How we can explain to fundies how their position on abortion is wrong

[CTLawGuy]

(or at least try)

A fundie believes that a clump of cells is a human life at the moment it is conceived, however this is illogical.

Consider how a car is made. (note I'm not trying to compare humans to cars, i'm discussing the process, and how we perceive it.)

You wouldn't consider a chassis (the frame of the car body) to be a car would you? It can't drive, no one can sit in it (at least not comfortably). nobody would call it a car.

It is a potential car.

The process starts when materials are brought into the factory and workers are set to work building the car.

Workers build the chassis and then add the different components onto it, the wheels, the seats, the steering column, etc.

There is a point in the process where this hunk of metal becomes a car, where it can be sat in and driven. However, it can't yet leave the factory. It might still need seatbelts, mirrors and other essential things.

Then there comes a point when the car is able to be driveable outside the factory.


Now if I were to break into a factory and steal a chassis, to say I was guilty of stealing a car would be silly. A chassis is not a car. It is a potential car though.

In the same way we believe a clump of cells is not a human life. It doesn't have a heartbeat, a brain, a need to breathe air. It is a potential human life though.

So it doesn't make sense to say that those who have abortions early on in pregnancy are committing murder.

Some of us also believe that at some point in the womb, the clump of cells actually becomes a person. A person that cannot yet survive outside the womb, because he or she needs more development, but still a person with a brain and a heartbeat and a need to breathe.

the point is you cannot kill something that is not alive in the first place, even if it may poentially be alive at some point.

[acmejack]

1. If you find a winning position please let me know.

It is non-negotiable with them. Period.

[CTLawGuy]

2. I live in the fantasy world that thinks

fundies respond to logic. Forgive me :)

[Desertrose]

3. good luck with this one....

even on DU we can't agree on abortion or when exacty a "human being" begins.

[Clark2008]

4. Their response wouldn't be logical

That's the method behind their madness.

And, I'm also pro-life, personally, and pro-choice politically. I honestly believe life begins at conception, but that's just it - that's MY belief.

The problem with Fundies is that they believe they should impose their beliefs on everybody else.

What we need to come up with is an argument why they shouldn't do this and NOT argue whether life begins at conception.

[mikehiggins]

5. You can't convince a dedicated anti-abortion foe of anything

Most anti-abortion sentiments are based in religion. All of the "scientific" arguments put forth from that side are simply intended as underpinnings for the basic beleif that abortion is murder according to God's Law.

Figure you're going to beat that with logic? Lots of luck, dude.

The only argument you can make is that the right to access to abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that while each individual has a right to his/her personal religious beleifs, in a free society no one has the right to impose those beleifs on anyone else.

All these people seem to be deluded into thinking if there is a "state religion" it will be theirs. Me, the way the money is flowing, I'd suspect any American "state religion" would end up being Scientology, but that's just my paranoia at work, probably.

[bertha katzenengel]

6. Impossible. It. Cannot. Be. Done.

You have good energy, clearly; channel it into something else. This is a losing battle.

Sorry to be a downer.

[CTLawGuy]

7. ah well

I appreciate the response though :)

[ThomWV]

8. Hold On. They Are Not Wrong

It is an opinion.

They are not wrong.

You are not wrong.

Its an opinion.

You can not convince them that they are wrong any more than they could convince you that you are wrong. It is like arguing over the desirability of man choosing to be an omnivore, carnivore or a herbivore. Silly.

[Internut]

9. If you have a chassis and you leave it alone

for a few months, it is not going to magically become a car. If you have that clump of cells inside the woman's body and you leave it alone - it becomes a baby. Don't think that kind of analogy will convince the anti-abortion people.

[BillZBubb]

13. How about that clump of cells in a test tube?

Your point is tangential to this discussion, since the fundies also oppose stem cell use and discarding frozen embryos.

Further even if you put that clump of cells into the right place in a woman's body, they would still almost inevitably die. They must attach to the uterus or it's curtains.

One thing I like to do is ask fundy nuts how many abortions god performs per year. They never know and look at me like I'm from Mars. But the number is in the hundreds of millions worldwide as most fertilized eggs fail to live.

You are correct though that no analogy or logic will change a fundy's mind. They don't work on logic.

[Yupster]

27. First thing I thought of too Internut

Watch the chasis for nine months and you still have a chasis. Watch the clump for nine months and it becomes a child.

I guess I don't see the analogy. I sure don't think a pro-lifer will either.

[WillowTree]

10. Futile.

Example: What would it take for one of them to convince you that your position on abortion is wrong?

See? Can't be done.

Your example, while quaint (if a little condescending) doesn't incluede a soul and when it first exists, and that's key. Until someone can prove when the soul begins, there's no point in even having the conversation. Can you prove that? No? I didn't think so.

[BillZBubb]

15. First prove to me there is a soul.

Then we can talk about finding when it begins. Then you might be able to convince me that my position is wrong.

That's why your argument is weak and circular. You make premises based solely on belief in order to deny real freedom in conclusion. It is not a rational approach.

[WillowTree]

16. Wrong.

That's why the argument is futile.

And circular.

Because you can't prove that there isn't a soul, either.

And beyond that, you can't prove that life doesn't begin at the moment of conception. All you've got is exactly what the "fundie" has; an opinion. And your opinion on that is no more, or less, valid than anyone else's.

Futile.

[BillZBubb]

17. Bad logical premise again.

Your logic is lacking.

The onus is ALWAYS on the one claiming something exists to prove existence. Not the other way around. You say a soul exists, I say prove it. It is the central point of your argument--THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE. Until you can prove it, logically, your position is sunk. That does not mean you are guaranteed to be wrong in your belief--you may be correct. But until you can prove your assertion, it has no logical standing.

To logically support abortion rights, I don't need to premise anything not absolutely provable--except that personal freedom trumps any speculation about what is or is not.

That is why the logic for abortion rights in a free society is totally sound. The argument against is circular and irrational.

[WillowTree]

18. And with all that "logic", you still won't change someone's view.

Still futile.

[BillZBubb]

19. Never said it wasn't futile. Reread my first post.

Fundy's don't care about logic, reason, or consistency.

[WillowTree]

21. Or, conversely, you can reread mine.

All I said in the first place is that the argument is futile because the "fundie's" belief in a soul and that it exists from the moment of conception can't be disproved and, failing that, his or her mind isn't going to be changed.

It's an absolutely glorious day here and I'm about to go out and enjoy it. Hope you get to do the same. Have a great one!

[stray cat]

11. We agree to work together to make it easier for people to keep a child.

Our position should be to keep abortions safe, legal and rare.

[emanymton]

12. Abortion Is Killing ...

Opposing killing is not "wrong."

Understand this clearly, the argument against legally allowing poor women abortion is very valid when one looks only on one side of the equation. Many oppose allowing abortion because the issues are based on seeing _only_ one side, that of "a clump of cells (your term)" growing in a woman.

If you are seriously trying to explain 'their' position is wrong, don't bother. It isn't wrong. It is only one sided.

Should you decide to discuss the issue then remember, arguing when life begins has nothing to do with abortion.

Focus the discussion on abortion on the woman. She and her free and informed choice are the issues.

[iconoclastic cat]

14. They will never, ever listen to you.

Ever.

[Cleita]

20. I have to disagree with you. Their position on abortion

isn't wrong for them if that's what they believe. Where they are wrong is to influence legislation that prevents others who don't believe like they do from getting medical procedures done for religious reasons.

What if the Christian Scientists take over? Are they going to prevent everyone from getting health care just because they don't believe in it?

[Internut]

29. Ok - put yourself into their shoes for a second.

The believe abortion is murder. Not that it is "immoral", or "wrong" - but that it is murder.

Let me draw an (imperfect, of course) analogy. In a lot of Middle Eastern societies, "honor killings" are acceptable. That is, if your sister/wife/mother has brought shame onto your family by committing adultery, or sex out of wedlock, or even more minor transgression, she should be killed. Happens all the time. They don't consider it "murder" - for them it is justified and an honorable thing to do. YOU would (I assume) consider it "murder". Do you think it wrould be wrong for you to "influence legislation that prevents others" from cleansing their honor in that way?

[Cleita]

30. The problem is when laws are based on a lack of proven facts.

Basing a law on the Bible or the Koran makes it a religious law and not a secular one. It's the secular laws we need to be concerned about and secular laws should be rational and based on proven facts. This is why all laws that take away a woman's right to manage her fertility and therefore her life are not based on fact, but religion.

Now women who believe abortion is murder don't need to practice it for religious reasons, but until religion can come up with scientific proof that they are right, they need to respect the rights of others. Those others need to have their rights protected by secular laws.

As for honor killings, these aren't so much religion but cultural, However they are done under the sanction of religion, to give them legitimacy. Again even if this is in the Koran, and I doubt if it is, this should not be allowed by secular law because there is a victim here. Secular law is rational and if the law is just, then it cannot allow a victim to be part of a tribal ritual.

The same applies to the ritual killing of a widow to join her husband in death, or suttee. This is still practiced in outflung rural areas in India, however, the law calls it murder and so it should. The widow is a victim here.

[Internut]

31. You're demanding a "scientific proof" of an intangible

philosophical concept of "what is a human". That is a nonsensical proposition.

Here is a "scientific" analogy. It is a common convention that visible light of 450 nanometers wavelength is considered "blue". You show such light to anyone and they will tell you it is blue. But is 430 nanometers wavelength "blue"? 420? 410? 470? How would you "scientifically prove" to someone that 470 nanometer wavelength is "blue" if he says that he thinks it is green?

[Cleita]

32. Apples and oranges, or biology and physics.

I think medical science, grounded in biological science, is pretty sure what is considered human and non-human life, or where you are on the evolutionary ladder while you are developing in the womb. The whole religious argument isn't about when a fertilized egg becomes human, but about when the soul enters it.

Ooops! Who wants to explain from a scientific POV what a soul is? This is a religious concept outside of mainstream science right now. Until some intrepid researcher can prove that it really exists and at what point in the development of a fertilized egg that it enters it, I'm afraid it's no more than a religious or spiritual concept.

Now most scientists consider a fetus, that has emerged from an embryo to be human, but not before. However Catholics believe the soul enters the fertilized egg at conception (I don't know what other Christians believe) and Jews that it enters the body of the baby at first breath. Neither concept is scientific. IMHO

So religions may make all the religious laws they want to about the matter, but never, ever should it cross into secular law until there is scientfic proof.

[PurityOfEssence]

22. You have to start by saying that EVERY decent person has problems with it

The world is not black and white. Where one draws the lines in the grey area is what's important.

They make great hay with "late term" abortion arguments, and having sonograms of my very aware children before being born, I do too. To underscore that those may only be done in cases of the mother's possible death defuses those arguments, but if you're arguing on that ground, you're already defeated.

Is god magically creating a new soul upon the moment that the sperm pierces the egg? Does it happen when this seed plants itself on the wall of the uterus? Even if this god guy creates a soul at this moment, is there anything wrong with keeping the sperm from fulfilling their task via a morning after pill? What about birth control? Isn't it fair to have sex without putting oneself and a future, hypothetical entity at risk? Isn't this just veiled moralistic thuggery from people who hate others to ever have sex for fun? What about the sex education issue? If the morally important thing is to never terminate a germinating entity, why don't we teach people how it actually happens and give them some options to keep such a thing from happening? If the answer is that "god doesn't want...", then ask why they demand that their belief gets to dominate all others.

The thorny area is when the cells are dividing and it's becoming more and more of a sentient being. At what point does that little thing have a societal right to exist? After all, it IS working damned hard for it's little speculative existence...

What about rape and incest? Are women nothing but sex slaves to the primitive superstitions of others? It comes down to religion. What if some spindly young thing is gang-raped by a bunch of huge guys, and the baby would be a threat to her life if it comes to term? Is she condemned to death just because other peoples' beliefs demand that she toe the line to their assumptions about the universe?

Isn't it, more than anything else, the right of the woman to decide what happens within her body? Then again, shouldn't the father have some say-so too?

This is a very complex and qualified set of problems; those who have glib and easy answers are missing the point.

Personally, I feel that all of these arguments should be used to leverage freer availability of birth control and MANDATORY sex education. Being a part of society obligates one to many intrusions and annoyances; for people to hold their superstitious god-guesses above everybody's heads like a Damoclean sword is NOT a "right" we should allow. People should learn precisely what happens when those naughty bits come together in a certain way, and it's nothing short of an obligation to society to do so. Yeah, the controlling god-crazies HATE to have their kids really understand sex; it'd cause rampant enjoyment and that's something that tight-assed believers simply can't stand.

Draw the line, and concentrate on what early point is the defining moment. Is it an attack on god to use birth control? What kind of idiocy is that? Where does it say that in the Bible? It's okay to kiss, right? Is it okay to dry-hump? How about a hand-job? Is this all bad? Is it bad even when you're young and very much in love?

Are the moralists who demand that rape victims carry to term, are they going to bear the financial burden for the victim? If you force someone to do something under the law, aren't you morally responsible for the mechanism by which it's done? You don't convict someone of robbery and then lock him/her in a room and tell 'em that it's their obligation to provide for their own meals. Aaah, they're losers; let 'em starve. This really is the same phenomenon, and it's rooted in a screaming, jealous hatred of those who have sex. Once again, religion is virtually the only force behind all of this.

[followthemoney]

23. I chastise the so-called pro-lifers for setting their beginning...

of life too late. This moral laxity is responsible for the Holocaust of zygotes. I claim that life starts at ejaculation and ovulation. The crime against life has occurred at menstruation. The sin against life is sporadic infrequent copulation.

When a woman menstruates the rescue of the unborn has failed and copulation must be increased with more vigor to prevent any further loss of life.

I believe pharmacies who sell menstrual hygiene products are encouraging the anti-life position of sinners. Protests must be organized to shame those who menstruate into more frequent copulation.

Every zygote deserves a chance.

[Greybnk48]

24. They are fundies for a reason

they have joined a group, or formed one, who's mission is to ram whatever THEY decide to be moral or immoral down everyone elses throats. With this in mind, presenting a cogent argument in support of abortion being a private moral decision of the mother's or both parents is ridiculous to them. There's no logic or religion here, just tyranny.

[FourStarDemocrat]

25. You can't convince them..

Because to them it is a matter of faith not rational/logical thinking. And because most fundie's believe that the right of the fetus/embryo to live surpasses the women's rights to choice , health and privacy who have to carry that fetus to term.

[AngryAmish]

26. We need to explain nothing to them

We must get rid of the KKKristians.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. You can't cuz Gawd told them personally that their position is right.

You know, the Gawd that's always having financial problems and needs lots of donations to keep him in business.

[DoYouEverWonder]

33. If life in the womb is so sacred

then why do half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage?

You would think god wouldn't be so wasteful?