Abortion

Thing1 said:
People on the pro-life side always seem to prefer putting forth a black & white argument - the fetus is a human being, destroying it is murder. Everything is absolutes.

The abortion discussion is much more complicated than that. There are competing rights involved; the pro life argument completely ignores the rights of the woman, which to me, is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Which is incorrect. That is simply fear mongering bullshit the left uses. Pro-life individuals do care about the rights of the woman. But every right is subservient to the right to life. That is the most important of rights. Thus, a woman's right to life is on equal footing with the childs. Hence, she should have the right to choose if her life is in danger. But none of her other rights should supercede the right of the child to live. (my opinion... and I do recognize it is the issue of rights where the discussion should be, rather than on all the subjective crap the pro-abortionists like to toss around.)

It is the pro-abortionists that completely ignore the rights of the child.
Sentience is involved; stages of development are involved; viability is involved. A zygote has human DNA, and is a unique blueprint for a human being - but is it a fully realized individual? It is not.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It is a unique human life. Trying all this subjective terminology to squirm around that is simply nonsense. A two year old is also not a fully realized individual or fully developed. A person in a coma is not sentient. A person on life support is not viable. All are slippery slope arguments that are nothing more than an attempt to dehumanize the child.

No more than an acorn is a potential tree, but not yet a tree.
Click to expand...

You really shouldn't pick up Apples stupid acorn analogy. Because it is retarded. An acorn is not a potential tree. It is an acorn. A fertilized acorn has the genetic material of an oak tree. If planted/watered, there is no question that it will grow into a full sized tree. But genetically speaking upon fertilization it is an oak tree.

You get hung up on the stage of development as if that changes what something is. There is no magic tree fairy that comes along and turns it into a tree. There is no magic baby fairy either.

The Roe decision is as good a compromise as the country is going to get, and takes into account some of the issues I mentioned above, as well as the complexity of the discussion.
Click to expand...

No it is not. We can do better, far better. Even McCorvey is against it now.
 
Superfreak said:
Which is incorrect. That is simply fear mongering bullshit the left uses. Pro-life individuals do care about the rights of the woman. But every right is subservient to the right to life. That is the most important of rights. Thus, a woman's right to life is on equal footing with the childs. Hence, she should have the right to choose if her life is in danger. But none of her other rights should supercede the right of the child to live. (my opinion... and I do recognize it is the issue of rights where the discussion should be, rather than on all the subjective crap the pro-abortionists like to toss around.)

It is the pro-abortionists that completely ignore the rights of the child.


Nonsense. It is a unique human life. Trying all this subjective terminology to squirm around that is simply nonsense. A two year old is also not a fully realized individual or fully developed. A person in a coma is not sentient. A person on life support is not viable. All are slippery slope arguments that are nothing more than an attempt to dehumanize the child.



You really shouldn't pick up Apples stupid acorn analogy. Because it is retarded. An acorn is not a potential tree. It is an acorn. A fertilized acorn has the genetic material of an oak tree. If planted/watered, there is no question that it will grow into a full sized tree. But genetically speaking upon fertilization it is an oak tree.

You get hung up on the stage of development as if that changes what something is. There is no magic tree fairy that comes along and turns it into a tree. There is no magic baby fairy either.



No it is not. We can do better, far better. Even McCorvey is against it now.
Click to expand...

I know your views on this topic well. They are that of many on the pro-life side, and are the kinds of black & white views I was referring to.

You approach it that way because it's the easiest way to approach it. It requires no thought, no nuance. The biggest flaw in it has to do w/ the exception for the life of the mother; why would their be an exception? If we're talking about 2 equally competing lives, shouldn't the life at the beginning take precedence?

There are slippery slopes in both directions.

A fertilized acorn is not an oak tree; it's an acorn. A 2 year old child is not a fully developed human being, but neither is a 1-day old zygote. Like it or not, most people do not have moral qualms with ending the development of a newly fertilized egg. No brain, no feeling, no sentience - nothing beyond a clump of cells. Obviously, something happens between that time, and the time a child is actually born. The waters get much murkier, and "human-ness" is a part of this argument, much as you would like to keep it as simple & easy as possible.

You have no right to take away a woman's choice on this matter. It's Draconian to suggest doing so. Giving a woman the 1st trimester to make this decision is an excellent compromise.
 
Thing1 said:
The biggest flaw in it has to do w/ the exception for the life of the mother; why would their be an exception? If we're talking about 2 equally competing lives, shouldn't the life at the beginning take precedence?
Click to expand...

We have the right to defend ourselves, as does the mother if her life is in danger.

Thing1 said:
A fertilized acorn is not an oak tree; it's an acorn. A 2 year old child is not a fully developed human being, but neither is a 1-day old zygote. Like it or not, most people do not have moral qualms with ending the development of a newly fertilized egg. No brain, no feeling, no sentience - nothing beyond a clump of cells. Obviously, something happens between that time, and the time a child is actually born. The waters get much murkier, and "human-ness" is a part of this argument, much as you would like to keep it as simple & easy as possible.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it is simple and easy. The definition of Person according to Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition is 'A human being.' I've provided plenty of science stating that an unborn is a unique, individual human being from the moment of conception, whereas you've produced nothing to the contrary. Also, an acorn does belong to the same species as a tree.

Thing1 said:
You have no right to take away a woman's choice on this matter. It's Draconian to suggest doing so. Giving a woman the 1st trimester to make this decision is an excellent compromise.
Click to expand...
So in other words you think the mother's non existent 'right' to choice outweighs the unborn's right to life. In reality, the right to life supersedes other rights.
 
Thing1 said:
People on the pro-life side always seem to prefer putting forth a black & white argument - the fetus is a human being, destroying it is murder. Everything is absolutes.

The abortion discussion is much more complicated than that. There are competing rights involved; the pro life argument completely ignores the rights of the woman, which to me, is unacceptable.

Sentience is involved; stages of development are involved; viability is involved. A zygote has human DNA, and is a unique blueprint for a human being - but is it a fully realized individual? It is not. No more than an acorn is a potential tree, but not yet a tree.

The Roe decision is as good a compromise as the country is going to get, and takes into account some of the issues I mentioned above, as well as the complexity of the discussion.
Click to expand...
Again, feel free to provide any real science suggesting that an unborn is something other than a unique individual human being from the moment of conception.
 
Still how could Kennedy have endangered a child that dosent exist?
Still side stepping?

Care to show the story boxer told?

I never saw it!
Care to elucidate?
Or keep avoiding it, it's too logical for your liberal dogma!
 
evince said:
you people who want women treated like your little vessels to ORDER arround becuase you have a certain religious belief.......................... let me inform you of something.


We will NEVER go back in time.



The power you seek is not yours.




Women will NEVER again go back to being your forced incubators.



I ask you to fuck off.




And you will.




We will NEVER go back to being forced vessels
Click to expand...

Don't worry Desh.

No one and I mean NO ONE wants to have sex with you. :eek2:
 
Thing1 said:
I know your views on this topic well. They are that of many on the pro-life side, and are the kinds of black & white views I was referring to.

You approach it that way because it's the easiest way to approach it. It requires no thought, no nuance. The biggest flaw in it has to do w/ the exception for the life of the mother; why would their be an exception? If we're talking about 2 equally competing lives, shouldn't the life at the beginning take precedence?

There are slippery slopes in both directions.

A fertilized acorn is not an oak tree; it's an acorn. A 2 year old child is not a fully developed human being, but neither is a 1-day old zygote. Like it or not, most people do not have moral qualms with ending the development of a newly fertilized egg. No brain, no feeling, no sentience - nothing beyond a clump of cells. Obviously, something happens between that time, and the time a child is actually born. The waters get much murkier, and "human-ness" is a part of this argument, much as you would like to keep it as simple & easy as possible.

You have no right to take away a woman's choice on this matter. It's Draconian to suggest doing so. Giving a woman the 1st trimester to make this decision is an excellent compromise.
Click to expand...

Just because people have no qualms about it does not make it right. You seem to be falling into the "everyone does it" argument. There was a time when people didn't have a problem with slavery. Did that make it right? Humans have a tremendous capacity to dehumanize others in order to justify atrocious behavior and that is what you are doing.

The government prevents you from doing things with your body all the time. You aren't allowed to sell a kidney. Shouldn't that r left up to you and your doctor? A kidney is just a clump of nephrotic cells tha can't live outside the body in its own. So why does the government prevent it?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and both of those DNA samples distinguish her body from that of her mother, so no one has any trouble realizing she is a distinct and unique individual who's body is a different human being from her mother......everyone here recognizes the significance of that, but you seem intent on denying it.......what is the reason for that denial?........
Click to expand...

The reason for the denial is because you don't know what you're talking about. DNA does not distinguish the fetus from the body of the mother as the mother can have a kidney or liver with different DNA from that of her skin or blood but her liver is still part of her body.

For example, the liver of person "A" shows a different DNA from that of her blood and skin. Person "B" also shows their liver has a different DNA from that of their blood and skin. One person has had a liver transplant. DNA can not prove who has their own liver and who had a transplant. Differing DNA does not prove the existence of a different human being or a part from a different human being.

Why do you insist on continually lying when it has been explained to you?
 
Thing1 said:
- but is it a fully realized individual? It is not.
Click to expand...

is an 8th grader fully realized?.......how about a 34 year old man living in his mother's basement?......how about a co-dependent woman with six ex-husbands?.......how long is the list of those we can kill with impunity?.........
 
apple0154 said:
The reason for the denial is because you don't know what you're talking about. DNA does not distinguish the fetus from the body of the mother as the mother can have a kidney or liver with different DNA from that of her skin or blood but her liver is still part of her body.
Click to expand...

obviously it would.....because the DNA of the child would still be different from EITHER of her DNA samples......what you think everyone won't notice is that no matter how hard you try you cannot disguise her blood or her liver to look anything like a fetus.......since they cannot be fooled by the evidence, they cannot be fooled by your argument....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and science doesn't know why some people simply fall over dead......that doesn't mean a rational person would use that as a reason why it isn't wrong to kill someone.......
Click to expand...

Again, you miss the crucial point which is we don't know if the fertilized cell is a "someone". No one knows if the fertilized cell has the necessary components to develop into a "someone" and talking about rational considering 50% of those cells spontaneously abort it's rational to conclude at least some of them never contained the necessary components. Were all the spontaneously aborted cells missing the necessary components? Half of them? 25% of them? It doesn't really matter the percentage because if any of them lacked the necessary components that would falsify the argument that all fertilized cells are human beings.
 
Obama Hates America said:
She doesn't have any coherent response but she feels compelled to respond, thus we get this
Click to expand...


It really doesnt matter wether you understand my reply or not.


What you will face is that women will NOT go back to being your chattle.


aint going to happen.



I know it will be the most difficult task you have ever endevored to achieve but please do go get fucked.
 
WoLong said:
If cut off your foot, and attached the foot of someone else onto your ankle you would not be two separate human beings. There is a difference between human matter and a human being, and I've provided plenty of science that clearly states that an unborn is a human being. There is almost no debate amongst the scientific community as to this point. You can refuse to believe it all you'd like, but until you provide some evidence to the contrary you're just going off of your opinion alone.
Click to expand...

Science can classify anything any way they want. Science can use whatever "markers" or criteria they wish. That certainly doesn't mean they're correct.

As I've shown in msg #172 science has been used to "prove" a woman's biological children were not her children.

Science used to say chimp's DNA was 98% the same as humans. Now the percentage had dropped to 96% all the while science still doesn't know how many genes a human being has!

As for the difference between human matter and a human being DNA can not tell the difference. Let's say a biopsy is done on a person possessing two sets of DNA. A biopsy of their liver and a biopsy of their skin. The person conducting the tests would not be able to tell if those were samples from two different human beings or the from the same human being meaning DNA can not determine what is and what isn't a human being. It can only determine human material.
 
Superfreak said:
Which is incorrect. That is simply fear mongering bullshit the left uses. Pro-life individuals do care about the rights of the woman. But every right is subservient to the right to life. That is the most important of rights. Thus, a woman's right to life is on equal footing with the childs. Hence, she should have the right to choose if her life is in danger. But none of her other rights should supercede the right of the child to live. (my opinion... and I do recognize it is the issue of rights where the discussion should be, rather than on all the subjective crap the pro-abortionists like to toss around.)

It is the pro-abortionists that completely ignore the rights of the child.
Click to expand...

If a fetus is a child why should a woman's life supercede that of the fetus? In the vast majority of cases problem pregnancies are due to the faulty body of the woman so to take the life of a healthy human being so that a faulty one may live is absurd.

Nonsense. It is a unique human life. Trying all this subjective terminology to squirm around that is simply nonsense. A two year old is also not a fully realized individual or fully developed. A person in a coma is not sentient. A person on life support is not viable. All are slippery slope arguments that are nothing more than an attempt to dehumanize the child.
Click to expand...

Talking about slippery slopes should a fetus be fully recognized as a human being what possible argument could be put forward to kill it in order for a defective human to live? If a woman becomes pregnant and her health is in grave danger (uncontrolled diabetes leading to blindness or uncontrolled blood pressure leading to kidney damage or stroke) wouldn't the father of the child have a reasonable argument the mother should suffer such damage rather than kill the innocent human being? What twisted logic would support the murder of a human being because of the faulty body of another and that's where one of the problems lie when considering designating a fetus as a human being.

It's not about anyone not wanting to consider the fetus. It's about how designating a fetus a human being results in the diminished rights of every other human being. There is no logical argument one can put forward to support the killing of a human being due to the faulty body of another. The idea is ludicrous and it's only mentioned by the anti-abortionists to temporarily pacify people stated in a time when abortion is legal. If a time came when abortion was naturally considered illegal, when people were accustomd to it being illegal, no logical argument could be put forward to allow the murder of an innocent human being in order to prevent damage to the faulty body of the mother. It wouldn't make any sense then and it doesn't make any sense now.

You really shouldn't pick up Apples stupid acorn analogy. Because it is retarded. An acorn is not a potential tree. It is an acorn. A fertilized acorn has the genetic material of an oak tree. If planted/watered, there is no question that it will grow into a full sized tree. But genetically speaking upon fertilization it is an oak tree.

You get hung up on the stage of development as if that changes what something is. There is no magic tree fairy that comes along and turns it into a tree. There is no magic baby fairy either.
Click to expand...

Genetic material is only one way to classify something and stages of development do change things. A fertilized chicken egg is not a B-B-Q'd chicken. People do not eat scrambled chickens for breakfast. If a grocery store advertized a dozen tomatoes for 50 cents and offered customers a germinated tomato seed and a small packet of earth saying the plant will grow and produce a dozen tomatoes there would be a riot not to mention the grocer would be fined for false advertizing.

That's the problem with discussing anything with anti-abortionists. Common sense, every day logic used to transmit ideas between people is thrown out the window. The stage of development has everything to do with everything. Vegetarians, those who don't eat meat, will find eggs OK. Is a fertilized chicken egg meat? Do we put chicken meat in our cakes? Almost all people on small farms eat fertilized chilcken eggs as the rooster keeps the hens happy. (I hope I don't have to explain that one to you.)

No it is not. We can do better, far better. Even McCorvey is against it now.
Click to expand...

Of course she is. Just like the majority of adults who had fun and did what they wanted when young now try to steal youth away from today's young. Just like the reformed alcoholic who was always right when drunk and is always right, now, when they are sober. Just like Dr. Laura Schlessinger. After enjoying her youth, including posing for nude pictures, she changed her attitude as soon as she became just another "old broad". Once the guys stopped looking at her she miraculously found morality or, at least, her definition of it. Same bull crap just a different story. They'll be damned if anyone else gets to enjoy the freedom they no longer wish to or are able to enjoy.

Pardon the "reformed do-gooder" rant. It's a pet peeve of mine. Now back to the scheduled programming.

The only way to get a handle on abortion is to approach it like they did with drunk driving. Billboards. TV ads. They could even play an AD like this during dinner hour. It's suitable for the whole family.

As I've previously mentioned teens are told to use protection to avoid STDs but what would be a parent's reaction to finding a condom?
"Excellent, son! Glad you're thinking ahead." Or, "Look what I found in your jeans pocket before I put them in the washing machine! Who's the tramp?"
"Your're such a sensible daughter. That's why Daddy loves you." or "I'm not raising a daughter to be a slut! You're grounded for a month!"

What are parents teaching kids today? How to be responsible or threatening them with punishment if/when they try to save their own life?
 
WoLong said:
We have the right to defend ourselves, as does the mother if her life is in danger.
Click to expand...

But the fetus isn't threatening her life. The fault lies with her defective body. To use your argument is to say should a person require a life-saving drug, say insulin, and the pharmacist refuses to give it to her because she has no money she has the right to kill the pharmacist and take the drug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top