Skip to content

“Pro-life” Arguments Against Abortion are Fallacious

November 2, 2010

If frozen embryos are “persons”, then that’s a perversion of the concept of rights, because philosophically and in reality, rights pertain only to actual human beings. If we grant rights to “frozen embryos”, then it follows that our tonsils or appendix is also entitled to the same rights. A “potential” is not an actual person. The rights of the “living” is far more superior to the condition of the “potential”.

I was engaged in a discussion with a blog commenter on the issue of abortion. I started the discussion by stating that the 1987 Constitution is a departure from the American Constitution that does NOT protect life “from conception.” I believe that this anti-abortion provision in our charter was inserted by the religionists and anti-abortion activists.

In a previous blog I wrote the following:

“I believe that every human being is responsible for his/her own body. Any woman who has no capacity- physically, financially, emotionally, intellectually or psychologically- to deliver and/or raise a child has the right to demand abortion. An embryo is not a person. This means that any society has no right to deprive any woman of her right to undergo abortion. To deprive any woman of such a right is to condemn her to carry an un-chosen obligation all throughout her life. I believe that abortion is a moral right, which should only be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved. An embryo has no rights simply because rights do not pertain to a potential, but only to an actual being (the woman). An embryo cannot obtain any rights until it is born. The living (the woman) take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”

First, abortion is a philosophical issue. What the anti-abortion advocates try to do is criminalize abortion. Our anti-abortion law regards fetuses as fully developed human beings. We must understand that we have this concept of rights, and rights are important because they are a condition to man’s existence. Rights, which specifically and fundamentally means freedom of action or the right to act, pertains only to individuals. Rights pertain only to actual human beings, not to “potential” human beings. A fetus is a “potential” human life. Therefore, it is wrong to ascribe rights to a fetus or to a “potential” because “freedom of action” pertains only to an actual person.

A pregnant woman is an actual individual who’s entitled to her rights. As a human being, that woman has all the rights to do what she’d like to do with her own body. We all have the right to do with our own body. Not even our society could dictate to us how we should conduct ourselves or how we should exploit our bodily energy. That pregnant woman has all the rights to undergo abortion if she wants to simply because she has free will. A society or a mob of anti-abortion advocates doesn’t have free will because there’s no such thing as a collective mind.

What if that pregnant woman were raped? What if she’s suffering from some serious physical condition that requires her to undergo abortion? Or what if she knew she wouldn’t be able to financially, intellectually and physically raise her child? By what right can a society or any person tell that woman to sacrifice herself for the sake of some oppressive societal control?But according to anti-abortion activists and insane moralists, that woman must be deprived of her right to think and to decide on her own. So they passed an anti-abortion law that prohibits that woman from seeking abortion even if she’s raped, or suffering from serious physical condition, or won’t be able to raise her child. In this case, that woman is condemned by society to carry a heavy, lifelong obligation against her will. Bearing and raising a child is a long-term obligation. Under our criminal law, abortion is a crime that could incriminate both the woman and her abortionist.

MUST READ: Why is the Personhood Movement Anti-Rights, Anti-Life

Abortion Rights are Pro-Life

Second, it’s a scientific issue. The question is: Should a “potential” be considered a human being? Is fetus a human being? Certainly it’s not because that fetus is, in reality, part of the woman’s body and able to grow unimpeded by the latters’ internal organs. Rights and personhood begin at birth.

The whole issue then is a moral issue. Rights only pertain to an actual human being, not to a potential. If you deny that woman her right to undergo abortion, that means you’re trying to control her mind and life by means of some legalized social control.

Now there’s an online source that tries to refute pro-abortion arguments. One of the refutations is as follows:

“There is substantial scientific reason to believe frozen embryos are persons, and should be granted the same rights as older, larger and less vulnerable persons.”

If frozen embryos are “persons”, then that’s a clear perversion of the concept of rights, because philosophically and in reality, rights pertain only to actual human beings. If we grant rights to “frozen embryos”, then it follows that our tonsils or appendix is also entitled to the same rights enjoyed by actual human beings. A “potential” is not an actual person. The rights of the “living” is far more superior to the condition of the “potential”.

If we follow the illogic and mystical reasoning of these anti-abortion mystics, then both the woman and her fetus stand on an equal footing when it comes to “rights”. What if the woman could not possibly give birth without sacrificing her life? Does the potential’s rights precede the rights of the living? If that’s the case, then these anti-abortion mystics condemn every woman of the same physical illness to die for the sake of collective good.

Granting arguendo that LIFE begin from conception, the contention that RIGHTS also begin from conception must fail. The “rights” issue here must be dealt with properly using the science of LOGIC.

In their policy paper entitled The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception, Hsieh and Armstrong established an unassailable argument, to wit:

“These truths about the origin of rights have been obscured by the facile semantic arguments in favor of “personhood,” as well as by the inadequate and misguided arguments of today’s typical defenders of abortion rights. In fact, rights are neither grants from God, nor favors from the Supreme Court. In particular, abortion rights, properly understood, are not based on a woman’s supposed “right to privacy,” nor subject to limitation by “state interests,” as ruled in Roe v. Wade. And embryos and fetuses cannot be granted rights based on their potential to develop into human persons. The proper view of rights during pregnancy is based on fundamental facts about human nature. Those facts dictate that only pregnant women–not embryos or fetuses–have rights.”

Rights come with responsibility. That is, as an actual human being, you have the responsibility to protect your self-interest and respect the rights of others. Why? Because a person is a rational animal. A human being is a living biological being with the distinctive characteristic of a kind of “consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason.” An embryo has no consciousness, thus it does not have any capability to know and understand its interests and responsibility. And this responsibility is embodied in the doctrine of “non-initiation of force.” Failure to act on that responsibility, as when you violates the rights of others, makes you liable for a crime, or any legal or moral obligation. Of course, a baby or a child is still under the custody and responsibility of his/her parents due to the fact that she/he does not yet have the physical, intellectual and physiological capability to deal with reality and the world. But once that child comes of age, he can then be held responsible for his/her actions.

A fetus or an embryo, being entirely dependent upon the life and sustenance of the woman’s body, has no responsibility at all. It has no rights. Thus, that piece of human tissue cannot have any responsibility at all. Its potentiality cannot justify the anti-abortionists’ fallacious contention that it is also entitled to the same rights given to persons.

In relation to this issue, Gina Liggett published an excellent article in SecularGovernment.us entitled “Pro-life” Atheist Arguments Against Abortion are Fallacious.

Here’s what Liggett wrote:

A reader of Politics Without God calls himself a “pro-life atheist,” and has commented that “there are plenty of atheist pro-lifers who oppose abortion on the basis of science and reason.” But such arguments against abortion are just as irrational as those of religious “pro-lifers.”

The “pro-life” atheist position is irrational because it does not adhere to the law of identity and it misapplies the concept of rights.

By the Law of Identity, a Human Being and Embryo Are Not the Same Thing

The “pro-life” atheist assertion that “abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being” violates the law of identity, which Ayn Rand explains as: “To exist is to be something….it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes.”

What is a human being? A common secular dictionary definition defines human as: “of, belonging to, or typical of man (Homo sapiens)… [and] having or showing qualities, as rationality or fallibility, viewed as distinctive of people.”

Ayn Rand defines a human being as a living biological being with the distinctive characteristic of a kind of “consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason… [A human] is a rational animal.” Ayn Rand further explains that reason is a human’s fundamental means of survival, it is how an individual forms values and it must be exercised by one’s own volition. This is the essence of the human being, qua human (despite when things go wrong, like head injuries, birth defects, Alzheimer’s disease).

To further elucidate the distinctiveness of the human being, it is through this uniquely human process of reason that knowledge about reality is not only sought, but communicated to others across time. We don’t have to wake up in the morning, discover electricity, manufacture a coffee pot, and discover how to cultivate and harvest foods to make fresh hot coffee. In contrast, every generation of animal, such as a wolf or squirrel, repeats the same cycles of reproducing, obtaining food and fighting predators according to the natures of their species — by the law of identity.

What is an embryo? In the same vein, an embryo is not a human being. While an embryo possesses DNA just like the plant Botrychium lunaria, the quality of having DNA is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to meet the identity of a human being. An embryo, beginning with one cell containing a complete set of human DNA then developing into a fetus, has its own characteristic identity, like every other entity in the universe.

The distinctive and essential characteristics of an embryo are that it is potential human life, it is physiologically attached to the human mother, and it undergoes embryological cell division and differentiation according to DNA “instructions.” Its survival and growth are entirely passive and autonomic, and completely dependent upon the biological viability of the mother it is attached to. It has not yet entered the world as an autonomous, singular, separate entity.

An infant is a human being and so is a pregnant woman. But once it is born, even as a day-old infant, he is forced to interact with the world at large and begins the process of developing a capacity of reason that will enable him to survive — as human qua human. The infant begins with perceptual-level reasoning–he wails and screams when perceiving hunger or a wet diaper. In contrast, an embryo functions entirely autonomically, passively receiving nutrients via the umbilical cord attached to the placenta. A pregnant woman, whose faculty of reason has developed beyond the infantile perceptual level, has learned that she can meet her need for pickles and ice cream by going to the store. A different woman with an unwanted pregnancy decides that having a baby is not in her best interest according to the values she holds by choice, by reason.

The atheist “pro-lifer” is dispensing with the law of identity which distinguishes a human being from an embryo when he says: “..it is ludicrous to then go on to say that ‘it is the woman’s choice’ (to have an abortion). It is as ludicrous as saying that you believe slavery is wrong, but that people should still have the choice whether they buy a slave or not. Science tells us that abortion kills a human being.”

This statement muddles two different entities. Science and the law of identity tell us that a slave and a pregnant woman are both human beings — but an embryo is not; it is an entity called “a potential human being.”

A Human Being Has Rights, an Embryo Does Not

Since I have established by the axiomatic law of identity that an embryo is not a human being, an embryo does not have the “inalienable right to life” written in our Constitution by the Founding Fathers, as some “pro-life” atheists claim. This becomes clear when you integrate the law of identity with a proper application of the concept of rights.

Ayn Rand succinctly clarifies what the right to life is:

“right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life…Individualism regards man–every man–as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.Because of the law of identity, there is a distinct difference between a born human being and an embryo. They are as distinctively unique by identity as a brain cell (with its full complement of human DNA) is to a malaria-transmitting species of the Anopheles mosquito (also with a full complement of its DNA).

The inescapable truth is that human rights apply only to humans, qua humans, not to embryos—anymore than rights apply to Anopheles.

Simply put, “[an] embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”

So there is no difference between religious and atheist (aka “scientific”) positions against abortion. Both dismiss with the law of identity and erroneously claim that an embryo is a human being with a right to life.

One is Anti-Abortion Only By Accepting the Moral Code of Altruism

“The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.”

Atheist anti-abortionists are just as altruistically-minded as religious anti-abortionists: both uphold the idea that a woman who does not want to keep a pregnancy must do so anyway, despite her right to exist for her own sake. In order for the atheist anti-abortionist to say an embryo has an “inalienable right to life,” the human mother must surrender her rights for the duration of the pregnancy with complete disregard for her own life, values, and rational self-interest.

But in a free society, individual rights do not just come and go or float about. They are not temporary depending upon a medical condition. A woman doesn’t suspend her right to life and self-determination when becoming pregnant! In a free society, she must not be compelled to surrender to an imposed morality of altruism and self-sacrifice against her will because of pregnancy. Even a born human in a vegetative state retains the right to life (even though he requires a proxy spokesperson to act in his or her behalf).

In a repressive anti-abortion society, a woman keeps her status as a human being with that society’s cultural rules only as long as she is not pregnant; but loses that status like a sacrificial animal when she’s pregnant. If you extend the illogical, then men should lose their rights every time they have sex, because that could possibly cause a pregnancy (even if birth control is used, because of course birth control sometimes fails).

The Anti-Abortion Position Cannot Resolve the Inherent Conflict of Altruism

Some anti-abortion legislation deigns to permit abortion “if the life of the mother is threatened.” Well, just how far does that go? On the brink of death when CPR and resuscitation are required in the case of a complicated pregnancy? When the mother is bleeding out and needs multiple blood transfusions? When she’s past the point of no return on full life-support?

The correct answer in a non-sacrificial society is: Abortion should be allowed when the woman decides as a volitional human what constitutes a threat to her life, her values, her existence as a rational being.

Never can the “interests” of a fetus override the right to life and liberty of a born human. Only by the morality of altruism and the use of force can a society allow an embryo to hijack a woman’s uterus and compel her to sacrifice her life and values to ensure the completion of a pregnancy. Only under dictatorial laws where individual rights do not prevail (such as in theocratic countries like Saudi Arabia or communist societies like Soviet-era Romania, for example, is a woman a fleeting human being.

The Right to Abortion is Absolute Because the Law of Identity and Individual Rights are Absolute

At all times, from the point of birth, a woman retains the right to life and the right to her body. At all times, from the point of birth, the woman’s right to life is enduring, and does not fluctuate according to her fertility status.

The choice to retain a pregnancy is foremost predicated upon a woman’s consent to incubate potential life. And it is nobody’s right — atheist or religious — to deny her this choice.

By the law of identity; by the morality of individualism as against altruism; by the science of reason and individual rights, the right to abortion must not be abrogated.

MUST-READ ARTICLES:

The Freakonomics Controversy: Legalized Abortion and Reduced Crime

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

Policy Paper: The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh on August 31st, 2010.

Op-Ed: There’s Nothing Wrong with Abortion, But 48 Is Wrong by Diana Hsieh in the Rocky Mountain News on November 3, 2008

Op-Ed: Abortion Is a Woman’s Right by Diana Hsieh in the Pagosa Daily Post on October 23, 2008

Op-Ed: Abortion and Abolition by Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong in the Boulder Weekly on October 9, 2008

Letter: Eggs Aren’t People by Diana Hsieh in the Colorado Daily on October 7th, 2008

Issue Paper: Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, August 19th, 2008

About these ads
75 Comments leave one →
  1. xyxy permalink
    November 2, 2010 3:38

    Thanks for the sources and this compilation!

    • November 2, 2010 3:38

      My pleasure. The real issue here is: When does RIGHTS begin? Rights begin at birth. Granting arguendo that LIFE begin from conception, the contention that RIGHTS also begin from conception must fail. The “rights” issue here must be dealt with properly using the science of LOGIC.

      Hsieh and Armstrong established an unassailable argument, to wit:

      “These truths about the origin of rights have been obscured by the facile semantic arguments in favor of “personhood,” as well as by the inadequate and misguided arguments of today’s typical defenders of abortion rights. In fact, rights are neither grants from God, nor favors from the Supreme Court. In particular, abortion rights, properly understood, are not based on a woman’s supposed “right to privacy,” nor subject to limitation by “state interests,” as ruled in Roe v. Wade. And embryos and fetuses cannot be granted rights based on their potential to develop into human persons. The proper view of rights during pregnancy is based on fundamental facts about human nature. Those facts dictate that only pregnant women–not embryos or fetuses–have rights.”

      Rights come with responsibility. That is, as an actual human being, you have the responsibility to protect your self-interest and respect the rights of others. Why? Because a person is a rational animal. A human being is a living biological being with the distinctive characteristic of a kind of “consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason… [A human] is a rational animal.” An embryo has no consciousness, thus it does not have any capability to know and understand its interests and responsibility. And this responsibility is embodied in the doctrine of “non-initiation of force.” Failure to act on that responsibility, as when you violates the rights of others, makes you liable for a crime, or any legal or moral obligation. Of course, a baby or a child is still under the custody and responsibility of his/her parents due to the fact that she/he does not yet have the physical, intellectual and physiological capability to deal with reality and the world. But once that child comes of age, he can then be held responsible for his/her actions.

      A fetus or an embryo, being entirely dependent upon the life and sustenance of the woman’s body, has no responsibility at all. It has no rights. Thus, that piece of human tissue cannot have any responsibility at all. Its potentiality cannot justify the anti-abortionists’ fallacious contention that it is also entitled to the same rights given to persons.

  2. xyxy permalink
    November 3, 2010 3:38

    In case you are wondering where the pro-life discussion I shared to you came from:

    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=155899564444068&topic=270

    • November 3, 2010 3:38

      I observed that the discussion tends to focus more on medical issues. Like I said, abortion is not a medical issue. Of course we need to look at its scientific basis but it’s not primarily a scientific issue. This is actually the GRAVE MISTAKE of those who try to defend abortion.

      If it’s purely a scientific and medical issue then the only recourse is to gather all scientists and medical experts to decide on this matter. But this is not the case.

      Abortion is a MORAL ISSUE.

      Why is this a moral issue? Because first, it pertains to what is right and wrong. And “right and wrong” pertains only to human beings who possess consciousness and cognition to think and reason. Here I’m not speaking of the Judea-Christian morality which is based on the ethics of altruism, or the sacrifice of one’s self to another. The country’s anti-abortion law is actually based on the morality of altruism.

      Second, it’s a moral issue because it involves individual rights. Like I said rights pertain only actual, not potential, human beings. I have discussed this issue above.

      Third, it is a moral issue because it affects the RIGHTS of an individual.

      Fourth, it is a moral issue because there’s a clash between the “interests” of TWO ENTITIES- the actual human being (woman) and the potential (the embryo).

      I’ve read the content of the FB link you gave me and this answer PROVES that abortion is a MORAL ISSUE:

      Jov Felarca: “I’m still don’t get an answer in the question which one should be saved if the mother’s and the baby’s lives are in danger and one has to be sacrificed, which one should be saved? Or do you mean since they’re equal let just them both die so that no one get’s to blame of killing one of them?”

      — Actually my wife and I had talked about it before our first baby was born. She was the one who eventually brought up the idea. What surprised me was her request that if ever this situation for any reason do happen and I be asked to make a choice, she asked me to choose the baby. I prayed and begged not to allow that to happen. Luckily enough it never did.

      There are lots of times were we are required to make a decision, luckily for me I was thought that “whenever pushed to the wall and is required to make a decision, surrender that burden and allow God to do it for you”.

      There are times that we are required to surrender our freedom in order to be truly free.

      See? The answer provided by this Jov Felarca is HIGHLY MISPLACED! It appears that he doesn’t have any idea about the abortion law in the country.

      Here’s the law:

      Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution says, in part, “Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. …”

      Articles 256, 258 and 259 of the Revised Penal Code mandate imprisonment for the woman who undergoes the abortion, as well as for any person who assists in the procedure, even if they be the woman’s parents, a physician or midwife. Article 258 further imposes a higher prison term on the woman or her parents if the abortion is undertaken “in order to conceal [the woman's] dishonor”.

      This means that the woman has NO choice at all! Thus this question- “which one should be saved if the mother’s and the baby’s lives are in danger and one has to be sacrificed, which one should be saved”- is IRRELEVANT!

      Here’s a good case in point.

      Nun Excommunicated For Abortion Decision To Save Mother’s Life

      The report states:

      “When it comes to Catholic teaching on abortion, no exceptions are allowed. Even if carrying a pregnancy to term would result in the death of both mother and child, abortion is still not an option.

      “The abortion was performed, and the woman survived.

      “But this month Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted found out about the hospital’s actions. He disagreed in no uncertain terms and decreed that Sister McBride — along with any other Catholic involved in the decision, including the patient — were automatically excommunicated.”

      It’s very clear that the Catholic Church and the government in this case have the same ANTI-MAN and ANTI-RIGHTS policy on abortion. The woman’s life MUST BE MADE TO SACRIFICE, no exemption!

      This is why abortion is a MORAL ISSUE.

  3. xyxy permalink
    November 3, 2010 3:38

    “When it comes to Catholic teaching on abortion, no exceptions are allowed. Even if carrying a pregnancy to term would result in the death of both mother and child, abortion is still not an option.”

    — Even some Christians don’t agree with this, especially with “wait and see”. It’s really confusing.

    “There are times that we are required to surrender our freedom in order to be truly free.”

    — I can’t believe he just said that.

  4. jarta permalink
    November 3, 2010 3:38

    Just want to ask what is your opinion about this?

    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=114307795297968

  5. David Montford permalink
    November 3, 2010 3:38

    “rights of the living is far more superior to the condition of the potential.”
    This statement is wrong. The newly created human being is alive.
    You are completely wrong. Their is no potential here. It is a fact: it’s just
    as alive as the mother. The mother is older and more developed but to
    say the mother is alive and the new child isn’t is just plain wrong.
    Your arguments has nothing to do with facts and science but to life style
    preferences. Actions require responsibility. You want to take accountability
    and responsibility out of the sex act. The woman accepting the man in sex
    has said by her actions, she is willing to create a new life. Therefore she
    has a responsibility to care for the life. A life that has a right to live and live
    a full life.
    “right to her body” is a right of all human beings.
    By having sex she is saying yes to creating a new life. By her actions she is
    saying I’m allowing a new life to live inside me. A contract has been made.
    All laws of a civilize nation is based on an individual’s actions. Justices and
    fairness requires this.
    Everyone knows sex is an act of creating a human being.
    In fact a woman is fertile for about a week of every month. And that week can be
    measured. So for the sake of a week of sexually pleasure many millions of unborn
    children are getting slaughtered.
    The bottom line: you wish to kill this human being for unrestrained and wanton
    sexually pleasure. That is evil.

    • November 3, 2010 3:38

      I stated above:

      “If we follow the illogic and mystical reasoning of these anti-abortion mystics, then both the woman and her fetus stand on an equal footing when it comes to “rights”. What if the woman could not possibly give birth without sacrificing her life? Does the potential’s rights precede the rights of the living? If that’s the case, then these anti-abortion mystics condemn every woman of the same physical illness to die for the sake of collective good.”

      What is evil is when you deprive of the woman of her right to do whatever she wants to do with her own body. Like I said, favoring abortion does not mean that every woman must undergo abortion. Our anti-abortion law obliterates the woman’s free will. It substitutes SOCIETY’S free will with that the of woman. There are cases when the woman has to decide for herself what she’d like to do with her own body. In our law, the woman has no option at all, whether she’s a rape victim or is suffering of serious physical illness that it would dangerous for her to give birth. There is no option at all.

  6. xyxy permalink
    November 3, 2010 3:38

    “Actions require responsibility. You want to take accountability and responsibility out of the sex act.”

    – Of course you should but what you just said only applies to people who engage in consensual sex. They chose it so they should accept the consequences. You cannot say that when it’s a rape case. How could you be responsible for something that you did not choose (being raped then getting pregnant)?

    • November 3, 2010 3:38

      That’s why abortion is a matter of choice. It’s about knowing your capacity and responsibility. It’s about exercising your rights. You have the right to your own body because it’s yours. Favoring abortion doesn’t mean every woman must undergo or be forced to undergo abortion. It’s all about one’s choice. The state or the government should have no involvement here.

      We have this ‘mental conditioning’ that when we think of abortion, we think of the eugenics program in China, Sweden, Nazi Germany, USSR, and some other socialist countries. Those were state-imposed abortion, which violated the rights of their own citizens.

      The kind of legalized abortion I’m talking about here is the one being practiced in some state in the US, wherein women have the free will to undergo abortion or not.

  7. MissLibertyBelle permalink
    November 3, 2010 3:38

    As one of the atheist “pro-lifers” / “anti-abortionists” (I suppose I could be called that? Its complicated and no where near that black and white.), I must say a couple things:

    1) You did not adequately portray the scientific reasoning behind atheist pro-lifers – merely the emotional / philosophical.

    2) YOUR entire argument is based around emotions and vague philosophy. Isn’t that about as fallacious as the pro-life arguments based in emotion and vague philosophy?

    My argument is this:

    1) Birth cannot be the ultimate tipping point because of the advances in modern medicine that has radically changed the date of viability. Are we to say a woman has the right to abort the fetus up until the day before and/or during birth? And how does passing through the birth canal fundamentally change the fetus medically from one day or hour to the next? Logically speaking, birth is an arbitrary and EMOTIONAL tipping point. Basically, once someone can feel it, hold it, etc., it becomes real and “human.” I find that rationale unacceptable and illogical.

    2) You can make up the definition of human being as many times as you want, but that doesn’t change the fetuses DNA. To say it is not human is ridiculous. Now, when it becomes a “person”… Well, that’s when all sorts of theories, emotions, and vague philosophies tend to come into play. I personally tend to look to science and science alone. If the fetus is viable, its a person. End of story. That is the tipping point. Before that, sure it can be argued both ways “morally,” but I don’t get involved in that. However, once the fetus is capable of living outside the woman’s womb, it is a “person.” That’s a pretty cut and dry tipping point.

    3) This is something I’ve never understood even as a woman myself: Why are women given total control over a child that is only half their’s? Sure, they carry it inside them for 40 weeks, but that pales in comparison to the first 18 years of support and the entire lifetime of that child. What role is the man allowed in this? Shouldn’t he be given the option to walk away just as easily as a woman is allowed? Shouldn’t he be given the option to keep that child following birth? Men are completely powerless in this kind of situation.

    4) I know this probably sounds redundant, but what ever happened to responsibility and accountability? I’ve just never understood how some people can be so careless and then expect a quick-fix. I have by no means lived a privileged life and I’ve made my own BIG mistakes, but I’ve never run from my problems.

    Logically, the only way I can see it working is allowing unrestricted abortions until the generally agreed upon date of viability to be determined by the medical community free from outside bias. After that, the fetus is viable and therefore a “person.” Obviously, provisions should be put in place concerning emergencies regarding the life of the woman. As a survivor of rape myself, I would like to see provisions allowed for women in that position. Unfortunately, I just do not see how it would work. Too many women could easily claim to have been raped in order to attain a late abortion. Its hard enough for true victims to come forward with society’s perceptions and that would definitely deal a low-blow to them. So, such a provision would sadly be extremely difficult to implement.

    • November 3, 2010 3:38

      Please check my latest post: Why is the Anti-Abortion Movement Anti-Rights, Anti-Life

      Here’s a case for you:

      An adult woman is admitted to a hospital. She is 11 weeks pregnant with her fourth child, and she is gravely ill. According to a hospital document, she has “right heart failure,” and her doctors tells her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality is “close to 100 percent.”

      QUESTIONS:

      1. Now as an individual, not necessarily an anti-abortion advocate, WHAT WOULD YOU DO OR WHAT WOULD YOU ADVISE?

      2. What if the patient agreed to an abortion? Under our criminal law, abortion is NOT an option. Would you penalize her and her doctor?

      • MissLibertyBelle permalink
        November 8, 2010 3:38

        Its quite clear you read NONE of my previous posting. Otherwise, you would have realized I said that: 1) Abortions should be freely allowed regardless of reason up until the date of viability. 11 weeks is no where near viable. 2) After the date of viability, provisions should be made in case of medical emergencies such as the one you described above.

        Next time, I suggest you actually read a post prior to responding to it and making yourself look foolish. Also, I’d appreciate you answering the questions I raised within my previous posting. Though, I’m not holding my breath considering your emotional, rhetoric based response.

    • xyxy permalink
      November 9, 2010 3:38

      Just some additional thoughts:

      “2) You can make up the definition of human being as many times as you want, but that doesn’t change the fetuses DNA. To say it is not human is ridiculous. Now, when it becomes a “person”… Well, that’s when all sorts of theories, emotions, and vague philosophies tend to come into play. I personally tend to look to science and science alone. If the fetus is viable, its a person. End of story. That is the tipping point. Before that, sure it can be argued both ways “morally,” but I don’t get involved in that. However, once the fetus is capable of living outside the woman’s womb, it is a “person.” That’s a pretty cut and dry tipping point.”

      – You can say that. Imagine if science can create some sort of machine that is able to provide for the fetus everything it needs to survive outside of the womb, it can be completely independent, biologically speaking, of the mother.

      “Logically, the only way I can see it working is allowing unrestricted abortions until the generally agreed upon date of viability to be determined by the medical community free from outside bias. After that, the fetus is viable and therefore a “person.” Obviously, provisions should be put in place concerning emergencies regarding the life of the woman.”

      – Please tell us more about these provisions in case of life-threatening(medically) emergencies. Will it allow abortion, let’s say in ectopic pregnancies?

      • MissLibertyBelle permalink
        November 9, 2010 3:38

        Xyxy,

        That would be a very interesting machine. I’m sure at some point medical science will have progressed that far. As someone who has had trouble with miscarriages in the past, I would be very interested in seeing this technology come to fruition.

        As an EMT who has seen the dangers of ectopic pregnancies first hand, yes that would definitely be considered an life threatening emergency! That’s a pretty obvious example though. Plus, almost all ectopics are discovered LONG before the date of viability. So, there wouldn’t even need to be a specific reason behind the abortion before that.

      • xyxy permalink
        November 9, 2010 3:38

        Thanks for the fast reply. So far, have you seen or heard of complications in which the only possible “solution” is to terminate the pregnancy?

      • MissLibertyBelle permalink
        November 9, 2010 3:38

        Xyxy,

        You’re welcome! I’m in bed sick with not much else to do… :/

        Sadly, I have seen cases in which the pregnancy simply couldn’t be saved and the life of the woman was in immediate danger. There have been other times when the baby was delivered early, but just didn’t survive. Its a heartbreaking situation. I truly feel for the parents who have to make that decision.

      • xyxy permalink
        November 9, 2010 3:38

        What does an “Atheist Pro-life/Anti-abortionist” believes in? Is there any difference between that and a Religious “Pro-life”/”Anti-abortionist” aside from ‘God’?

        I do hope you’ll get better soon.

      • MissLibertyBelle permalink
        November 9, 2010 3:38

        Xyxy,

        There’s a huge difference between me and a religious pro-lifer.

        While I do have my opinions based on emotion, I firmly believe policy should only be made based on fact and science. I would never have an abortion (provided there are no life threatening circumstances obviously), but that’s my personal belief based on emotion. Everyone has their own beliefs when it comes to that, which is why I’ve long said the date of viability should be the tipping point. Before that, anyone can have an abortion for any reason. It allows women a reasonable window in which to make a decision. After the date of viability, it should be limited to life threatening circumstances.

        Religious pro-lifers oppose all abortion on emotion based principles. No abortion is okay regardless of reason in their eyes. They are as unreasonable in my eyes as those that go around shouting “My body, my choice” and suggest women should have the ability to abort up right up until birth. Birth is an emotional tipping point just as much as conception.

        Thank you for the well wishes by the way! I think I’m going to allow the cold medicine to take affect and go to sleep, but I’m sure I’ll be back online tomorrow. So, if you have anymore questions, please feel free to ask! :)

      • xyxy permalink
        November 10, 2010 3:38

        Does your stand imply that you’re not against IVF procedures?

      • MissLibertyBelle permalink
        November 10, 2010 3:38

        Why would I be against IVF? As long as they aren’t freezing viable fetuses, I see no real issue with it. I’ve had friends who have gone through this themselves and even friends who have adopted “snowflake babies” (leftover fertilized eggs from IVF).

        This is slightly off-topic, but it bothers me greatly: the adoption system needs a serious overhaul. It takes way to long to place a child with permanent parents. Instead, they’d rather shuffle these kids from one subpar foster parent to the next. Disclaimer: I’m not saying all foster parents are bad, but there are few really good ones anymore. My grandfather’s best friend and his wife were foster parents to dozens of children over the years and even went on to adopt a good number of them themselves! I think they ended up with over 20 kids or something like that? However, those kind of foster parents seem to be rare nowadays!

  8. November 3, 2010 3:38

    This abortion. This right to annihilate the embryo is evil.. Just like any other hardcore feminist who keeps on yelling to have 100% control over her body. Well, we all have control over our body, we decide what & what not to do. While we are all free to choose our actions, we cannot choose the consequences. And when we find the consequences too hard to deal with, we look for ways to escape responsibility, and this escape gave birth to abortion. If a person can’t deal with having a kid, then why have sex in the first place.
    How can one say that an embryo is a “potential” human being, when in fact right after fertilization an embryo has already a full set of unique genes same as any adult human being. They are not fully developed yet but a human being just the same.
    Legalizing abortion is like giving a free pass to escape responsibility. Why need to be legalized? I guess to finally put the fruit of their promiscuity to end.
    People are swallowed with so much love of freedom, choice & control. Not legalizing their whims produces activists who feels like they are oppressed, when in fact it is all self-pity & cowardice in grand scale.

    • November 11, 2010 3:38

      There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisin-size lump of cells as a human being. Biologically speaking, such an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird. Anatomically, its brain has yet to develop, so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn’t bear the remotest similarity to a human being. This growth of cells has the potential to become a human being–if preserved, fed, nurtured, and brought to term by the woman that it depends on–but it is not actually a human being. Analogously, seeds can become mature plants–but that hardly makes a pile of acorns equal to a forest.

      What can justify the sacrifice of an actual woman’s life to human potential of the most primitive kind? There can be no rational justification for such a position–certainly not a genuine concern for human life. The ultimate “justification” of the “pro-life” position is religious dogma.

  9. angel870 permalink
    November 4, 2010 3:38

    This is a great site! thank you for the very informative and relevant articles specially in education….

  10. November 6, 2010 3:38

    Fetus is…part of the woman’s internal organ?
    A fetus or an embryo…has no responsibility at all? It has no rights?
    A fetus or an embryo…that piece of human tissue?

    All the statements above are invalid and even scientifically erroneous. By comparing these statements with the definition, we will identify the loopholes and eliminate the errors, and thus arrive to clear and factual conclusions. So let us define the terms:

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 defines the following terms:

    1. ORGAN – A distinct “part of an organism” that performs one or more specialized functions. (That is, organ = part of an organism)
    2. EMBRYO – An “organism” in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. (That is, embryo = organism)
    3. FETUS – In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier EMBRYO. (That is, fetus = embryo)
    4. ORGANISM – An “individual” form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of “organs”, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life. (That is, organism = individual)
    5. INDIVIDUAL – A “person” distinguished from others by a special quality. (That is individual = person)
    6. PERSON – A “human”…with legal rights and duties. (That is, person = human)

    Now let us consider:
    An ORGAN is a part of an organism. And EMBRYO is an organism.
    So if EMBRYO is an organism. And is NOT a part of organism. Then it is NOT an organ.
    So if EMBRYO is an organism. And embryo is the earlier stage of FETUS. Then, fetus is also an ORGANISM.
    So if EMBRYO or FETUS is an organism, then it is an INDIVIDUAL.
    So if EMBRYO or FETUS is an individual, then it is a PERSON.
    So if EMBRYO or FETUS is a person, then it is a HUMAN.
    So if EMBRYO or FETUS is human, then it has LEGAL RIGHTS.
    So if EMBRYO or FETUS has legal rights, then concerned citizens should voice out his/her RIGHTS TO LIVE! :)

    • November 6, 2010 3:38

      What a funny logic! Are free-farter?! http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/why-is-the-personhood-movement-anti-rights-anti-life/

      • xyxy permalink
        November 8, 2010 3:38

        @Freethinker2008:
        I have no problems with your biological definitions. However, you seem to have misinterpreted/misunderstood the following:

        “PERSON – A “human”…with legal rights and duties. (That is, person = human)”

        — OK, I get you.

        INDIVIDUAL – A “person” distinguished from others by a special quality. (That is individual = person)

        — OK, I still get you.

        ” ORGANISM – An “individual” form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of “organs”, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
        (That is, organism = individual)”

        — Uhm, ok… so far we have:

        person = human
        individual = person
        organism = individual

        Is the “individual” from the your “individual = person” the same as “organism = individual”? Cos if they are, then it is perfectly acceptable, by using this logic, that a plant which is an “organism” is an “individual”, a “person” and a “human” (assuming that the “=” you used is like in maths). What is that? I think you just jumped from biology to philosophy or something.

        If it makes you feel any better, I agree with you that an embryo is not an organ. It’s an organism. But please fix this weird logic!

  11. November 6, 2010 3:38

    Seriously, you’re being trolled by a free-farter! lol!

  12. November 7, 2010 3:38

    You said:

    If we grant rights to “frozen embryos”, then it follows that our tonsils or appendix is also entitled to the same rights.

    My reaction:

    You mean to say that “embryos” are the same as “tonsils” and “appendix”? That’s the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard since Zeitgeist. Did your Biology teacher taught you this? Seriously? LOL

    FYI, the embryo is NEITHER lymphoepithelial tissues NOR vestigial structure. An embryo or fetus is also NOT an organ because it is actually an ORGANISM because it is made of ORGANS since its first month! And you don’t know that?

    My God. I am really disappointed in you.

    • November 7, 2010 3:38

      Well, I don’t care. I don’t want to get compliments from stupid people.

      • November 7, 2010 3:38

        Yeah, telling people that embryo or fetus is JUST AN ORGAN, PART OF ORGAN or JUST TISSUES, and are PHYSIOLOGICALLY THE SAME AS TONSILS AND APPENDIX is really stupid and ignorant.

  13. November 7, 2010 3:38

    freethinker2008 said: “So if EMBRYO or FETUS is an organism, then it is an INDIVIDUAL.
    So if EMBRYO or FETUS is an individual, then it is a PERSON.
    So if EMBRYO or FETUS is a person, then it is a HUMAN.
    So if EMBRYO or FETUS is human, then it has LEGAL RIGHTS.
    So if EMBRYO or FETUS has legal rights, then concerned citizens should voice out his/her RIGHTS TO LIVE!”

    FAILED LOGIC!

    From the moment of fertilization to its implantation in the womb a few days later, the zygote consists of a few largely undifferentiated cells. It is invisible to the naked eye. It has no human organs, and no human form. It has no brain, and so no capacity for awareness or emotions. It is far more similar to a few skin cells than an infant. Moreover, the zygote cannot develop into a baby on its own: its survival beyond a few days requires successful implantation in the lining of the woman’s uterus. If it fails to do that, it will be flushed from her body without anyone ever knowing of its existence.

    If the embryo matures normally after implanting into the lining of the uterus, it gradually develops primitive organs. Yet its form is not distinctively human in the early stages: it looks very similar to the embryo of other species.[149] As it develops its distinctive human form, the fetus remains wholly dependent on the woman for its survival. Even with the most advanced medical technology, many fetuses born in the 22nd to 25th week of pregnancy will die, and many of those that survive will suffer from “some degree of life long disability, ranging from minor hearing loss to blindness, to cerebral palsy, to profound intellectual disability.”[150] So before viability, the fetus is not capable of an existence independent of the pregnant woman.

    After 26 weeks, when a fetus would be viable outside the womb, its organs continue to mature in ways critical to its survival and well-being after birth. It is aware, but that awareness is limited to the world inside the womb. Most importantly, however, so long as the fetus remains within the woman, it is wholly dependent on her for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. It does not interact with the outside world. It is wholly contained within and dependent on her for its survival. So if the woman dies, the fetus will die too unless delivered quickly. The same is true if the fetus’s life-line to her body is disrupted, such as when the umbilical cord forms a tight knot.[151] A fetus cannot act independently to sustain its life, not even on the basic biological level possible to a day-old infant. It is thoroughly and solely dependent on the woman in which it lives.

    That situation changes radically at birth. A baby lives his own life, outside his mother. Although still very needy, he maintains his own biological functions. He breathes his own air, digests his own food, and moves on his own. He interacts with other people as a whole and distinct creature in his own right, not merely as a part of a pregnant woman. He can leave his mother, either temporarily or permanently, to be cared for by someone else.

    These important differences between the mode of life of the zygote, embryo, and fetus on the one hand, and the born infant on the other, show that the former cannot be persons. Rights, in other words, cannot be applied until birth. Why not?

    First, the utter biological dependence of the zygote, embryo, and fetus on the pregnant woman shows that, until birth, it is not yet living its own life, but rather partaking in the life of the woman. It exists as part of the pregnant woman, not as an individual in its own right. Yet rights pertain only to individuals, not parts thereof. Such is the case, even when the fetus would be viable outside the womb. Even then, it is only a potential individual, not an actual one. The fetus only becomes an actual individual when birth separates it from the woman’s body. Until then, it cannot be a person with a right to life. The pregnant woman, in contrast, is always an individual with full rights.

    Second, the zygote, embryo, or fetus does not exist in a social context until birth. Due to its enclosure within the body of the pregnant woman, the new life cannot interact with other people: it experiences only muffled sounds and indirect pressure through the woman. It cannot be touched or handled, nor can it even engage in the primitive communication possible to infants. Even the pregnant woman cannot directly interact with her fetus, as she will do with her newborn infant. Until birth, she can only act as a biological host to the life inside her, not as a mother. A woman, in contrast, lives in society whether pregnant or not–and her rights are therefore absolute and inalienable.

    Given these facts, to ascribe any rights to the zygote, embryo, or fetus before birth is a profound error. It is not a person–or rather, it is only a potential person, not an actual person. To suppose that mere potentiality is sufficient is to commit the fallacy of the continuum. The fact that a zygote may develop into a born infant does not prove the zygote to be the same thing as a born infant–any more than an acorn is an oak tree and a caterpillar is a butterfly.

    http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/why-is-the-personhood-movement-anti-rights-anti-life/

    • November 7, 2010 3:38

      Now that is a classic example of argumentum verbosium or PROOF OF VERBOSITY.

      After all your PSEUDO-SCIENCE rhetoric, you did NOT prove that embryo or fetus is just a part of organ or just an organ, or that it is any way similar to tonsils and appendix. So who’s the one with “failed logic” now? LOL

      • November 7, 2010 3:38

        And your argument that an embryo is an INDIVIDUAL is science? Well, I think you’re a deeply disturbed EMBRYO… lol!

        If individuals are embryos or vice versa, then you’re clearly an embryo … lol! And this is what you call science. It’s good you started this. I have to tell you I don’t wanna debate an embryo, because your arguments show you have an undeveloped brain and everything. End of discussion.

  14. xyxy permalink
    November 8, 2010 3:38

    Freethinker2008, you inspire me! I can use your kind of reasoning to argue that a cat has legal rights:

    So if a CAT is an organism, then it is an INDIVIDUAL.
    So if a CAT is an individual, then it is a PERSON.
    So if a CAT is a person, then it is a HUMAN.
    So if a CAT is human, then it has LEGAL RIGHTS. (See? Cats are people, too.)
    So if a CAT has legal rights, then concerned CAT citizens should voice out his/her RIGHTS TO LIVE!

    I’m so happy. This ought to be a meme.

    • freethinker2008 permalink
      November 8, 2010 3:38

      Yes, a cat is an organism but it is NOT a person.

      Let’s recheck its definition:

      INDIVIDUAL – A “person” distinguished from others by a special quality.

      The American Heritage Dictionary did NOT say an individual is a cat, right? :)

      • November 8, 2010 3:38

        What is the distinction between an embryo and an “individual”, who is a person “distinguished from others by a special quality?” What are the special qualities of a person that are not present in an embryo like you?

        But yes, I believe your failed logic and sick reasoning applies to you, because you’re an embryo. That is, like an embryo, you have an undeveloped brain and everything.

      • xyxy permalink
        November 9, 2010 3:38

        Dude I just used your “So if… then…” logic and it says a cat has legal rights. If you don’t agree with my conclusion, then perhaps you should consider revising that argument of yours (add more conditions or whatever and drop the ‘=’ sign).

  15. xyxy permalink
    November 8, 2010 3:38

    Anyway, I found out that “Pro-lifer” Senator Enrile had introduced a bill:

    http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/101288664!.pdf

    http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/286294/enrile-a-prolife-statesman

    “AN ACT TO UPHOLD THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF THE
    UNBORN CHILD, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLES 256, 257, 258 AND 259
    OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

    Look at the first objective:

    “a) Recognize the unborn child as a human being with a distinct human personality and
    with the right to life and the right to be accorded the maximum protection of the State
    and its laws;”

    I am speechless.

    • November 8, 2010 3:38

      Wow! I’m not aware of this. Enrile and Freethinker2008 have the same “embryonic” mentality.

      And oh…. Economist Villegas wrote that article. His argument against the RH bill is grounded in his Catholic beliefs. I regret sending an email to him one time, thanking him for his stance on the RHB issue.

    • freethinker2008 permalink
      November 8, 2010 3:38

      Thanks, for the info. I’m also not aware of this Senate Bill until now. It’s good to know that someone from the legislative has thought of protecting the rights of the UNBORN CHILD referring to the human EMBRYO or FETUS.

      However, with or without this bill, the human embryo or fetus is still RATIONALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY an organism, individual, person, and HUMAN with legal rights.

      And that’s how you end this discussion. :)

      • November 8, 2010 3:38

        And you are an embryo… Yeah, right!

  16. freethinker2008 permalink
    November 8, 2010 3:38

    froivinber, if I’m an “embryo”, then you’re just a “part of the woman’s internal organ”, or a “piece of human tissue”, remember? LOL At least an embryo is an ORGANISM, which have the POTENTIAL to be a HUMAN BEING. While you are just a VESTIGIAL STRUCTURE like a vermiform APPENDIX, ready to be disposed anytime by surgical removal. That’s your idea of “abortion”, right? :)

    • November 8, 2010 3:38

      Did I say that a “piece of human tissue” is an individual or a person?

      I said it’s part of the woman’s body like an embryo. Another epic fail. Failed logic. So according to your failed logic, every organism is an individual.

      Again, I don’t wanna debate a sick “embryo” like you.

      • freethinker2008 permalink
        November 8, 2010 3:38

        Really now? But the vermiform APPENDIX is still debating with the “embryo” (which is an organism that has a potential to be HUMAN with legal rights) up to this very moment. Weird. LOL

        Now you’re saying “it’s part of the woman’s body like an embryo”? Let me repost the EXACT excerpt from your article which I posted 2 days ago:

        You said: “Fetus is…part of the woman’s internal organ?”

        So why are you now singing a different tune after I exposed your stupidity and ignorance? :)

      • November 8, 2010 3:38

        What is the distinction between an embryo and an “individual”, who is a person “distinguished from others by a special quality?” What are the special qualities of a person that are not present in an embryo like you?

        But yes, I believe your failed logic and sick reasoning applies to you, because you’re an embryo. That is, like an embryo, you have an undeveloped brain and everything.

      • freethinker2008 permalink
        November 8, 2010 3:38

        It’s over, dude. Your Fallacy of Plurium Interrogationum is NOT WORKING.

        Just face the FACT that an embryo or fetus is rationally and scientifically an organism, individual, person and HUMAN with legal rights.

        And it’s NEITHER a “part of the woman’s internal organ” NOR an APPENDIX as you stupidly and ignorantly assume. Why don’t you ask any certified DOCTOR to confirm this FACT?

        So just admit your mistake; be humble; and stop humiliating yourself any further. Just a friendly advice. :)

      • November 8, 2010 3:38

        You said: “Just face the FACT that an embryo or fetus is rationally and scientifically an organism, individual, person and HUMAN with legal rights.”

        This shows your utter ignorance and stupidity. Stop watching that Zeitgeist crap.

        A fetus may be an organism, but so are other living things. It’s being an organism doesn’t make it a person or an individual. If that’s your stupid reasoning, then you are an embryo because you are an organism. Do not retort by saying that I’m a piece of tissue because I didn’t claim a piece of tissue is an individual.

        If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, people like you also claim you just conceded it’s a human being. With that kind of reasoning I can also claim that a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote. The so-called pro-lifers like you will react that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes.

        Now consider this:

        From the moment of fertilization to its implantation in the womb a few days later, the zygote consists of a few largely undifferentiated cells. It is invisible to the naked eye. It has no human organs, and no human form. It has no brain, and so no capacity for awareness or emotions. It is far more similar to a few skin cells than an infant. Moreover, the zygote cannot develop into a baby on its own: its survival beyond a few days requires successful implantation in the lining of the woman’s uterus. If it fails to do that, it will be flushed from her body without anyone ever knowing of its existence.

        Both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being.

      • freethinker2008 permalink
        November 8, 2010 3:38

        So now you agree that embryo or fetus is an organism. finally. now you’re learning. :)

        And embryo or fetus is an individual because it is a person separate from the personhood of his/her mother; and it’s not “part of the woman’s internal organ” as you ignorantly claimed; and is not an “appendix” as again you ignorantly claimed, remember?

        A “flake of dandruff” is NOT an embryo or organism or human because it has NO ORGANS, remember? When will I ever stop teaching you about Biology 101? LOL

        And you said you that embryo or fetus are like tonsils and appendix so that means you believe you’re just a “piece of human tissue”, remember?

        I’m just wondering. Why all of a sudden you’re having SELECTIVE AMNESIA after I exposed your argumentum ad ignorantiam?
        Is that the effect of your APPENDECTOMY? :)

      • November 8, 2010 3:38

        I think I need to repost my post since you’re incapable of human thought.

        You said: “Just face the FACT that an embryo or fetus is rationally and scientifically an organism, individual, person and HUMAN with legal rights.”

        This shows your utter ignorance and stupidity. Stop watching that Zeitgeist crap.

        A fetus may be an organism, but so are other living things. It’s being an organism doesn’t make it a person or an individual. If that’s your stupid reasoning, then you are an embryo because you are an organism. Do not retort by saying that I’m a piece of tissue because I didn’t claim a piece of tissue is an individual.

        If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, people like you also claim you just conceded it’s a human being. With that kind of reasoning I can also claim that a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote. The so-called pro-lifers like you will react that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes.

        Now consider this:

        From the moment of fertilization to its implantation in the womb a few days later, the zygote consists of a few largely undifferentiated cells. It is invisible to the naked eye. It has no human organs, and no human form. It has no brain, and so no capacity for awareness or emotions. It is far more similar to a few skin cells than an infant. Moreover, the zygote cannot develop into a baby on its own: its survival beyond a few days requires successful implantation in the lining of the woman’s uterus. If it fails to do that, it will be flushed from her body without anyone ever knowing of its existence.

        Both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being.

        Still, this post of yours shows your utter ignorance and stupidity:

        “So if EMBRYO or FETUS is an organism, then it is an INDIVIDUAL.
        So if EMBRYO or FETUS is an individual, then it is a PERSON.
        So if EMBRYO or FETUS is a person, then it is a HUMAN.
        So if EMBRYO or FETUS is human, then it has LEGAL RIGHTS.
        So if EMBRYO or FETUS has legal rights, then concerned citizens should voice out his/her RIGHTS TO LIVE! :)”

        FYI, “organism” means “an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.”

        Even a microbe is an organism, according to Science and Biology 101: then it’s also an individual, according to your logic.

        Let’s apply your logic:

        So if a MICROBE or a PLANT is an organism, then it is an INDIVIDUAL.

        “So if EMBRYO or FETUS is an individual, then it is a PERSON.” — WRONG. An embryo is not an individual, stupid.

        “So if EMBRYO or FETUS is a person, then it is a HUMAN.” — WRONG AGAIN! En embryo is not a individual and a person.

        “So if EMBRYO or FETUS is human, then it has LEGAL RIGHTS.” — WRONG AND WRONG AGAIN, stupid! An embryo is not a human.

        “So if EMBRYO or FETUS has legal rights, then concerned citizens should voice out his/her RIGHTS TO LIVE!” — THIS IS PURE STUPIDITY. An embryo is not “CONCERNED CITIZENS”. Lmao!

      • freethinker2008 permalink
        November 8, 2010 3:38

        froivinber, you said: “An embryo is not a human.”

        OK. So if an embryo or fetus is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL…
        NOT A PERSON….and NOT A HUMAN, then what are YOU???

        A bacterium? A protist? A fungus?
        Oh, I remember…an APPENDIX! LOL

        OMG! See how STUPID & IGNORANT you are? LOL

      • November 8, 2010 3:38

        That stupid rant means nothing at all. It’s good you’re now admitting that an embryo is not an individual, a person, a human or a concerned citizen. That’s a sign that you’re now gradually evolving…

        Again, let’s apply your logic:

        So if a MICROBE or a PLANT is an organism, then it is an INDIVIDUAL.

        “So if EMBRYO or FETUS is an individual, then it is a PERSON.” — WRONG. An embryo is not an individual, stupid.

        “So if EMBRYO or FETUS is a person, then it is a HUMAN.” — WRONG AGAIN! En embryo is not a individual and a person.

        “So if EMBRYO or FETUS is human, then it has LEGAL RIGHTS.” — WRONG AND WRONG AGAIN, stupid! An embryo is not a human.

        “So if EMBRYO or FETUS has legal rights, then concerned citizens should voice out his/her RIGHTS TO LIVE!” — THIS IS PURE STUPIDITY. An embryo is not “CONCERNED CITIZENS”. Lmao!

        Then you are a microbe.

  17. xyxy permalink
    November 9, 2010 3:38

    Again, Mr. Freethinker2008 dude, if you may, re-read the following:

    “I have no problems with your biological definitions. However, you seem to have misinterpreted/misunderstood the following:
    “PERSON – A “human”…with legal rights and duties. (That is, person = human)”
    – OK, I get you.

    “INDIVIDUAL – A “person” distinguished from others by a special quality. (That is individual = person)”
    – OK, I still get you.

    ” ORGANISM – An “individual” form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of “organs”, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
    (That is, organism = individual)”

    – Uhm, ok… so far we have: YOU PROVIDED THESE.
    person = human
    individual = person
    organism = individual

    Is the “individual” from the your “individual = person” the same as “organism = individual”? Cos if they are, then it is perfectly acceptable, by using this logic, that a plant which is an “organism” is an “individual”, a “person” and a “human” (assuming that the “=” you used is like in maths). What is that? I think you just jumped from biology to philosophy or something.

    If it makes you feel any better, I agree with you that an embryo is not an organ. It’s an organism. But please FIX THIS WEIRD LOGIC AND USE PROPER OPERATORS INSTEAD OF ‘=’!”

  18. November 9, 2010 3:38

    froivinber, you said: “I have a fully developed brain…”

    Don’t flatter yourself too much. A bacterium, protist, fungus or an APPENDIX like you don’t have any brain cell. But you don’t know that because you’re pathologically BRAINLESS. And you flunked on Biology 101, remember? LOL

    And you said: “I’m an individual or a person because I’m not a fetus, a zygote or an embryo- or simply part of my mother’s body.”

    What? “An embryo- or simply part of my mother’s body”? Let me remind you that ORIGINALLY you said, “Fetus is…part of the woman’s internal organ.” That line clearly defines your stupidity and ignorance, remember? OMG! You’re caught LYING. And that’s one sure-fire tactic of a LOSER. LOL

    Moving on. How can you even be a “person” if you ignorantly think “embryo” is just a “piece of tissue” like tonsils? Or a vestigial structure like appendix? And what medical procedure your mother took when she gave birth to you – APPENDECTOMY or TONSILLECTOMY? LOL

  19. xyxy permalink
    November 9, 2010 3:38

    Dude, come on, let it go. I think Vince is WRONG when he said embryo is an organ.

    You whine how his “prep squad”‘s getting too loud. Now you’re the one getting TOO LOUD. I thought you’d know better.

    • November 10, 2010 3:38

      FYI, I already KNOW that froivinber is WRONG since day one. Let us review his thoughts:

      1. froivinber thinks embryo or fetus is just “tissues”.
      2. froivinber thinks embryo or fetus is just “part of a woman’s internal organ”.
      3. froivinber thinks embryo or fetus is just the same as “tonsils” and “appendix”.

      Imagine that. He believes that embryo or fetus is just USELESS tissues as dandruff flakes; that it is INFERIOR to any internal organ; and that it can even be DISPOSED as DEAD MEAT into the garbage can anytime. These IRRATIONAL & UNSCIENTIFIC factoids are his reasons to worship his PRO-ABORTION GOD. At first, I could not believe how any person can think like this but since I’ve become a first-hand witness to his LIES, CHEATING & FRAUD, I now understand perfectly.

      But if froivinber GENUINELY believes in his PRO-ABORTION stance, then why he still CANNOT ANSWER this REPHRASED question AFFIRMATIVELY?

      “Should FROIVINBER’S MOTHER be given the choice to abort FROIVINBER if it’s “a threat to the biological survival” of HIS MOTHER, like in ectopic pregnancies?”

      Well, any smart person knows why. :)

      • November 10, 2010 3:38

        The LOSER organism strikes again. All you arguments against abortion and for religion are STUPID and LUNATIC. Dealing with you would be a waste of time.

        Your failed LOGIC is:

        Organism = fetus/embryo = person. LOSER!

      • xyxy permalink
        November 10, 2010 3:38

        Teh troll iz ignoring meh. I olrdy gave teh anzwer he leik. I’m so sad. :(

  20. November 11, 2010 3:38

    OMYGOD! This article – Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being? – is just a 100% COPY of the ORIGINAL ARTICLE of another writer??? The title, body, and even the endnotes – they were ALL WRITTEN by JOYCE ARTHUR way back in 2001!!! LOL

    Wow, you could really FOOL anyone, thinking they’re reading your own articles. So that’s why you could EASILY post articles here anytime. All you have to do is browse on other sites for interesting articles, COPY them, and then PASTE them here on your INTELLECTUALLY-DEFICIENT blogsite. Hence, you’re just an INFERIOR IMITATOR of another writer. Nice work, EPIGONE! LOL

    I already know that you LIED many times; DENIED your pseudoscience factoids; REVISED your articles and CHANGED some lines I’d discovered with logical flaws; and even hired some PREP SQUAD to cheer you up when you CRASH & BURN. But I never thought that you would even take the path of PLAGIARISM just to argue with me. Well, I can’t blame you since your IRRATIONAL & UNSCIENTIFIC arguments CRUMBLE like your BRITTLE CRANIUM when confronted by HISTORICAL FACTS & SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS. So aside from this article, what OTHER ARTICLES you COPIED here, COPYCAT? LOL

    So all this time, I was just WASTING MY TIME here. I should NOT be arguing with you, froivinber. I should be arguing with JOYCE ARTHUR or anyone with ORIGINAL ARGUMENT. All you have here are just COPIED articles, PHONY ideologies, COPY-PASTED excerpts from philosophers & posters’ views (including mine), and other REHASHED comments. Aside from your BOGUS character, everything about you is FAKE! On top it all, you have just proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you are indeed a LYING PATHETIC BRAINLESS LOSER! LOL

    From this day on, your ILLUSION of having a brain has been TERMINATED. Moreover, your pro-abortion factoids, anti-religion idiosyncrasy, & even your microscopic credibility – ALL DIED A NATURAL DEATH.

    Anyway, my deep condolences. :)

    • November 11, 2010 3:38

      I read that article. Froivinver clearly put the name of the author of the article so he’s not claiming that he wrote this post. You’re simply trying to make a BIG issue out of a non-issue. Relax. You’re so obvious.

      If you really read the whole article, you should have seen the name of its real author. I don’t see any problem here. So you’re wrong in your claim that Froivinver is trying to “FOOL anyone, thinking they’re reading your own articles.”

      You’re obvious ass here ‘-)

  21. MC Ramirez permalink
    November 11, 2010 3:38

    “OMYGOD! This article – Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being? – is just a 100% COPY of the ORIGINAL ARTICLE of another writer??? The title, body, and even the endnotes – they were ALL WRITTEN by JOYCE ARTHUR way back in 2001!!! LOL”

    You are sooo funny hahaha!

    I also saw that. But the blogger states:

    * By Joyce Arthur

    Technically he’s he’s not fooling anyone that he wrote the article.

    In short, he acknowledged the main author of the article, you idiot.

    The blogger should be deleting all your crappy, idiotic comments…

    • xyxy permalink
      November 11, 2010 3:38

      Delete not! Let it stay, so the world may sympathize with this schizophrenic (correct me if I’m wrong) troll.

  22. November 11, 2010 3:38

    While I agree that abortion must be legalized here because this is one of the ways to fight poverty and overpopulation, I strongly disagree with your fascist, evil ideology of free market system. The government must serve the common good of the citizens and make sure that abortion is accessible to poor women. If need be, the government must control population by passing the RH bill.

    You position on abortion and your anti-RH bill stance clash with each other. You should be more consistent.

  23. November 11, 2010 3:38

    And why are you responding instead of your leader? LOL It’s cute that you try to defend that FAKE WRITER but this 100% copy of Joyce Arthur’s old article speaks loudly of PLAGIARISM. Posting Arthur’s article here even sent the message:

    HELP, MR. ARTHUR! I CAN’T DEFEND & ARTICULATE YOUR STUPID PRO-ABORTION ARGUMENTS ANYMORE. CAN I JUST COPY YOUR ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE? I PROMISE, NO ONE WOULD KNOW. OH GOD, PLEASE! LOL

    I also saw that very little sign at the bottom of this article which from the view of clueless first-time readers seem a negligible info. But ON TOP of this article, it clearly says BY FROIVINBER. So which is which, IDIOT? LOL

    Yeah, “technically he’s not fooling anyone that he wrote the article” but
    FROIVINBER IS ABSOLUTELY FOOLING EVERYONE!
    So cut the crap! LOL

  24. xyxy permalink
    November 11, 2010 3:38

    I was expecting more from this troll. It seems that he isn’t aware of how WordPress works and had mistaken MS. Arthur for a man. I do hope he sticks with “Proverbs 17:28″ and stop being such a hypocrite.

    God bless him.

  25. November 22, 2010 3:38

    I am a frequent reader of your articles and just wanted to inform you that I really love your blog.

  26. Mark Lian permalink
    February 23, 2011 3:38

    between ‘potentiality’ and ‘actuality’. does the potentiality of the being-human of the fetus depend on the fetus’ dependence on his mother for food? and does actuality… depend on his independence …after birth? What can we say about our dependence for food on our environment? Are we all potential persons then? That we are not yet persons until we learn not to eat anymore? Is there a difference between ‘potentially complete person’ and ‘potential person’? is the former rightly predicated of the zygote, embryo, and fetus even as it is also applicable to those who are already born and is still growing, physically or non-physically? Is the latter applicable instead to the sperm cell and ovum in separation but in view of their intended union?

    • February 23, 2011 3:38

      Only actual human beings have rights. A potential cannot have any right or any better right than the mother. A mother has all the rights to control her own body. She has the right not to be condemned by law or any political edict to make an unwanted choice. She has the right to get rid of the embryo inside her womb. My pro-abortion stance does not mean I believe in state intervention or that every woman should undergo abortion. No one has any better right whether a woman or a mother should seek abortion. Only the concerned person- the woman- has the right to make a decision.

  27. Margaret Schultz permalink
    July 12, 2011 3:38

    One of these statements is true, and the other is false.
    a) Embryos are human beings.
    b) Embryos are not human beings.
    Whichever one you believe, you risk finding out you were wrong and you should have believed the other.

    Which error would be worse, treating nonhumans as if they are human, or treating humans as if they are nonhuman?

    Upon receiving correction, will your error bother your conscience, or can you brush it off and say oh well, no harm done?

  28. Katoliko Ako permalink
    July 23, 2012 3:38

    hahaha!

  29. Katoliko Ako permalink
    July 23, 2012 3:38

    imagine determining if a fetus is a person via oral argument and logic. hahaha1 i would love to join in but its just funny for me. I saw a fetus and its a person, a human being. Done! its wrong to kill him or her because its convenient. The Catholic church taught me that. Yes, my scientific church taught me that. geesh let’s not kill babies please!

  30. October 1, 2012 3:38

    i respect you a lot, but i think that you contradict some of your thoughts and beliefs. You strongly believe in human rights, but you do not think that embryos (which are scientifically proven living creatures) do not deserve such rights.

Trackbacks

  1. Page not found « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. RH Bill’s Fallacy of Overpopulation-Poverty Dichotomy « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 244 other followers

%d bloggers like this: