Re: Abortion

2005-12-16 20:39:00

Larry writes:

If it is the case that conservatives are showing their non-logical "female side" on this issue then why is it that they make the following logical arguments against _some_ forms of abortion?

1. 9 weeks from conception, all the structures necessary for pain sensation are functioning.

2. At 20 weeks, and perhaps as early as 16 weeks from conception, a baby is capable of hearing his mother's heartbeat and external noises like music.

3. At 23 weeks from conception, babies have been shown to demonstrate rapid eye movements (REM), which are characteristic of active dream states.

4. At seven months from conception, a baby frequently "exercises" in preparation for birth by stretching and kicking.

The above is just a _sample_ of the actual reasons that many conservatives have presented to show that as a fetus advances in the womb it acquires and demonstrates functions that strongly indicate a living human being.

In the later stages the fetus demonstrates sophisticated brain wave patterns, rapid eye movement, independent and purposeful physical activity, and clearly feels pain.

Yes, I've seen this before but don't see any logic connected with it. Most conservatives still believe abortion is murder any time it is done after conception and don't use this progression series as a reason to be against abortion shortly after conception.

They use this human development as evidence that a real human being us going to be born, but even the most hardened abortionist does not dispute that and does not argue with it.

The showing of pictures of the embryo development does not to add any knowledge or logic, but to appeal to the emotions and sensibilities of the pro-choice crowd and fence sitters.

Larry:

It is true that some fundamentalist's argue as you have portrayed, but the majority of anti-abortion sites that I have seen will present a large number of logical arguments and facts based on biology, and not just religious belief.

Can you tell me one that I have not covered?

Larry:

That does not appear to me to demonstrate their "female side" of feelings, but rather seems to be grounded in logic and facts.

I think their arguments are based on feeling and do demonstrate the female side. I see very little logic on either side of the argument. I see this as feeling arguing against feeling. This is why we have such an impasse.

Larry:

Here is a principle for you.

If you are going to analyze the arguments of a group of people and you choose their weaker arguments (instead of their stronger ones) to make your point then what you are doing is neither logical, nor rational.

Then you should be able to give me a strong argument from the pro-life side. I see none except what I have already cited.

Larry:

Unfortunately that is precisely what you have done. You have taken the weakest - least logical - arguments from an extreme religious subset of the anti-abortion people on this issue and pretended they represent the majority of "Republicans."

I am happy to take the strongest as well as the most used arguments from either side. I don't see the biology thing as an argument at all for this is common knowledge understood by even the pro-choice crowd. Data alone does not make an argument.

Larry:

I would suggest that you rethink (and rewrite) this chapter with something a little better than this. It appears that you are just trying to show you are "fair and balanced" by first attacking the conservative side. It appears however to be highly contrived in my opinion to present that impression, and not very convincing.

As I said earlier I am not trying to be fair and balanced (that is giving both sides equality) but am trying to present truth no matter who it offends. I have previously said that this book will be viewed as unbalanced in favor of the Republicans because of the cycle we are currently in.

Words are things; and a small drop of ink, Falling like dew upon a thought, produces That which makes thousands, perhaps millions think.  Lord Byron (1788-1824)