AboutDeborah Expertise I can answer almost any question regarding abortion, such as health aspects, emotional
aspects, and especially answering debate questions.
Experience I have written almost 10,000 posts over the last few years on this topic. I have a forum as well as a blog which also discuss abortion.
forum
http://alldrama.bigforumpro.com/index.htm
blog
http://wingnutwatch.typepad.com/wingnutwatch/
Publications futureshock3 over 6000 posts
http://www.prochoicetalk.com/message-board-forum/search.php?search_author=futureshock3
alldrama
http://alldrama.bigforumpro.com/index.htm
blog
http://wingnutwatch.typepad.com/wingnutwatch/
Education/Credentials I have a Bachelor's Degree in Biology, and am halfway through a Master's Degree, also in Biology. I have access to and read many of the top medical journals, from which I also get the best, most thorough and accurate to answers to pressing medical and health related questions. This equips me with factual, biological information to dispel many myths related to abortion.
Past/Present Clients futureshock3 over 6000 posts
http://www.prochoicetalk.com/message-board-forum/search.php?search_author=futureshock3
Question QUESTION: I have a very strong opinion on this subject, for one thing, because I
have fourteen brothers and sisters. As far as I know, none of them were planned. I
can't imagine not having any of them. And yes, the burden of proof is most
definitely on you because of what's at stake. Abandon all your preconceptions for
just a moment and consider this: what if you're wrong? If you are wrong, then
millions of innocent, helpless infants have been killed because the parents
apparently have some problem with giving the baby up for adoption. Now I will
abandon all my preconceptions and ask myself, "What if I'm wrong?" Well, if I'm
wrong, I have violated women's rights. Obviously, my beliefs rest on more than
sheer odds, but when sheer odds are taken into account, you can see the problem.
Would you rather be guilty of somewhat lessening women's rights, or do you really
want to risk being guilty of supporting the deaths of millions of babies?
You are absolutely right when you say that we cannot violate another
person's body and force them to do something that they have given no consent to,
but that's just it. I have never seen medical proof that an unborn child is part
of a woman's body. You have yet to give any.
You said "when life begins is in the eye of the beholder." That is
absolutely false. How long will it take for someone to say that life begins at one
year, and that a woman who gives birth has a "trial period", so if she doesn't
like having a baby, she can just kill her baby? That is exactly the door your
argument opens for society.
Furthermore, your saying that it's in the eye of the beholder strongly
implies that you believe we can't know for sure. If you could prove that life
begins at birth, it would not be in the eye of the beholder, it would be a medical
fact. If we can't know, then what in the world are we doing even arguing about
this?
You said that an embryo is a tiny unit of cells. Well, if we look deep
enough, I'm sure we would see that we are all just collections of cells. There is
evidence that unborn babies are responsive, as well, so your saying that they
can't feel or suffer is very questionable, indeed. See
brownback.senate.gov/english/legissues/cultureoflife/unbornchildpainact.cfm
I'll end with this: I don't hate women, I have no wish to violate their
rights, I just care about the little people. I have lived with many little people,
and I have a fair idea how much of a pain they can be, but I wouldn't give that
up. I think it's sad that there are so many women who are willing to do just that to their own child.
ANSWER: Dear ADAM,
The part about what if you are right and what if I am right does not make sense. Please try to follow this logically.
What we are discussing is what to CALL an embryo, not what an embryo IS. Your statement only makes sense if we do not know what an embryo is, and might find out we are killing an actual person instead of
cells. But we DO KNOW exactly what an embryo is. It is an inanimate collection of cells, it is not a person. Even if you decide to call the embryo a "baby" doesn't make the embryo magically become a "baby".
A baby can think and feel and suffer and is not a body part of another human being. An embryo cannot think or feel and is a body part of another human being.
Do you know what an embryo actually is? Do you know what it looks like and how big it is? There is absolutely no question scientifically about the awareness level of an embryo. It has none. Do you worry about whether or not the egg feels pain as it dies while coming out in the woman's period every month? Why not?
If I thought for one minute that fully formed tiny babies who could feel and suffer were being aborted, then I would be able to see where you are coming from. However, that is not the case, and it isn't even close to the reality of what abortion is.
Your answer about all of the little people, etc., etc. makes no sense in this debate because we are not discussing infanticide.
If you write back again, please answer these questions:
Do you know what an embryo actually is? Do you know what it looks like and how big it is?
Take care,
Deb
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: I think you're missing my point. You have given absolutely no medical evidence that supports your supposition that life begins at birth. None whatsoever. And yes, we are discussing what an "embryo" IS, because that is the issue. What you decide to call it in order to justify killing it for your own selfish purposes in no way dictates what it actually is. You said, "Even if you decide to call the embryo a "baby" doesn't make the embryo magically become a "baby"." Well, your calling it an "embryo" doesn't make it a lump of tissue that we can dispose of at our merest whim.
Virtually all of your arguments so far have centered around women's rights. You have had very little to say about the unborn baby himself, other than your presuppositions that are not, I daresay, supported by modern medical science. The heartbeat begins eighteen days after conception. Every pregnant woman, at least as far as I've heard, can testify to the fact that her baby kicks in her womb.
Tell me, what is it that makes a baby human at birth? Contact with air? The cutting of the umbilical cord? What is it that makes a baby 5 minutes before birth a lump of tissue, and a baby 5 minutes after birth a full-fledged human being?
Now you'll probably say that abortions don't occur five minutes before birth, and that is true. So when is the cutoff? I want to make it absolutely clear that I am asking this and expecting an answer. After five responses from you, I have heard little more than subjective definitions and scattered comments about women's rights.
Yes, I have seen pictures of an embryo. Interestingly enough, it looks a lot like a person.
By your defining life as nothing more than being able to feel and suffer is extremely lacking. What about a person in a coma?
At least twice now you have said that an unborn baby is a part of a woman's body. Are you willing to back that up?
You countered my "innocent until proven guilty" concept by saying "we DO KNOW exactly what an embryo is." That is a presupposition. You can't counter a logical argument with an unsupported assumption. You MUST, in terms of the debate, back up that statement with medical fact, or it is still very much a viable point that I have made. Don't expect me to back down because of your as-yet-unproven assumptions.
You have said that the burden of proof is on me. Though I disagree with this statement, I will try to to offer some. Steven Calvin, MD, chairman for the Human Rights and Medicine Program for the University of Minnesota, made this statement: "The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies.” This directly contradicts your unsupported contention that unborn babies can't feel pain at all. Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist at the University of Toronto, made a similar statement: "At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG).”
Dr. Fritz Baumgartner, MD, said this: "There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed. Period. No debate."
All that being said, there's some of my proof.
Where's yours?
ANSWER: QUESTION: I think you're missing my point. You have given absolutely no medical evidence that supports your supposition that life begins at birth. None whatsoever.
First let's define "life":
"Let me again try to begin by defining life and I think there exists a reasonable consensus amongst biologists on this definition, namely that life consists of all of the self-contained units of nature considered primarily of organic matter, autonomously and I stress the autonomously capable of undergoing development, reproduction* and evolution. Note that this definition excludes the viruses because they're not autonomously capable of undergoing development and reproduction."
*Now let us be sure we understand the fundamental distinction between reproduction and sex. Reproduction refers to the propagation of the species, whether this is by fission or by budding or by runners as in plants whereas the term sex refers to propagation by mating and genetic recombination. That is the exchange of genetic material in a process called meiosis, an enormously complex later edition of evolution to our ways of reproducing and maintaining life during which the chromosome number, the genetic constitution is doubled before it is reduced to a haploid chromosome number."
Only at birth does a human being meet this definition.
There is also the perspective that life began once, at the beginning of life on the planet:
"[T]hat there is only one life and it's certainly probably axiomatic that all living beings descend from a single ancestral form."
"Now in all sexually reproducing organisms, reproduction occurs as part of a life cycle. And there is a continuum of life cycles that takes us back to the very first organism here on earth."
-John M. Opitz, M.D.,
Professor of Pediatrics, Human Genetics, and Obstetrics/Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Utah. http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.html
So here are two views from the same scientist, either life began once eons ago, or human beings are considered to be a "life" in their own right after birth.
This is not saying that an embryo is not alive, it is saying that it is not a life in it's own right, but part of another living being, the pregnant woman.
QUESTION: And yes, we are discussing what an "embryo" IS, because that is the issue. What you decide to call it in order to justify killing it for your own selfish purposes in no way dictates what it actually is. You said, "Even if you decide to call the embryo a "baby" doesn't make the embryo magically become a "baby"." Well, your calling it an "embryo" doesn't make it a lump of tissue that we can dispose of at our merest whim.
But it is a lump of tissue. Whether a person values it or not is up to the individual person. If you want to value the lump of tissue to the extent that you do not want to dispose of it at your merest whim, than that is your right not to do so. However, you cannot force me or anyone else to value that lump of tissue as you do.
QUESTION: Virtually all of your arguments so far have centered around women's rights. You have had very little to say about the unborn baby himself, other than your presuppositions that are not, I daresay, supported by modern medical science. The heartbeat begins eighteen days after conception. Every pregnant woman, at least as far as I've heard, can testify to the fact that her baby kicks in her womb.
The whole issue of abortion rights is about women's rights. Even if you give personhood to the embryo that still does not give that embryo the right to use a woman's body against her will. This is why the whole argument over how one characterizes the embryo and what rights one wants to give the embryo are moot. None of them supercede the woman's right to her own bodily integrity.
And embryos do not kick in the womb, and the majority of abortions involve embryos.
QUESTION: Yes, I have seen pictures of an embryo. Interestingly enough, it looks a lot like a person.
That is absolutely untrue. Here is a picture of an embryo that is 5 weeks old, from a pregnancy on the 7th week. Make sure you note the upper left corner of the picture that shows the actual size: http://www.visembryo.com/baby/14.html
QUESTION: At least twice now you have said that an unborn baby is a part of a woman's body. Are you willing to back that up?
I was born with the egg as a part of my body that got fertilized and developed in my womb as a part of my body. The placenta and umbilical cord attach that growing egg directly to my body. At birth, the doctor literally had to cut my daughter and myself apart from one another, because until that cut occurs, she was a growth directly attached and part of my body.
EVEN IF THIS WERE NOT THE CASE, and embryological development occurred in a way that made the embryo not a part of the woman's body, it would still not give that embryo the right to use a woman's body against her will. The same can be said of every single argument that is centered on the embryo and not on the woman. None of these hings matter. What matters is the fact that a woman has the right to control her own body.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION:
"At birth, the doctor literally had to cut my daughter and myself apart from one another, because until that cut occurs, she was a growth directly attached and part of my body." So life begins at the moment the umbilical cord is cut. Because it's abundantly obvious to everyone that the "fetus" that was just born isn't human until you have physically separated him from his mother, at which point he gains all the rights and status of a human being. Life begins only when the umbilical cord is cut. Hm. That is indeed fascinating, because I myself have witnessed a baby being born. And you know what? I don't remember the baby looking, sounding, or acting different once that umbilical cord had been cut. I am very curious indeed to see how you will respond to this, because you must either ignore this paragraph, admit that this is what you believe, or contradict yourself.
In my last message to you, I demanded proof of your position. I find it very odd indeed that when I very pointedly demanded proof, all you had to give me was one man's subjective definition of life. I offered quotes from three different doctors, all of whom were speaking about medically proven and provable facts. You offered no medical proof of that doctor's definition of life.
Do you realize what you're doing in this debate? Whenever I make a point, you either ignore it or you counter it with presuppositions. For example: I offered my "innocent until proven guilty" concept in which I said that you carried the burden of proof simply because of sheer odds. You countered that by saying that you were right, and I was wrong. No proof, no examples, just "You're right, I'm wrong, that's the end of it." You can't do that in a logical debate. Either give me some proof, logical, medical, or otherwise, or drop me a line saying we're done here. I have given ample reasons for you to change your mind, most of which you have not responded to; and you have given few reasons, to which I have responded to most. Now I understand that space is a consideration, and I don't expect you to respond to every single line I put in these messages; however, I think it's high time you start answering some of my arguments. You have given no reason at all to make me believe they're not worth countering.
Answer Dear Adam,
No matter how many doctors, scientists, or other authorities I quote you will always say their opinions were subjective. That is the entire point. Every aspect of this debate is arbitrary and subjective.
Some people think life began once millions of years ago. Some people believe life begins when the gametes are created. Some people believe life begins when the gametes meet. Some people think life begins when the brain develops. Some people think life begins at birth.
There is NO right answer. All of these people are right. When life begins is a philosophic question, not a scientific one. This is why there will never be a consensus on any particular view.
I don't care whether you believe what I believe or not. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that you respect the privacy and bodily integrity of your fellow citizens. If you don't believe in abortion you never have to have anything to do with it. No one will ever force you or anyone else to have one, especially since you cannot get pregnant.
The reason that it doesn't matter how you classify an embryo is that even if an embryo were considered to be a person by everyone, abortion would still be legal. No person can force another human being to donate their bodies against their will, even if the person needing the donation will die. If they could, everyone would have to have all of their information in a giant database, and anytime anyone needed an organ, whoever was a match would have to donate that particular organ whether they wanted to or not. Or society is against such bodily invasions.
