I"m still waiting on yoda to prove self governance and self direction; which are higher thought processes, in a fetus..

I don’t see any brilliance or excellent quality in Wendy McElroy’s article. In fact, I find her argument very illogical. This is my first post, so I'm just going to go through some of her assertions to show you her flawed logic.


Wendy McElroy contends that “it is wrong to initiate force against anyone”. In her opening paragraph she argued that if the fetus is a human being with individual rights, then she was among millions of women who have committed first degree homicide. However, in the fifth paragraph she summarily declared that “the fetus is not a human being” without providing a shred of direct evidence to support her contention. Therefore, she is certainly wrong to contend that the fetus “possesses no rights” without providing any scientific proof that the fetus is not a human being.

Historically, we know what happened to people in Europe and America when people in power simply declare the powerless as sub-human or mere property. If her opinion is simply an intellectual exercise in philosophical debate for the enquiring minds, we can simply dismiss her subsequent circumstantial argument as harmless conjectures. But, since her opinion is about abortion, whatever assertion she makes will affect the life or death of prenatal human lives.

In our judicial system where capital cases are involved, there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the burden of proof regarding the humanity of prenatal life rests on those who support the taking of that life in abortion.


McElroy is confused between the entity and its attributes. The fetus, which is alive and in existence, can be observed with 3-D ultrasound. The fetus can also be physically handled for surgical procedure. Such as the case of Baby Grace who underwent a fetal heart surgery inside her mother’s womb in Boston on November 7, 2005. The surgery was real, her heart which was surgically repaired was also real. There is nothing potential about it.

A potential is simply a future attribute which is inherent in something that is already in existence. For instance, a male baby has the potential to grow facial and body hair when he grows up as a man due to his family genetics. Just because that potential is not realized for another decade and a half of his future life, doesn’t mean that the baby is just a potential. A potential is not the thing itself and cannot exist without something already in existence. Therefore, McElroy is confusing the existence of a thing, in this case the fetus, as contrasted with its potential attributes.


Unless McElroy has concrete scientific evidence to prove that at conception a fertilized egg is not a human being, but some bacteria, some chicken egg, some tissue, or some non-living material, then wait for just nine month she will be able to see and handle the screaming baby with her own eyes and hands. If she is impatience, then go to the hospital and see premature babies taken out from the womb to the incubator through C-section.

As for me, I am more realistic and don’t expect a human being at conception to be fully formed with politically correct anatomy of adult physical body and a rational thinking brain. No, the fact is that at conception the human being simply exists as a single cell. To expect otherwise from the unborn human life is absurd and clearly defy biological fact.


Why is “individuality” such an essential question that allows advocates of abortion rights to use it to decide who lives and who dies?

Just because the fetus is connected to the mother in the womb by the placenta does not mean that the fetus is not an individual being different from the mother. Conjoined twins are connected to each other and often share vital organs for survival for all the duration of their lives, not just mere nine month. Yet, we still consider each twin as individual human being with right to life.

I don't understand your logic here. Abortion is not capital punishment, fetuses are not on trial to even be presumed innocent, and mothers are not the prosecution. Could you further explain why you draw parallel lines between the two?



Perhaps the differentiation between "human being" as legal terminology and "human" as an adjective is important here.

As arguments surrounding the concept of "burden of proof" tend to be unproductive, I will not ask additional related questions.

Welcome to the forum!

At which stage, Dolphin, should we commence criminal capital cases against feti? Analogizing is nice but your entire post is a insufficient premise and faulty anology fallacy.

Abortion is a death sentence to the unborn human life. When I say “unborn human life” I mean unborn human being. The fact that a suspected criminal is given a trial but the unborn is not even given an inquiry to prove his/her humanity in which there is no crime except to be callously dismissed as some blob of cells or tissues, that is precisely the sad part, Birch.


On your point regarding the differentiation between “human being” as legal terminology and “human” as an adjective, such differentiation is semantic. In the differentiation between the prenatal human life vs a differentiated cells of a post-natal human tissue, such differentiation is biological. But, those are entirely another debate.

The point here is about Wendy McElroy’s claim made in her article as quoted below:

If the fetus is a human being with individual rights, then I am among millions of women who have committed first degree, premeditated homicide, and I should be subject to whatever penalties are imposed upon that crime.

The word “human being” in her article is clearly about “human being” as legal terminology and not “human” as an adjective such as human toenail.

Your point regarding "unproductive" surrounding the concept of "burden of proof" is regrettably wrong. How can burden of proof be dismissed as unproductive when human lives are at stake?

Thanks for the welcome.

You'll also notice she said "IF the fetus is a human being".

At the very least, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry to address the issue of whether the prenatal life is a human being or just a blob of human tissue cells before we kill it?

Do you think by requiring burden of proof it is a faulty analogy or do you think conjoined twins are not individuals? Or do you think the potential of atomic explosion exists merely by being "potential" without the existence of the atomic bomb first?

You don't need an official inquiry, you need an ultrasound and a physician who is capable of determining viability.

That’s the point, Eiri. She made the conditional statement and then declared the fetus as not a human being without any proof. That was the argument she made and that was what I was arguing about, not the differentiation between whether a fetus is a human being or a human tissue belonging to the mother. Do you get the point yet?


Despite that, falsehood still persists and unborn human lives continue to be sacrificed to the falsehood. No, we need an official determination on record with all evidence presented for all to see.

When she declares the fetus not a human being, she does so in the same sense that I do not consider it a Person. It is human DNA and it is on its way to being viable. But it's not.

No, she doesn't. Read the article and be honest.


The term “person” is a semantic alternative used as a synonym for the word “human being” just like a pronoun is used in place of the antecedent. This term was simply hijacked by advocates of abortion rights during Roe v Wade to create a smoke screen in order to mask the truth of the humanity of the unborn human being.

The elusiveness of the term "person" is so fluid and subjective that we cannot pin it down objectively is what makes it so attractive as a selling point for supporters of abortion tights. Obviously for me, I don't accept the term based on the whims of human definition as a self-serving criterion for determining the humanity of the unborn life. Neither do I subscribe to the man-made allusion of "personhood". The humanity of prenatal life based on biological fact, which is observable and can be handled in the science lab and fertility clinic is sufficent proof.

I disagree. These are not parallels between a judicial proceeding and the state of a fetus, just an opinion as to what is "sad" for you. Applying this anaolgy in full would require detention of a fetus. The only people presumed innocent in the world of law enforcement are those arrested.

Innocence and guilt in the law are concepts that require a choice. That is, one would have to make choices to be innocent or guilty. I find that fetuses are unable to make these choices, as are infants, and they are neither innocent nor guilty.

On a personal level, since I have no preoccupation with the supremacy of the human race, I see the human fetus as only a biological being devoid of a spiritual or special significance, I find that abortion is as "sad" as butchering a cow for it's flank to dine on.




You previously described what McElroy's usage of "human being" meant to you: "Unless McElroy has concrete scientific evidence to prove that at conception a fertilized egg is not a human being, but some bacteria, some chicken egg, some tissue, or some non-living material..."

...It is not clear that you understand that McElroy did not deny that it is a biological homo sapien sapien in the womb (or say it was a chicken egg) but that she denies that the legal term "human being" applies.

Additionally, I did not say that "burden of proof" can be "dismissed as unproductive", I said that arguments surrounding the concept of "burden of proof" are unproductive. And they are in the abortion debate.



May I ask, what does "humanity" mean to you and why is that significant in your belief system?

You are correct, these are not parallel. These are not parallel because that was not intended. I was merely intending to demonstrate a basic principle regarding burden of proof. Besides judicial proceeding, I can easily use other example to make the point. For instance, when somebody accuses your child of stealing, do you simply accept the charge, or do you expect some proof? In terms of proving the case, who do you think has the burden of proof? You? Your child? Or the person making the accusation? Or do you think burden of proof is irrelevant?

Certainly, fetuses and infants can’t make choices. Nevertheless, in abortion the fetuses are killed without any regard whatsoever. If you believe that your child deserves the benefit of doubt before being proved guilty of a wrong, how much more deserving is the unborn life when the life itself is at stake?


This is the problem I always encounter when debating with proponents of abortion rights. When it is so plain in their own writing of what was written, unfortunately, somehow it can be interpreted as something else by their supporters. In this case McElroy clearly made no distinction between “biological homo sapien” and the legal term “human being”. Here are some statements she made referring to “human being”, none making any distinction between biological or legal sense:

If the fetus is a human being with individual rights, then I am among millions of women who have committed first degree, premeditated homicide, and I should be subject to whatever penalties are imposed upon that crime. The fact that I did not know I was killing a human being is irrelevant, just as the state of knowledge of a racist who kills blacks while believing them to be animals is irrelevant to the fact that he has committed homicide.

…If the fetus is a human being with individual rights, then I am among millions of women who have committed first degree... The fact that I did not know I was killing a human being is irrelevant, just as the state of knowledge of a racist who kills blacks while believing them to be animals is irrelevant to the fact that he has committed homicide.

…The principle of self-ownership states that every human being, simply by being a human being, has moral jurisdiction over his or her own body.

Even if she had made the distinction, it would be an artificial distinction without any reality. That would be another debate.


I don’t think we have gone through the arguments surrounding the concept of “burden of proof” before since I am new here and your previous response was the first we have so far in this forum. If you meant by your previous experience in the arguments with other posters, then I have no problem if you feel that arguing over the concept of “burder of proof” is unproductive. We don’t have to argue over the concept, we just have to accept that somebody have to prove something on their assertion, claim or action that affects another living being.


Certainly, and I appreciate your civility. We may not agree with each other on abortion issue, but certainly we can learn a lot from each other regarding our human fragility. By “humanity” I mean the state of being human as in human being in all stages of development from conception to the end of maturity.

You want a governmental inquiry into the viability of each and every pregnancy considered for abortion? I think you need to reexamine your constitution a bit more closely. Focus on Article four and six.

Your entire post was a logical fallacy making assumptions of meanings, hasty generalizations and false cause fallacies, as you are attempting in your last sentence in the quote.

What about Article four and six that prevent us from protecting human life from slaughter?

Claiming my entire post as logical fallacy by throwing some fancy terms does not mean anything when you don't point them out nor follow them with any argument.

Maybe I need to back up. Going back to your original assertation -->



I feel that, on the other hand, you (meaning prolife advocates et al) have the burden of proving that a fetus is a "human being" and it "possesses [all] rights". You have to provide 'a shred of evidence' to support this assertation other than just assuming it to be so upfront and asking that prochoice advocates prove otherwise.

This is what I mean when I say that the burden of proof argument is generally unproductive within the abortin debate. I feel you (et al) need to prove it's a human being, and you feel we (et al) need to prove it is not.
Since "human being" in this sense is a legal definition, admitted by yourself with the comments of "rights", I feel the legalities are on the prochoice side, since abortion is (mostly) legal.



I understand what you are saying, but I do not think the unborn life is deserving of anything. I also disagree that "fetuses are killed without any regard whatsoever". I would harken you to read stories of individuals who have obtained abortions. You will most certainly find consideration of the fetus within those stories. Perhaps not your concept of 'consideration' but that doesn't mean it's absent.




I am not sure I understand what all this means. Perhaps it is not so "plain". McElroy is stating that the fetus is not a human being with all rights conferred due to multifaceted reasons. Since she says nothing of denying that it is human, that does not automatically mean she thinks it is a chicken egg. That was my original assertation.

Does it help if I say that I think you will be hard pressed to find a prochoice advocate who believes that a fetus is not "human"?



...and humor me...why is that significant in your beliefs regarding abortion?
Thanks.

If you will go back an reexamine those articles the powers granted in each, you did know that IS what those articles define don't you?, you will see controlling personal reproductive choices is not in fact a power granted to either party or person involved whose duties and powers are outlined therein.

I can see you did not actually go reread those article so I am requesting you do so and familiarize yourself with the consitutional amendments supporting the prochoice cause before you continue this line of debate.

A few examples of cases which prove the consitutionality of the right to choose:

The Griswold-Roe line of cases:
(contraception/procreation/abortion)

- Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed this challenge to a Connecticut criminal statute prohibiting using and counseling the use of contraceptives. The Court dismissed the case on grounds justiciability, holding that there was no actual controversy for the court to decide because the statute was un-enforced.

- United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), [District Court opinion] In this frequently overlooked pre-Roe abortion case, the court, per Black (5-4, part I on jurisdiction and 5-4, part II on the merits) in a mixed coalition reversing a district court decision, upheld a District of Columbia abortion statute against Procedural Due Process claims. A majority of the court (Black, C.J.Burger, Harlan, White and Blackmun) held that the "health" exception was not unconstitutionally vague.

This case did not consider substantive or privacy claims--these would appear in Roe. Originally, abortion law opponents tried to undermine restrictive laws that had "health" exceptions by arguing that the word "health" was unenforceablly vague. This did not work in Vuitch, but it did in California. See, (4-3 decision of state Supreme Court) People v. Belous, 80 Cal.Rptr. 354, 458 P.2d 194 (1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 915 (1970).

- Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), this crucial (6-1) decision invalidated a Massachusetts statute making it a crime for anyone to distribute contraceptives, other than doctors and pharmacists prescribing them to married persons.

- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) [alternate] [District Court opinion] [Transcripts of Oral Argument (#1) (#2)] the landmark (7-2) abortion decision voided the abortion laws of nearly every state. Striking down a Texas statute that prohibited all abortions except to save the mother's life, the Supreme Court, per Blackmun, held that abortion was a constitutional right that the states could only abridge after the first six months of pregnancy.

And what is the source of accurate statistics on illegal abortions?


I place a high value on innocent human life. Therefore, IMO, simple subjective ideas do not rise to the same value level as that human life.


Oh, I disagree... since we are all "equally" here because we did go through gestation.... and since EVERY human must go through gestation.


As an egalitarian, I take great exception to that statement.


No, since no baby is guilty of rape, or even of being an "accessory after the fact", I do not think that a rape exception makes moral sense. And I don't think that "abortion" should ever be legal, as long as there is a way to have an "early delivery" of any baby whose presence in the womb is a threat to the life of the mother. "Abortion" has the purpose of killing the baby, and early delivery does not.

Yes, you did.... and I stand by THAT statement. Thank you.

[quote="futureshock"]
Exactly. Glad we agree.