Abortion and the Biblical Sixth Commandment

Let me begin this post with my thanks to KeytarHero, for participating. Next, regarding the bad links, it is possible that I erred. For one thing, I didn't check to see that they worked, after finding them on Google. Regarding "mostly bacterial", try replacing the first dots in this string, after copying it to the address bar of a blank browser page: ht......ww.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080603085914.htm Regarding dolphins, try replacing dots in this: ht..../news.discovery.com/animals/dolphins-name-themselves.html Regarding defining "murder" as "killing in cold blood", I must strongly disagree. I've swatted many a mosquito and many a fly in cold blood, after all, even with witnesses, and none of those witnesses ever called any such killing "murder". Another thing wrong with that definition of "murder", especially with respect to abortion, is simply this: I can imagine constructing a brain-wave detection/analysis machine hooked up to an "auto-doc" (future fully automated medical system, see the "Known Space" stories of Larry Niven), such that when a pregnant woman puts on a helmet and becomes angry enough, the auto-doc will then --and only then-- perform an abortion. Such a "hot-blooded" abortion would obviously not violate your preferred version of the Sixth Commandment! Next, unborn humans *don't* actually qualify as "innocent". But that is *another* thing I want to Debate separately. In this Debate I will simply consider your statement to be an "unproved claim" (the same as you can consider my counter-statement here to be), and ignore it. Next, humans are certainly living organisms. But so are individual bacterial cells. And so are all the "white blood cells" in any human's circulatory system. Those cells also have a full complement of human DNA, and they can grow and reproduce, too. But when some human experiences a shaving cut and bleeds a little, hundreds of fully alive and fully human white blood cells leak out and die --and *none* of those deaths are mourned. Logically, therefore, it takes something more than mere human DNA, in an organism that can grow and reproduce, to qualify as something that shouldn't be killed. I see that Con expressed the common "made in God's image" claim, which is fundamentally flawed. I also saw Con's comment about how Catholics, at least, ignore the Commandment about graven images. So, consider the logic: God is claimed to be able to exist in a non-physical way (even for Catholics, God must have done so before Jesus was born, and *certainly* must have done so before creating the physical universe). That means that God can't have *had* the sort of physical form or "image" which might be reproduced, *either* as "graven" *or* as a biological organism such as a human. Now, what God most certainly *can* have had, even all those ages ago, is the equivalent of a "mind's eye", in which God can *imagine* various images. Humans could then be claimed to have been created in terms of *that* type of image. And so could dolphins and any other non-human intelligent beings in the Universe... --*all* of them could, with exactly equal validity, claim to have been created in that type of "God's image". However, *now* the problem comes up regarding the claim that God created everything. Every life-form on Earth would be exactly as much "created in God's image" as humans. Which means arbitrarily killing any of them would be exactly as murderous as arbitrarily killing a human (if "murder" is defined as killing an entity made in God's image), and again our immune systems disobey. Next, Con states, "...protected, just like we are." It is ludicrously false, since humans often die by the hundreds --even by hundreds of thousands-- in floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc. The whole species could be wiped out by a giant-meteor impact. So, humans in general are *not* "protected". I'm aware Con was probably actually talking about human Laws, created to protect themselves from each other, independent from natural events. However, Laws generally don't work when they are not understood. For example, you can pass a Law prohibiting a wild tiger from eating a human, but that doesn't mean the tiger will obey. Truly effective Laws need all parties affected to understand them! Well, unborn humans don't understand any Laws whatsoever, and since they actually do fail to qualify as "innocent", there is no Objective reason why they should be protected by a Law from those who do understand Laws. (Again, to be detailed in a different Debate.) The subject of "morals" is another that deserves to be Debated separately. Because they are arbitrary, not Universal. Ethics, however, has a decent chance of being Universally applicable. The arbitrariness of "morals" means they actually can't be a valid excuse to prohibit abortion. (And ethics doesn't lead to any such excuse.) Next, I see that Con also brings up the "capacity" or "potential" argument, to equate unborn humans with the average walking human. However, just because some sort of potential exists, that doesn't mean it *must* be fulfilled. After all, if about 1/6 of pregnancies naturally miscarry, then that is *exemplary* of potential-not-getting-fulfilled! Regardless of what humans might want, or call "moral". Also, consider the fact that any walking human has the potential to fall down a stairway and die of a broken neck. *Who* *decides* what sort of "human potential" should or should not be fulfilled??? (There is another aspect of "potential" that deserves a separate Debate, to expose the flaw of that anti-abortion argument in more detail. Later.) If any taint of "prejudice" enters that decision-making process, then the decision is not being made either morally or ethically. (I'll have more to say about that in a Debate about "potential.) In partial answer to my "Who decides" question, I say, "Individuals should generally not decide things for others who are able to decide things for themselves." This even applies to animals, after a fashion: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Nevertheless, *all* miscarriages and abortions happen to organisms that are totally *unable* to decide things. Unborn humans are DNA-controlled stimulus/response biological mechanisms/organisms under construction, nothing more (except in the prejudiced imaginations of abortion opponents). So, the two types of event (miscarriage and abortion) are therefore ethically equivalent. We can generally avoid killing Vulcans for the simple reason that they are portrayed as being at least as able as us to understand Laws. Which means a mutual anti-murder Law could be workable. But that doesn't make the unborn of either species any more able to understand such a Law, than before it gets passed.... Con stated, "Pro asserts that intelligence is what makes someone valuable", and, actually, I did not specify any such thing. I talked about "intelligent beings" without actually defining the phrase, and relied on the notion to be understood, thanks to the degree to which various science-fiction concepts have spread through our modern culture. (Con's casual references to Vogons and Vulcans indicates that that reliance was not misplaced.) I was, however, expecting to get into the details of "intelligent beings" in the separate Debate about personhood. Next, in my original posting I specifically mentioned the fact that just-born humans don't qualify as intelligent beings for several months after birth, *and* I specifically stated that that fact is *irrelevant* to any abortion Debate. Because abortion is explicitly about killing *before* birth, not after birth. Meanwhile, consider the concept of "pets", which are valued despite having low intelligence --and partly protected by Law, too. If Con wants to take an argument that *succeeds* in winning an Abortion Debate, and then apply it to some other Debate, fine. But not here, in this Debate. That concludes this response.