The Issue of Abortion

[Damocles]

But that's just it. There isn't any "magic". It's a process. There is no magic moment (unless you're thinking of Ben E. King and The Drifters).

That said, the first breath starts the closing of a valve in the heart and the direction of blood flow is altered. That results in certain veins no longer being used, atrophying, then becoming cords/anchors to hold organs in place.

Consider, for a moment, if a human being's blood flow changed direction and veins atrophied. The word "calamity" would be appropriate. Furthermore, consider if the environment changed from the current gaseous one to a liquid as when a fetus goes from a liquid environment to a gaseous one. Completely submerge yourself in water and see how you function. Or take a fish out of water and observe how it functions.

Obviously, you are unaware of the changes from fetus to baby. Yours is a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Do some research. Understand the fundamental changes. While not magic moments they do occur relatively quickly.

Legally, a human is human when there is brain function. You cannot legally pull the plug on an adult when there is brain function. There is no significant difference between the brain function of a human one minute before delivery as opposed to one minute after delivery.

It is pretensive and self-delusional to attempt to describe some difference that makes them magically inhuman before as to after such an event, and I suspect it is a willingness to justify the death of what one knows to be human. Just as the zygote is clearly genetically a separate human life from the mother, it is silly to attempt to say it is inhuman because it is early in development.

The question the sane argue is whether or not it is justifiably "human" in function. Can it think? Does it have a soul? That sort of thing. We have an understanding of what happens in the womb that we didn't when previous decisions on this topic were made. I surmise that changes will be apparent when next this topic is decided by the courts. I don't think the anti-abortion crowds will be satisfied, but I fully believe that only imminent danger of losing their life will allow any sort of abortion past the weeks when higher brain function begins. It is inconceivable that they would apply brain function at one point of a life cycle, but not at another.

 

[NOVA]

Legally, a human is human when there is brain function. You cannot legally pull the plug on an adult when there is brain function. There is no significant difference between the brain function of a human one minute before delivery as opposed to one minute after delivery.

It is pretensive and self-delusional to attempt to describe some difference that makes them magically inhuman before as to after such an event, and I suspect it is a willingness to justify the death of what one knows to be human. Just as the zygote is clearly genetically a separate human life from the mother, it is silly to attempt to say it is inhuman because it is early in development.

The question the sane argue is whether or not it is justifiably "human" in function. Can it think? Does it have a soul? That sort of thing. We have an understanding of what happens in the womb that we didn't when previous decisions on this topic were made. I surmise that changes will be apparent when next this topic is decided by the courts. I don't think the anti-abortion crowds will be satisfied, but I fully believe that only imminent danger of losing their life will allow any sort of abortion past the weeks when higher brain function begins. It is inconceivable that they would apply brain function at one point of a life cycle, but not at another.

You make a valid point Damo, but it would hardly make a difference to
a clown that preaches its ok to kill human beings to save them from poverty or abuse.
The insanity of that line of reasoning is just too irrational, unreasonable, and absurd to be considered....yet here stands Apple as a shining example in utter mindless defense of killing humans....

 

[Good Luck]

Legally, a human is human when there is brain function. You cannot legally pull the plug on an adult when there is brain function.

Actually, the moral dilemma concerning brain dead patients goes a bit deeper than merely current brain function. It is also a matter of the patient's ability to recover. It is when the combined factors of zero (or near zero) brain activity and zero realistic chance of recovering from that state that brings about the question of terminating life support for such individuals.

However, you can bet your bottom dollar that the issue of life support termination would alter drastically if medical science were to come out with treatments that, in certain cases, would allow the patient a chance of recovering from their vegetative state.

The thing is the unborn have a significant chance of "recovering" from that stage of development that occurs prior to their developing brain activity. And with that chance of recovery, equating their termination to removing life support from a brain dead patient does not work.

(Not to mention there is a big difference between removing life support from a brain dead patient, and taking active steps to kill them before life support is terminated.)

 

[Damocles]

Actually, the moral dilemma concerning brain dead patients goes a bit deeper than merely current brain function. It is also a matter of the patient's ability to recover. It is when the combined factors of zero (or near zero) brain activity and zero realistic chance of recovering from that state that brings about the question of terminating life support for such individuals.

However, you can bet your bottom dollar that the issue of life support termination would alter drastically if medical science were to come out with treatments that, in certain cases, would allow the patient a chance of recovering from their vegetative state.

The thing is the unborn have a significant chance of "recovering" from that stage of development that occurs prior to their developing brain activity. And with that chance of recovery, equating their termination to removing life support from a brain dead patient does not work.

(Not to mention there is a big difference between removing life support from a brain dead patient, and taking active steps to kill them before life support is terminated.)

Actually, removing the child from the womb is almost exactly equivalent to removing life support from a brain-dead patient. Basically you remove the child from its only means of life support.

However, the argument wasn't to equate the two meaningfully, it was to point out that the argument that one second before birth is significantly different than 1 second after birth which was the form of argument that Apple was taking. The two are not significantly different by any means where we have legally defined a human to be "alive"... he can argue blood flow, etc. all he wants, but the reality is "removing" the child from "life support" at that moment doesn't significantly change their brain function which has been the means for legally defining "life"...

IMO, we should err on the side of life and on the side of rights for the mother, remove the child from the womb and attempt to artificially supply "life support"... This would, at the point of success, change the meaning of reproductive rights for all humans giving a true choice rather than the dilemma of ending a life.

 

[apple0154]

And once again, post your data and show how the aborted children would have been neglected and/or abused.

We are supposed to learn from our past and our past shows unwanted children were neglected and abused.

Why do you refuse to do a simple Google and check out orphanages in the past?

 

[apple0154]

Which has nothing to do with people being responsible for their actions.

Ahh, but it has everything to do with it especially concerning teen pregnancies.

On the one hand society stresses safe sex while on the other we have parents who would wet their panties if they found a condom in their son's or daughter's personal belongings.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

We are supposed to learn from our past and our past shows unwanted children were neglected and abused.

Why do you refuse to do a simple Google and check out orphanages in the past?

Then it ought to be easy for you to provide present day data, that supports your supposition that the majority of aborted children would have been neglecte and/or abused.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Ahh, but it has everything to do with it especially concerning teen pregnancies.

On the one hand society stresses safe sex while on the other we have parents who would wet their panties if they found a condom in their son's or daughter's personal belongings.

Which still has nothing to do with people, who are in a sexual relationship, being responsible.

Would you care to take another shot at proving your position.

 

[apple0154]

They aren't chickens until they are fertilized. This is simplistic in application and lower than your normal capability in arguing such a topic. It's weak and silly to equate an unfertilized chicken egg with an early development human. Even the most vehement protector of the zygote understands the difference between an unfertilized ovum and one that has been fertilized as I suspect you do.

Having grown up in the country fertilized eggs were the norm as a rooster kept the chickens happy, so to say.

For those unaware of the "stats" on fertilized chicken eggs newly laid, fertilized eggs are virtually indistinguishable from unfertilized eggs. Once placed in a fridge the process is either stopped or slowed to the point a fertilized egg a few days old is still indistinguishable from an unfertilized one. Thus, fertilized eggs were regularly used.

So, while store bought eggs are not fertilized there are many people still using fertilized eggs and I've yet to hear anyone say they put two chickens in their cake or had scrambled chickens for breakfast.

Of course, if you followed this thread you'd know I addressed the fertilized/unfertilized eggs before but good try attempting to offer a twisted reply.

 

[NOVA]

Having grown up in the country fertilized eggs were the norm as a rooster kept the chickens happy, so to say.

For those unaware of the "stats" on fertilized chicken eggs newly laid, fertilized eggs are virtually indistinguishable from unfertilized eggs. Once placed in a fridge the process is either stopped or slowed to the point a fertilized egg a few days old is still indistinguishable from an unfertilized one. Thus, fertilized eggs were regularly used.

So, while store bought eggs are not fertilized there are many people still using fertilized eggs and I've yet to hear anyone say they put two chickens in their cake or had scrambled chickens for breakfast.

Of course, if you followed this thread you'd know I addressed the fertilized/unfertilized eggs before but good try attempting to offer a twisted reply .

Pointless, irrelevant bullshit and nonsense in pink....but you should definitely read all of the remainder of the post...

 

[NOVA]

Having grown up in the country fertilized eggs were the norm as a rooster kept the chickens happy, so to say........
.........Of course, if you followed this thread you'd know I addressed the fertilized/unfertilized eggs before but good try attempting to offer a twisted reply.

I recall that part of the thread very well....you were schooled on the subject of fertilized chicken eggs in post #115, #119, and #123 in no uncertain terms....by "Good Luck".....yet you're too freakin' stupid to realize it.....well, the rest of us do realize it and thats whats important.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I recall that part of the thread very well....you were schooled on the subject of fertilized chicken eggs in post #115, #119, and #123 in no uncertain terms....by "Good Luck".....yet you're too freakin' stupid to realize it.....well, the rest of us do realize it and thats whats important.

He was also schooled on this, back on the old AOL board.
I take it you've noticed how he de-humanizes the babies; because that makes it easier for him to support killing them.
Kind of like how the liberals of old de-humanized blacks; because that way they could just kill them when they wanted.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I think euthanasia implies the consent of the person desiring it. The fetus is unable to give consent so, no, abortion is not euthanasia.

No, that's assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a mercy killing, and consent need not be at hand.

 

[apple0154]

The question the sane argue is whether or not it is justifiably "human" in function. Can it think? Does it have a soul? That sort of thing.

The sane question is can the laws and customs on which our society is built be applied to such a thing as a fetus. For example, let's say the fetus requires an operation in-vitro. The only access is through the body of the woman. Does the woman have to submit to the operation against her will?

Let's say a woman requires medical attention for an illness unrelated to the pregnancy. Can she refuse medical procedures?

For example, a blood transfusion. Would a woman be able to refuse a blood transfusion even if it meant her life is in danger thereby putting the fetus in danger?

Considering there have been cases where a court has ruled a child must have a blood transfusion to save it's life even though blood transfusions were against the parent's religion/beliefs would it follow a woman could not refuse a blood transfusion jeopardizing her life along with that of the fetus?

With medical knowledge advancing at such a rapid pace more and more procedures will be possible in-vitro. Are we looking forward to a time where a woman will have less and less authority over her body?

If a only solution to continue a problem pregnancy is the woman must curtail most activities, including continuing working, will she be compelled to terminate her employment and quite possibly jeopardize her career?

Being prevented from pulling the plug on a human being does not interfere in the life (physical body) of anyone else. However, being prevented from pulling the plug on a fetus may most certainly interfere with someone else in the most intimate ways.

The most basic rights of women will be compromised and overridden and that will continue to increase as medical knowledge increases. Conversely, in different medical circumstances, the same thing will apply to what society deems to be another human being, the fetus.

It is not inconceivable that they would apply brain function at one point of a life cycle but not at another considering the differences in the situations and how it would affect other human beings. Our laws and customs are based on similarities. We compare and draw reasonable conclusions. Same-to-same, one could say. Surely the death of a human being vis-a-vis something dying which is inside a human being is far from similar.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Legally, a human is human when there is brain function. You cannot legally pull the plug on an adult when there is brain function. There is no significant difference between the brain function of a human one minute before delivery as opposed to one minute after delivery.

It is pretensive and self-delusional to attempt to describe some difference that makes them magically inhuman before as to after such an event, and I suspect it is a willingness to justify the death of what one knows to be human. Just as the zygote is clearly genetically a separate human life from the mother, it is silly to attempt to say it is inhuman because it is early in development.

The question the sane argue is whether or not it is justifiably "human" in function. Can it think? Does it have a soul? That sort of thing. We have an understanding of what happens in the womb that we didn't when previous decisions on this topic were made. I surmise that changes will be apparent when next this topic is decided by the courts. I don't think the anti-abortion crowds will be satisfied, but I fully believe that only imminent danger of losing their life will allow any sort of abortion past the weeks when higher brain function begins. It is inconceivable that they would apply brain function at one point of a life cycle, but not at another.

 

[apple0154]

You make a valid point Damo, but it would hardly make a difference to
a clown that preaches its ok to kill human beings to save them from poverty or abuse.
The insanity of that line of reasoning is just too irrational, unreasonable, and absurd to be considered....yet here stands Apple as a shining example in utter mindless defense of killing humans....

You've made it abundantly clear you don't give a damn about the living conditions of others but why twist what I said?

It has nothing to do with killing human beings. It has to do with not bringing them into the world.

 

[Damocles]

Having grown up in the country fertilized eggs were the norm as a rooster kept the chickens happy, so to say.

For those unaware of the "stats" on fertilized chicken eggs newly laid, fertilized eggs are virtually indistinguishable from unfertilized eggs. Once placed in a fridge the process is either stopped or slowed to the point a fertilized egg a few days old is still indistinguishable from an unfertilized one. Thus, fertilized eggs were regularly used.

So, while store bought eggs are not fertilized there are many people still using fertilized eggs and I've yet to hear anyone say they put two chickens in their cake or had scrambled chickens for breakfast.

Of course, if you followed this thread you'd know I addressed the fertilized/unfertilized eggs before but good try attempting to offer a twisted reply.

If the egg were fertilized you would definitely be eating a baby chicken, along with the yolk and whites of the egg. That chicken, given time would develop into a chick and hatch. It would be embryonic chick until it hatched, just as it is an embryonic baby until it has been born. However, it changes nothing to the reality of brain development which is not significantly different seconds before birth to seconds after.

 

[Damocles]

Oh, and it is actually rather easy to tell if a chicken egg is fertilized.

Look at the white spot on the yolk. If it is unfertilized it is called a blastodisc and will not be circular, if it is circular or "round" it is called a blastoderm and the egg has been fertilized.

Just a bit of info from us who live out here in the "country" as you called it earlier...

Often you will hear a layperson say that a red spot means the egg is fertilized, but it doesn't. A red spot is just a bit of blood from the chicken and they usually form on eggs (both fertilized and unfertilized) if the chicken has gone through stress as the egg is developing. For instance, my dog once got into the hen house and chased the chickens around (none were harmed, he isn't much of a hunter really), the next week all of the chickens laid eggs that had at least one red spot...

 

[apple0154]

IMO, we should err on the side of life and on the side of rights for the mother, remove the child from the womb and attempt to artificially supply "life support"... This would, at the point of success, change the meaning of reproductive rights for all humans giving a true choice rather than the dilemma of ending a life.

YES!!! Bravo!! Well, not Bravo the poster, but BRAVO!! See, we aren't that far apart.

As for my arguing blood flow, etc. it was not in regards to significantly changing brain function. If one is going to use brain function as a qualifier for human beings it presupposes that everything else about the fetus is a human being.

While many adult animals have pretty good brain function in regards to survival and recognizing food, threats, etc. brain function alone does not qualify it as a human being.

Again, I come back to the basics of what our society and laws are based on and that is human beings are individual creatures. Being physically attached to another human being, using their organs and body, are not things associated with human beings. In fact, as a society, we strenuously object to that.

Abortion, the goal, is the removal of something in a person's body. The goal is not to kill anything and some folks have difficulty deciphering between the two. No human being should be obliged to have to use their body, their organs and blood, in order to provide life support for any one or any thing.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Actually, removing the child from the womb is almost exactly equivalent to removing life support from a brain-dead patient. Basically you remove the child from its only means of life support.

However, the argument wasn't to equate the two meaningfully, it was to point out that the argument that one second before birth is significantly different than 1 second after birth which was the form of argument that Apple was taking. The two are not significantly different by any means where we have legally defined a human to be "alive"... he can argue blood flow, etc. all he wants, but the reality is "removing" the child from "life support" at that moment doesn't significantly change their brain function which has been the means for legally defining "life"...

IMO, we should err on the side of life and on the side of rights for the mother, remove the child from the womb and attempt to artificially supply "life support"... This would, at the point of success, change the meaning of reproductive rights for all humans giving a true choice rather than the dilemma of ending a life.

 

[apple0154]

Then it ought to be easy for you to provide present day data, that supports your supposition that the majority of aborted children would have been neglected and/or abused.

But that's the good part. There is no present day data due to abortion being legal. There is no surplus of children, at least not in countries with legal abortion.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

But that's the good part. There is no present day data due to abortion being legal. There is no surplus of children, at least not in countries with legal abortion.

Either there is evidence that they WOULD have been neglected and/or abused, or your entire presentation is bullshit.

On the other hand; would you care to explain why we still have children that weren't aborted, being neglected and/or abused?

And your comment of "There is no surplus of children..." appears to mean that there all children, that were born, are now living with loving and caring parents.

Care to explain why you painted yourself into the corner, again.