Abortion: Genocide in the Womb

Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
Caroljeen said:
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:


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.
Click to expand...
I have been away, so have not really had time to respond to this thread. I read the article, but I have to say that the main issue haas been highlighted already. What is meant by the term "human being " is neither properly defined nor consistently adhered to. The term is used in English in two different ways, with only a superficial connection which looks stronger than it is because for the most part the biological term human being, and the sociological term human being, refer to the same entity. Different aspects of that entity, to be sure, but for the most part both aspects are present. The exception is the unborn human being. Clearly this entity is biologically a human being. Saying otherwise would be absurd. Equally obviously throughout history and still in most places on earth, the unborn is not regarded as a sociological human being, what I refer to as a person. Whether it should be or not, is the nub of the abortion argument. That argument has nothing to do with the biological realities. Does our society consider the unborn as a member of society, s a person, as a sociological human being? No, it doesn't. Should it do so? In my opinion, no it shouldn't. Has human DNA got anything to do with it? No.
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
Temujin said:
I have been away, so have not really had time to respond to this thread. I read the article, but I have to say that the main issue haas been highlighted already. What is meant by the term "human being " is neither properly defined nor consistently adhered to. The term is used in English in two different ways, with only a superficial connection which looks stronger than it is because for the most part the biological term human being, and the sociological term human being, refer to the same entity. Different aspects of that entity, to be sure, but for the most part both aspects are present. The exception is the unborn human being. Clearly this entity is biologically a human being. Saying otherwise would be absurd. Equally obviously throughout history and still in most places on earth, the unborn is not regarded as a sociological human being, what I refer to as a person. Whether it should be or not, is the nub of the abortion argument. That argument has nothing to do with the biological realities. Does our society consider the unborn as a member of society, s a person, as a sociological human being? No, it doesn't. Should it do so? In my opinion, no it shouldn't. Has human DNA got anything to do with it? No.
Click to expand...
And could you put that into reality, in English for us?
 
C

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Temujin said:
I have been away, so have not really had time to respond to this thread. I read the article, but I have to say that the main issue haas been highlighted already. What is meant by the term "human being " is neither properly defined nor consistently adhered to. The term is used in English in two different ways, with only a superficial connection which looks stronger than it is because for the most part the biological term human being, and the sociological term human being, refer to the same entity. Different aspects of that entity, to be sure, but for the most part both aspects are present. The exception is the unborn human being. Clearly this entity is biologically a human being. Saying otherwise would be absurd. Equally obviously throughout history and still in most places on earth, the unborn is not regarded as a sociological human being, what I refer to as a person. Whether it should be or not, is the nub of the abortion argument. That argument has nothing to do with the biological realities. Does our society consider the unborn as a member of society, s a person, as a sociological human being? No, it doesn't. Should it do so? In my opinion, no it shouldn't. Has human DNA got anything to do with it? No.
Click to expand...
What criteria do you use to determine if the unborn should be considered a member of society?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
Caroljeen said:
What criteria do you use to determine if the unborn should be considered a member of society?
Click to expand...
I personally consider independence from the placenta to be the crucial criteria. The capacity to survive birth, take breath and live as a being in one's own right is how I would determine membership of society. I am a traditionalist in this, since birthdays are celebrated the world over, and have been for time immemorial. Both legal and religious practices celebrate birth as the arrival of a new society member. Once born, a baby can be seen, named, held up and celebrated. They are real, tangible and exist in their own right.
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
Temujin said:
I personally consider independence from the placenta to be the crucial criteria. The capacity to survive birth, take breath and live as a being in one's own right is how I would determine membership of society. I am a traditionalist in this, since birthdays are celebrated the world over, and have been for time immemorial. Both legal and religious practices celebrate birth as the arrival of a new society member. Once born, a baby can be seen, named, held up and celebrated. They are real, tangible and exist in their own right.
Click to expand...
You personally consider independence of the human being from its placenta as crucial, but nonetheless I am not aware of any legislation that is based on that. Since you support legal abortion you must also consider survivability outside the womb and sentience. .. anything really that you can use for the pretext.

when you say " a being in one's own right" what do you mean? Are some people who are born beings in their own right? Makes no sense to me, perhaps it will to Caroljeen

Sure once born, a baby can be seen, named, held up and celebrated and are real, tangible and exist in their own right, but the human being created in the womb can be seen on scan, named and celebrated and are real, tangible and exist in their own right, so what is your point?
 
C

Caroljeen

Well-known member
BMS said:
when you say " a being in one's own right" what do you mean? Are some people who are born beings in their own right? Makes no sense to me, perhaps it will to Caroljeen
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't make sense to me but he is using it to justify abortion. HIs stance is much milder than the few listed in the article that are willing to kill after birth up to possibly 9 months. I was shocked at that. I could feel my HR and BP go up just reading about their views.

The article I posted the link to in the OP has some great points about personhood. I don't have time at the moment to go in depth...I will respond to his post later.

I find abortion troublesome even when it comes to evolution. The numbers that Jason Dulle quoted in the article for world wide abortions are enough to make you wonder if abortion is the largest cause of death in humans in the world! How does a species continue to exist if our unborn are killed at this rate?
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
Caroljeen said:
No, it doesn't make sense to me but he is using it to justify abortion. HIs stance is much milder than the few listed in the article that are willing to kill after birth up to possibly 9 months. I was shocked at that. I could feel my HR and BP go up just reading about their views.

The article I posted the link to in the OP has some great points about personhood. I don't have time at the moment to go in depth...I will respond to his post later.

I find abortion troublesome even when it comes to evolution. The numbers that Jason Dulle quoted in the article for world wide abortions are enough to make you wonder if abortion is the largest cause of death in humans in the world! How does a species continue to exist if our unborn are killed at this rate?
Click to expand...
I will wait to hear your response to me, which I'm sure will be thoughtful and worth reading. To answer your last point, from a purely evolutionary point of view, the human species is incredibly successful. We are not short of population. In fact the size of the population is more of a threat to our species than almost anything else.
 
C

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Temujin said:
I will wait to hear your response to me, which I'm sure will be thoughtful and worth reading. To answer your last point, from a purely evolutionary point of view, the human species is incredibly successful. We are not short of population. In fact the size of the population is more of a threat to our species than almost anything else.
Click to expand...
Overpopulation isn't a threat to our species. We will just find other ways to kill the unwanted (the unborn, demented, the handicapped who rely on others, the mentally ill, those who are discriminated against, etc.) and bring down the population.

From the article, "Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at Harvard, suggests that we need a clear boundary to confer personhood on a human being and grant it a right to life. . . . [T]he right to life must come . . . from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people. Other traits include an ability to reflect on ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die." Once this arbitrary path is chosen, it easily becomes a slippery slope to what happened in Nazi Germany in the last century. Little by little, human life becomes devalued and what once was consider an atrocity now becomes accepted.

China's former policy to control the population backfired on them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/16/china-abortion-birth-rates/
 
Eightcrackers

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Caroljeen said:
I find abortion troublesome even when it comes to evolution. The numbers that Jason Dulle quoted in the article for world wide abortions are enough to make you wonder if abortion is the largest cause of death in humans in the world! How does a species continue to exist if our unborn are killed at this rate?
Click to expand...
Well... if births minus abortions exceeds the death rate, the population will still increase.
 
Eightcrackers

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
BMS said:
Sure once born, a baby can be seen, named, held up and celebrated and are real, tangible and exist in their own right, but the human being created in the womb can be seen on scan, named and celebrated and are real, tangible and exist in their own right, so what is your point?
Click to expand...
The former exists outside of the pregnant woman.
The latter does not.
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
Caroljeen said:
Overpopulation isn't a threat to our species. We will just find other ways to kill the unwanted (the unborn, demented, the handicapped who rely on others, the mentally ill, those who are discriminated against, etc.) and bring down the population.

From the article, "Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at Harvard, suggests that we need a clear boundary to confer personhood on a human being and grant it a right to life. . . . [T]he right to life must come . . . from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people. Other traits include an ability to reflect on ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die." Once this arbitrary path is chosen, it easily becomes a slippery slope to what happened in Nazi Germany in the last century. Little by little, human life becomes devalued and what once was consider an atrocity now becomes accepted.

China's former policy to control the population backfired on them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/16/china-abortion-birth-rates/
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure what point you are making here. I agree with your highlighted quote. I don't agree that it applies to the early foetus. Nor does your quote indicate that it should. Wee are not a continuous locus of consciousness, since there's a time before, and a time after that punctuate the existence of that locus. It is no accident that most people, if asked to describe those two punctuation points, would call them birth and death. The debate on abortion concerns whether we should treat the begining of the locus of consciousness as birth, conception or some point in between. It is not about what happens afterwards, so comparison with the Nazis or the like are just irrelevant.

At the other end of existence, many theists propose that the locus of consciousness continues after death. Most consider that the physical body becomes an empty shell and can be buried or cremated without moral compunction. Some cultures however, have continued to revere the body as the vessel in which the consciousness of their ancestors reside. They will keep the body near them, build their houses over the grave, or carry the body parts with them .

I see this as a parallel with the notion that personhood should be granted before birth. I can see that some believe it, and I respect that belief. But just as I would not want laws requiring non-believers to carry around the dead bodies of their ancestors, I don't want laws which impose beliefs around consciousness prior to birth to apply to those who do not share those beliefs. It is for society as a whole to decide what is reasonable, and from that what is lawful. It is reasonable, and in my view moral, to treat every born child, and every unborn foetus capable of surviving birth, as persons in their own right. It is not reasonable, nor in my view is it moral , to treat the early foetus as a person. No more than it would be to treat a cadaver as a person.

China's population control measures failed for the same reason that Stalin's attempt to reform agriculture failed. It was ill thought out and took no account of the needs and views of the people on which it was imposed. China has and continues to have a population problem. So does humanity as a whole. There are not enough resources on the earth for every human being to live in the standard enjoyed by westerners. If there's to be equality across the planet, you and I would have to take a massive cut in living standards. That isn't going to happen. Children will continue to starve while we throw away food. The larger the global population becomes, the more stark that divide. Add in further pressures on resources such as climate change, or wars and the result will be famine. Abortion has no part in the unfolding of this tragedy, which we can only delay and mitigate until new resources are found and developed.
 
Eightcrackers

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
BMS said:
Also everyone is a former and a latter at some point.
Click to expand...
Agreed... what's your point?

This OP's comparison to genocide is nonsensical, anyway - abortion is not some campaign being directed by a single person/agency to rid the world of unborns; every abortion is the result of an individual's decision.
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
Eightcrackers said:
Agreed... what's your point?
Click to expand...

The same as yours. Depends how one looks at it.

This OP's comparison to genocide is nonsensical, anyway - abortion is not some campaign being directed by a single person/agency to rid the world of unborns; every abortion is the result of an individual's decision.
Click to expand...
that is true, but is also towards a group of human beings, the unborn, which is where the genocide bit comes in. I think you are splitting hairs, for example the Nazis decided what fraction Jewish made human beings Jewish, so there is individual decisions there. Depends what criteria one wants to stand with
 
Eightcrackers

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
BMS said:
that is true, but is also towards a group of human beings, the unborn, which is where the genocide bit comes in.
Click to expand...
They are not being killed merely because they are unborn.
They are being killed because they are inside unwilling women.

If the pregnant woman doesn't want them there, they are an intruder, plain and simple.
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
Eightcrackers said:
They are not being killed merely because they are unborn.
They are being killed because they are inside unwilling women.

If the pregnant woman doesn't want them there, they are an intruder, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
The comparison of abortion to the Holocaust, similar to the declaration that abortion is murder, has the opposite effect of that intended, at least on me. I have a great deal of sympathy for those with a moral abhorrence of abortion, but the sympathy is eroded by these silly tropes. No, abortion is not in any way like the Holocaust. No, abortion is not murder. Those who declare otherwise make themselves appear so foolish that their point of view is no longer worth considering by those of a contrary view. And they know this, but persist. And that's the problem. Not that the gulf is so wide, but that there is no attempt to bridge it, just to prop up the position of one's own side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top