The abortion issue...

Darla said:
Well, this thread is certainly over the head of the likes of little ole moi.

When all you big strong, smart menfolk gets done hashing this abortion thing out, you just let us all know what you decided ok?

And thanks ever so much!
Click to expand...
After you get done chopping the wood you're not going to have time for that. Don't you worry your pretty little head about this sort of thing.

:orang:
 
Darla said:
I thought we had already all agreed that it's ok to take an innocent human life when that life is being lived by a brown child in the middle east, and we can use its painful death to feel all manly about our bad selves and talk about how we and bush are liberating those ungrateful bastards who should be licking our balls...err, wrong thread, I mean licking our boots in gratitude for it.

Now we're having a debate again? I'm lost.
Click to expand...
See, they're not brown before they're born. All unborn children are effectively white. Once they're born, of course, we can tell which ones are really white but while they're unborn we sort of have to assume that they all might be white.

That's called compassion.
 
Dixie, science is silent on the issue of personhood. It's not a question accessible to the scientific method. Your problem is that you conflate biological identity -- species -- with legal and moral status. That sounds fine at first blush, except that it doesn't work. Not every living organism of the species homo sapiens sapien is a person. Witness Terri Schiavo, for example. Similarly, a fetus is not a fully developed, complete individual person.

Personhood is not even a real word, it is something liberals cooked up to justify aborting human beings. If it can't be determined by scientific method, it can't be a legitimate determining factor. Your problem is, you want to refuse to accept science and fact, and keep mouthing off with some fancy made up word that means nothing. I could just as easily say you are a kryzote, not a human, and we can legally deny your Constitutional rights and put you to death, just because we feel like it and you're not human!

Yes, every single homo sapien that has ever existed, is a human being. There is nothing in science or biology to contradict this, you've never presented any evidence to refute this, and it's just one of those biological scientific facts that is inescapable. Science doesn't lie! Terry Schiavo was made up of the same elements as you or I, with her own distinct DNA, nervous system, and heartbeat, just like you and I. If she wasn't human, what kind of living organism was she? Science says she was a human, I don't really care what your ignorant uneducated ass says.

It's funny, pinheads like yourself will argue night and day against Intelligent Design, because it does not conform to your Scientific Method, but when it comes to abortion, you abandon science and run as fast as you can to some word made up by mortals to excuse their immorality.

Since there is no connection between Personhood and Science, I hereby proclaim that you have not yet reached Personhood, and we need to have you aborted! No use in arguing about it, we just need to kill you and be done with it, you have no say because you aren't a human being... I decided it!

Now, take your fancy made up word, and shove it where the sun don't shine, asshole!
 
Similarly, a fetus is not a fully developed, complete individual person.

Yes it is a complete person, there is no other ingredient required to make it a person, is there? If not, it is complete, can't be anything but complete, unless you can tell me what element is needed to complete it. Now, fully developed? Nope, but then again, unless you are about 50 years old, you have not fully developed as a human being, and technically, you never are 'fully' developed, the human body is constantly growing. Stage or level of development has absolutely nothing to do with what something biologically is or isn't. Now, you can certainly make up your own words and definitions, and refuse to accept science, but that doesn't mean you are right. The Supreme Court can make a ruling or law, it doesn't make them right either, in fact, they have often been very very wrong in their decisions.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Oy vey. See, this is why it's so hard to sit down and talk with anti-abortion fanatics. They're so . . . fanatical.

Dixie, science is silent on the issue of personhood. It's not a question accessible to the scientific method. Your problem is that you conflate biological identity -- species -- with legal and moral status. That sounds fine at first blush, except that it doesn't work. Not every living organism of the species homo sapiens sapien is a person. Witness Terri Schiavo, for example. Similarly, a fetus is not a fully developed, complete individual person.

A human fetus of 6 weeks is undeniably alive -- barring miscarriage -- and it is genetically of the species, but those two criteria alone do not make it a person. You can amputate your pinkie and keep it alive for a significant amount of time but it will never become a separate person named Pixie.

Personhood is an ethical and moral question, not a scientific question.
Click to expand...


And ethically unborn fetuses should be protected. Personhood is not defined by full functionality. Otherwise those with injuries or in a coma would not be considered people either. Are you just an age discriminator?
 
OrnotBitwise said:
See, they're not brown before they're born. All unborn children are effectively white. Once they're born, of course, we can tell which ones are really white but while they're unborn we sort of have to assume that they all might be white.

That's called compassion.
Click to expand...

LOL! Ornot I love it!

Of course, all fetuses must be presumed white, (and male no doubt!) lest we should accidently abort one off the "right" color.

It's all clear now. Thanks.
 
Dixie said:
Darla, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Jarhead, I answered you, and no you didn't prove a point yet, but I will let you know the moment it happens, I'm sure it's just on the horizon!
Click to expand...


You answered me, where?


Point proven, no matter how much you deny it.
 
Dixie said:
Ahh, but when does an egg become a child ?

An egg isn't a child any more than a sperm. It is when the sperm permeates the egg and conception creates a unique living organism, which human life begins. This is not subject to debate or opinion, it is a clinical biological fact of physical principle that simply can't be denied, although many do.

By refusing to recognize what an embryo actually is, we can accept the premise that a woman has some right to choose how to proceed. We could actually take the exact same argument, and apply it to 18-month olds and younger. We could stipulate that any mother of any terrible twosies, could tie their child up in a sack and throw them in the river, and that would be her right because the infant is not a legal adult human. The only difference is the intrinsic nature of how a fetus depends on a womb to survive, however, most 18-month-olds are totally incapable of survival on their own, so in actuality, the same condition exists.

I am pro-choice. By this, I mean that I believe women should always have the choice of whether or not to engage in safe sex. The consequences of not engaging in safe sex, or using any number of birth control products, is well documented and understood, you can become pregnant from your act. It is socially derelict in our responsibility to simply allow women unlimited choice, especially when it involves the LIFE of another human. We should also have the choice of what kind of neighborhood we live in, and people form all sorts of neighborhood organizations, they work with the municipalities and law enforcement, and they exercise their rights to live in the kind of neighborhood they choose. We wouldn't consider allowing people to shoot their neighbors and kill them because they have a right to live in a certain kind of neighborhood, it is a right people just don't have, because despite their rights to live in a good neighborhood, it doesn't trump another person's right to life. The same is true with abortion, it is not that I oppose women having a right, they just shouldn't have it at the expense of another life.

You are not "pro-abortion" any more than I am "anti-choice", these are the words invoked by extremists who are unreasonable and have no intention of discussing the issue rationally. No one likes abortion, or thinks it's a good thing, but this is the reason more people should speak out against it, rather than find excuses for it and false reasons to justify it. The most troublesome and disturbing, are those who will try to completely ignore or defy science and biology, and claim that a human embryo is something besides what it is, a human life.

Three questions posed by former surgeon general, C Everett Koop....
1. If it is not living, why would it have to be terminated?
2. If it is not human, what sort of living organism is it?
3. If it is living human life, why are we debating it?
Click to expand...

Powerful! RACK THIS!!!
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Damo, I honestly don't know what it is you are proposing. I take it that you don't want to outlaw abortion per se -- a very good thing -- but, OTOH, you do seem to want to start a campaign of state-sponsored propaganda."Work toward?" What does that mean, exactly? If we're not going to criminalize abortion -- to which I will gladly stipulate -- then what does this "work" entail?

I've no problem with state-sponsored propaganda in principle. The modern anti-smoking campaigns are examples I don't object to. Hell, the dratted Pledge of Allegiance is state-sponsored propaganda. When we engage in it, however, I want it to be as transparent as possible.
Those people who object to deliberate termination of pregnancy are already beyond the pale, as it were. What I meant was that there is no legal bar to such donation, so far as I know. None, at least, at the federal level. Since no legal bar exists there is little we can do in public policy.
Now you're getting quite fast and loose with that "we" I think. Who are the "we" that will "work" -- whatever that means -- to save the life of the fetus? Whence comes their funding? What are the guidelines under which they will operate: how far are "we" empowered to go to preserve the viability of those cells? Who gets to decide when enough is enough?
You have just stated the credo of the modern pro-choice movement: Keep Abortion Safe, Legal and Rare. I'm not making it up:

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/trigger_ban
http://change.org/changes/change_page/77

So, how does your position differ from the pro-choice platform?

No, I know you want to preserve the potential for a life. There is no human life, in the ethical and moral sense, to be "saved" in an early term pregnancy, other than the mother's life. You phrase it as "saving a life" for political and rhetorical purposes. Just as i avoid that phrasing for similarly tactical reasons.

I still don't know what your idea actually entails, in terms of public policy: which behaviors will be allowed, which will be prohibited and which mandatory. Rather than protesting about what it is not, why don't you simply state it clearly so that we can judge it on its merits?

Who gets to decide on the content of this propaganda campaign? Who will fund it? Who will be held responsible for implementing it? How will compliance be enforced?

So many questions in that can of worms. Social engineering experiments are like that, sadly.

<*sigh*> The issue is, as always, who gets to decide, in each individual instance, when the state of "personhood" has been reached? You have a standard that seems good to you. That standard is neither universal nor objective, however.
Click to expand...
Okay, first off. You give a personal opinion about when you thought it was okay, but then end with something stating that I cannot because "who gets to decide"? Come on...

Secondly, working towards something has a clear meaning, we often use it in language today. Pretending that you are too foolish to understand current lexicon and colloquialisms is not argument.

Promoting one idea before the next can easily be worked toward. (To make a plan then implement it... for those who "don't understand" current colloquialisms). Suggesting that my idea has no merit because you can't understand such a simple turn of phrase is simply a logical fallacy. The whole of this post is basically... "I like the way things are, I will ensure that no changes will ever be made to it...." Basically a staunch Conservative stance on a left-leaning idea. The Ds like it, that doesn't necessarily mean it is liberal.

One can argue, and one has above, that being pro-criminilization of abortion is a radical idea. Because it is. One can also argue that those who will fight to the death to keep things the same when even a suggestion that doesn't fight with either ideation comes around is clearly arguing from a Conservative view.

Open your mind to something new, let it be added. Give them an actual choice. Work towards (making a plan then implementing it) giving a TRUE reproductive choice to all women rather than simply enforcing the current standard and refusing to budge.

Then we can start talking about whether this choice should be promoted first, before another choice. Another thing that I, personally, would "work towards" (must I explain it again?).
 
AssHatZombie said:
And ethically unborn fetuses should be protected. Personhood is not defined by full functionality. Otherwise those with injuries or in a coma would not be considered people either. Are you just an age discriminator?
Click to expand...
"Should?" According to whom? I agree that personhood is not defined by full functionality but neither is it defined purely by species.

There are distinct differences between a zygote, an embryo, a fetus and a baby. That's why there are distinct words for them in the language. A baby is a person. Not so with the other developmental stages. Just as an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
"Should?" According to whom? I agree that personhood is not defined by full functionality but neither is it defined purely by species.

There are distinct differences between a zygote, an embryo, a fetus and a baby. That's why there are distinct words for them in the language. A baby is a person. Not so with the other developmental stages. Just as an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree.
Click to expand...

There are distinct differences between a embryo, baby, teen, and senior citizen too! It doesn't make one of them something besides human. An acorn has not yet germinated and begun to grow, the instant that happens, it stops being an acorn, and starts being an oak tree. It's never a pine tree, it's never a fish or duck, it's always and forever, an oak tree... now, we can make up some fancy word and call it something else if we like, that doesn't change science, or what science says it is.

According to whom? Science! According to SCIENCE, a living human organism we call an embryo, is a human being, a human person, and a human life, and can't be anything else. It's cute that you made up a word, and want to deny science in favor of your made up word, but that doesn't prove your point. In order to prove a fetus isn't human, you must use the same scientific method I used to determine it IS a human. Anything ele?.... totally irrelevant to the debate here.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
"Should?" According to whom? I agree that personhood is not defined by full functionality but neither is it defined purely by species.

There are distinct differences between a zygote, an embryo, a fetus and a baby. That's why there are distinct words for them in the language. A baby is a person. Not so with the other developmental stages. Just as an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree.
Click to expand...

Really? Hmmmmm...I guess that is why the the eggs of bald eagles were protected as well as the bald eagle itself, when they were on the endangered species list? Now why in the world would the egg of the bald eagle be PROTECTED during those times? It was just a useless, and meaningless egg, right?

You are making no sense ornot....

care
 
Care4all said:
Really? Hmmmmm...I guess that is why the the eggs of bald eagles were protected as well as the bald eagle itself, when they were on the endangered species list? Now why in the world would the egg of the bald eagle be PROTECTED during those times? It was just a useless, and meaningless egg, right?

You are making no sense ornot....

care
Click to expand...

If people laid eggs and didn't require a woman's body to gestate in that would be a viable comparison. What anti-choicers are proposing is forcing a woman to be a baby machine against her will.

If anti-choicers are so intent on "saving babies", they should pool their money together and invest in artificial wombs and/or gestation facilities for aborted fetuses. That and research the science that would allow men to carry babies to term. Lets see you guys put your money where you're mouth is. This way, everyone wins.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
"Should?" According to whom? I agree that personhood is not defined by full functionality but neither is it defined purely by species.

There are distinct differences between a zygote, an embryo, a fetus and a baby. That's why there are distinct words for them in the language. A baby is a person. Not so with the other developmental stages. Just as an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree.
Click to expand...

Personhood isn't by species? what does that even mean?

Yes there are distinct named phases of development for every HUMAN BEING, and at no point in the process is the organism inhuman or nonbeing.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
"Should?" According to whom? I agree that personhood is not defined by full functionality but neither is it defined purely by species.

There are distinct differences between a zygote, an embryo, a fetus and a baby. That's why there are distinct words for them in the language. A baby is a person. Not so with the other developmental stages. Just as an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree.
Click to expand...
There are distinct differences between an infant, child, pre-teen, teenager, adult, geriatric, etc. This doesn't make them at any point anything other than a person. Different words do not define the being, just a different stage of development for that being. At no point does that particular lifeform enter into a stage where it is anything other than human, until it is dead.
 
Well, how would you catagorize me, I personally am against abortion, I think it should not be done. I would support campaigns to end and prevent abortion short of making it illegal... However, I dont want the government to jump into people's reproductive and health decisions and thus dont think it should be illegal.

So am I pro-life.... Yup.

Am I pro-choice.... clearly.

Am I pro-death... clearly not

Am I pro-abortion... NO

Am I anti-abortion... yes.

How would you catagorize me using the modern pro-choice/Pro-life nomenclature?
 
LadyT said:
If people laid eggs and didn't require a woman's body to gestate in that would be a viable comparison. What anti-choicers are proposing is forcing a woman to be a baby machine against her will.

If anti-choicers are so intent on "saving babies", they should pool their money together and invest in artificial wombs and/or gestation facilities for aborted fetuses. That and research the science that would allow men to carry babies to term. Lets see you guys put your money where you're mouth is. This way, everyone wins.
Click to expand...

there is no difference tiana....the fertilized egg of the eagle was the offspring of the eagle, just as the fertilized egg/embryo/fetus is the offspring of a human.... as i said, there is no difference. abortion does not and should not even come in to the picture of this discussion, nor commentary....

is a fetus the offspring of the mother, YES. PERIOD.... it's ignorant to say or even imply otherwise.

ACCEPT THE TRUTH.

does a fetus, although human, have the same value and worth and protections as a born child is what the debate should be about.

but NOT about whether a fetus is human, for goodness sakes!

women are choosing to terminate their offspring, their babies, before they are born for various different reasons.....simple as that.

if you believe that it still is a personal issue between the woman and her doctor, that's fine with me.... if push came to shove, i probably can agree with you on this... but why have to LIE about what is being terminated in a termination of pregnancy....to make you mentally ''feel'' better? i just don't get it?

i can assure you that when i had an abortion, i had one because i was afraid to have my baby, a child at the time.... i was not scared of having an embryo or a fetus or a toenail or a glob of cells.... it was the baby i was afraid to have on my own....and i was afraid to tell my extremely strict parents about being pregnant with child.... and many other reasons.

care
 
However, I dont want the government to jump into people's reproductive and health decisions and thus dont think it should be illegal.
Click to expand...

Except when they are at a fetal stage, then it is okay for them to grant others the right to take their life...

It depends entirely on when you define "people"...

Personally, I wouldn't advocate making it criminal because it wouldn't stop the activity, it would just ensure that those with even less compunction of morality would enter the same. It would do the opposite of what I want, which is to ensure notification can happen, that we make it more rare by providing even more choice and hopefully, in the end, we can simply end the practice.

The whole, "It is her body!" argument falls flat when one patient in the room is gauranteed to die because of her choice. It is their entire life, and because they are silent and unseeable we deny them any voice.

And to answer the "Men have no say whatsoever because they can't get pregnant" argument presented by another above...

This is much like saying, "White people cannot possibly understand the hardship of black people and therefore cannot properly represent them."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top