Abortion: Genocide in the Womb

C

Caroljeen

Well-known member
This is from:

Abortion: Genocide in the Womb​

by
Jason Dulle
http://onenesspentecostal.com/abortion.htm

"Is the unborn a human being, or not? If the unborn are not human beings, no justification for abortion is necessary; however, if the unborn are human beings, no justification is adequate. I am going to argue that the unborn are human beings, and as such they are entitled to the same right to life shared by all other human beings. My argument is as follows:

(1) It is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being
(2) Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being
(3) Therefore, abortion is wrong
Click to expand...
If the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. Anyone who will deny the conclusion, then, must deny the veracity of at least one of the premises.

Most people agree with the first premise. It is a universally accepted moral premise. Those who argue for abortion rights usually take exception with the second premise, namely that the unborn are human beings. It is claimed that no one knows when life begins, but this is not true. The disciplines of science and philosophy are decisive on this matter. The unborn are human beings from the moment of conception."

To read the rest of the article, go to the link noted above.
 
M

mikeT

Well-known member
The answer to the question of when a human being comes into existence is primarily a question of biology (science).
Click to expand...

This is fundamentally wrong. Science can answer the question of when human life comes into existence, but the question of when that life becomes a "being" is very much a societal / ethical one. The answer can be informed by science, but it is fundamentally NOT scientific.

A human being is one to which society (which itself is made up of human beings) grants rights it is willing to protect and enforce. The right to life, the right to marry, the right to speak without fear of government censorship, etc.

Only within the last century (and some say only since the 50s) have some Americans begun to assert that the unborn have a right to life. Prior to that, abortion was seen as an unfortunate-but-necessary evil. Biology certainly hasn't changed in that time, but the sense of which kinds of human life deserve which rights certainly has.

And that's my problem with the quoted text above. Science doesn't determine which people have what rights; human societies do. To misunderstand this to base the author's article on a crumbled foundation.
 
C

Caroljeen

Well-known member
mikeT said:
This is fundamentally wrong. Science can answer the question of when human life comes into existence, but the question of when that life becomes a "being" is very much a societal / ethical one. The answer can be informed by science, but it is fundamentally NOT scientific.

A human being is one to which society (which itself is made up of human beings) grants rights it is willing to protect and enforce. The right to life, the right to marry, the right to speak without fear of government censorship, etc.

Only within the last century (and some say only since the 50s) have some Americans begun to assert that the unborn have a right to life. Prior to that, abortion was seen as an unfortunate-but-necessary evil. Biology certainly hasn't changed in that time, but the sense of which kinds of human life deserve which rights certainly has.

And that's my problem with the quoted text above. Science doesn't determine which people have what rights; human societies do. To misunderstand this to base the author's article on a crumbled foundation.
Click to expand...
Have you read the entire article in which Dulle backs up this claim?
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
mikeT said:
This is fundamentally wrong. Science can answer the question of when human life comes into existence, but the question of when that life becomes a "being" is very much a societal / ethical one. The answer can be informed by science, but it is fundamentally NOT scientific.

A human being is one to which society (which itself is made up of human beings) grants rights it is willing to protect and enforce. The right to life, the right to marry, the right to speak without fear of government censorship, etc.

Only within the last century (and some say only since the 50s) have some Americans begun to assert that the unborn have a right to life. Prior to that, abortion was seen as an unfortunate-but-necessary evil. Biology certainly hasn't changed in that time, but the sense of which kinds of human life deserve which rights certainly has.

And that's my problem with the quoted text above. Science doesn't determine which people have what rights; human societies do. To misunderstand this to base the author's article on a crumbled foundation.
Click to expand...
Naah. Most of this forum established the offspring is a human being. You have been posting during the debate and you didnt object.
You are also wrong about the history.
I am for the Abortion Act 1967 but vehemently against pro-choice abortion.
1967 !
 
M

mikeT

Well-known member
Caroljeen said:
Have you read the entire article in which Dulle backs up this claim?
Click to expand...
The entire article? No. I stopped when Dulle started treating concepts like "human" and "human being" as the same thing.

Language is important, and Dulle is making use of ambiguity to ignore the distinction fatal to his argument. A zygote may be the beginning of a human being, but it is not itself a human being. An acorn is the beginning of a tree, but it isn't a tree; a larva is the beginning of a wasp, but it isn't a wasp; a seed is the beginning of a flower, but it isn't a flower. Human skin is human, but it isn't a human being.

I'm not dismissing the entirety of his essay. I'm simply saying that his unwillingness to use language accurately undermines the credibility/veracity of some of his core claims. Science does-not and can-not be the arbiter of what constitutes a human being, in part because it's not a scientific term.

No matter how much he writes, his proofs/demonstration cannot erase the fact that he cited the following as support for his claim that a fetus is a human being:


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology: ​

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."​

None of this is support for his argument, because a zygote isn't a human being. If it was - and more importantly, if Christians believed it was - then abortion would be a drop in the bucket of a sea of lost human beings. Between one third and one half of all zygotes fail to implant - but pro-life supporters never bemoan this tragic loss of human life.

This is because they don't consider zygotes to be human beings. No one does.
 
Last edited:
Eightcrackers

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Caroljeen said:
Most people agree with the first premise. It is a universally accepted moral premise.
Click to expand...
I reject it - an example besides abortion, where this is acceptable, is assisted dying.

My pro-choice position is not based on the idea that the unborn is not human.
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
mikeT said:
The entire article? No. I stopped when Dulle started treating concepts like "human" and "human being" as the same thing.

Language is important, and Dulle is making use of ambiguity to ignore the distinction fatal to his argument. A zygote may be the beginning of a human being, but it is not itself a human being. An acorn is the beginning of a tree, but it isn't a tree; a larva is the beginning of a wasp, but it isn't a wasp; a seed is the beginning of a flower, but it isn't a flower. Human skin is human, but it isn't a human being.

I'm not dismissing the entirety of his essay. I'm simply saying that his unwillingness to use language accurately undermines the credibility/veracity of some of his core claims. Science does-not and can-not be the arbiter of what constitutes a human being, in part because it's not a scientific term.

No matter how much he writes, his proofs/demonstration cannot erase the fact that he cited the following as support for his claim that a fetus is a human being:


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology: ​

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."​

None of this is support for his argument, because a zygote isn't a human being. If it was - and more importantly, if Christians believed it was - then abortion would be a drop in the bucket of a sea of lost human beings. Between one third and one half of all zygotes fail to implant - but pro-life supporters never bemoan this tragic loss of human life.

This is because they don't consider zygotes to be human beings. No one does.
Click to expand...
The article you gave says human life begins at fertilized embryo. What other human life ia there than a human being. Of course its a human being. You didnt seem to have an objection when person was being argued.
 
C

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Eightcrackers said:
I reject it - an example besides abortion, where this is acceptable, is assisted dying.

My pro-choice position is not based on the idea that the unborn is not human.
Click to expand...
Which makes it all the more repugnant.

yes, the woman's right over the right of the unborn.

I don't need a human law to define right vs wrong.
 
A

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Eightcrackers said:
Nor do I.

You think I'm wrong; I think you are.
And we can't go any further than that.
Click to expand...
The science on this matter is correct. Your wrongness disagrees with science.

It is impossible to find a pro-deather that can use a heart monitor and prove the baby is not an alive human,..until killed during abortion.

Can't find in all the years here a pro-deather that could prove the sonograms were wrong, it is not huiman.

I have had my gloved hands on a live human baby's body before delivered via C-section. You have not even watch one.
 
Eightcrackers

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Authentic Nouveau said:
The science on this matter is correct. Your wrongness disagrees with science.
Click to expand...
Science does not tell us that abortion is wrong.
Authentic Nouveau said:
It is impossible to find a pro-deather that can use a heart monitor and prove the baby is not an alive human,..until killed during abortion.

Can't find in all the years here a pro-deather that could prove the sonograms were wrong, it is not huiman.
Click to expand...
My pro-choice position stipulates that the unborn is human - it simply has no bearing, for me.

Human or not, I would still be pro-choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top