Pro life advocates claim that conception is the beginning of human life, making it the point at which human’s become morally relevant. Birth is just some event that happens later and has no bearing on things like rights. Thus, blastocysts deserve full legal protection that adult humans get and the death of a zygote ought to be weighed equally as the death of people outside the womb. It’s been repeatedly pointed out why this is either incorrect or irrelevant but this has failed to sway most pro lifers. So today I shall explore the implications of pro life reasoning were it actually sound.
What happens if we up the accuracy a bit and apply pro life reasoning? And by ‘up the accuracy’ I mean that we look at the actual beginning of a human’s life cycle. Pro lifers claim that its conception. But any high school biology student could tell you that there is a lot that has to happen before that. An egg has to be released by the female, which must then float down a long tube. During the brief period when this is happening, a sperm cell must travel from the male, through the birth canal, and meet up with the ovum. Only then can conception begin to take place. Thus, human life has an earlier chapter that pro lifers currently ignore.
Now you could point out that each of the gametes only have half the required chromosomes that ‘actual’ people have, but the response is the same as when its pointed out that blastocysts have no brain. According to Pro lifers such things are purely developmental issues, that have no bearing on person-hood. Physiology is nothing to base moral worth on, after all.
In fact any argument you could possibly come up with to say that the gamete is NOT a person, but a zygote is, there is a synonymous argument saying that the zygote is not a person, but a birthed human is. And since, for the purposes of this thought experiment, I’m granting the pro life position that the latter wouldn’t work, then I must also grant that the former wouldn’t work either.
Gametes fulfill the pro life criterion for human life and therefore moral worth. They are 100% human cells and their sole purpose is to develop into a separate human being, they are merely people one step back from zygotes. Conception is just some event that happens later and has no bearing on things like rights.
Can we go a step further? Well, I suppose we could look at oogonia in females and spermatagonia in males (the gametogonium that develop into their respective gametes) , but my grasp of biology starts getting hazy about that point, and so gametes are as far back as I can go right now. No matter, it is sufficient to reveal the absurdity of pro-life arguments.
So spermatogenesis and oogenisis (the procedures in which humans create gametes) are the actual beginnings of life, NOT conception, and the gamete (the spermazoa or the ovum) are therefore the initial receivers of human rights, protection, moral worth, etc. NOT zygotes. What would this mean?
Well, according to Pro life arguments, abortion is murder, as it is the knowing destruction of human life. Apply this to our current example and every single time a woman has a period, she is committing murder. Further, every time a male ejaculates, he is committing the mass genocide of approximately 80 million poor defenseless humans. Even if he were to impregnate someone with that ejaculation, that is still 79,999,999 deaths for one life. This is unacceptable. If Hitler somehow managed to increase the death toll of his holocaust tenfold (to approximate the deaths caused by a single male orgasm) but saved one single life in doing so, would that make everything alright? Not a chance.
By applying your arguments to a more accurate view of the life cycle, we see that after a lifetime of menstrual activity, each and every woman is responsible for more murders than our most notorious serial killers and that each time a male orgasms, he commits an atrocity ten times worse than the holocaust.
Is this sane? Is this rational? Is this something we should base legislation and governing policies on? Certainly not.
There is obviously a problem with the initial premise that humans obtain moral worth the instant their life cycle begins. I mentioned earlier that any reason one could come up with as to why a gamete is not a person, pro-lifers already have a synonimous argument to refute it (they just currently use it to claim person-hood for zygotes). But pro choice has an additional argument that a Pro lifer cannot use against the gamete activist. A birthed baby is a seperate, self-sustaining entity, who’s existence is not dependant on anyone elses. Birth is the true creation of the individual.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
107 comments
July 13, 2009 at 3:47 pm
The Intransigent One
LikeLike
July 13, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Godless American
Great video, wonderful post. Too bad pro-lifers won’t bother actually thinking about it.
LikeLike
July 14, 2009 at 10:02 am
SK
Excellent post, unique way to attack this issue. :) Awesome.
LikeLike
July 15, 2009 at 5:12 pm
'Dam
“There is obviously a problem with the initial premise that humans obtain moral worth the instant their life cycle begins.”
What pro-lifer says this? I’m not sure you can safely assume that the pre-conception steps are conveniently being ignored here.
As you point out, conception does not equal the true beginning of a process that may eventually net a life. But it is the point at which a life becomes possible and, very generally speaking, has the necessary ingredients to become one.
So I think that’s why a lot of people tend to regard that as the beginning of life . . . and therefor why a busted nut in itself is not genocide.
Not that I believe pro-lifers are correct (or necessarily wrong) on this point. Really, it depends on your definition of what constitutes life — and your ability to back that up.
LikeLike
July 16, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Mystro
“What pro-lifer says this?”
I laid out a pretty clear summary of the pro life argument at the beginning of the post and I don’t see how the sentence you quoted is a misrepresentation. If you want to claim that it is, say how. Or, if you disagree with my entire perception of the pro life argument, you still have to say why.
“As you point out, conception does not equal the true beginning of a process that may eventually net a life. But it is the point at which a life becomes possible….that’s why a lot of people tend to regard that as the beginning of life . ”
I’m confused as to how you can agree that conception is not the beginning, then assert that it is within a couple sentences without being blatantly self contradictory. And pro lifers definitely do not see conception as when life is possible, as you suggest, but when life actually begins. That blastocysts (and therefore gametes) are merely potential people is the pro choice view, which is why ‘busting a nut’ and abortion cannot constitute murder.
“Really, it depends on your definition of what constitutes life”
One of the main points of this post was that one’s definition of life (specifically, when it begins) is irrelevant to the issue. Being alive is a necessary condition to be of moral worth, to be sure, but my aim was to show that it is not a sufficient condition. You haven’t pointed out anything to show that I’ve failed in that.
LikeLike
January 28, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Lonna
I’m Pro-Life, and I believe that life starts when the gametes become one and start to multiply, making specialized cells. That’s what conception IS, not when the ovary spits out an egg or a man ejaculates inside a vagina. Come on. Your argument is good, but very shaky. I will never understand how someone can view creation like they would a zit popping up on their nose; as some annoyance that happened out of nowhere, having done nothing at all to deserve such a horrible occurance, and should be dealt with immediately.
You just don’t like being called a murderer.
LikeLike
January 28, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Mystro
“That’s what conception IS, not when the ovary spits out an egg or a man ejaculates inside a vagina.”
Yes, conception is the process of the two gametes joining (not moment, but process) and I never said it was otherwise. I challenged the “Pro-Life” view that life somehow begins at some point during this process. I was quite clear on this, so either you didn’t read carefully or you are purposefully misrepresenting my argument.
“I’m Pro-Life, and I believe that life starts when the gametes become one and start to multiply, making specialized cells.”
The purpose of my post was to point out statements like this one are morally irrelevant. The question you should be answering, if you actually wanted to refute my argument, is Why do you pick this seemingly arbitrary point of pre-natal development as the beginning of life over any other? Then you would have to provide reasons why this microscopic cell cluster is privy to the same moral worth as a born human. Lastly you would have to show why your reasons would not apply to individual sperm or ova.
“You just don’t like being called a murderer.”
You are right. I don’t like being called a murderer. Mainly because I am not a murderer. I would guess that you also don’t like being called a murderer, assuming that you aren’t one either. If there is a relevant point in there, I don’t see it.
“Your argument is good, but very shaky.”
How is it shaky? When debating rationally, one must follow up a claim like this with some sort of evidence. You have not done so.
I appreciate the comment and I invite you to respond again, but please read the post thoroughly first. Further, if you wish to continue making the “Pro-Life” case, make sure to actually include an argument instead of simply saying “I disagree. You are wrong”.
LikeLike
January 30, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Lonna
I read your ridiculous post quite clearly, and your argument is as weak as a fetus in a liberal.
How about we forget when conception starts, say there is no technology to allow us to see these clusters of cells, when then would you say life starts? To help you SEE my point, because I gather that you need ultimate proof to have a clue about the issue, let’s say there’s a woman who’s two months pregnant. She wants to keep her baby, and she’s HAPPY about it. Then someone comes along and attacks her, stabbing in her the stomach, killing the baby but not her. Would you then say that this was murder because she WANTED her baby?
Killing a human, whether in the womb growing or already born, is murder. The former is not punished as the latter would be, but there’s always atonement for everything. And since you’re here on Earth, with thoughts in your head and the ability to write, you’ve got to admit that the Pro-Life reasoning worked in your favor.
LikeLike
January 30, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Mystro
“Your argument is good….your argument is as weak as a fetus in a liberal.”
Wow. Self-contradiction wrapped up in meaningless simile all the while failing to meet any kind of criteria of an actual response. I even made it easy for you in my first response to you, outlining what a rational refutation would have to include. Your inability to follow step by step instructions on how to carry on a thoughtful debate should tell you something about the strength of your position.
As to your scenario of the stabbed woman, I would say no, that is not murder. It is an assault of a extremely severe nature on the woman. The injustice done to her in that case is immeasurable. Indeed, one could say it is as bad or worse than murder. But only to the woman, not the fetus.
Further, the idea that a human’s life starts at conception has nothing to do with me being here. My parents celebrate my existence on the anniversary of my birth, not my conception (I think you’ll find this to be the norm throughout society).
But if it was the case that the only reason that my mother allowed the blastocyst (that eventually became me) to grow in her womb was because of some social stigma that says women are not owners of their own bodies, that it is demanded of her to sacrifice her body, health, money, time, etc despite her wishes to do otherwise, I’d say she made the wrong choice. I would hate for any such misogynistic dogma to govern my mother’s actions. To put my well being over the freedom and happiness of my mother would be quite selfish. As it happens, she wanted to have me and things worked out rather well.
This is all beside the point, of course. Nothing you have said actually refutes the argument I laid out (again, to see how, look two posts up). I just wanted to point out that, besides being irrelevant, you are also wrong.
LikeLike
January 30, 2010 at 2:54 pm
The Arbourist
Mystro said: (I think you’ll find this to be the norm throughout society).
Jedi Arbourist says: There was a great disturbance in the force….someone just got owned.
Full marks Mystro. But back to a more substantive commentary:
Lonna said: Killing a human, whether in the womb growing or already born, is murder.
Huh, that would mean that every sperm is sacred! Arguing about the potentiality of human beings is a non starter because of the absurd implications of the idea.
I read your ridiculous post quite clearly, and your argument is as weak as a fetus in a liberal.
Mystro, you knew as soon as you read this the rest of the post would be golden…. and it was. Fallacious arguing, personal attacks, phreaky religious wing-nuttery (ooooo..watch out atonement will get you too) I’m a more than a little jealous.
LikeLike
January 31, 2010 at 11:31 am
Lonna
I bet you hate that “God is watching,” too. That just has to interfere with your fetus destroying autonomy. “I’m not a murderer so I am going to make a nonsensical argument about when life starts to try and prove that until a baby climbs out of the womb, it’s not really alive.” Your views on life are pathetic and evil.
And I’ll argue with you any way that I see fit – that’s my autonomy. Notice how it’s not killing anything except your pride.
LikeLike
January 31, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Mystro
Yes, you are able to argue anyway you see fit. However, if all you do is make sweeping attacks (ie “Your views on life are pathetic and evil”) but you say nothing to back them up, you are not arguing in the sense of intelligent discourse and debate, rather you are arguing in the sense of immature, groundless, dumb squabbling. I try to encourage the former (notice how every time I disagree with you, I explain why).
If you want to stick to your style of “argumentation” (term used loosely here), just know that it doesn’t kill my pride so much as it kills any chance of your argument having a shred of credibility.
Oh, for the record, it doesn’t bother me in the least that your imaginary friend is watching me. I wonder though, why it doesn’t concern you that your invisible sky faerie is the ultimate peeping tom. I mean really, what a perv.
LikeLike
January 31, 2010 at 12:19 pm
The Arbourist
Your views on life are pathetic and evil.
Rather than name calling, which really does nothing to solidify your position, you might attempt to address argument Mystro has stated.
And I’ll argue with you any way that I see fit – that’s my autonomy.
Agreed, but your opinion is just simply that, your opinion. My statement “I like cream in my coffee” holds the same weight as your statement, “Killing a human, whether in the womb growing or already born, is murder.”
Saying it louder, or more callously does not change your statements’ relevance to the issue at hand, nor does appealing to mythical figures who reside in the sky to met out “justice”.
This sort of ‘arguing’ tends to take credence away from what you are saying.
LikeLike
January 31, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Lonna
Wow. Must have hit a nerve with you two. I mean, words can only hurt if they’re true, right?
Liberals are so quick to get offended. Why is that?
And name calling? What is this? Middle school? “Don’t name call, but go ahead and kill your unborn baby if you want… afterall, my kind complained enough to give you this right. We have given you permission to kill without bounds or Earthly consequences. You should take advantage.”
Have you ever noticed how “evil” spelled backwards is “live?” What’s that all about? I mean, of course, this is the English version, but I must say… something’s hidden in there. A contradictory of sorts. It’s interesting.
I just think life is precious at any stage of the game. It deserves more respect than to be some “right” or “choice.”
LikeLike
January 31, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Mystro
sigh
no one was hurt or offended (well, I wasn’t anyway). What I am is annoyed. Your lack of comprehension for basic reasoning is quite trying. Let’s try to teach you something.
The name calling has to do with something called ‘ad hominem’, a fallacy in logic. It goes like this. Person A makes claim X. Person B doesn’t like claim X but instead of coming up with reasons why X is wrong, Person B says “Person A is evil, a murderer, and a poop head, so everything he says, including claim X, is wrong”.
This type of attack, of course, proves nothing. Even if the most evil person ever to exist were to say something, the fact that he’s evil would have nothing to do with the validity of his statement. For example if the super-evil guy said “two plus two equals four” its still true, even though a bad man pointed it out.
The opposite of this also doesn’t work. One cannot say “Person A is of great moral character so whatever he says must be true”, as it doesn’t matter how good a person is, if he says ‘two plus two equals five’ he’s wrong.
So what we’ve been saying to you so far is not due to touchiness or offense. Its from a desire for intelligent discourse, something you’ve been denying us all along.
Now back to the original topic. This post aimed to (and as far as I can see, succeeded in) showing why the “Pro Life” claim that ‘human life and moral worth starts at conception’ is ludicrous. Your responses thus far have either been of an ad hominem nature or you say something like “Given my Pro Life view, you’re wrong”. Well, since I just showed your “pro-life” view to be fallacious, it IS NOT given, so I’m not wrong.
It goes back to what I told you in the first place. Either you actually refute my argument (again, I helped you out and showed you how earlier) or you are purposefully being ignorant, unduly belligerent, and obtuse.
And on a side note, I just wanted to reply to “words can only hurt if they’re true, right?” and “life…deserves more respect than to be some “right” or “choice.”
To your first comment, I would point you to the multitude of emotionally abused people who are told extraordinarily hurtful things on a daily basis which are about as far from true as it gets.
To the last, I am truly saddened that you think your personal values are more important than the rights of others. It is exactly that mentality that fuels slavery, racism, sexism, and just about every other social injustice in existence.
LikeLike
February 4, 2010 at 11:52 am
Lonna
Gag. Gag. Gag.
My personal values, you realize, go with the flow of nature. I’m simply bringing responsibility back. Fighting against nature is never a good thing.
I shall explain:
Look at what the number one killer among women is – heart disease. All this self loathing is killing our gender. It’s completely psychosomatic.
If we don’t embrace our femininity, and perhaps if we stop trying to equate ourselves to men so damn much, and just be our creating, nurturing, beautiful selves, we would be happier and healthier. This self love starts, not with reproductive rights or God awful choices, but with accepting that we have a gift that men do not – uteruses/wombs. I’m NOT saying that every woman HAS to have a child to be a woman or experience her femininity, but destroying what only we can create just because we “can” or “want” to is not being womanly responsible.
It just sends this ugly message that creation means nothing unless we want it to. We’re not like men when it comes to fertilization. We’re the creators, not the destroyers. I mean, isn’t there enough of that in the world? Must we desecrate our one sacred feminine trait that separates us from the men?
LikeLike
February 4, 2010 at 2:29 pm
The Intransigent One
Naturalistic fallacy for the win! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
The heart disease argument is definitely … interesting… Controlling our fertility is heartless and destructive and that’s why we’re dying of heart disease?
It’s some interesting reasoning, and is giving me fodder for interesting questions about other times and places: In the past, and in the developing world, complications pregnancy and childbirth are a major cause of death of women of reproductive age. (In fact, worldwide right now, complications of pregnancy and childbirth is #5 overall, with women in developing countries accounting for nearly all of it. http://www.unfpa.org/mothers/statistics.htm ) So these women in developing countries, who are, according to you, doing the right thing by embracing their sacred feminine trait – what are they being punished for?
LikeLike
June 2, 2010 at 4:07 am
Zee
I love your flawless rebukes against Lonna… pro-liars (oops… lifers) never make coherent arguments and always believe their morals trump other peoples’ morals. How does that make any sense at all… And for the record, I have a uterus, but I hope to Lonna’s creepy peeping tom god it never gets used for what it was made for.
Being “womanly responsible” means to defend our own rights and our own bodies… not house a parasite we hold no love for.
LikeLike
June 2, 2010 at 9:21 am
The Arbourist
Absolutely. :)
Not one step backwards when it comes to reproductive freedom.
LikeLike
June 2, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Mystro
Thank you for the post Zee.
“I hope to Lonna’s creepy peeping tom god …”
I think I will have to make that quote of the day or something. Brilliant.
LikeLike
June 2, 2010 at 9:02 pm
shelly
This argument has so many holes in it. I see what you are trying to do, because you don’t think a human being can just suddenly appear right at conception. You think a person would have to start before that if the pro-life position was true. The bottom line is you need a male and a female to make a baby. A sperm by itself will never turn into a baby and an egg by itself will never turn into a baby. You need both sets of genes to create a human. Therefore, the moment of conception is the moment when the cells become 1 to make 1 cell, then starts to multipy (aka life begins). You think birth is the begining of life…………then what if a person is born by c-section 2 weeks before the baby’s due date or what if the baby is born 1 month after the due date? A baby can survive…what is it from 24-26 weeks….outside the womb. Is that baby not a human until it reaches it’s due date? I feel sorry that you feel it would have been OK for your mother to take your life. You are a special person that has been created for a purpose in this world and God loves you just as much as the 1 week old aborted baby.
LikeLike
June 3, 2010 at 12:07 am
The Arbourist
Is that baby not a human until it reaches it’s due date?
No, it is not a baby until its born. Or was that not clear in the post?
I feel sorry that you feel it would have been OK for your mother to take your life.
I feel sorry you value something that clearly is not a person over the life a fully autonomous woman and probably would campaign against her right to her own body and reproductive choice.
You are a special person that has been created for a purpose in this world and God loves you just as much as the 1 week old aborted baby.
As a product of evolution, my purpose would be to propagate the species. God, if he did indeed exist (which I am pretty sure she does not) does not seem to giving a flying fig about what we do here on earth. Put aside the mythology and magic books and join us in the 21st century.
LikeLike
June 3, 2010 at 1:54 am
Mystro
“A sperm by itself will never turn into a baby”
A developmental objection. Pro lifer’s argue against this all the time (as mentioned in my post). The sperm just hasn’t met with its egg yet, just like the blastocyst hasn’t formed a brain yet or a nervous system yet. How developed something is, or how far it is down it’s life cycle is not important, morally speaking. If it’s a valid point for you, then it is a valid point for the REAL pro lifers that defend sperm. If all you can do is point out how the zygote is closer to becoming human than the sperm is, you’re kinda making my point.
“what if a person is born by c-section 2 weeks before the baby’s due date”
-you
“A birthed baby is a seperate, self-sustaining entity, who’s existence is not dependant on anyone elses. Birth is the true creation of the individual.”
-my original post – notice how my definition doesn’t mention anything about how or when the baby is born. Thank you for reading carefully.
“I feel sorry that you feel it would have been OK for your mother to take your life. ”
Given the scenario I put forth, I wouldn’t have had a life yet to take, had she aborted me. You can’t steal something from person X if person X doesn’t have that something to begin with. More to the point, you can’t steal something from person X if person X doesn’t even exist. But this is all digression. The important thing from that scenario, which you’ve completely missed and/or ignored was she had me because she wanted to, not because some patriarchal society told her she had to. I respect my mother(and women in general) too much to ever say “well, you have a uterus. That means that there are situations when you don’t get to say what happens in your own body.”
“You are a special person that has been created for a purpose…and God loves you”
It seems you don’t realize that those two ideas are inconsistent. If some deity actually was responsible for my creation (I tend to attribute it to my parents, myself, but that’s me being all sciency again) and it was for some purpose of his, what I am, then, is a tool used to achieve some goal that an omnipotent being supposedly cannot do on its own (an inconsistent idea in itself).
Clock makers don’t love their cogs. Architects don’t love planks of wood. A god making life for some purpose of its own, in the same way, cannot love that life.
On the other hand, if the god you are imagining created me as an autonomous being that had the freedom to choose what to do with my own life, then love is possible. But it means there cannot have been a purpose in mind with my creation.
So even if someone were to prove that a god exists (and no one has) or even showed it’s existence to be likely (and no one has) and even further they then proved/showed it likely that this god is our creator (and no one has), the idea that it loves us AND has a purpose for us is ludicrous.
LikeLike
June 3, 2010 at 10:06 pm
The Arbourist
If some deity actually was responsible for my creation (I tend to attribute it to my parents, myself, but that’s me being all sciency again)
;) You just watch it with that sciency stuff. It will get you into trouble.
LikeLike
June 9, 2010 at 5:16 am
Ric
I suggest another logical extremity in this battle over at Grumpy Squirrel.
LikeLike
June 9, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Mystro
Nice post :) thank you for sharing it.
LikeLike
June 22, 2010 at 11:54 pm
crystal
You were a parasite once in your own terminology.
Oh wait, you still are!
LikeLike
June 22, 2010 at 11:55 pm
crystal
Everything you said is THIS x1000000000
So damn true.
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 12:11 am
The Arbourist
Absolutely Intransigentia, good work. x10000000 :)
LikeLike
July 3, 2010 at 7:50 pm
smalman
hey guys.
personally I don’t think abortion is ever a good idea but i’m a guy and only one person. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Can’t we leave it at that?
but then the aborted or soon to be have no voice and some people will see it as their duty to speak out for them. especially the religous sonce they practice religions that respect ALL human life.
but your argument poses a very compicated ah question. when does life begin?before fertilization or after? after 2 months of pregnancy 2 weeks or 2 minutes. confusing but where do we draw the line as a society?
are the sperm and eegcells sacred?(I can only imagine what that will lead into…XD)
here i my question please reply.
LikeLike
July 4, 2010 at 7:53 am
The Arbourist
You betcha, as long as your beliefs do not include what a woman can or cannot do to the contents of her body. That is her decision. :)
Well, that is the thing with the fetuses and blastocysts they are not born yet thus do not have the same status as you and I. I have yet to see a religion that practices the idea of respecting ‘all’ human life.
Agreed. There are many facets to this particular issue. It is good to look at as many as possible to enhance one’s understanding of the issues involved.
LikeLike
July 4, 2010 at 11:19 am
Mystro
“your argument poses a very compicated ah question. when does life begin?….please reply”
-you
“A birthed baby is a separate, self-sustaining entity, who’s existence is not dependent on anyone elses. Birth is the true creation of the individual.”
-my post
The point of this post was twofold. One was to show that conception is just some arbitrary point in prenatal development. Two was to show that birth isn’t. They combine to show the absurdity of the “pro-life” position.
As for that respecting all life bit, I disagree wholeheartedly. “Pro-life” is about controlling people, not respecting them. It is about enforcing the idea that a woman is not an autonomous person, but just a baby factory that men use to fulfill god’s will. Now, if those who thought like that kept it to themselves, I could simply pity them and, as you say, leave it at that. But they aren’t content with demeaning their own self-worth, they feel the need to demean others and they have gotten very good at it. I would suggest that all such attempts to take self-ownership from any group of people ought to be resisted and debunked for the hatred and oppressive b.s. that it is.
LikeLike
September 8, 2010 at 3:39 am
WonderfulMe
I find this post very interesting and your arguments/conversations very informative…
I know it is a very touchy subject, and a lot of people are against abortion, but there are so many variables to the issue. What if the women was raped and her egg fertilized? What if the women will die if her baby was allowed to grow in her body due to some medical condition; such as Osteogenesis imperfecta? Or her baby, if born, is severely disabled so that it’s and her life will be a living “Hell”? and e.c.t.
So I think that those so against it must put aside their ignorance and hate and put themselves in the Mother of the developing cell/baby/life form shoes.
I question those that believe that women do not have a right to decide wether or not they should have a baby, if her egg is fertilized. So what if those variables do happen would that be really what “God” wants, for the women, if He/She really loves us? Doesn’t He/She gives us freedom and if not why does He/She even bother with creating us if He/She did not allow us freedom to make our own choices, that’s if He/She really exist?
And that’s my “Wonderful” opinion, and I thank you for posting this post because it has really gotten me thinking, about the beliefs we all hold and how they can be challenged and how that your beliefs aren’t necessary right even if you (meaning me and us all) say so. (Oh and if my comment doesn’t make sense sorry, but it makes sense to me, so you don’t necessarily need to reply)
LikeLike
September 8, 2010 at 8:42 am
Mystro
Glad you liked it and thank you for posting :)
LikeLike
December 31, 2010 at 8:44 am
Neil
When you say, “Now you could point out that each of the gametes only have half the required chromosomes that ‘actual’ people have, but the response is the same as when its pointed out that blastocysts have no brain,” you have cheated. Pointing out that each gamete has half the chromosomes is a scientific fact, so you can’t just waive that away. The claim you are trying to refute is that abortion kills a human being. You are trying to ignore scientific facts.
If you want to argue the pro-abortion position, go ahead, but if you think anti-science scenarios like that advance your case with the middle ground then I think you are mistaken.
I know that some pro-aborts will never change their minds (note those who are still pro-abortion after conceding that it kills an innocent human being — http://tinyurl.com/yfze8lq). But I’m not trying to persuade them, I’m trying to persuade those in the middle who haven’t thought carefully about the issue. I love it when they read debates like this, because I am very confident that they won’t equate every ejaculation as equivalent to 80 million abortions.
I encourage you to look at every argument you’ve made and note how it ignores the scientific fact that abortions kill human beings.
LikeLike
January 1, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Mystro
“Pointing out that each gamete has half the chromosomes is a scientific fact, so you can’t just waive that away.”
Blastocysts not having a brain is also a scientific fact, but you waive that away. A fetus is not a separate, self sustaining entity, another scientific fact you waive away. Thus, this counter-example does in fact play by your rules. Oooh, that being consistent thing stings, don’t it?
For the umpteenth time, to refute this reductio ad absurdum, you must show why a sperm on its way to an egg does not have human rights, but a sperm that has found its way into an egg does. If your position had any merit, this would have been done long ago. But as you have no actual response, you just keep dodging the issue.
“I am very confident that they won’t equate every ejaculation as equivalent to 80 million abortions. ”
Don’t care much for honesty, do you? I never said that ejaculation = abortions. The point, which is clear to anyone with basic intelligence and English reading comprehension, is that the claim that blastocysts are human beings is as ridiculous as the claim that sperm are human beings.
I know you have basic intelligence and English reading comprehension, so the only explanation for your blatant misrepresentation is malicious dishonesty. Pretty low.
And lastly, in response to your ‘pro-abortion’ label, I’m sick of it. That would be like if I supported a woman in her decision to leave an abusive husband and you calling me ‘pro-single parenting’ or ‘pro-divorce’. I don’t claim that any of these are good things. Sometimes, however, they are necessary to avoid worse things. And the last thing a person needs when confronted with a horrible life choice like that is to be unjustly chastised by a self-righteous dullard spouting off irrelevant scientific points as if they somehow validate his ludicrous accusations.
Even though I completely disagree with your self-appointed title of ‘pro-life’, I still refer to you by it. I request the same courtesy and for you to refer to me by my self-appointed title of ‘Anti-Fucktard’. Thank you.
LikeLike
January 2, 2011 at 8:23 am
Neil
“Blastocysts not having a brain is also a scientific fact, but you waive that away.”
I don’t waive it away. I point to the scientific fact that she is a human being at a particular stage of development. How about not killing her and see what happens?
“A fetus is not a separate, self sustaining entity, another scientific fact you waive away”
Neither are infants, sick people, etc., but those don’t justify ripping their limbs off and crushing their skulls.
“you must show why a sperm on its way to an egg does not have human rights,”
You just need to re-read the thread. A sperm is not a unique human being.
“The point, which is clear to anyone with basic intelligence and English reading comprehension, is that the claim that blastocysts are human beings is as ridiculous as the claim that sperm are human beings.”
Thanks for playing along. You are conflict with the embryology textbooks, not me. I agree with science, you don’t. Those are the facts, regardless of anyone’s reading comprehension.
” And the last thing a person needs when confronted with a horrible life choice like that”
LOL. You’ve just denied science about 50 times in explaining why it is not a horrible choice. Thanks for the additional concession speech.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to show how every one of your anti-science, ad hom attacks are heaping doses of FAIL.
“Don’t care much for honesty, do you? . . .I know you have basic intelligence and English reading comprehension, so the only explanation for your blatant misrepresentation is malicious dishonesty. ”
Back to the ad hominem attacks. Thanks for the concession speech.
LikeLike
January 2, 2011 at 8:27 am
Neil
P.S. Pro-legalized abortion = pro-abortion. If someone would have said, “I oppose slavery, but don’t favor making it illegal” then I’d consider them pro-slavery.
If you won’t accept the pro-abort claim then you must be wildly opposed to taxpayer-funded abortions that the pro-aborts fought so hard for in the health care debacle bill. Nothing could be more pro-abortion than forcing others to pay for them with tax $$.
You can have the last word. Enjoy a final round of personal attacks and anti-science reasoning.
LikeLike
January 2, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Mystro
“I point to the scientific fact that she is a human being at a particular stage of development.”
And by that criteria, sperm are also human beings, just at an earlier stage of development. Did you miss the part where you just asserting there’s some sort of moral difference doesn’t cut it? Or are you hoping that by repeating your inane garbage, I’d forget that you have yet to justify anything you’ve said?
“Neither are infants, sick people…”
Way to go Mr. “Its-a-scientific-fact”. Infants and sick people aren’t separate entities? They don’t ingest their own food? They are somehow directly connected to another human wherein they siphon off nourishment from their host? Last time I checked, they had to be fed and cared for because they are indeed separate . Here’s a test. Can an infant be cared for by anyone? or must it be a particular individual? Well, as adoptions don’t seem to cause death, the former appears accurate. Empirical evidence says I’m right, infants are separate. Go cry ‘baby-killer’ to someone stupid enough to take these ridiculous accusations seriously. I suggest the psych hospital’s intensive care ward.
“You just need to re-read the thread. A sperm is not a unique human being…I agree with science, you don’t… You’ve just denied science about 50 times”
Notice again and again you are just asserting things without backing them up. I don’t know what scientific background you think you have, but just saying things is empty and worthless. Your post is devoid of any kind of actual content. Assuming your conclusions does not fly in science or here.
“Again, thanks for the opportunity to show how every one of your anti-science, ad hom attacks are heaping doses of FAIL.”
I did give you every bit of opportunity to show why you might be right. I even spelled out exactly what had to be done to destroy my argument. But you did not do that. You just said ‘science says I’m right, so there’ as if that counts as evidence. Submit that in a paper for peer review. “Science says I’m right. That is all.” See how far you get.
“Back to the ad hominem attacks. ”
I spelled out pretty clearly your misrepresentation of my post, thus calling you out on it is not ad hominem. If you call someone a liar and they are, in fact, a liar, and you show how they are a liar, it is not ad hominem. Even if they are not a liar, by spelling out why you think they are a liar, you give them the opportunity to defend themselves. You, of course, did not do that. Most likely because there is no defense to justify what you say.
“Thanks for the concession speech.”
I have conceded nothing. But, I’m hardly surprised that you claim victory before having done anything. You remind me of that scene in ‘Big Daddy’ where the five-year-old plays the card game ‘I win!’, except an adult displaying the mentality of a toddler isn’t cute.
See that? I just called you childish, but I also pointed out how you continually claim victory while doing nothing to earn said victory. I then pointed out how that’s exactly how very immature children play, thus establishing the link between you and childishness. Because I took the time to show why my calling you childish is justified, it isn’t ad hominem.
One closing point on this ad hominem discussion: even if I didn’t explain why I called you dishonest and childish, it still wouldn’t qualify for ad hominem, it would just be me being as immature as you. For it to be an ad hominem, my claim would have to be ‘you are wrong because you are dishonest and childish’. But I’ve never claimed that. I just pointed out that you are dishonest and childish along side providing reasons why you are wrong. Oh, and you focusing on me calling you dishonest as opposed to my actual points kind of reaffirms your dishonesty.
“P.S. Pro-legalized abortion = pro-abortion. ”
Again, I described pretty well why this isn’t true. You ignored it, of course. You’re slavery counter example does not apply because there is never a reason to support slavery. But there is a reason to support someone leaving an abusive spouse (my analogy, you know, the one you ignored).
There is a pretty clear example where one would not want something to be illegal( that being divorce) but not thinking it to be a good thing (ie it does not mean I go around saying ‘yay divorce’). Your overly simplistic view here betrays quite a narrow understanding on your part.
“You can have the last word.”
Thanks.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 12:41 am
Vern R. Kaine
One of the great philosophers of our time, George Carlin, raises some interesting questions on this issue:
1) If a fetus is a human being, why are they not counted on the census?
2) If pregnant, why do we say we have two children and one on the way?
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 4:46 am
Neil
“One of the great philosophers of our time, George Carlin, raises some interesting questions on this issue:”
Yes, euphemisms are great tools to use to decide life and death issues. I’m going to stick with science.
“And by that criteria, sperm are also human beings, just at an earlier stage of development. Did you miss the part where you just asserting there’s some sort of moral difference doesn’t cut it? Or are you hoping that by repeating your inane garbage, I’d forget that you have yet to justify anything you’ve said?”
Sperm are sperm, not unique human beings. If you are going to call mainstream science “inane garbage” that speaks volumes — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq
I stopped reading your comment after that. I only deal with people who take science seriously. The rest are obviously extremists whose opinions can never be swayed by facts and logic. I’m confident that the louder they are, the more the middle ground will realize how wrong they are.
Hey folks, keep in mind that even Planned Parenthood used to concede what abortion really is. They took a pro-life position. What made them change their minds and go anti-science? I think it was the bad philosophy. Oh, and the money. See http://tinyurl.com/ykeex9e
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 5:08 am
Neil
Too bad Carlin never heard the phrases “she’s with child” or “the baby is kicking.” He would have been a staunch pro-lifer.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 11:44 am
Vern R. Kaine
Planned Parenthood certainly has its own share of controversy, and my Carlin post was a bit tongue-in-cheek, so if it offended anybody, forgive me.
It just appears that the only options presented on this issue are either one of two extremes – “pro” abortion, or “anti” abortion – and the constant tug-of-war leaves us with nothing except circular arguments. Why can’t it just be that the mother and father individually get the right to decide, rather than the rest of us deciding for them based on our own personal views?
I don’t agree that the mother’s rights should be completely disregarded, nor the father’s, and nor the potential child’s, but can’t a normal mother and father determine the balance of those rights on their own without their neighbor or opponent dictating what they should be?
Also, I disagree with the labels. I don’t know either of you personally, but I think it would be unfair and inappropriate to brand you as either “pro” or “anti” brand with all the wackos and hypocrites that exist on the fringes of either side under that label. Like Carlin says – how can somebody be “pro life” when they’re out their shooting doctors? Even those who support the right to abortion certainly can’t be happy when a child is killed.
Also curious – if people called themselves “Women’s Reproductive Rights Advocates” or “Fetal Rights Advocates”, would that be semantics, or would it change the argument?
Regardless, thanks very much for the dialogue between the two of you (Neil + Mystro) and the thinking the discussion promotes.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 11:46 am
Vern R. Kaine
“…would that be semantics, or would it change the argument?”
Whoops – change the DISCOURSE of the argument, I mean.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Mystro
“You can have the last word”
Sigh. You even lie about going away. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
“Sperm are sperm, not unique human beings…http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq”
Wow. A link to a pro-life site. Way to provide unbiased evidence for your position. Oh wait, no. That’s about as biased a source as you can get. And you STILL haven’t said why a sperm inside an egg should be granted more moral consideration than a sperm outside of the egg.
“I stopped reading your comment after that. ”
Of course you did. Ignoring things that contradict your views is what you do best. Which is, of course, behaviour in complete contradiction to scientific inquiry. Again, no surprise.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Mystro
“my Carlin post was a bit tongue-in-cheek, so if it offended anybody, forgive me.”
Not at all, I enjoyed. Thanks.
“the only options presented on this issue are either one of two extremes – “pro” abortion, or “anti” abortion – and the constant tug-of-war leaves us with nothing except circular arguments.”
I’ve already addressed my issues with the label ‘pro-abortion’. See my initial bit on labels about 8 posts up.
Which arguments are circular?
“Why can’t it just be that the mother and father individually get the right to decide, rather than the rest of us deciding for them based on our own personal views?”
Agreed. I think one of the best ways to stop people trying to butt in where they don’t belong is to debunk the crap justifications they use to demonize others. Simple really. They stop trying to take away self-ownership from my fellow humans and I’ll stop calling them out on their bullshit.
“if people called themselves “Women’s Reproductive Rights Advocates” or “Fetal Rights Advocates”, would that be semantics, or would it change the argument?”
Well, I suggested the label ‘anti-fucktard’ for myself, but in this case ‘Women’s Reproductive Rights Advocate’ could work as well. The names you suggested would make it slightly harder for ‘Fetal Rights Advocates’ to claim victory before entering the debate, which is why, I suppose, they don’t call themselves that.
“thanks very much for the dialogue between the two of you (Neil + Mystro) and the thinking the discussion promotes.”
You’re welcome and your input is appreciated :) Thanks for posting
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Neil
“Sigh. You even lie about going away. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.”
Sorry, my mistake. I thought my initial “you can have the last word” was to the Arbourist’s comment. I had dissected his/her reasoning every way possible so I was done there. You raised some new bad reasoning so I’ll whale on that a bit more, thanks.
““Sperm are sperm, not unique human beings…http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq”
Wow. A link to a pro-life site. Way to provide unbiased evidence for your position. Oh wait, no. That’s about as biased a source as you can get.”
Linking to a pro-life site does not mean the data there is biased. Using your “reasoning” everything you say and everything bit of pro-choice reasoning on this site should be dismissed because of your bias. Your argument is self-refuting.
It was also designed to avoid my very specific, crucial scientific claim.
To the middle ground readers, did you note how Mystro didn’t address the fact that the link had quotes from about a dozen mainstream embryology textbooks regarding when human life begins.
“And you STILL haven’t said why a sperm inside an egg should be granted more moral consideration than a sperm outside of the egg.”
Uh, if you’d read the link you’d see that science backs me up completely: A new human being is created at conception. Before that, do whatever you like with your sperm and eggs.
“I don’t agree that the mother’s rights should be completely disregarded, nor the father’s, and nor the potential child’s, but can’t a normal mother and father determine the balance of those rights on their own without their neighbor or opponent dictating what they should be?”
I appreciate your thoughtful question. If you re-read it carefully you’ll note that you’ve considered everyone’s rights except those of the unborn, who is a unique human being. That is the primary question: What is the unborn? If “it” isn’t a unique human being, the debate is over. Have all the abortions you like.
If “it” is a human being — and science is unanimous that she is one — then 99% of the reasons given for abortion do not justify the procedure.
“Even those who support the right to abortion certainly can’t be happy when a child is killed.”
Please note how you referred to her as a child.
“if people called themselves “Women’s Reproductive Rights Advocates” . . .”
This isn’t about “reproductive rights.” No one is denying the women the right to reproduce or to use birth control. In a scientifically accurate and very meaningful way the woman and man have already reproduced. There is a new human being in the equation whose rights are ignored when she is destroyed.
“Why can’t it just be that the mother and father individually get the right to decide, rather than the rest of us deciding for them based on our own personal views?”
Be careful implying that the father has a right to decide. The pro-choicers will go nuts on you. The father currently has a “right” to agree with whatever decision the woman makes and the “right” to be ignored if he disagrees.
The pro-life view is that human beings should not be killed for 99% of the reasons given for abortion: Unwanted, not enough money, impact to career, impact to schooling, etc. Those wouldn’t fly for newborns, so why do they justify killing those in the womb?
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Neil
“I think one of the best ways to stop people trying to butt in where they don’t belong is to debunk the crap justifications they use to demonize others.”
LOL re. not demonizing others (i.e., fucktards, etc.).
“Simple really. They stop trying to take away self-ownership from my fellow humans and I’ll stop calling them out on their bullshit.”
Simple, really. Stop taking away the self-ownership of the unborn, who are fellow humans, and I’ll stop calling the pro-choicers out on their bullshit.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 7:01 pm
The Arbourist
Uh, if you’d read the link you’d see that science backs me up completely: A new human being is created at conception. Before that, do whatever you like with your sperm and eggs.
Now you see, I could not really quite put my finger on it. I think I’ve got it now. Neil, your thinking that science is all on your side and what not and that the matter of all this life begins at point “x” is written in stone and what not…but really it isn’t. You are purposefully or maybe not, using a gross oversimplification of a scientific fact that you have decided to adhere to, as what it seems to be either hell or high water. This sort of dogmatism is routinely found in religion, but in science which seems to be the focal point of this argument believing harder doesn’t make it any more correct.
I also know that I had had a topic posted earlier about this particular canard that you so haughtily bandy about, giving the what for to all those darn scientifically rational atheists. An excerpt from the post…
See the rest of the post here.
Neil:Sorry, my mistake. I thought my initial “you can have the last word” was to the Arbourist’s comment. I had dissected his/her reasoning every way possible so I was done there. You raised some new bad reasoning so I’ll whale on that a bit more, thanks.
And thank you for ‘dissecting’ my commentary. A proper refutation would actually require going on the quite possibly flawed argument you are using because as we were coming to a close I did identify that your liberal take on “what the embryological textbooks say” is a particularly zealous interpretation of that particular fact, considering how well it seem to fit in with the rest of your reasoning.
Also, to be frank, I think your argumentation is fundamentally dishonest as you have stated, either on ‘Whatever Works or’ The Drugeretort’ that you do not ‘believe’ in evolution ( I won’t hold you to that, since I cannot find the post where you were spouting that particular bit of inanity.) Evolutionary theory is the basis of the entire field of biology, which happens to include embryology within its aegis. So rather than embrace rational thought and the give and take process of scientific inquiry, you’ve cherry picked your facts and are giving them the biblical treatment trying to erect a edifice that once examined is quite credulous good only for inane repetition with reasonable people who actually think you have done your homework.
The truth of the matter it would seem is that you have not, and are not being consistent or honest when you go on your tirades about when life begins. I’m thinking that if you cannot accept evolution as fact, then why should we give your pronouncements about science and what science says seriously. Hey, great that some embryology text books say “x”, depending on how you interpret the facts a case could be made for either side, because saying that life begins at conception is a gross oversimplification of what is currently understood about the entire process of conception, fertilization etc (see the link to the post that delineates how wrong you actually are).
That having been said, I am fairly sure it you will not find it convincing as contravening facts and the faithful do not mix particularly well. So, what it seems like to me is that your position is faith based rather than being grounded in any particularly scientific mode, therefore, thank you for your opinion about abortion as it does confirm your fetus fetish and commitment to stripping women of their bodily autonomy.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Neil
“The process of conception, also known as fertilisation, involves many chemical reactions and processes”
Even if that argument worked scientifically, it would only benefit your position if you were opposing abortions that happened during conception. I don’t know a single pro-choicer who makes that claim. They like to argue the blastocyst things to shift attention from the fact that the unborn are innocent human beings, but they typically don’t want any restrictions on abortion, ever.
Heck, even Peter Singer — who is honest enough to admit his pro-choice rationale justifies infanticide — concedes the point:
“Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes:
It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.”
LikeLike