been reached before the questioning even began.
"Zygotes are technically human organisms!"
ReplyDeleteTechnically. Said one guard to the other as they herded them into the gas chamber, "Well sure, technically they're human."
pro-abortionists maintain that a fetus at some arbitrary stage of development magically becomes human
ReplyDeleteFalse. There is a difference between human biology and human rights under the law. Setting birth as a boundary is far closer to biology than other arbitrary legal boundaries like turning 16, 18, or 21 - or even 25 in the case of rental car agencies - but it's still a legal line. The law is not obliged to set the legal line at any particular biological point, and as Jim has pointed out, even infanticide is often accepted. (At least two languages that I know of have distinct names for ghosts of infants abandoned to the elements.) Throughout history, unborn humans have enjoyed fewer legal protections than free-breathing humans. Such distinctions are even codified in the Bible.
The pro-life position that human biology is immediately and unequivocally linked to legal protections and overrides all other considerations is as radical a social invention as gay marriage.
Parents have some obligations to support their children, but their obligations are not unlimited. They are not legally obliged to donate their own organs or even blood to their children, not even if the child's life depends upon it. In short, children have no claim upon the physical substance of their parents, no more than any human being has such an claim upon the substance of any other human being. Therefore, a fetus, though it is indeed an innocent human being, does not have the asserted rights against its mother. Though of course, like any other human being, it should be entitled to the state's protection against outside assailants and against any state attempts to require its abortion.
ReplyDeleteTechnically. Said one guard to the other as they herded them into the gas chamber, "Well sure, technically they're human."
ReplyDeleteSee, there wasn't any "technically" about that. They were ACTUALLY human. Not ha-ha-let's-pretend-we-can't-tell-the-difference-between-a-zygote-and-an-adult "human."
Biological considerations were included in the Roe v. Wade decision. The term viability was used to create a guideline for states that might want to limit abortion after viability. The court used a thin veneer of science in the abortion discussion. Biology is often used in legal issues when dealing with those who cannot take care of themselves. Low IQ capital murder convicts can be spared the death penalty due to their incapacity, but a kid can't beat the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteWho cares? Most abortions are committed by Democrats.
ReplyDeleteHe told her that the watch would stay with her until he came back. The sound of the watch was his fine-sounding words. He promised he would come back and marry her.[url=http://www.sunglassescool.com/okey-sunglasses.html]okey sunglass[/url]
ReplyDeleteRolex has excellent styles for both males and females, and the price ranges enormously so that most consumers can have a satisfying Rolex. This ladies¡¯ Rolex President is the ideal watch for the excellent females. It is made of 18k yellow gold, including the crown and the flutes bezel. it has the custom champagne diamond dial with 10 round cut diamonds. The crystal is of scratch-resistant sapphire conversion. The President Bracelet is powerful, giving the watch a modern look. It is the synonym of luxury and elegance and is suitable for the finest tastes. Some other popular dial colors including silver and white and mother of pearl are also provided. The consumers can choose according to personal taste. This style is very popular among today¡¯s young professional women.