Ask a pro-lifer, and they answer "Life begins at conception" & when you ask them when conception begins, they tend to not understand the biology of that process as well as pro-choicers. Right, wrong?
2007-11-21 07:58:46 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
No.
I think that this argument commits the fatal error in debate, it underestimates the knowledge of it's opposition.
It is terribly degrading to believe that pro-lifers do not understand the science. You can bet that many of them think the same of pro-choicer.
It does no one any good to assert that the other side must be ignorant or they would agree with me.
-rj
2007-11-21 08:02:06 · answer #1 · answered by ronjambo 4 · 7⤊ 5⤋
Pro-lifers can be just as knowledgeable on the biology of conception as pro-choicers, it depends on the person. The difference between the two groups is the value they place upon the process; in general pro-lifers believe that fertilisation creates a human life just as important as one already born, whereas to pro-choicers the embryo is simply a 'product of conception' and a part of the woman's body, just as her heart or her liver is. To me, this shows a lack of understanding of the significance of the process - a liver does not have have it's own DNA different to that of the woman's, it will not develop a heartbeat, and it definetly won't grow into a baby. Pro-choicers often believe the beginning of human life to be birth; evidence from doctors and biologists on the characteristics of the developing foetus has indicated this is not the case. The fact that the baby is not yet able to survive independently makes no difference; a child could not live without a carer in terms of feeding and shelter until at least the age of two, but we don't propose the lawful killing of toddlers just because they depend on the mother for life. They are people in their own right.
2007-11-21 09:09:35 · answer #2 · answered by Odin's daughter 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I believe this debate to be based on emotion and personal experience more than knowledge. People are going to be pro-whatever works for me in this stage of my life. I believe for women, if they have ever had an abortion or thought that would be their only option, they would have to say they were pro-choice, beleiving that life does not begin at conception so they can live with the decision they made. I believe more mothers are pro-life, because they would have to support their choice of having children and they might ask themselves, how can I be pro-choice and love my children with all my heart at the same time? Just a thought.
2007-11-21 13:15:07 · answer #3 · answered by Rivergirl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably true. They clearly don't realize that as many as half of all conceptions never even attach to the uterine wall - a miscarriage before a positive pregnancy test, in a way.
They also don't realize that the human body is designed to not even ovulate, or to miscarry, in times of great stress or during a famine. Our bodies are designed to only get pregnant when we have enough body fat to sustain a pregnancy. High levels of body fat indicate a good support system and plenty of food around.
These days, however, adequate body fat does not equal, "able to support a child". So because of all the other technologies we use to live well above basic sustenance, we have to help nature along when she makes a mistake and finds us perfectly able to take care of a child, when in fact, we are one paycheck away from homelessness.
2007-11-23 05:12:37 · answer #4 · answered by Junie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, no.
We on the pro-choice side have a tendency to see the pro-lifers as religious nuts and of course religious nuts can't be as smart as we are.
Not true of course, but that's how many think.
2007-11-21 08:53:44 · answer #5 · answered by Chief High Commander, UAN 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think that the question implies a hasty generalization. Has anyone ever done a poll with regard to the biological knowledge of both sides?
2007-11-21 11:12:30 · answer #6 · answered by Fortis cadere cedere non potest 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
One thing I wish pro-lifers would do was to care as much as the children who are already here and spend more of their energy and time working to improve their lives as they do trying to prevent abortions. If they did care as much about human life as they claim to do, we would not have such a horrible problem with unwanted or abandoned children. Why not work on helping those children instead of quibbling about whether a fertilized egg deserves to be protected or not? Besides, the majority of fertilized eggs pass out of the body naturally without the woman ever even knowing it.
2007-11-21 08:28:17 · answer #7 · answered by RoVale 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Who cares when "life" begins? Every living human creature is not a person. I imagine even prolifers are capable of understanding mitosis, but the presence of organic human "life" is not reason enough to overrule the rights of the person and the citizen --the mother.
Edit: the problem is with the people above me who want to inject religious dogma and the assumption of a "soul" or human essence that is not provable, not fair to non-christians and not relevant in a secular nation.
2007-11-21 08:25:39 · answer #8 · answered by Me 5 · 5⤊ 4⤋
No, I think they actually understand it better. I think as soon as the sperm enters the egg, a new person has begun, even if it hasn't implanted in the wall of the uterus yet. This is the reason why "morning after" pills and IUD's can cause a very early abortion, because it changes the lining of the uterus so that a newly conceived individual cannot implant, and thus dies.
2007-11-21 08:48:51 · answer #9 · answered by FUNdie 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
"Do they understand less?" Not necessarily. But rather than let understanding -- i.e., reason -- guide the debate, they speak out of passion and ethical rigidity.
The statement "life begins at conception" is meaningless. Life doesn't "begin" upon some event or developmental milestone. It continues.
2007-11-21 08:10:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋