Every Child a Wanted Child

[Dee Dee Warren]

Every Child A Wanted Child

Gregory Koukl

What makes an unwanted child's life necessarily unhappy? A reaction to the moral persuasion of some pro-choice advocates.


Some of you may be familiar with the series of TV ads the Arthur B. DeMoss foundation has been running promoting adoption. These are beautifully photographed, positive clips showing children at play, enjoying life and the love they receive from others in their family. The message is clear: "If you're pregnant, keep your child. Give your child a chance." The ads end with this statement: "Life: A Beautiful Choice."

[M]any unwanted children lead miserable lives. But whose fault is that? It is not the baby's fault. It's the fault of parents who would rather kill their children than be obliged to love and care for them.



The campaign never mentions abortion. It just champions a particular choice, the decision a woman makes to bear the child of an unplanned pregnancy, and it does that very tastefully and powerfully. The ads are nicely done.
Some people don't like these commercials, though. A few years ago I did a piece entitled "Calling a Spade a Spade" discussing Planned Parenthood's objection to the DeMoss Foundation's approach as "subtly anti-abortion."

Well, I guess if a commercial encourages a mother to let her baby live, and if she can't kill her baby through abortion and let it live at the same time, I guess one might say the advice is subtly anti-abortion. But why should Planned Parenthood object? If it is pro-choice, this means that it promotes adoption as one of the legitimate choices. And if promotion of adoption is "subtly anti-abortion," then Planned Parenthood would be guilty of being anti-abortion by the same reasoning. One can't adopt and abort the same child. It's one or the other.

This was evidence to me that Planned Parenthood is not really pro-choice. If it was pro-choice, it wouldn't object to the Arthur B. DeMoss Foundation's commercials promoting the choice of adoption by letting a child live. Because they take offense, this tells me they aren't pro-choice, they're pro-abortion, prompting the title, "Calling a Spade a Spade." Let's be honest and label a pro-abort "pro- abortion ," and not "pro- choice ."

Though not all who are pro-abortion bristle at the adoption suggestion, this objection from Planned Parenthood shows me they aren't really concerned about choice. If they were, they would be applauding the Arthur B. DeMoss Foundation for championing this alternative.

I heard another spin on the same issue not too long ago in an L.A. Times article. As I recall, a female pastor responded to the DeMoss slogan by saying, "'Life: A beautiful choice'? It's not so beautiful for an unwanted child."

This got me thinking, as you can imagine, because her comment has appeal, taking some of the force out of the DeMoss slogan. There's something terribly wrong with her approach, though, and when the error comes into focus, this rejoinder has no appeal whatsoever. In fact, it identifies a shameful condition.


Do you see what kind of people we're becoming, ladies and gentlemen? Do you see how these end-of-life decisions, after we keep making the wrong decisions over and over and over, start changing us inside such that we can respond with a statement like this and think it's a sound complaint?



Here's the key question to her response: Yes, life might not be beautiful for an unwanted child--I'll grant that--but why isn't it ? Why is the life of an unwanted child ugly? What makes an unwanted child's life miserable? That's the question.
The initial answer is, "The unwanted child's life is not beautiful because she's not wanted." But it goes deeper than that, doesn't it? No child's life is miserable simply by the bare fact that she is unwanted. Being unwanted doesn't make her life miserable. In this case, it isn't a what which makes the child's life miserable (being unwanted), but rather a who that makes the child's life miserable (the people, the adults, the parents who don't want the child). You see, people are miserable not because of the conditions of their conception, but rather because of the way others treat them afterwards.

Consider this statement: "Well, life may be a beautiful choice, but it's not beautiful for my grandmother. Nobody wants her. We don't want her. We wish she were dead, so her life is miserable."

The question is: Why is Grandma's life miserable? It's not because she's unwanted, but because she's being treated unkindly. That's why it's miserable. This is like saying, "I'll tell you why Grandmother is miserable. Nobody wants her and we treat her like we don't want her ."

If, however, they treated her with kindness, if they valued her as a human being, if they showed respect for her as a family member who deserved love and care, Grandma wouldn't be miserable even though she was still unwanted . The misery doesn't come from the lack of want, but from the lack of kindness and love.

The same is true with this pastor's statement about abortion. This is not an indictment against the condition of unwantedness; this is an indictment against adult human beings who treat children poorly. Her comment is an admission of guilt, tantamount to saying, "If I let this child live, I'm going to treat her so badly and make her life so miserable that she'll wish she were dead. So it's better to kill her now. Let's get her out of the way so she doesn't have to endure the bad treatment I'll give her."

Now do you see why I say this is a shameful way of responding? It's an admission that we would rather kill a child than do what's necessary to give that child a meaningful life. Is this the kind of ethic we really want to promote? Is this the kind of moral reasoning we really think is compelling?

Do you see what kind of people we're becoming, ladies and gentlemen? Do you see how these end-of-life decisions, after we keep making the wrong decisions over and over and over, start changing us inside such that we can respond with a statement like this and think it's a sound complaint ?

"'Life: A beautiful choice?' It's not so beautiful for an unwanted child." This rejoinder has an appeal, but at its core it's despicable. We're arguing that it's better to kill the child, because we have no plans to be virtuous in our behavior towards her. I'm talking about standard virtue, here--ordinary, pedestrian, within-the-call-of-duty care--nothing heroic, the basic love parents are expected to give to their children, whether they want them or not.

Yes, many unwanted children lead miserable lives. But whose fault is that? It is not the baby's fault. It's the fault of parents who would rather kill their children than be obliged to love and care for them.





This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1996 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON • (562) 595-7333 • info@str.org • www.str.org

[Pilgrim]

Fantastic commentary. Very well said.

[Ryokan]

that is a good article, dee dee

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 02:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66011#post66011)
Dee Dee Warren:
It's the fault of parents who would rather kill their children than be obliged to love and care for them.

I stopped reading after seeing the above. Why are anti-abortion fanatics incapable of saying anything without filling it with pathetic rhetoric?

Someone that thinks a single-cell organism is a child needs to have their brain examined.

Paul

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 12:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66255#post66255)
lordsnooty:



I stopped reading after seeing the above. Why are anti-abortion fanatics incapable of saying anything without filling it with pathetic rhetoric?

Ah the irony.....


Someone that thinks a single-cell organism is a child needs to have their brain examined.

Some who thinks that the abortions referenced the above are performed on single-cell organisms as a general rule probably believes that the stork dropped them off.

And of course Paul has missed the point, but never misses an opportunity to spout off regardless.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66265#post66265)
Dee Dee Warren:
Ah the irony.....

The difference is, I'm not writing a 'professional' (chortle) commentary on the subject. If I were, I would avoid all inflamatory and offensive language. If you can't win a debate without lying and spreading disinformation, then you'd better believe you're in the wrong.


Some who thinks that the abortions referenced the above are performed on single-cell organisms as a general rule probably believes that the stork dropped them off.

Abortions are usually performed on very early fetuses. An early fetus is not a child. It is a fetus.


And of course Paul has missed the point, but never misses an opportunity to spout off regardless.

I didn't miss the point. I was just sickened by the lies and excuses of your wonderous pro-misery lobby.

Paul

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 12:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66284#post66284)
lordsnooty:

Abortions are usually performed on very early fetuses. An early fetus is not a child. It is a fetus.

Would you mind describing what a fetus is? And why do you think it is a fetus?

Thanks,
~Matt

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66289#post66289)
InquisitorKind:
Would you mind describing what a fetus is? And why do you think it is a fetus?

It's a human organism in the earliest stage of development.

Early fetuses have none of the characteristics of babies. They are not babies.

If you really believe that a fetus is a baby, you must also believe that a freshly-laid chicken's egg is a chicken. It's not, folks. It's an egg.

Paul

[themuzicman]

Today @ 12:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66284#post66284)
lordsnooty:

Abortions are usually performed on very early fetuses. An early fetus is not a child. It is a fetus.
Paul

I think we can agree that it's alive, and not a part of the mother (different genetics).

If it's not human, what is it?

A horse fetus? A rabbit fetus? A jellyfish fetus? What? And when does it go from whatever it is to being human?

Michael

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 01:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66322#post66322)
lordsnooty:

It's a human organism in the earliest stage of development.

Okay, it's a "human" and it's an "organism."

So, it's human? But not a person? Is that why aborting humans is acceptable?


Early fetuses have none of the characteristics of babies. They are not babies.

By that same measure, did you also know that early babies have none of the characteristics of adults?


If you really believe that a fetus is a baby, you must also believe that a freshly-laid chicken's egg is a chicken. It's not, folks. It's an egg.

Paul

By that definition, yes, it is a chicken.

~Matt

[Dee Dee Warren]

If you really believe that a fetus is a baby, you must also believe that a freshly-laid chicken's egg is a chicken. It's not, folks. It's an egg.



And that is some very shallow reasoning and equivocation. Yes an egg is a chicken as it looks at that stage of development. It surely isn't a dog. It isn't a cat. It isn't a human. It's a chicken. A fetus is a human as all humans are at that stage of maturity. It is a human. Murder is the nonjustified taking of a human life. Abortion in 99% of the times it is performed is murder. This really isn't that complicated.


Early fetuses have none of the characteristics of babies. They are not babies.

So if I look differently than you or can't do all the things that you can do, you can murder me? Better hope that someone doesn't take a good look at you some day in the future for your imperfections.

So, we have admited that the unborn are humans, but because they are younger than us, and look differently than us, and happen to be in a the wrong place, we can kill them.

What have we become?

[themuzicman]

Today @ 01:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66322#post66322)
lordsnooty:



It's a human organism in the earliest stage of development.

Early fetuses have none of the characteristics of babies. They are not babies.

If you really believe that a fetus is a baby, you must also believe that a freshly-laid chicken's egg is a chicken. It's not, folks. It's an egg.

Paul

Genetically, the fetus is identical to the baby it will become, so it's still a human being.

And the last time I checked, Life was a HUMAN right, not a PERSON right.

Then again, the last regime to make a distinction between HUMAN and PERSON was Stalin, who routinely executed and persecuted "unpersons".

Like your company?

Michael

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 07:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66507#post66507)
Dee Dee Warren:A fetus is a human as all humans are at that stage of maturity. It is a human.

I'd hesitate before calling it a human being, but it is certainly human. But it's not a child, and it's not a baby.


Murder is the nonjustified taking of a human life. Abortion in 99% of the times it is performed is murder. This really isn't that complicated.

Says you. I doubt that charge of 'murder' would stand up in court.

Murder is a crime not because 'killing human life is wrong', but because the act of destroying a person is wrong. A person who can think, who has feelings. A person that has value that is absent in an early fetus.

If you eat meat, you commit an infinitely more vile sin each time you raise a piece of dead animal to your lips, because the creature that died for your culinary pleasure was aware, had a degree of intelligence, and could suffer fear and pain. That is much more than we can say for a fetus.


So if I look differently than you or can't do all the things that you can do, you can murder me?

No, but if you were an inanimate blob with no brain or any sensory aparatus whatsoever, I'd kill you without a second thought if I felt needed to. Why wouldn't I? No harm is done by this killing, after all. You could even argue that to destroy an insect is worse than to destroy an early fetus.


Better hope that someone doesn't take a good look at you some day in the future for your imperfections.

Yes, I fear the day when doctors will notice that I have no brain or nervous system of any kind, and will switch off my life support.


So, we have admited that the unborn are humans, but because they are younger than us, and look differently than us, and happen to be in a the wrong place, we can kill them.

Strawman after strawman! I never said anything about being younger than us, or looking differently to us. The simple fact is, they are entirely different to us. They have no intellect or capacity for emotion of any kind.

Any argument against early abortion must centre around illogical sentiment and/or religious compulsion. It's not good enough to say 'it's a baby', because if a baby was born with no brain, I'd see no problem in killing that, either.


What have we become?

Sensible.

Paul

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Paul:

I have to clear some time to deal with your resoneses, which I will, but I am also going to ask as the thread starter that this get somewhat back on focus to the initial post as well instead of turning far afield... more later...

[Socrates]

Lord Snooty:Murder is a crime not because 'killing human life is wrong', but because the act of destroying a person is wrong. A person who can think, who has feelings. A person that has value that is absent in an early fetus.Someone who is anesthetized doesn't think or have feelings either, so is it OK to kill such a human being?

EVERY one of the alleged distinctions between so-called fetuses and children who are born falls down in some way. And if you insist on the medicalese term "fetus" for what is colloquially called a "child" or "baby", I hope you are equally consistent and call the pregnant woman a "gravida".

[Dee Dee Warren]

Someone who is anesthetized doesn't think or have feelings either, so is it OK to kill such a human being?



You beat me to it!!

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 02:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66903#post66903)
Socrates:
Someone who is anesthetized doesn't think or have feelings either, so is it OK to kill such a human being?

Of course not, because that's completely different. The person might be temporarily incapacitated, but he or she is still an intelligent organism, with a personality and intelligence.


EVERY one of the alleged distinctions between so-called fetuses and children who are born falls down in some way.

Does a fetus think? Does a fetus have feelings? Does a fetus have a functioning brain?

All of the above referring to an early fetus of course, since that's what we were talking about. Obviously with a late fetus it's entirely different.


And if you insist on the medicalese term "fetus" for what is colloquially called a "child" or "baby", I hope you are equally consistent and call the pregnant woman a "gravida".

No, but a better example would be to say that I do not refer to my grandmother as a toddler. It is wildly inappropriate to refer to an early fetus as a child, just as it is to refer to an egg as a chicken.

Paul

[themuzicman]

Yesterday @ 10:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66997#post66997)
lordsnooty:

Does a fetus think? Does a fetus have feelings? Does a fetus have a functioning brain?


1) Since when are any of these things necessary to call a being human?

2) We dont' know when brain waves begin. We know something is functioning, because he/she is GROWING in an organized fashion. We can DETECT them at a pretty early stage, but that's a limit our own own detection equipment.



No, but a better example would be to say that I do not refer to my grandmother as a toddler. It is wildly inappropriate to refer to an early fetus as a child, just as it is to refer to an egg as a chicken.

Paul

The Fertilized egg is a stage of development for a chicken. At least, if it's a chicken egg. Because chicken eggs are most common, we don't say chicken, but for any other egg laying animal, we call it by name. For instance, people refer to ostrich eggs or turtle eggs all the time. So, your argument falls apart when we consider common vernacular, and less common eggs.

In fact, that turtle egg IS a turtle, in an early stage of development, as evidenced by the fact that we identify it as a turtle egg, and not a undeveloped creature egg.

Michael

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 12:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67330#post67330)
themuzicman:
Since when are any of these things necessary to call a being human?

They never were. A fetus is human, it's just not a 'human being', or 'person' as I see it.


In fact, that turtle egg IS a turtle, in an early stage of development, as evidenced by the fact that we identify it as a turtle egg, and not a undeveloped creature egg.

That's right. I agree. So why don't anti-abortionists refer to a fetus as a human fetus? Why does it have to be described as a 'baby'? It's a fetus. Not a baby.

How long before they start referring to sperm as 'babies'? It may sound ridiculous, but no more so than describing a single-celled zygote as a baby!

The only reason they use this language is to give women a false impression of what an early fetus is. How weak must their argument be if it can't stand without the support of false and misleading terminology?

Paul

[Dee Dee Warren]

Of course not, because that's completely different. The person might be temporarily incapacitated.....

And the "incapacity" of the baby is also temporary. You are advocating discrimination based upon age and location. There is no doubt that from the moment of conception the baby is fully human, and is exactly how all other humans are at that stage of development.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


And if you insist on the medicalese term "fetus" for what is colloquially called a "child" or "baby", I hope you are equally consistent and call the pregnant woman a "gravida".

Lord Snooty:No, but a better example would be to say that I do not refer to my grandmother as a toddler. Totally missed the point since "toddler" is colloquial, not medicalese.It is wildly inappropriate to refer to an early fetus as a child, Not at all. It is colloquial to say a pregnant woman is "with child" or for her to say "I have a baby growing inside me."... just as it is to refer to an egg as a chicken.No, the parallel of baby/ fetus and pregnant woman/gravida is egg/ovum. But the pro-aborts use only only the medicalese for the unborn, not for chicken eggs or pregnant woman.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 08:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67339#post67339)
lordsnooty:

That's right. I agree. So why don't anti-abortionists refer to a fetus as a human fetus? Why does it have to be described as a 'baby'? It's a fetus. Not a baby.

Fetus means "young one." What does "one" mean?


How long before they start referring to sperm as 'babies'? It may sound ridiculous, but no more so than describing a single-celled zygote as a baby!

Never. Since conception creates a unique strand of DNA, we will always refer to everything after conception as a human being, with unique personhood.

[Rusty T]

unborn offspring: an unborn vertebrate at a stage when all the structural features of the adult are recognizable, especially an unborn human offspring after eight weeks of development

Now . . . .

I tend to be anti-abortion in most cases. Respect for life of all kinds and at all stages is an important part of my personal code of ethics.

tizzi

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 03:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67538#post67538)
tizzidale:

Now . . . .

I tend to be anti-abortion in most cases. Respect for life of all kinds and at all stages is an important part of my personal code of ethics.

tizzi

Are you a vegetarian then?

Paul

[Rusty T]

Are you a vegetarian then?

What does respecting life have to do with vegetarianism?

Can I not respect life and still eat meat? Or does vegetable life not qualify for status of "living"? I think this is a misguided question at best.

tizzi

[themuzicman]

Today @ 08:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67339#post67339)
lordsnooty:



They never were. A fetus is human, it's just not a 'human being', or 'person' as I see it.


Uh.. "Human being" and "Human" are not distinguishable. "Person" is not easily or clearly definable, which makes that distinction unusable, as well.



That's right. I agree. So why don't anti-abortionists refer to a fetus as a human fetus? Why does it have to be described as a 'baby'? It's a fetus. Not a baby.


"Baby" is not a scientific term. "Infant" and "Fetus" are. The latter are stages of development. The former is a general reference to a newly developing form, in this case a human baby.

Whether your definition of "Fetus" includes baby or not is completely subjective. It has an emotional component which is quite effective, however, because it rings true.



How long before they start referring to sperm as 'babies'? It may sound ridiculous, but no more so than describing a single-celled zygote as a baby!


In general, they don't (Extreme elements of the Catholic church excepted), and won't. Any thinking person will realize that the sperm and egg are cells that genetically belong to the mother and father, and do not constitute a unique human being, and in and of themselves will never do so. Only when they combine to form the first cell does it become unique from the mother and father, and form a new being. A human being.



The only reason they use this language is to give women a false impression of what an early fetus is. How weak must their argument be if it can't stand without the support of false and misleading terminology?

Paul

The argument is an emotional appeal, because women respond to emotional arguments. It is not the basis for reason or a sound logical argument. It was never meant to be. It is not a false impression, but an understanding of what a "baby" is. I realize that this argument causes a lot of emotional stress on the pro-choice side, because it rings very true, even if it isn't a logical argument.

It is similar to the pro-abortion argument of "every child a wanted child". That statement is so far from reality, it's laughable. But it does pose an emotional appeal.

Calling the fetus a baby is, however, based in scientific fact.

The first cell that emerges from the uniting of a sperm and egg is a unique being. To destroy that single cell at that time is a termination of that life. Likewise, that single cell is uniquely identified as a HUMAN cell, through a simple genetic test.

Thus, we must conclude that the first cell is a unique human being.

Since murder is defined as the intentional, unjustified taking of a HUMAN life, and there is no justification for terminating even that single cell for convienence, people who deal in science and fact must conclude that aboriton is murder.

Michael

[Pilgrim]

Says you. I doubt that charge of 'murder' would stand up in court.

In fact it has. Specifically in cases involving the murder of pregnant women and a charge of double homicide was levied by the state.

I'll see if I can find the specific reference.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Pilgrim, I think I have a reference for that too...maybe I will beat you to it. I guess whether or not the baby is a human life deserving of protection depends upone whether or not the mother wanted to kill it. Good thing we don't follow that logic for children murdered after birth.

[Ryokan]

lord snooty, is a person in a coma they will probably never wake up from a person?

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 08:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67991#post67991)
Ryokan:

lord snooty, is a person in a coma they will probably never wake up from a person?

Yes. But there is still a question as to whether they should be kept alive indefinately.

The coma patient is a pre-existing person and therefore has more value than a non-existing person.

Paul

[Pilgrim]

So you have no regard for potential then?

[Dee Dee Warren]

A human being is a human person. Personhood is not defined by what someone does but by what someone ontologically is.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 08:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68041#post68041)
Pilgrim:

So you have no regard for potential then?

As far as the potential of a fetus goes, none whatsoever.

I'm not callous or heartless. I just don't value a life-form which has absolutely no feeling or thought. It doesn't even have instinct. It has nothing, and I find it impossible to care about the fate of one of these creatures. It is not a 'person' in the sense that I understand it, and it has never been a person.

As it develops further, this becomes continually less true, and I become increasingly opposed to abortion.

Paul

[Pilgrim]

Good point.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 08:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68052#post68052)
Dee Dee Warren:
A human being is a human person. Personhood is not defined by what someone does but by what someone ontologically is.

Yes, but this is just down to semantics now. You know what I mean when I say that an early fetus is not a 'person'. I mean that it completely defies comparison with a more mature human specimen. It has no mind, and no feelings.

Paul

[Dee Dee Warren]

And my point remains. It is a person at a certain level of development, but it is a person since personhood is not defined by activity but by ontology. A person under anestheisa has none of those things you described but they are still a person. Personhood is not defined by activity either current or former.

[Pilgrim]

I was saying good point to Dee Dee by the way.

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 04:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68072#post68072)
lordsnooty:



As far as the potential of a fetus goes, none whatsoever.

I'm not callous or heartless. I just don't value a life-form which has absolutely no feeling or thought. It doesn't even have instinct. It has nothing, and I find it impossible to care about the fate of one of these creatures. It is not a 'person' in the sense that I understand it, and it has never been a person.

As it develops further, this becomes continually less true, and I become increasingly opposed to abortion.

Paul

It has life. Not independant life, but life none the less.

I fail to see how your description above is different from the dead body that we talked about on another thread. You were more upset about a cadavear being molested than a fetus being aborted and yet the fetus has the spark of life still burning in it. The dead body truely has nothing.

[Pilgrim]

As it develops further, this becomes continually less true, and I become increasingly opposed to abortion.

Paul

Does this mean that sentencing for the murder of a child should be lighter than that for the murder of an adult. After all, on the continuum, the child is less of a person since it has not fully developed cognitively.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And why would the murder of someone unconscious be wrong? Simply because they had consciousness before? So? That was not robbed. What is robbed is their future. And that is what is robbed of a preborn baby.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 09:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68083#post68083)
Dee Dee Warren:
A person under anestheisa has none of those things you described but they are still a person. Personhood is not defined by activity either current or former.

Yes, but I stand by what I said. A fetus is not a person as I see it. All scientific definitions aside. A fetus is a human organism, granted. It will become a person, granted. But while it is only a few days/weeks old, it has no more value than any other primitive life form.

Whether or not someone is unconcious is irrelevant, they are still an organism capable of thought, emotion and feeling. A fetus is not. It will be, but it's not until it has sufficiently developed.

There is no reason for me to care for a fetus simply because it is human, and simply because it will grow to become a 'person'. You are free to disagree, but I simply cannot ascribe any value to such a creature, beyond that which is given to it by the parents.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 09:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68093#post68093)
Pilgrim:
Does this mean that sentencing for the murder of a child should be lighter than that for the murder of an adult. After all, on the continuum, the child is less of a person since it has not fully developed cognitively.

Come on now, that's a bit of a strawman.

My cut off point is when brain activity begins. Whenever that is.

If it's human, and it has a brain that is sufficiently developed that it is beginning to operate, then it has value, in my book.

Paul

[Pilgrim]

Maybe a little bit of a straw man but not much of one because I was not deliberately misrepresenting your argument or raising another one to defeat you with. I was simply following through on the logic since you had not provided a place for the slide to stop.

But still, what's the difference between the fetus and the dead body?

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 09:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68101#post68101)
Dee Dee Warren:

And why would the murder of someone unconscious be wrong? Simply because they had consciousness before? So? That was not robbed. What is robbed is their future. And that is what is robbed of a preborn baby.

I see your point, but I simply cannot agree with you.

An unconscious person has value on so many levels. He has his unique personality, he has a mind containing huge quantities of information. He can think. He is a complete, and important creature that probably has many ties within the society he lives in. Any extant human has value simply because of their humanity.

But a fetus that has never had 'humanity'? I do not mean that it is not human, but that it lacks a human mind - the single most important thing that gives us value in the first place. I'm afraid I don't see anything terribly wrong with depriving a fetus of the opportunity to achieve humanity.

Abortion will never be an ideal way out of pregancy, but I'm afraid I prefer it to a world of unwanted children, poverty, and overpopulation.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 10:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68148#post68148)
Pilgrim:
But still, what's the difference between the fetus and the dead body?

I suppose it might seem illogical that I'd take greater offense at the molestation of a body than the ending of a life, of any life - but there you are, I'm illogical.

Paul

[Pilgrim]

That doesn't compute for me but I respect your honesty.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 04:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67564#post67564)
tizzidale:
What does respecting life have to do with vegetarianism?

Can I not respect life and still eat meat?

I don't know. A fetus isn't conscious, aware or capable of pain or fear. An animal is.

In my book, the animal has more value, because the value of life doesn't depend on it's genetic material, but rather upon it's intelligence, and capacity for emotion.

The only reason I can suppose you'd 'respect life', be pro-life and yet still eat meat is that you ascribe value to a human fetus (above all other non-human life) for an arbitrary reason.

Am I making sense? Probably not.


Or does vegetable life not qualify for status of "living"? I think this is a misguided question at best.

There is an obvious divide between animal and plant life.

Paul

[Pilgrim]

How do you know a fetus does not experience pain?

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 12:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68293#post68293)
Pilgrim:

How do you know a fetus does not experience pain?

An early fetus would have no mechanism by which it could feel pain. The nervous system would not have formed.

If it did feel pain, I'd be slightly more inclined towards the pro-life side.

Paul

[Dee Dee Warren]

My cut off point is when brain activity begins. Whenever that is.


Do you realize how incredibly early that is? And yes very early pain is felt... there are sonograms of abortions performed which show pain reactions. I will be getting to other points in more detail... the week days often get pretty hectic for me.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I would hesitate before calling it a human being, but it is certainly human. But it's not a child, and it's not a baby.

Well “being” is inherent in humanity. There is no such thing as a human nonbeing. A baby in the womb is a human being at a certain point of development. It does not turn into a human being at some point. And it certainly is a child, a child being any nonadult. And of course it is a baby, it does not turn into a baby at some point. What are women pregnant with? Babies! And terminology does not change what it is, I don’t care if you called it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, it is unique human life, and murder is the unjustified taking of a human life. There is not nonbeing life and being life. There is simply human life.

Being is not about what an organism can do but IS about what it is, and that is where the moral confusion is creeping into this picture. “Beingness” is about ontology, and a human at all stages of development is ontologically human, a human being, the “being” of being human. This really is not complicated.

Koukl has expressed:

“When does an acorn become an oak? Well, no one knows for sure. Of course we do!! An acorn never becomes an oak. An acorn is an oak. Period. That is what an acorn is. It’s an oak in immature form. It can become a mature oak tree. But young or old, it is an oak. This is not a matter of opinion, folks. When we get down to it, the acorn doesn’t describe what a thing is, in a sense; it describes the stage of development of that particular thing. It is kind of like asking what is a teenager? Well, a teenager isn’t a particular thing, like there is a being called teenager. What a teenager is is a description of the stage of development of the human being. It is a human at a certain age. An acorn is an oak at a certain age. And a fetus is a human being at a certain age.”

A fetus does not turn into a human being at some point, we reproduce after like kind. Beings do not produce nonbeings. Why does a two-day old (outside the womb) human being deserve more protection than say a 90 day-old in the womb? Any other dividing line than fertilization is completely arbitrary. It is a biological fact that a unique human being is created at that moment, the rest form that point on is simply life development which continues throughout our entire lives until die. It is the moment of beginning of the life cycle of a human being. This is not complicated.

What is being advocated is that human beings now only have value because of what they can do and not because of what they are and that is frightening. Snooty keeps defining things on basis of what can be done, not on what an organism is. As Koukl said also,

“Fertilization is not an arbitrary point because that’s when a new being comes into being by biological definition. The distinction between a property and a substance is very important because properties are what substances have. Properties can grow and change, but that’s different than the essence itself.”

…..

“In summary some human beings aren’t worthy of human rights because they don’t look like the rest of us, they can’t do what the rest of us can do, or they’re in the wrong location. My question is simply this: Are any of these factors truly relevant to the issue of human rights? I am presuming here that all unborn children are in fact humans. It cannot possibly be otherwise because they are separate beings in themselves produced by two other human beings, another and a father human being; and according to the law of biogenesis, which has been around for a long time in science, all beings reproduce after their own kind. Two human beings can only reproduce another human being. Since an unborn child is the conceptus of two human beings, then it must be a human being. That’s a foundational point here.”

This is why a human being remains a human being even if he is in a coma or under anesthesia.


I said,


Murder is the nonjustified taking of a human life. Abortion in 99% of the
times it is performed is murder. This really isn't that complicated.”

You said,


Says you. I doubt that charge of 'murder' would stand up in court.

First of all, so what? Our courts upheld segregation and slavery for a while. Court decisions do not decide morality. And the fact is in California, for instance, if an unborn child is killed in an act of violence, it is called murder. If the same child is killed in an abortion, it is not. We are a sick and perverse people when whether or not a life is deserving of protection is dependant upon whether or not someone “wants” that person and if the murderer wears a white coat rather than a ski mask.


Murder is a crime not because 'killing human life is wrong', but because the act of destroying a person is wrong. A person who can think, who has feelings. A person that has value that is absent in an early fetus.

Says who? Again, an unconscious person can do none of those things. An unborn child is a human being at a certain stage of development, so you advocate the murder of human beings because they cannot do what you can? Since when are basic human rights doled out on a gradated scale? Are smarter and more capable persons then worthy of more rights? Are their lives worth more?

Again Koukl is more eloquent than I:

“If a human being is not as intelligent, if it can’t do what others can do, then it has no rights. That’s the argument. The unborn doesn’t look like other real persons, and it doesn’t act like other real persons, therefore it is not a real person. My point is, being a real person is not a look like or an act like kind of thing. It is a be like kind of thing. Human beings are persons by their nature.”


If you eat meat, you commit an infinitely more vile sin each time you raise a piece of dead animal to your lips, because the creature that died for your culinary pleasure was aware, had a degree of intelligence, and could suffer fear and pain. That is much more than we can say for a fetus.

I make a distinction between human nonhuman life, but at least I do not deny that animal life is in fact animal life. And the fact is that unborn child has a heartbeat at 18 days, develops brain waves at six weeks, and feels pain at eight weeks. Are you then opposed to abortion after eight weeks?

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 07:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74015#post74015)
Dee Dee Warren:
“Beingness” is about ontology, and a human at all stages of development is ontologically human, a human being, the “being” of being human. This really is not complicated.

Please. Will you stop with the semantic arguments?

You know what I mean. I mean that a fetus is not a person as I see it. I stress this time and time again, and constantly you ignore it and throw dictionary definitions at me.

You cannot deny that in every sense, a fetus is unlike a 'person'. Yes, it's a human, even a 'human being' if you like. But since it's at such an early stage of development, I see no need to ascribe value to it. A later fetus, or a baby, is different. It is sufficiently developed that it has thought and feeling, thus qualifying it for personhood (again, as I see it).


It is a biological fact that a unique human being is created at that moment, the rest form that point on is simply life development which continues throughout our entire lives until die. It is the moment of beginning of the life cycle of a human being. This is not complicated.

No. But that doesn't mean that rights should be afforded to a single cell. It cannot (physically) think or feel, and so I cannot have any sympathy for it. Just like I don't have sympathy for a rock. I don't think it has value merely because the word 'human' applies.


What is being advocated is that human beings now only have value because of what they can do and not because of what they are and that is frightening.

You probably think I'm one step away from having people in wheelchairs shot.

I think it's slightly crazy that things supposedly have value because of 'what they are', but for no other reason. They have no value. They are blobs, human in name only.


“In summary some human beings aren’t worthy of human rights because they don’t look like the rest of us, they can’t do what the rest of us can do, or they’re in the wrong location. My question is simply this: Are any of these factors truly relevant to the issue of human rights?

Simplistic, emotive and misleading claptrap. Nobody is suggesting that these rules should apply to developed human organisms.


Says who? Again, an unconscious person can do none of those things.

The personhood of an unconscious person is already established. The cognitive ability of the organism is pre-existing and functioning. The same is not true for a fetus.


An unborn child is a human being at a certain stage of development, so you advocate the murder of human beings because they cannot do what you can?

If they have no brains, absolutely. Take a gun and knock yourself out.


Since when are basic human rights doled out on a gradated scale? Are smarter and more capable persons then worthy of more rights? Are their lives worth more?

Nope. But humans without brains or capabilities of any kind whatsoever are certainly worthless.

And no, sleeping or unconsciousness are temporary states experienced by pre-existing personalities, so they don't count.


“If a human being is not as intelligent, if it can’t do what others can do, then it has no rights. That’s the argument.

Dear oh dear. This is a strawman. That was never the argument.


And the fact is that unborn child has a heartbeat at 18 days, develops brain waves at six weeks, and feels pain at eight weeks. Are you then opposed to abortion after eight weeks?

If that information is accurate, then I would be less inclined to support abortion at that stage.

I would want to read it from a reliable source first, though. I don't mean that you're unreliable, but pro-life sources are not exactly known for being bastions of truth and honesty.

Paul

[Dee Dee Warren]

If that information is accurate, then I would be less inclined to support abortion at that stage.

I would want to read it from a reliable source first, though. I don't mean that you're unreliable, but pro-life sources are not exactly known for being bastions of truth and honesty.



Check it out for yourself and get back with me.

Let me add this for your research... at 11 weeks, in the first trimester, the child's organ systems are complete and functioning. He or she breathes (fluid), swallows, digests, sleeps, dreams, wakes, tastes, hears, feels pain, and can be taught things. From this point on, the baby only grows in size.
(from Janet Folger - The Pro-Life Debate - Winning for the Next Generation)

More on your other points later...

[Socrates]

Lord Snooty.I would want to read it from a reliable source first, though. I don't mean that you're unreliable, but pro-life sources are not exactly known for being bastions of truth and honesty.Not only is this a totally unsupported assertion, but it's a joke, considering the mendacious propaganda from the por-abort sources. For example, they unashamedly promulgated absurd exaggerations of the number of deaths of women from "back street" abortions, i.e. less than the number of deaths of ALL women in the age group that could become pregnant from ALL causes. And they majored on various "hard case" scenarios, but what they really wanted was abortion on demand for ANY reason. Abortionists are also dishonest -- even in countries with a nominal requirement of serious danger to the mental health of the mother (or gravida, by LS's reasoning), they are happy to lie through their teeth about that. After all, the abortion industry is big bucks.

[Socrates]

Lord Snooty:No. But that doesn't mean that rights should be afforded to a single cell. It cannot (physically) think or feel, and so I cannot have any sympathy for it.So would you oppose abortion from the time where a nervous system is developed enough so the "fetus" can think or feel"?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Socrates, please avoid splitting up posts that are responses to one particulat person. Thanks!!