A response to Aristophrenium's Adam on "How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric"

The entire exchange:

How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric


His comments are numbered and bolded:

1. "Potential? This whole argument is about what the unborn IS. Not that one day it may become president. How is value ascribed that way? So far all you have done is disagree with our points and provided very little in response."

I outlined exactly what I think the unborn is, and provided reasons for thinking in this manner. It is not an independent entity and has no "human rights" until it leaves the womb and is responsible for its own physical development. It isn't hard to understand.



2. "Your “proof” that the unborn has no rights, is not valuable, is not a person etc, is that it receives its nourishment from its mother. How does the source of nourishment determine what it is?"

First, I never said it wasn't valuable - quite the contrary. I said the potential to become human is important and should weigh heavily on an abortion decision.

Second, it's not only nourishment from the mother. The unborn is nearly 100% dependent on the mother ALONE to guide its development from a fetus into a full grown child. This is a bit different than the simple "nourishment" that you make it out to be. The mother and unborn undergo physiological changes, and have a special physical relationship that no other person can replicate. She absolutely has to take this responsibility if the child is carried to term - she can't delegate her responsibilities. That's why it isn't a person yet - it's not responsible for its development and vital physical functions and depends NECESSARILY on its mother for nearly everything.



3. "You claim it is parasitic. And yet in this same conversation you claim that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes. Make up your mind."

First, the relationship is parasitic by definition in some aspects.
Second, how would those two cancel each other out? I don't see how having a parasitic relationship can prevent a person from doing something about it.



4. "Is it a parasite or is it part of her body?"

Let me make this clear for you, since you seem to construct false dichotomies around pretty often.

An unborn child is not a parasite. The relationship that the unborn child holds with its mother, however, can be parasitic in some aspects, such as the transfer of vitamins and hydration. Ever wonder why pregnant women are "eating for two"?

I'm not calling a fetus a ringworm, so let's get off the soapbox for a minute.



5. "We have demonstrated that the baby defends itself from its mothers T-cell attacks and has a distinct genetic human DNA code which you seem to agree with. So drop the “her body” rubbish."

And I came back to that same argument with the fact that differences in DNA don't change the fact that the unborn necessarily depends on the mother for all its vital life components and developments in utero. The unborn is an extension of her own physical systems, and this is physically demonstrable. I really don't understand how you can think an unborn child isn't part of a woman - I'd urge you to actually ask a pregnant woman about her experiences before spouting nonsense.



6. "HOW it happens is morally irrelevant to WHAT happens; the termination of a human life by an outside agency."

First, it's not termination of human life. It's the termination of what could be a human life. Difference.
Second, are you trying to make the point that punching an unwilling pregnant woman in the stomach is the same as a pregnant woman that makes a decision to get an abortion? Seriously?



7."After all, you said in an earlier comment that intention is irrelevant. “What does intention have to do with anything?” For the law to identify it as murder or manslaughter, it has to recognise the quality known as personhood and ascribe it to the unborn."

Don't quote mine. I said intention is irrelevant as to the nature of the unborn in regards to the pregnancy. This was a direct result of Mathew's question: "do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers?"

This is 180 degrees removed from an attacker that does harm to the mother and unborn by force, against her will.

Also, fetal homicide is already law in many states - which don't necessarily grant human rights to in utero fetuses, but recognize the potential for human life. It doesn't necessarily need to recognize the unborn as a seperate entity.



8. "You say this does not happen until it becomes its own “entity” apart from its mother. So therefore, under your worldview, no instance of the termination of the unborn can be considered murder or manslaughter, if you are going to be consistent."

Why are you just repeating yourself? I addressed this already in the last post.

See here:"The potential for the unborn to live should be weighed, but in relation to the mother's physical and mental well being, not necessarily a premeditated act of murder. It doesn't make it any less malicious in the least however."



9. "Further, this points to an inconsistency in the law, not my argument; that selective abortions are ok, but forced miscarriages are not."

It's actually funny that you can't see a difference between selective abortion and forced miscarriage. Funny in a disturbing way.



10. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Where do you get your medical data on the brain development and subsequent emotion and pain processing of the unborn?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/brain-development-in-fetus.html



11. "The brain and spinal cord begin to form at week 3 and structure has been established by week 5; Well before most abortions are performed."

And the nervous system comes together in week 23, and only after that can the brain regulate body functions. Rudimentary concepts such as emotions or dreams are formed in week 27.




12. "So how can anyone say that there is no brain function, emotions or even a soul present. Hence my demolition analogy."

Your definition analogy still fails in the same way. I never said anything about brain activity, I said emotion, and I outlined the reasons why. In the first trimester, when most abortions are performed, the nervous system isn't even fully developed and the brain isn't even capable of developing neurons at that point.



13. "You completely missed my point. It was an analogy. "

And you missed the point of my analogy.



14. "My point is you don’t know for sure. So why kill what may be an innocent, human person with thoughts, feelings and emotions. You can’t know for sure. So why take the chance?"

First, this sounds like a weird Pascal's wager.

Second, I just gave you specific examples of how you can know what facets of physical development the unborn undergoes. It's not an unknown unknown. It's quite a studied topic. Here's a compilation of the studies performed:

http://primal-page.com/mf3-7.htm



15. "For starters it showed you a first trimester unborn human; what you thought only looked human in the third trimester."

And this isn't news to me, and nowhere did I say it ONLY resembles a child late in the pregnancy.




16. "And reality is not a “scare tactic”.Clearly if someone hasn’t seen the end result then they haven’t weighed all the options in the issue. Even a picture of what it looks like and how it moves etc would be beneficial in “weighing” up all the options. "

It is when you propagandize your views with added shock value to a public who doesn't necessarily like seeing a bloody fetus. Not to mention twisting the words of a civil rights leader and throwing in religious overtones. It's not educational or informational. It plays on emotions instead of facts and testimony. This is by the same types of people that hand out brochures of dead babies on college campuses and public parks trying to shove their ideology down everyone else's throat.

Perhaps they should make the woman wear her aborted fetus as a necklace, because after all, reality isn't a scare tactic.

You want to change the world? Find a pregnant woman that wants to abort and tell her you'll adopt her child and give it the home it deserves. Then do that a few times over. It would be a hell of a lot more change than watching videos of tiny baby parts next to quarters.