NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it a woman's right to kill a fetus or baby or whatever you want to call it?

because bodily autonomy is a good thing, and fetuses do not have either full independent rights or all that much independent moral value. and you agree with these principles yourself.

So you're claiming my finger is a human life?

No, it is not a seperate life, unlike a fetus, which is a life seperate from the mother.


Does my finger have the same rights you have?

Can anyone say, massive strawman?

Wait, we scientifically proved that black people and Jewish people aren't human? Did I miss that issue of National Geographic?

Please, don't confuse the issue with facts. Appeals to emotion are all that are necessary.

BTW, nice kidney. I need one. Gimme.

No, it is not a seperate life, unlike a fetus, which is a life seperate from the mother.

Define seperate life?

Unless I'm mistaken, like a finger, a fetus is entirely dependent on the women's body to survive and grow.

Please, don't confuse the issue with facts. Appeals to emotion are all that are necessary.

BTW, nice kidney. I need one. Gimme.

*gives Kat one of Ryadn's kidneys*

Define seperate life?

Unless I'm mistaken, like a finger, a fetus is entirely dependent on the women's body to survive and grow.

Dependence =/= part of. And, although rare, abortions do occur when the fetus is viable.

stuff


You are an idiot.

I am not saying that. I am saying people should take responsibilty for their actions. Not just abortion but everything. That is the problem with my generation. Most of us refuse to take responsiblity for our actions. i think it is terrible.

Having an abortion is taking responsibility for their actions, and not pushing the raising of their child on the state, their parents or other relatives, a similarly unwilling father, being proactive about protecting their health, not bringing yet another unwanted child into the world to be abused by parents who don't want them or left to languish in state institutions....

...but I guess the dirty dirty whore should suffer, and so should her offspring, to satisfy the need to punish her for daring to have, and enjoy, intercourse.

Dependence =/= part of. And, although rare, abortions do occur when the fetus is viable.

No, but separate often means lack of a physical connection.

Maybe a different word is in order?

Dependence =/= part of.

Doesn't make them seperate either. Which means you didn't even remotely answer my question.

And, although rare, abortions do occur when the fetus is viable.

So do miscarriges. Hence why they're midically refered to as "spontaneous abortion". Make them illegal too?

Doesn't make them seperate either. Which means you didn't even remotely answer my question.


Look this is just semantic, you're completely arbitrarily defing the word seperate. Although the fetus, for a while, may depend on the mother, the mother does not depend on the fetus, the fetus is not a function of the body, unlike a finger. It is like a parasite, sucking everything out of the mothers body to survive. You can't say that for the whole time the fetus is in the womb it is "not a seperate life", what makes a fetus just before it is born different from a baby just after it is born?


So do miscarriges. Hence why they're midically refered to as "spontaneous abortion".

Make them illegal too?

More absurd strawmen? Whats going on with NSG today.

Look this is just semantic, you're completely arbitrarily defing the word seperate. Although the fetus, for a while, may depend on the mother, the mother does not depend on the fetus, the fetus is not a function of the body, unlike a finger. It is like a parasite, sucking everything out of the mothers body to survive. You can't say that for the whole time the fetus is in the womb it is "not a seperate life", what makes a fetus just before it is born different from a baby just after it is born?

Um, you know that anything legally defined is, by nature, semantic, right? So clearly this entire debate (That does not involve 'souls' or such) is just a semantic debate. Which is the point.

You're right, it is a parasite. I have been arguing that the tntire time I care to argue this (In this topic or not), my point was not that, it was that to define it as a seperate life as the sole criteria of why not to kill it requires more substantiation to it, which was not only provided, but then attempted to be removed as a fallacy by not addressing the original issue. If it being a seperate life is grounds for not killing it, then you need to define what is a seperate life and what is not, because clearly that would expand to the rest of life, providing us with a bit of a conundrum in how we survive, like no food.

And I hate to break this to you, but the difference between a baby after it's bnorn and just before it's born, is that when born it then begins to breath and survive on its own. It may be dependent on a parent or guardian to pring the food for it to eat, or keep it safe, but it does not eat or breath or drink for the kid, that is all done by the mother herself. That is quite a big difference, as those who are not born that way are dead, as "stillborn" babies.

More absurd strawmen? Whats going on with NSG today.

Calling everythiung that you don't agree with a strawman is not a good way to get your point accross. Especially when I clearly left you an avenue to continue argument to reclarify your point, which is not within the concept of a strawman. Under the definitions I can find, your argument above (Not the top one) is an absurd strawman.

Having an abortion is taking responsibility for their actions, and not pushing the raising of their child on the state, their parents or other relatives, a similarly unwilling father, being proactive about protecting their health, not bringing yet another unwanted child into the world to be abused by parents who don't want them or left to languish in state institutions....

...but I guess the dirty dirty whore should suffer, and so should her offspring, to satisfy the need to punish her for daring to have, and enjoy, intercourse.

Thank you for stating what I wanted to, but better.

For early to mid-term pregnancies, the fetus has no right to life because it is entirely dependent on the body of the mother.

Yes, abortion is a surgical proceedure to kill an otherwise viable fetus ... otherwise viable providing it remains in the womb. That's the key.

The mother has a right not to carry a growing fetus around inside her. Preganancy affects the hormones, it affects mobility and energy levels, and most importantly it endangers the life of the mother.

So, termination is a more humane way to achieve what the mother has a right to do -- have the still-living fetus removed from her body. IT WOULD DIE ANYWAY if she were to exercise that right. That would also be more dangerous for her life.

Then we get into the difficult area of late-term pregnancy, when the fetus may be viable out of the womb (ie, as a baby). Viable with or without intensive medical care? Tricky question, and the only area where I see any merit whatsoever to the "fetus rights" position.

Well when I was born I was naked.

Um, you know that anything legally defined is, by nature, semantic, right? So clearly this entire debate (That does not involve 'souls' or such) is just a semantic debate. Which is the point.


Well yes, it is in a way. Personhood is defined arbitrarily.


You're right, it is a parasite. I have been arguing that the tntire time I care to argue this (In this topic or not), my point was not that, it was that to define it as a seperate life as the sole criteria of why not to kill it requires more substantiation to it

But I'm not, and never have in this whole debate, saying it was grounds not to kill it. It would be strange if I did, since I am pro choice.


, which was not only provided, but then attempted to be removed as a fallacy by not addressing the original issue. If it being a seperate life is grounds for not killing it

Again, never said it was.


, then you need to define what is a seperate life and what is not, because clearly that would expand to the rest of life, providing us with a bit of a conundrum in how we survive, like no food.


I don't know what to say, if something with a different DNA, not a bodily function, able at a certain point to survive on its own, is not defined as a separate life, then you're basically saying that anything living inside a big slimy organ and leeching nourishment of it is not actually a life form at all. That once the organism leaves this organ (is born) it magically becomes a life (a.k.a nonsense)


And I hate to break this to you, but the difference between a baby after it's bnorn and just before it's born, is that when born it then begins to breath and survive on its own. It may be dependent on a parent or guardian to pring the food for it to eat, or keep it safe, but it does not eat or breath or drink for the kid, that is all done by the mother herself.

And this means shit because?


That is quite a big difference, as those who are not born that way are dead, as "stillborn" babies.

People on life support machines are dependent on them, the machines do the eating and drinking for them, are they now not a life form?


Calling everythiung that you don't agree with a strawman is not a good way to get your point accross.

Another one! In case you haven't realised by now, I am pro choice, I am not trying to argue that abortions shouldn't happen nor have I said that anywhere, so stop pretending that I am.

All this talk of separation and distinction is missing an essential point: Women have a fundamental right to have children or not as the wish. If they want to make their childbearing a public issue, then the public has a right to comment. Until then, childbearing is a private thing - none of your damn business.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about abortions, because the fact of the matter is ABORTIONS HAPPEN. You can be as sanctimonious as you want on either side of the issue, but at the end of the day, no one's going to really care what you think and no one will do anything about it.

Sure, there are politicians who say they're going to pass bills to restrict it and make it illegal, and in some places in the US, they have -- only at local and state levels. However, those are exceptions to the rule, and really all the restrictions say is that any minor who wants an abortion needs to tell a parent/guardian first.

Any politician with half a brain isn't going to do anything about abortion no matter how much s/he soapboxes about it, because any politician with half a brain knows that it's important to KEEP abortion as a hot issue so that they can garner more support from their voting bases with abortion as a rallying point.

Besides, the US tried making abortion illegal once, way back when. It didn't work -- women went out of the country for their abortions or found people who were handy with coat hangers. Even the most ardent pro-lifers agree that it's better for women to undergo invasive surgical procedures at the hands of professionals in sanitary environments rather than with amateurs in dim alleyways, or worse, foreigners with more advanced technology.

No, no. All wrong. A first post should be horribly misspelled, preferably containing 1337 5p34k and gun smileys and contain no worthwhile points.

Well when I was born I was naked.
That's so immoral.

No, it is not a seperate life, unlike a fetus, which is a life seperate from the mother.

A fetus is NOT separate from the mother. If it were it would die, just like my finger would die if it were separated from me.

Can anyone say, massive strawman?

You're the one who said the fact that something that is 100% genetically human makes it a human life. I maintain that there are factors besides genetics that make something a human life. Embryos and fetuses lack these factors and are therefore NOT human lives no matter how many times you erroneously insist they are.

Look this is just semantic, you're completely arbitrarily defing the word seperate.

Arbitrarily? We're defining the word "separate" as "separate".

Regarding "if you had sex you must face the consequences."

Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. If I walk into a back alley, I run the risk of being attacked, but I'm not consenting to being attacked.

Our machines? Do you connect to the internet through a special glowing box made of light and Jesus?

The Arc of The Covenant makes a great server. But don't use it if you're a Nazi, as it will only take you to gay furry porn sites.







And then you explode into dust. Gay furry dust.

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?

I know you asked for no answers to rhetorical questions, but I'm not being funny so I think I can get away with it.
This is one reason I don't support abortion in theory; obviously there is a point where the thing growing in the mother becomes a human being. I don't know when that point is, and I don't think even a doctor can really look at an ultrasound and say, "It's going to be human right abooout...now!"
At the same time, I'm guessing the limit for abortions is something far ahead of when the fetus would become human, a "better safe than sorry" kind of deal. And as someone here pointed out, outlawing abortions doesn't really lower the number of abortions. Even if I can't accept it on a theoretical woman's rights issue, I support it pragmatically.

Regarding "if you had sex you must face the consequences."

Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. If I walk into a back alley, I run the risk of being attacked, but I'm not consenting to being attacked.
That's a fairly good analogy, but I do take slight issue with it. Alleys are walkways between buildings, and are primarily designed to allow people to walk from one point to another. Sex is primarily a means of reproduction, as humans are notoriously bad at binary fission. I'd consider the alley example more applicable to STDs, which are not the primary reason for sex (for humans, at least. The bacteria involved probably feel differently.)

That's so immoral.

Shocking indeed.

Maternity wards should have a special Modesty Squad of completely blind people whose job it is to clothe the fetus before it is born.

I'm thinking it might be best to do that AFTER the epidural.

So it should be killed? Unless in cases of rape, it was the woman's choice to put it there. If she changes her mind, it should be killed?

Consenting to sex is not consenting to reproduce. If the woman doesn't want a baby the embryo/fetus/parasitic leech gets the boot, just like if I invite a homeless man for dinner he can't take over my basement, even if kicking him out means he'll freeze to death.

Sex is primarily a means of reproduction

I question that. Or rather, I question the seeming simple sense of "primarily."

Functionally, yes. Sex is the simplest and most intuitive way to reproduce. (You've heard the expression "turkey baster" right? Well, a hollow reed should work too. Surely ancient societies without too much mythical rubbish about "children being from god" or whatever could have managed reproduction without sex, and we certainly can now.)

Sex (in animals and dare I say it, in humans too) is a bit of a trick to get us to reproduce without having to consciously choose to have children.

Both those points support the statement I quote.

But there is a sense in which sex is primarily recreation, and that is that almost any youth or adult has sex many more times than they create a pregnancy. It's a kind of lottery, and you can't win more times than you enter the lottery.

So, functionally sex is primarily for reproduction. In practice, for actual people who have actual sex, it usually isn't.

Done quibbling now. :)

Its a eugenics issue as much as anything else. More teen pregnancies means more welfare recipients, fewer intelligent workers and more domestic issues. More inner citiy pregnancies means more criminals and urban poor. Abortion makes a lot of sense from this standpoint. More drug addict mothers, more defective children.
Fetuses should not have rights because they are not conscious creatures. A human shows signs of being a self aware entity at about 3 months AFTER birth at the earliest. Killing a fetus is no different than killing any animal until this point. (Yes, I am pro-post partem abortion) Our sympathy and need to anthromorphize everything we see is causing this issue. Also, the ability to abort defective fetuses will aid in reducing our strained medical care system.
(Sorry about the tasteless cool smiley. I don't know how it got there or how to delete it.)

So what your saying is solve our problems by killing off certain groups in this case babies and fetuses. Kinda reminds of a little thing called the holocaust. Ya know where this one group (Nazis) thought they were better then jews and that jews caused all the problems. They kinda killed 6 million jews. And that didn't do a thing for their problems. Just created more. Same type of thing happened in Rwanda. So yeah lets just going around killing babies. that will solve all of our problems. This whole line of thought makes me sick

Don't be ignorant. The Nazis acted out of bigotry and prejudice. Can you honestly say that the world wouldn't be a better place with fewer disabled people and welfare recipients? Can you not see the obvious degenerativecycle created by the vast majority of teen pregnancies? Normal people ARE better than defective people. Its not biggoty, its fact. Freed of the burden of special needs students, billions of extra dollars could be put into helping healthy children. Hospitals could treat those who could get better. Fewer criminals and welfare recipients means more money for urban renewal and social programs. Its the logical choice, and the humane one from a broader standpoint.

Consenting to sex is not consenting to reproduce. If the woman doesn't want a baby the embryo/fetus/parasitic leech gets the boot, just like if I invite a homeless man for dinner he can't take over my basement, even if kicking him out means he'll freeze to death.

Particularly if you have a nice wine cellar :)

No, really, excellent analogy. Go team!

Lord how very predictable, most of this debate has centred around the fetus' right to life when, as has been shown time and time again, and in each case unanswered by the pro-life crowd, the point is irrelevant.

When does a fetus become human?

Who cares as it has nothing to do with the issue.

TCT has shown that 90% of abortions are carried out before 12 weeks, of those remaining there are medical issues involved.

I have a question for those pro-life people - where a doctor says that where birth is imminent, it's a question of saving one or the other, the mother or baby, who has the right to life?

Who can make the choice?

It's got nothing to do with when a baby becomes human or not, it's got everything to do with serious considerations about whether it's safe, healthy and responsible to have a baby and, even where most people would say it's not, pro-life people ignore the fact that mothers still choose to have the child in many cases.

The worst thing in this debate is this smug superior attitude shown by pro-life people about situations they have never, hopefully will never have to face.

Please, don't confuse the issue with facts. Appeals to emotion are all that are necessary.

BTW, nice kidney. I need one. Gimme.

Sorry, I'm saving it for my unborn child.

*gives Kat one of Ryadn's kidneys*

Hey now! That's a violation of my bodily rights!

...oh, no, wait, I'm not a fetus, I'm a woman. My bad. Proceed.

Calling everythiung that you don't agree with a strawman is not a good way to get your point accross. Especially when I clearly left you an avenue to continue argument to reclarify your point, which is not within the concept of a strawman. Under the definitions I can find, your argument above (Not the top one) is an absurd strawman.

I'm wondering if we could get a moratorium on "strawman" like we did on "bourgeois". It's starting to grate.

Don't be ignorant. The Nazis acted out of bigotry and prejudice. Can you honestly say that the world wouldn't be a better place with fewer disabled people and welfare recipients? Can you not see the obvious degenerativecycle created by the vast majority of teen pregnancies? Normal people ARE better than defective people. Its not biggoty, its fact. Freed of the burden of special needs students, billions of extra dollars could be put into helping healthy children. Hospitals could treat those who could get better. Fewer criminals and welfare recipients means more money for urban renewal and social programs. Its the logical choice, and the humane one from a broader standpoint.

I realize these are problems but abortion is not the answer. I want to know what gives you the right to say that people's life aren't worht keeping them around. I agree with the idea of solvign these problems but not with the means you propose to solve them. There are other ways. There have to be other ways. If there aren't then out world is in a sorrier state then I thought.

RhynoDD;13540862']The Arc of The Covenant makes a great server. But don't use it if you're a Nazi, as it will only take you to gay furry porn sites.







And then you explode into dust. Gay furry dust.

That would explain all the stray whiskers. Sigh. Another blow to Nazis' rights!

So, functionally sex is primarily for reproduction. In practice, for actual people who have actual sex, it usually isn't.

Done quibbling now. :)
All good points, none I really disagree with. But while I don't think women should be "punished" with unwanted pregnancies (what a disgusting way to view pregnancies), they shouldn't necessarily be, how to put it, surprised. There is some responsibility associated with freedom, and in this instance I would consider birth control the responsible thing to do.
Does that mean they should legally suffer? No, it's not the government's business. But I can't defend engaging in an act whose sole biological purpose is procreation without trying to minimize the chances of procreation and then, of all things, procreating, as a right.


I have a question for those pro-life people - where a doctor says that where birth is imminent, it's a question of saving one or the other, the mother or baby, who has the right to life?
I don't know any pro-lifers who believe that the baby has the right to life. Then again, the only pro-lifers I know are of Catholic extraction, and the Church favors the mother in this situation. It may be different with others.

The worst thing in this debate is this smug superior attitude shown by pro-life people about situations they have never, hopefully will never have to face.
I think anyone who has a Y chromosome falls in this category. :)

Longevity conflicts with the physical equipment we have evolved. Knowing we will live the better part of a century inclines us to have children later, yet sexual maturation still happens young. In fact, younger than it used to.

Better nutrition and general health is probably behind the lowering age of puberty. Both boys and girls can be fertile within a year of the start of puberty, though 2-3 years is more usual. With poor diet in childhood, or stress of an arduous life, fertility is delayed or never happens.

We must conclude that biology has equipped us to breed earlier (and therefore increase population quicker) when living conditions are good.

But our society deems the culling out of the weakest by war, disease or starvation unacceptable. I am reluctantly affected by Belkaros's concern here: unless we do something clever, the combination of high fertility, a right to reproduce, and protection of unviable offspring will seriously burden human society with weak offspring. It's made worse by the decision of many of the most viable adults to delay, restrain or even abstain completely from reproducing.

Yes, we must make conscious choices and not simply do what comes naturally, to make this work. But surely! The first priority must be to delay fertility (with contraception for instance) rather than relying on abortion to solve the problem once we succumb. It's a matter of (a) conscious choice, thereby empowerment, as opposed to reacting to a 'mistake' (b) health, abortion is somewhat harmful to the mother, and (c) avoiding the dillemma of conflicting rights between fetus and mother. Hell, toss in this: parenthood can be a career, the only qualification for which is fertility. That has to appeal to girls who don't have much else going for them.

Young teens are quite mature in some ways, capable of making many choices responsibly ... but sex and the instinctual urges it brings up are new to them. We should be counselling them thus: "OK, maybe you are going to have sex next friday, maybe you're not going to do it for another five years. I don't know, and YOU DON'T KNOW. You are fertile now: you should be on contraception unless you have consciously chosen to have kids, in which case we have to talk about that."

And that goes for boys too. Contraception can fail or be sabotaged, either partner can lie about it ... effectiveness is far higher if both partners are contracepted.

The huge pitfall of abortion as a sensible method of contraception is that girls start to think differently during pregnancy. (I'm gonna get kicked for that, I know.) If they're also adolescent, it must be hard to separate that instinctual effect from the other rapid changes of growing up. Far better that they choose whether to have children BEFORE getting pregnant. And boys should be held responsible for getting girls pregnant whatever their age. Don't want a garnishee waiting for your first pay packet? Use contraception dude.

Social constraints can only take us so far, there is still instinct, and trying to enforce with adult authority a social need that the teen grow up some more before having kids isn't going to work well. Trying to keep them from having sex is a waste of the little influence adults have over adolescents. It directly conflicts with what the adolescent experiences as uniquely theirs: all the changes in their body and mind since leaving childhood.

How about this: young teens are not competent to choose parenthood, so they should be forced to use contraception whether or not we try to stop them having sex. At least, there should be a strong expectation that they take contraception as soon as they are fertile.

Let's take it another step. Kids should be encouraged to have sex with each other before puberty so they can learn to distinguish between the effect of the physical intimacy, and the urge to reproduce.

*puts on helmet and shin-pads*

Dependence =/= part of.
A woman has a right to control her own body including who or what resides inside her. You argue an unborn has a seperate body. Fine. To the extent that is true, perhaps it has a right to control such body. BUT THAT DOESN'T GIVE IT THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE WOMAN'S BODY.

And, although rare, abortions do occur when the fetus is viable.

Um. I think we've already shown such abortions are (1) extremely rare (0.08%) and (2) only performed when medically necessary.

In fact, in the U.S. (and IIRC the UK), abortions of viable fetuses is already illegal except where necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. And I shouldn't need to remind you that, given the developmental stages of the fetus, such laws already err on the side of protecting the unborn -- well before it has signs of personhood.

In sum, I'm not sure what the hell you are complaining about. It doesn't appear to be reality.

*snip tl;dnr*

*puts on helmet and shin-pads*

Honestly! This load of improvised pop psychology, this crock of patronizing swill went unchallenged?

I will obviously have to keep it shorter if I want an argument!

But I can't defend engaging in an act whose sole biological purpose is procreation without trying to minimize the chances of procreation and then, of all things, procreating, as a right.

As a biologist, allow me to reassure you:

Procreation is not the sole biological purpose of sex between humans. It never has been.

Indeed, our sexual makeup is partially due to the important NON-procreative functions of sexual contact. Part of the reason why human female fertility is so well concealed (relative to other species) is to increase the probability of mating regardless of the female's fertility status.

Consenting to sex is not consenting to reproduce. If the woman doesn't want a baby the embryo/fetus/parasitic leech gets the boot, just like if I invite a homeless man for dinner he can't take over my basement, even if kicking him out means he'll freeze to death.

Actually, this analogy does fail because if his choice is between stealing property or death, then he is entitled to stealing until he has secured his survival.

If, however, his life depended on doing anything to you and not your property (such as killing you for sustenance), then he would be in the wrong.

Also, women aren't property, so this analogy also fails with regards to that.

Particularly if you have a nice wine cellar :)

No, really, excellent analogy. Go team!

No, it's not. There are laws that deal with it and they consistently put the right to life above the right to property. And women are not property and therefore do have a right to get abortions, because the fetus isn't taking over property, it's taking over the woman's body.

Now, if you had some sort of means to transfer the fetus to a life support pod of some kind in which it could grow, then you would Not be allowed to kick it out without some kind of good reason.

Honestly! This load of improvised pop psychology, this crock of patronizing swill went unchallenged?

I chalk it up to the fact that I have the attention span of a gold fish. *nods*

As a biologist, allow me to reassure you:

Procreation is not the sole biological purpose of sex between humans. It never has been.

New Limacon's use of the word "biological" is probably less rigorous than yours, then.

Would "primary purpose" work? Or is there some more precise term for the way sex is plumb centre of reproduction (if not reproduction plumb centre of sex) ...?

Indeed, our sexual makeup is partially due to the important NON-procreative functions of sexual contact.

Would you mind expanding on that?

In particular, do you see any other process which cannot lead to procreation but which performs these other important functions?

Part of the reason why human female fertility is so well concealed (relative to other species) is to increase the probability of mating regardless of the female's fertility status.

How about something really radical: we legalize them as a freedom, and allow those morally opposed to them to remain morally opposed to them under the same freedom. Its not really a change, I know, but I don't get how this is anybody's buisness but the family's. Church groups and individuals are more than welcome to view abortion as sinful, murderous crime and others are welcome to view it as a choice. Let people make up their own minds! Don't legislate morality!
If you are privvy to God's opinion on the matter and know abortionists are going to hell, laugh as they continue. If you feel your life and your unborn child would be better off with an abortion, go for it. Who is anyone to tell a woman that she needs to harbor life?

I chalk it up to the fact that I have the attention span of a gold fish. *nods*

In retrospect, the first paragraph really sucked. That's pretty fatal in such a long post.

I've heard that overfeeding goldfish can kill them. Glad you're still here ...

New Limacon's use of the word "biological" is probably less rigorous than yours, then.

Would "primary purpose" work? Or is there some more precise term for the way sex is plumb centre of reproduction (if not reproduction plumb centre of sex) ...?

A great deal of human sexual behavior does not involve activities that are likely to lead to the fertilization of an egg. As best we can tell, such sexual behaviors have been present for the whole history of our species. They also are behaviors that are not unique to our species; our closest genetic cousins, the Bonobo chimps, use sex primarily for non-procreative purposes. Indeed, the most common form of sexual contact among Bonobos is female-female sex.

If you want to investigate the functions served by human sexual behavior, then you need to look at ALL of human sexual behavior.


Would you mind expanding on that?

One of the most important roles of sex, from a biological perspective, is the role it plays in pair-bonding and social interactions. Humans are social primates. We tend to thrive when we live in cooperative groups, and--in particular--our young tend to thrive in such situations. From a biological/neurological perspective, sexual contact is a powerful force when it comes to the formation and strengthening of bonds between humans.

Remember that selection doesn't just require that an individual fertilize an egg or birth a child. It requires that the child reach sexual maturity and, in its turn, reproduce. If you fertilize a million eggs but never have an infant survive to maturity, then you've accomplished exactly zilch (as far as selection is concerned). Motivating a reproducing pair to stay together and mutually assist in caring for the young will increase the odds that the young will survive and thrive.

Note that human females do not enter heat as is the case in many other species. Females and males can (and do!) engage in sex throughout the female's fertility cycle, even during times when there is no chance of conception. In fact, some women report feeling most interested in sexual activity during the times of their cycle when they are LEAST likely to conceive! In addition, human females do not advertise their fertility status through conspicuous biological markers like the bright red rumps of certain baboons, which means that a male doesn't have any way of knowing if a given female is fertile when he has sex with her.


In particular, do you see any other process which cannot lead to procreation but which performs these other important functions?
I'm not sure what this question is after.

My point is simply that procreation is only one of the important functions of human sexual behavior. It is important, to be sure, but I do not think it would be accurate to say it is the only important function, or even necessarily the most important function.

BUT THAT DOESN'T GIVE IT THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE WOMAN'S BODY.


Please, please show me where I said that it did.


Um. I think we've already shown such abortions are (1) extremely rare (0.08%) and (2) only performed when medically necessary.


When did you show this?


In sum, I'm not sure what the hell you are complaining about. It doesn't appear to be reality.

What doesn't appear to be reality, that the fetus is a human life form? (i.e. a separate life from the mother, which you fucking agreed with at the beginning of this post, therefore you think what you are saying is not reality).

How about something really radical: we legalize them as a freedom, and allow those morally opposed to them to remain morally opposed to them under the same freedom. Its not really a change, I know, but I don't get how this is anybody's buisness but the family's. Church groups and individuals are more than welcome to view abortion as sinful, murderous crime and others are welcome to view it as a choice. Let people make up their own minds! Don't legislate morality!
If you are privvy to God's opinion on the matter and know abortionists are going to hell, laugh as they continue. If you feel your life and your unborn child would be better off with an abortion, go for it. Who is anyone to tell a woman that she needs to harbor life?

I am agianst Roe vs. Wade but not becasue I am agianst abortion(I am against it). I don't think it is a legal decision. The supreme court basically made abortion illegal. It was legislating there. The supreme court is not supposed to legislate but to determine if the actions and legislation of the other branches are legal. Congress did not ban abortions. Therefore it does not fall under it's jurisdiction. Based on the 9th and 10th ammendmants I belive it is up to individual states to decide. This will please most people cuz the liberal states will vote to allow abortion and the conservative states will vote to ban it thus meaning you will probably be happy with the outcome in your state.

Based on the 9th and 10th ammendmants I belive it is up to individual states to decide.
No, it's up to the individual PEOPLE to decide.
This will please most people cuz the liberal states will vote to allow abortion and the conservative states will vote to ban it thus meaning you will probably be happy with the outcome in your state.
Leaving it up to the individual people makes it CERTAIN that the outcome in your own case will be as you prefer.

What doesn't appear to be reality, that the fetus is a human life form? (i.e. a separate life from the mother, which you fucking agreed with at the beginning of this post, therefore you think what you are saying is not reality).

Yes, that part apears divorced from reality by the definions I use for a seperate human life.

Yes, that part apears divorced from reality by the definions I use for a seperate human life.

Ah yes, the nonsensical definition where if you're residing in some slimy organ and leaching off its resources you do not exist as a life form, but once you leave the organ you magically become a life, as if inside the organ was some mystical dust which removes life from anything entering it. Yeah, incredibly rational.

I am agianst Roe vs. Wade but not becasue I am agianst abortion(I am against it). I don't think it is a legal decision.

You would be wrong there.

The supreme court basically made abortion illegal. It was legislating there.

I think you mean "legal", rather than "illegal". And legalization of abortion was, in many states, the result of the decision. But it wasn't legislating. It was declaring the laws in those states unconstitutional.

The supreme court is not supposed to legislate but to determine if the actions and legislation of the other branches are legal.

Indeed. And this is exactly what it did.

Congress did not ban abortions. Therefore it does not fall under it's jurisdiction.

State governments are not permitted to violate the Constitution any more than Congress is.

Based on the 9th and 10th ammendmants I belive it is up to individual states to decide.

Use of the 9th Amendment would point to individual, not state, decisions.

This will please most people cuz the liberal states will vote to allow abortion and the conservative states will vote to ban it thus meaning you will probably be happy with the outcome in your state.

(a) Because no liberals live in a majority conservative state or vice versa?
(b) Individual rights are not up for a vote. A state can no more ban abortion than it can legalize slavery or prevent free speech.

Ah yes, the nonsensical definition where if you're residing in some slimy organ and leaching off its resources you do not exist as a life form, but once you leave the organ you magically become a life, as if inside the organ was some mystical dust which removes life from anything entering it. Yeah, incredibly rational.

"not a separate human life" and "not a lifeform" are not equivalent statements.

"not a separate human life" and "not a lifeform" are not equivalent statements.

Ok, but by not separate, redwolf thinks that the fetus is not even a life in itself, but a bodily function like a finger. You must disagree with that, surely?

To me, abortions(unless there are extenuating circumstance) make about as much sense as having your stomache pumped because you got full after eating a slice of pizza. The inherent purpose and biological function of sexual intercourse is to produce offspring. Granted, people don't always intend to do that when they have sex, but seriously, that is the inherent purpose. Don't have sex if you aren't prepared to give birth to/raise a kid.

However, that's just my opinion and it isn't like I'll travel through the internet, reach into your uterus, pull out the unwanted fetus, and then raise it in a test tube while subliminally training it to bomb abortion clinics.

Ten points to the first person who knows where I'm quoting this from:

This conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions raised by Texas, and we pass on to other considerations.

B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed.1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Ok, but by not separate, redwolf thinks that the fetus is not even a life in itself, but a bodily function like a finger. You must disagree with that, surely?

You're mixing my analogys. The finger analogy was due to your statement that anything that is 100% geneticly human is in fact "a human life". An embryo or a fetus does not in my book count as a human life until it can fucntion outside the woomb.

You're mixing my analogys. The finger analogy was due to your statement that anything that is 100% geneticly human is in fact "a human life". An embryo or a fetus does not in my book count as a human life until it can fucntion outside the woomb.

Well, you can theoretically have a fetus live outside the womb at any point in time so long as you fertilize an egg outside the womb and hook it up to lots of medical intensive equipment to ensure its survival, it would be dependent on this equipment to survive until it reaches a certain age, but that doesn't make it not a life.

Well, you can theoretically have a fetus live outside the womb at any point in time so long as you fertilize an egg outside the womb and hook it up to lots of medical intensive equipment to ensure its survival, it would be dependent on this equipment to survive until it reaches a certain age, but that doesn't make it not a life.

But it is not yet a human.

But it is not yet a human.

Why not? Is it not part of the human race? Is it not alive? Does it not have human DNA? Are you saying that the only human is a developed human?

Ok, but by not separate, redwolf thinks that the fetus is not even a life in itself, but a bodily function like a finger. You must disagree with that, surely?

I disagree with that, but I'm not sure that it's what Redwulf is saying.

You're mixing my analogys. The finger analogy was due to your statement that anything that is 100% geneticly human is in fact "a human life". An embryo or a fetus does not in my book count as a human life until it can fucntion outside the woomb.

I think you're probably trying unfortunate wording here as well. Once an embryo/fetus reaches the level of development to be termed an organism, it is indisputable that it is a life. Since it is human, it is a human life.

I think what you're really talking about here is whether or not it is a human person.

Well, you can theoretically have a fetus live outside the womb at any point in time so long as you fertilize an egg outside the womb and hook it up to lots of medical intensive equipment to ensure its survival, it would be dependent on this equipment to survive until it reaches a certain age, but that doesn't make it not a life.

You can do the exact same thing with a finger.

in a country where most people are looking for healthy WASP babies

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You know that only Catholics are baptised as infants!

Please, please show me where I said that it did.

I'm not sure you did, but it is the underpining of your whole argument. If the unborn has no right to use the woman's body -- regardless of whether the unborn is a person or a seperate life -- then the issue is settled: a woman has the right to control her own body and therefore has a right to abortion.


When did you show this?

Um. When we discussed the statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm) and the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html). :headbang:

But also you avoid the point that we know post-viability abortions are almost always (if not always) due to medical necessity, because otherwise they aren't legally allowed in the U.S. or UK.



What doesn't appear to be reality, that the fetus is a human life form? (i.e. a separate life from the mother, which you fucking agreed with at the beginning of this post, therefore you think what you are saying is not reality).

Your fucking disconnect with reality is that you are complaining about abortions that are ALREADY GENERALLY ILLEGAL. Post-viability abortions are ONLY allowed in extreme circumstances such as a threat to the life of the mother!!!

I think what you're really talking about here is whether or not it is a human person.

I made this point like 15 pages ago, but everyone had to fucking whine...

I'm not sure you did, but it is the underpining of your whole argument.

No it isn't, since I'm pro choice.


If the unborn has no right to use the woman's body -- regardless of whether the unborn is a person or a seperate life -- then the issue is settled: a woman has the right to control her own body and therefore has a right to abortion.


Agreed, sort of, not necessarily with this reasoning though.


Um. When we discussed the statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm) and the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html). :headbang:


Can you state the specific statistic, or quote back to an earlier post of yours that I missed (links are massive tl;dr's). Remember, viability was just a side point, I was originally arguing that many abortions, even though not the majority, happen when the fetus has a brain or a heart, not necessarily when they were viable. And once I realised the original site I used was biased, I did use statistics from guttmacher.


Your fucking disconnect with reality is that you are complaining about abortions that are ALREADY GENERALLY ILLEGAL. Post-viability abortions are ONLY allowed in extreme circumstances such as a threat to the life of the mother!!!

And you're taking one tiny side point that I made ages ago in one post too seriously, when I was originally focused on whether the fetus has a brain or heart. Also, I think we may have different definitions of viable.

Ten points to the first person who knows where I'm quoting this from:

Well, that is an easy one: Roe v. Wade (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113), 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973).

But I'm not sure what point you think is made in this isolated quote. ;)

No it isn't, since I'm pro choice.

Agreed, sort of, not necessarily with this reasoning though.

Then, other than amusing yourself by playing devil's advocate, WTF is your point?

Can you state the specific statistic, or quote back to an earlier post of yours that I missed (links are massive tl;dr's).

Viability is the point at which a fetus has the potential to live outside the uterus. This is generally at 24 weeks or later -- although many states err on the side of caution and make abortions illegal at 20 weeks gestation or later.

The CDC says that 1.4% of all abortions in the US are at 20 weeks or greater. The CDC doesn't break down the numbers past 20 weeks.

Based on various data including their own studies and the CDC data, the Guttmacher Institute has estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%.

Either way, such abortions are exceedingly rare.

Also contained in the links raised earlier was evidence of the amount of abortions that are medically necessary. IIRC, this was about 12%.

Remember, viability was just a side point, I was originally arguing that many abortions, even though not the majority, happen when the fetus has a brain or a heart, not necessarily when they were viable. And once I realised the original site I used was biased, I did use statistics from guttmacher.

And you're taking one tiny side point that I made ages ago in one post too seriously, when I was originally focused on whether the fetus has a brain or heart.

1. Fine. You made a completely stupid statement about post-viability abortions. Just admit it and we can move on.

2. You appear to ignore that I already responded in detail (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13539788&postcount=170)to your fallacious assertions that many abortions happen when the fetus has a functioning brain. For your edification, I repeat the discussion we had:

But the fetus is also a separate life.


But it's not too difficult to call something with a functioning brain and heart a person, and often a fetus will have this when it is aborted.

Well lets see shall we:

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html



And at 9 weeks, does the fetus have a brain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus



So basically, the brain and heart is present, but the fetus is not yet viable and is dependent on the mother to survive. Take from this what you will, I just thought I would add some hard facts.

Um. A vague sentence in a wikipedia article is hardly "hard facts."

Let's look at some real facts. Even by your own source, over 50% of abortions occur in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy and about 90% occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. About 1% of abortions occur at 20 weeks or more and these are medically necessary. These numbers are consistent with those from the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm).

As for when a fetus has a functioning brain, let's check a more reliable and more precise source:

Development of the fetal neocortex begins at 8 weeks gestation, and by 20 weeks each cortex has a full complement of 109 neurons.34 The dendritic processes of the cortical neurons undergo profuse arborizations and develop synaptic targets for the incoming thalamocortical fibers and intracortical connections.35,36 The timing of the thalamocortical connection is of crucial importance for cortical perception, since most sensory pathways to the neocortex have synapses in the thalamus. Studies of primate and human fetuses have shown that afferent neurons in the thalamus produce axons that arrive in the cerebrum before mid-gestation. These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex until migration and dendritic arborization of cortical neurons are complete and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation (Fig. 1).36-38

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39 By 30 weeks, the distinction between wakefulness and sleep can be made on the basis of electroencephalo- graphic patterns.39,40 Cortical components of visual and auditory evoked potentials have been recorded in preterm babies (born earlier than 30 weeks of gestation),40,41 whereas olfactory and tactile stimuli may also cause detectable changes in electroencephalograms of neonates.40,42 Second, in vivo measurements of cerebral glucose utilization have shown that maximal metabolic activity in located in sensory areas of the brain in neonates (the sensorimotor cortex, thalamus, and mid brain- brain-stem regions), further suggesting the functional maturity of these regions.43 Third, several forms of behavior imply cortical function during fetal life. Well-defined periods of quiet sleep, active sleep, and wakefulness occur in utero beginning at 28 weeks of gestation.44 In addition to the specific behavioral responses to pain described below, preterm and full-term babies have various cognitive, coordinative, and associative capabilities in response to visual and auditory stimuli, leaving no doubt about the presence of cortical function.45

--K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey, Pain and its effects on the human neonate and fetus (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/), THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987 (emphasis added)


So, no, most abortions don't involve a fetus at all and those that do are still well before there is any brain function.

Also, I think we may have different definitions of viable.

I'm using it as I defined it above, which is the medical AND legal definition of the term. I can't imagine what meaning you may be imparting to it. :rolleyes:

Why not? Is it not part of the human race? Is it not alive? Does it not have human DNA? Are you saying that the only human is a developed human?

Humans must have a functioning brain and be able to function without being attached to another living being and leaching nutrients and oxygen from them. You aren't human until you're born.

I think you're probably trying unfortunate wording here as well. Once an embryo/fetus reaches the level of development to be termed an organism, it is indisputable that it is a life. Since it is human, it is a human life.

I think what you're really talking about here is whether or not it is a human person.

A human is a person, the words mean the same thing. A fetus is neither. It takes more than genetics to make a human.

Where it is viable and can survive on its own.

oh sweet.
so i am free to kill anything unable to survive on its own, without human intervention?
so mentally deficient people, cancer patients, anyone under the age of 10, i am free to kill them all as much as i want?

i think it's funny that you try to justify killing a helpless fetus by saying that it is helpless.

Then, other than amusing yourself by playing devil's advocate, WTF is your point?


That and being tired of seeing pro choice position completely degraded with inconsistent and meaningless arguments which can get eaten alive by conservative intellectuals, such as "lol omg its not human".


-snip-

1. Fine. You made a completely stupid statement about post-viability abortions. Just admit it and we can move on.


No, because I never said they weren't medically nessecerry.


2. You appear to ignore that I already responded in detail (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13539788&postcount=170)to your fallacious assertions that many abortions happen when the fetus has a functioning brain. For your edification, I repeat the discussion we had:


I think we need to make a distinction between functioning and fully functioning. By functioning, I mean a brain that actually does something, no matter how basic, not just a load of inactive matter.


Um. A vague sentence in a wikipedia article is hardly "hard facts."


A cited sentence, but even so I did use different sources later on.


As for when a fetus has a functioning brain, let's check a more reliable and more precise source:

-snip-

So, no, most abortions don't involve a fetus at all and those that do are still well before there is any brain function.[/INDENT]


Again, functioning is a fairly relative term, and I regret my usage of it. I never meant that the brain was developed, but merely that it did have a brain none the less. By your own source (since I'm not familiar with all this medical jargon, forgive me if I am wrong), the neocortex begins to develop at 9 weeks, so there must be at least something there by 12 weeks. The heart is also there, so I don't really see how this negates my main point (i.e. that it's human, more than just a finger).


I'm using it as I defined it above, which is the medical AND legal definition of the term. I can't imagine what meaning you may be imparting to it. :rolleyes:

Something able to live or grow, this doesn't negate the possibility of it relying completely on complex machinery.

Humans must have a functioning brain and be able to function without being attached to another living being and leaching nutrients and oxygen from them. You aren't human until you're born.

Does that mean I was a fish before I was born? You were what? A cow? Bear?

You are human as soon as the egg and sperm meet because you have the genetic make up of a human. You are a human not some other animal. Your point is(correct me if I'm wrong) that it is not alive until it is born. I disagree with this but I am not arguing your point just asking for more specific points instead of what you did say.

i think abortion is sick solely because the creation of human life is so amazing and beautiful. even if its not 'alive' yet, i find it rather disgusting that a person could callously disregard its creation as a burden. sex has been cheapened; it is 'desire of the flesh', but also an integral part of a complete loving relationship, which many people will never experience because they cant see women as anything other than sex toys, which some women encourage (for the others, my deepest sympathies). i guess you dont have to respect my opinion but like the thread starter said- a leads to b. abortion is sheerly a way of not taking responsibility for your actions, a cop-out. one of the few things in the world that you can get away with scot-free. sad. the only thing i can say to someone who gets pregnant unwillingly is 'what did you expect?'
:confused:
if you truly respect your own bodies, you would not put them at risk.

You are human as soon as the egg and sperm meet because you have the genetic make up of a human. You are a human not some other animal. Your point is(correct me if I'm wrong) that it is not alive until it is born.
The egg and sperm are "human" even before they meet: they certainly aren't canine, or elephantine, they belong to the species H. sapiens and no other; and both are "alive", before they meet, as well. Human life doesn't "begin", it just continues, in different forms; it began once, and once only (whether 6000 years ago or a million years ago is irrelevant to this point). The important question is when personality begins: we do not care about cleaning up a bloodstain, even though those cells are "human" and "alive" and could be kept so indefinitely in a Petri dish (does anyone think we have a duty to keep those cells alive?), because that "human life" is not a "person".

No, because I never said they weren't medically nessecerry.

Come, now. You were whining about abortions that are extraordinarily rare, medically necessary, AND otherwise generally illegal.

Just admit your argument was wrong.



I think we need to make a distinction between functioning and fully functioning. By functioning, I mean a brain that actually does something, no matter how basic, not just a load of inactive matter.

1. The argument was in the context of what qualifies as a person. Are you now saying that the existence of any brain, no matter how low-functioning makes a being a person? So my cat is a person?

2. Brainwaves are a pretty basic indicator of a brain that actually does something. Those aren't seen until 20 weeks, which is later than some 99% of abortions.



A cited sentence, but even so I did use different sources later on.

Um. Feel free to check the source (http://www.bartleby.com/65/fe/fetus.html) that Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus) cited for that vague sentence. It doesn't support your argument at all.

And when, pray tell, did you cite other sources regarding fetal development?



Again, functioning is a fairly relative term, and I regret my usage of it. I never meant that the brain was developed, but merely that it did have a brain none the less. By your own source (since I'm not familiar with all this medical jargon, forgive me if I am wrong), the neocortex begins to develop at 9 weeks, so there must be at least something there by 12 weeks. The heart is also there, so I don't really see how this negates my main point (i.e. that it's human, more than just a finger).

1. No brain waves = no functioning brain.

2. Over 50% of abortions are completed before the neocortex begins to develop, 90% when there is merely "something there" but no brain waves, and 99% are completed before a full complement of neurons exists.

3. If you are simply pointing to a bunch of tissue that does not yet generate brain waves, how is that morally different than a finger?

4. I know you will engage in a great deal of hand-waving about how "person" is indefinite, but you are trying to use "human" as if it meant "person." Something doesn't have a right to life merely because it is genetically human.



Something able to live or grow, this doesn't negate the possibility of it relying completely on complex machinery.

The definition of viability I am using doesn't negate the possibility of relying completely on complex machinery. The earliest such possibility exists is at 20 to 27 weeks gestation, but it is generally accepted to be no earlier than 24 weeks.

I was jsut pointing out what he said which was that you aren't human until you are born. I understand what you are saying about being human and alive.

Da Ikskumfa..I couldn't ahve said it better myself. Very well put in my opinon.

*runs away before pro choicers can attack*

I'll tell you where I draw the line, but I must inform you of some facts before I do so that you don't accidentally or intentionally, make some silly argument against my thoughts on this.

Namely, I am a cold-hearted apathetic jerk who has no regard for human life. Call me a monster if you so wish. But keep that in mind because "What if you were aborted" or "How can you kill a person?" arguments trying to play to my 'greater good' won't work, and just get in the way. On an emotional level, there is no difference to me between 30 seconds before, or after, birth.

But let's look at this logicly, an easy way to keep emotional disregard in check.
I believe that a fetus is not a person untill it lives independently on it's own for specific vital functions to life. I'm thinking specificly of breathing (Something which the fetus does not, and for that matter can not, do untill born). So, as far as I'm concerned, untill it breaths, it's not a person.

Now there are fun things you can do with this, such as in the later stages of pregnancy where a fetus that is 'aborted' must actually first be 'born' due to the large size, and thus can breath before being killed (Unless you go a way that causes severe damage to the woman's body by trying to kill it in her, which can include toxins), and so you can't really abort it after a certian time because in the process of the abortion it becomes a person.

But before this time? Before the lungs are formed? It's not a person. And the lungs only begin to mature in the last parts of pregnancy. Untill then it's a parasite (Not nessecarily a bad one) on the woman's body, as it relies on her, and her alone, to survive completely. That puts it under the jurisdiction of her body as far as I'm concerned, and thus it's her right to do as she chooses.

your definition of 'life' as 'breathing' is idiotic in the extreme.
Do I really need to explain why?
I mean, it's so clearly stupid.
FFS
Look
Breathing is simply a method of getting oxygen into the body, oxygen needed for life.
We get oxygen through the process of breathing-getting it from the air.
Fish do it differantly. Are they not alive?
Unborn babies do it differantly- they get it from the oxygenated blood of the mother.
Plants breath, but they breath carbon dioxide. They are definitely life. However, they are not 'alive' as we are- it's a differant type of life, and one we consider less important than ours. Maybe... because they don't think?
Hey, there's a better marker of when a baby should/shouldn't be aborted!!
(I'm not saying it's 'the' marker, I'm just demonstrating how badly thought out this persons opinion is.)

Jeez, I could go on, the discussion on 'what defines 'life', or 'what defines us as human beings' or whatever, is massive and complex- but 'breathing' doesn't enter into it as a suggestion anywhere.

I just noticed that you talked about a child as a parasite because it relys on its mother and its mother alone to survive.
Right, coz babys would be fine if left to fend for themselves after birth.
Human babies are unique in that they are totally helpless without their parents, for a significant amount of time- no baby could survive by itself after birth.
Or what about people on life support, or in coma's- totally unable to look after themselves, totally dependent on others- just parasites?

I hate abortion debates, the moralistic drivel makes me feel ill.

ok, firstly, I havn't read most of the other replies to this thread, so don't flame me if I mention things that have already been discussed- no, I don't have time.
so this is only directed at OP.

to be honest you seem to have got the wrong end of quite a few sticks
1) your question "I fail to see how abortion is a woman's rights issue" is not what you are discussing in the rest of the post. you're arguing a differant issue.
'womens rights'- its about whether she has the right to choose how she lives her life- i.e., whether or not she has the right to choose between raising a child, and whatever her alternative is. You were simply talking about whether people should be forced to take responsibility for their mistakes, and also about when an egg and a sperm become a baby (although you didn't seem to realise this).
There's also the issue of the father, with regards to female rights- it's the father's child too, but the women has to bare the baby- issues of who should 'legally' take responsibility for the child, and how much say each parent should have in what happens with the child.

2) No, it is clearly not OK to kill a baby 30 seconds before it is born. This is clearly killing a child. A child who has all the same rights to life as we do.
However, the few cells that are a just fertilised egg are just as clearly NOT a human being with the right to life. They are no differant to the cells of an egg or a sperm by themselves- they are cell matter with the potential to turn into a human.
Unfortunately, the change from this clearly non human existance, to a clearly human existance, is a gradual change. at one end it is one thing, at one end it is the other- in between, it is... in between. it is impossible to mark a point at which it becomes a life. we can place markers- movement, can feel pain, brain activity, functioning organs, whatever. none of these define a life.
Governments make attempts at saying when it becomes a human, shown in the law as to when abortions cannot be done. the fact that it is impossible to say for sure is reflected in the fact that differant countries have differant laws on this.

By the way, my #2 point is fact, as far as I am aware the only people who would argue that it is not OK to 'kill' a just fertilised egg argue it on religious grounds- the destruction of POTENTIAL life, against God's will. This is a small minority viewpoint, fine for them to practise but unacceptable to impose on others.

thats pretty much it for the abortion debate, I suppose if you want a CONCLUSION out of it, which I've pretty much shown is impossible, you could make a mark very early on in preganancy, during the 'definitely not defined as a human being' stage, and say abortions shouldn't be done after this.

regarding a few other points, I find it offensive the way you worded your post, you sound very angry and frequently make insulting insinuations regarding anyone who may disagree with you- this is disgusting behaviour considering you try and make out that you only want intelligent debate on the issue.
(your 'opposition' quotes, worded for some reason in idiot speak scattered with nerd speak- why do you associate nerdiness with idiocy?)
talking of your 'opposition' quotes, they are pretty misrepresentative of what people who support abortion believe.

"BUT OMG, LIKE, ITS NOT BORN, SO, LIKE, IT DOESN'T HAVE RIGHTS LOL!!1!!"
No one is saying that a baby doesn't have rights. They are saying a couple cells don't have rights. The debate is mainly about where that couple of cells turns into a baby- at what stage abortion is no longer acceptable.
so the bit 'its not born' should be changed to 'its not a human being'

"Wow. Ok, so is it ok to torture the baby? No? So the only right it doesn't have is to life? Can someone explain this to me?"
a conclusion drawn from 'its not born so it doesnt have right'... which you made up. its not its status as 'born' or 'unborn' that matters, but rather 'human', or even 'a life'.

"OMG TEENS ARE GOING TO HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX LOL!!!"
another made up quote, you put in itallic the word that you inserted? show me somewhere this is said.
I've never heard anyone suggest that teens are unable to have safe sex.
Well, I live in the UK, I was shocked to discover in a recent thread that in some places in America people are taught abstinence instead of safe sex...
However, your point is irrelevant, simply due to the fact that no method of protection is 100% secure- even if everyone practised safe sex all the time, this issue would still exist.
I've broken at least 3 condoms in the last 4 months, and had unprotected sex with the assurance from the female that she would get the morning after pill... then the pharmasis says that because of the stage her cycle is at, she may be already pregnant- the option? to get an IUD (google it if you don't know). So if she had been pregnant, and she'd had this fitted (which she didn't in the end- the chances of pregancy were very slim) would that be murder? I think I clearly illustrate the difficulty of the issue...

Ps just looked through some of the other replies and I see that most of them appear to be, indeed, about at what stage it is acceptable to abort.
I agree, it is an important, morally difficult debate- it's hideous to think of killing an unborn child, but awful to say that a woman can't flush 20 cells down the loo because she doesn't want to completely alter how she lives the next 20 years- or really, the entire rest of her life.
However, as I have shown, it is impossible to draw the line- the debate can rage forever, with arguments both ways- there's no clear cut line where it becomes human. it happens little bit by little bit.
Really, this is more the debate about what defines human.
we can say 'here the baby feels pain', 'here it has a beating heart', 'here it can move'- which of these defines life? Clearly all put together they are life... but.... trees feel pain. Trees move sap around. Plants can move (to the sun, or, venus flytraps). And we don't mind cutting flowers.
The debate 'what is life' is very interesting actually...
Also has relevance in the area of looking for extraterrestrial life (however you spell that).

Anyway.
I win this thread.

Joke....
its 5.30am so anythign stupid or unclear I wrote, please ask, and I'll try and remember to check back so I can clarify.
Oh and yes I do know what I'm on about, I've ready plenty of scientific debates of the issue, and someone very close to me who is 18 years old is pregnant and has decided not to abort, or adopt.

Oh I forgot, OP- I find
"Ya, well teens are going to have babies then too. And its going to fuck up their lives."
very offensive.
your view of teenage pregnancy is pretty disgusting- it isn't neccesarily a bad thing.
Obviously its not ideal, but having children is a wonderful thing, but it is very difficult to live with the stigma of teenage pregnancy, and people saying thoughtless and stupid things like this does not help at all.
Have some consideration for what it's actually like for the people you insult??
Hey, maybe it's attitudes like this that convince people who are later going to really really regret it (as much as they would if they'd killed their brother) to opt for abortion.

I hate abortion debates, the moralistic drivel makes me feel ill.

And you get one-post puppets like this:

oh sweet.
so i am free to kill anything unable to survive on its own, without human intervention?
so mentally deficient people, cancer patients, anyone under the age of 10, i am free to kill them all as much as i want?

i think it's funny that you try to justify killing a helpless fetus by saying that it is helpless.

Who end up feeding threads like this in an attempt to drown the valid counterarguments in a sea of posts until such a time they can one shot again without responding to those arguments.

oh sweet.
so i am free to kill anything unable to survive on its own, without human intervention?
so mentally deficient people, cancer patients, anyone under the age of 10, i am free to kill them all as much as i want?

i think it's funny that you try to justify killing a helpless fetus by saying that it is helpless.

Way to establish yourself early. Now I know what to ignore if you ever post again.

i think abortion is sick solely because the creation of human life is so amazing and beautiful. even if its not 'alive' yet, i find it rather disgusting that a person could callously disregard its creation as a burden. sex has been cheapened; it is 'desire of the flesh', but also an integral part of a complete loving relationship, which many people will never experience because they cant see women as anything other than sex toys, which some women encourage (for the others, my deepest sympathies). i guess you dont have to respect my opinion but like the thread starter said- a leads to b. abortion is sheerly a way of not taking responsibility for your actions, a cop-out. one of the few things in the world that you can get away with scot-free. sad. the only thing i can say to someone who gets pregnant unwillingly is 'what did you expect?'

1. If you think the creation of human life is beautiful, you obviously never had to watch anyone give birth.

2. If you think most women who choose to have abortions are "callous" in their decisions, you've obviously never bothered to talk to any of them.

3. Sex has always been cheap.

4. Sex can be an integral part of a loving relationship. It is not for most living creatures. Sign my chastity-until-marriage-for-lions initiative!

5. Abortion is sometimes the most responsible way to take care of your actions. And if you think having to go through an unwanted pregnancy, an abortion and all of the aftermath is "getting away scot-free"... I don't even know what to say to that.

i think abortion is sick solely because the creation of human life is so amazing and beautiful. even if its not 'alive' yet, i find it rather disgusting that a person could callously disregard its creation as a burden. sex has been cheapened; it is 'desire of the flesh', but also an integral part of a complete loving relationship, which many people will never experience because they cant see women as anything other than sex toys, which some women encourage (for the others, my deepest sympathies). i guess you dont have to respect my opinion but like the thread starter said- a leads to b. abortion is sheerly a way of not taking responsibility for your actions, a cop-out. one of the few things in the world that you can get away with scot-free. sad. the only thing i can say to someone who gets pregnant unwillingly is 'what did you expect?'
:confused:
if you truly respect your own bodies, you would not put them at risk.

Well. I certainly don't see women as sex objects, and that attitude phyisically makes me ill, and also very angry.
you cleary object to it also.
Yet your argument is invalidated because I find it hard to believe that you will draw a line in 'the creation of human life' between 'using a condom' and 'removing a just fertilised egg'. This argument could be extended to masturbating- all those sperm dying, disgusting waste of the potential to creat beautiful life.
So what if you said sperm=2 cells with the potential for life, egg+sperm = 4 cells with potential for life, yet its ok to use a condom but not ok to abort at ANY stage?
(I think I'm wrong about it being 2 cells, but that doesn't invalidate my argument)

What I disagree with here, is none of your points- Yes, women are human beings, not sex objects. Yes, sex is both physical pleasure, and an amazing expression of the feelings you have for another human being (or it can be, but not neccesarily, unfortunately).
What I disagree with is- a leads to b. abortion is sheerly a way of not taking responsibility for your actions, a cop-out.
Sex can result in pregnancy, so its their fault so we shouldn't do anything about it?
Crossing roads can lead to getting run over, therefore its their fault therefore we shouldn't arrest the driver that ran them down- it was their fault for risking crossing the road (even if the driver was driving dangerously)
that is the analogy for if they use protection but it fails.
Heres the analogy for if they don't use protection.
Someone crashes their car into a tree when driving dangerously- it was their fault, lets not give them hospital treatment.
no, we treat everyone, regardless of whether they got hurt by their own fault.
I take it you're not suggesting people shouldn't have sex unless they want to get pregnant?

I find it interesting that 100% of people that are pro-abortion have already been born...

Heres the analogy for if they don't use protection.
Someone crashes their car into a tree when driving dangerously- it was their fault, lets not give them hospital treatment.
no, we treat everyone, regardless of whether they got hurt by their own fault.
I take it you're not suggesting people shouldn't have sex unless they want to get pregnant?

Ah, but if they kill the person in the passenger's seat, we also prosecute them.

I find it interesting that 100% of people that are pro-abortion have already been born...

Morality should be abolished, it has no scientific basis in any objective reality, and ultimately people who defend it get their inspiration from archaic texts thousands of years old.

I find it interesting that 100% of people that are pro-abortion have already been born...

Prove it.

I find it interesting that 100% of people that are pro-abortion have already been born...

What about clones?

It seems human to me. When the egg and sperm come together the fetus is now composed of human DNA, with all 46 chromosomes present.

The question is hard, "when is it human?". Is it human even though it is a blob of organic matter, completely individual in its genetic make up? Is it human when the nevous system is fully functional at four weeks? When it takes its first breath?

The debate will take a long time. Though I disagree with abortion in all aspects ( unless the life of the mother is threatened), I believe that in the U.S. the subject will become like it has in Europe "morally acceptable", because people don't like to take responibility for actions they have commited.

My religious beliefs teach against abortion, whether the woman condoned or was raped, but I won't bring those arguments up because they don't "prove" anything and for some reason stirs up emotions.

It seems human to me. When the egg and sperm come together the fetus is now composed of human DNA, with all 46 chromosomes present.

The question is hard, "when is it human?". Is it human even though it is a blob of organic matter, completely individual in its genetic make up? Is it human when the nevous system is fully functional at four weeks? When it takes its first breath?

The debate will take a long time. Though I disagree with abortion in all aspects ( unless the life of the mother is threatened), I believe that in the U.S. the subject will become like it has in Europe "morally acceptable", because people don't like to take responibility for actions they have commited.

My religious beliefs teach against abortion, whether the woman condoned or was raped, but I won't bring those arguments up because they don't "prove" anything and for some reason stirs up emotions.

The question isn't "When is it human?"
A cancer cell and a tumor are human, too.
The question is "When can we consider it to be alive?"
And that's actually not that difficult to answer. Medical science regards a human as dead once its brain died. So by that same measure, a human isn't yet alive until its brain shows measurable activity (which is well into the second trimester in feotuses (foeti? Sorry, not sure about the plural form), so any abortions until that time would be perfectly ok in my book, and most certainly wouldn't kill a living human being.
Anything after that is usually only performed in the case of medical complications, and even that is exceedingly rare. With better diagnosis, many dangerous pregancies can be identified earlier.

Morality should be abolished, it has no scientific basis in any objective reality...
Neither does time.

Or science.

Morality should be abolished, it has no scientific basis in any objective reality,

Well, morality isn't empirical, true. But neither is mathematics. Should that be abolished?

and ultimately people who defend it get their inspiration from archaic texts thousands of years old.

I defend morality. I don't get my inspiration from "archaic texts thousands of years old", "ultimately" or otherwise.

It seems human to me. When the egg and sperm come together the fetus is now composed of human DNA, with all 46 chromosomes present.

When the egg and sperm come together, there is no fetus. There is a fertilized egg. It takes a great deal of work to develop a fertilized egg into a fetus. Without the constant and active participation of the mother's body, the fertilized egg will never develop into an embryo, let alone a fetus.


The question is hard, "when is it human?". Is it human even though it is a blob of organic matter, completely individual in its genetic make up? Is it human when the nevous system is fully functional at four weeks? When it takes its first breath?

A human egg cell is human. A human sperm cell is human. A fertilized human egg is human.

Your liver cells are human. The skin cells that you shed every moment of every day are human.


The debate will take a long time. Though I disagree with abortion in all aspects ( unless the life of the mother is threatened), I believe that in the U.S. the subject will become like it has in Europe "morally acceptable", because people don't like to take responibility for actions they have commited.

Taking responsibility for a pregnancy means facing the fact that you are pregnant, analyzing your situation, and making what you honestly believe is the best possible choice for you in that situation.

Sometimes a woman will conclude that the best choice is for her to abort her pregnancy. Just because you might not LIKE her choice doesn't mean she is failing to take responsibility.


My religious beliefs teach against abortion, whether the woman condoned or was raped, but I won't bring those arguments up because they don't "prove" anything and for some reason stirs up emotions.
Yeah, for "some reason" it stirs up emotion when you assert that 51% of human beings should not have the right to ownership of their own bodies. Crazy, that.

Morality should be abolished, it has no scientific basis in any objective reality, and ultimately people who defend it get their inspiration from archaic texts thousands of years old.

I think I am in love!

It seems human to me. When the egg and sperm come together the fetus is now composed of human DNA, with all 46 chromosomes present.

The question is hard, "when is it human?". Is it human even though it is a blob of organic matter, completely individual in its genetic make up? Is it human when the nevous system is fully functional at four weeks? When it takes its first breath?

The debate will take a long time. Though I disagree with abortion in all aspects ( unless the life of the mother is threatened), I believe that in the U.S. the subject will become like it has in Europe "morally acceptable", because people don't like to take responibility for actions they have commited.

My religious beliefs teach against abortion, whether the woman condoned or was raped, but I won't bring those arguments up because they don't "prove" anything and for some reason stirs up emotions.

that line annoys me too. its obviously human. but is it a person and should it have rights?

when "god" has set up human reproduction up so that half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant (i dont remember what they are called at that point, they are more than a single cell) and many other die before a woman even knows that she is pregnant, i cant help but think that these small starts to life arent all that important to him after all.

that line annoys me too. its obviously human. but is it a person and should it have rights?

when "god" has set up human reproduction up so that half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant (i dont remember what they are called at that point, they are more than a single cell) and many other die before a woman even knows that she is pregnant, i cant help but think that these small starts to life arent all that important to him after all.
Christian anti-choicers particularly amuse me, given that the Word of their God specifically informs them that abortion is not equivalent to killing a born person. I don't expect them to listen to reason, or to me, but I would think they'd listen to their own God...

Christian anti-choicers particularly amuse me, given that the Word of their God specifically informs them that abortion is not equivalent to killing a born person. I don't expect them to listen to reason, or to me, but I would think they'd listen to their own God...

they listen to their ministers and priests instead.

... the Word of their God specifically informs them that abortion is not equivalent to killing a born person.It does?

they listen to their ministers and priests instead.For some the "message" is too cryptic, so they need interpreters.


And as for the thread issue: A woman's body is hers alone and only she determines what happens with it or what is allowed to lodge inside.

i like you point of if you kill it 30 seconds before it's born it's ok...

anyway

if you dont kill it before it is born will it become a duck?

n0ooo

it becomes

*gasp*

A HUMAN BEING
so for the sake of the convenience of one person we kill another?

i like you point of if you kill it 30 seconds before it's born it's ok...

anyway

if you dont kill it before it is born will it become a duck?

n0ooo

it becomes

*gasp*

A HUMAN BEING
so for the sake of the convenience of one person we kill another?

A HUMAN BEING? And what? That's not an accomplishment.

i like you point of if you kill it 30 seconds before it's born it's ok...

anyway

if you dont kill it before it is born will it become a duck?

n0ooo

it becomes

*gasp*

A HUMAN BEING
so for the sake of the convenience of one person we kill another?

Guess what? We do so all the time.
We don't force people to donate their organs, and thereby condemn others to death for the convenience of the organ-hoarders.
It's all to do with this silly little right to decide what you let and don't let others do with your body, see?

i like you point of if you kill it 30 seconds before it's born it's ok...

Actually no. Most laws don't allow that. Not any that I know of. At this point, it would be possible to remove it from the mother's womb and have it survive. Thus, no abortion is necessary.

Most abortions occur way before you're even close to the fetus being able to survive on its own though.

but what if you dont kill it? it will probably live

Well, that is an easy one: Roe v. Wade (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113), 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973).

But I'm not sure what point you think is made in this isolated quote. ;)

I was making 10 points. That you got for being the first to get the reference.

but what if you dont kill it? it will probably live

Possilby.
As would that guy who currently dies of kidney failure if you gave him one of yours.
And that kid with leucemia that would need some of your spinal tissue.

Doesn't give anyone the right to just take those from you, does it?
Then why would something that isn't yet a living human being have more rights than something that already is a living human being? Care to explain that one to me?

It does?

Yep. Force a woman to miscarry and you have to pay a fine. Kill a person and you die. Bottle's probably got the exact passage somewhere.

Yep. Force a woman to miscarry and you have to pay a fine. Kill a person and you die. Bottle's probably got the exact passage somewhere.

Leviticus somewhere, as far as I remember.

i like you point of if you kill it 30 seconds before it's born it's ok...

anyway

if you dont kill it before it is born will it become a duck?

n0ooo

it becomes

*gasp*

A HUMAN BEING
so for the sake of the convenience of one person we kill another?

there are no legal abortions done 30 seconds before natural birth. by the time a fetus is viable abortions are only done because they are not going to survive and the abortion saves the life or future fertility of the mother.

Come, now. You were whining about abortions that are extraordinarily rare, medically necessary, AND otherwise generally illegal.


Nonsense, I made one post agggees ago simply stating that abortions when the fetus is viable DO happen, without saying anything on whether they are nessecerry or not (that wasn't the point). Then you annoyingly came in here a few pages later going on a massive rant about it, lets just drop it.


1. The argument was in the context of what qualifies as a person. Are you now saying that the existence of any brain, no matter how low-functioning makes a being a person? So my cat is a person?


It is an individual, if your cat had human DNA then it would be a person. But actually, I made no such assumption anyway, all I said was that the definition of person is arbitrary, someone else said that when a fetus is aborted it never has a brain or heart, I challenged that.


2. Brainwaves are a pretty basic indicator of a brain that actually does something. Those aren't seen until 20 weeks, which is later than some 99% of abortions.


I'm sceptical of this, since you are a lawyer not a scientist, and you seem to be interpreting very complex medical data into something quite seemingly simplistic. I'll accept I'm wrong about this if someone who is a scientist confirms this, or if you are able to show me a credible source that also agrees with this simplification.


And when, pray tell, did you cite other sources regarding fetal development?


I used some sources of guttmacher myself, look it up, it's near where Laerod pointed out that my first source was obviously biased.


3. If you are simply pointing to a bunch of tissue that does not yet generate brain waves, how is that morally different than a finger?


Is someone who is basically a brain dead vegetable, completely dependent on machines to survive, now not a person?


4. I know you will engage in a great deal of hand-waving about how "person" is indefinite, but you are trying to use "human" as if it meant "person." Something doesn't have a right to life merely because it is genetically human.


I never said it did. At the beginning I made two comments, one that a fetus is completely human, and one stating that person-hood is arbitrary.


The definition of viability I am using doesn't negate the possibility of relying completely on complex machinery. The earliest such possibility exists is at 20 to 27 weeks gestation, but it is generally accepted to be no earlier than 24 weeks.

I believe and have seen sources showing that an embryo can theoretically be fertilized and develop outside of the womb, not dependent on the mother at all, but instead from chemicals and machinery to stimulate the fetus and replicate the environment inside the womb. I'll see what I can find.

I'm sceptical of this, since you are a lawyer not a scientist, and you seem to be interpreting very complex medical data into something quite seemingly simplistic. I'll accept I'm wrong about this if someone who is a scientist confirms this, or if you are able to show me a credible source that also agrees with this simplification.

The only reason I haven't bookmarked this page yet is that it's ridiculously easy to find on Google. (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm)

I've broken at least 3 condoms in the last 4 months, and had unprotected sex with the assurance from the female that she would get the morning after pill... then the pharmasis says that because of the stage her cycle is at, she may be already pregnant- the option? to get an IUD (google it if you don't know). So if she had been pregnant, and she'd had this fitted (which she didn't in the end- the chances of pregancy were very slim) would that be murder? I think I clearly illustrate the difficulty of the issue...

You may need a new pharmacist. If she was trying to obtain the morning after pill the next day, it is not possible that she would have already been pregnant from sex the night before.

Leviticus somewhere, as far as I remember.

Exodus 21:22-25
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

I'm sceptical of this, since you are a lawyer not a scientist, and you seem to be interpreting very complex medical data into something quite seemingly simplistic. I'll accept I'm wrong about this if someone who is a scientist confirms this, or if you are able to show me a credible source that also agrees with this simplification.

From what I understand, the brainwaves TCT is referring to are brainwaves associated with higher order brain function. Brain stem function and a level of motor control are both achieved earlier in development.

However, loss of that higher order brain function is the indicator of brain death in fully developed patients. So it does make sense, from a certain viewpoint, to say that a functioning brain must include that function.

Is someone who is basically a brain dead vegetable, completely dependent on machines to survive, now not a person?

That someone is a corpse. Legally, brain death is death. We can keep the tissue alive for a time, but the person is dead.

It does?

Exodus 21:22-25

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

In other words, if men struggle and strike a pregnant woman and she miscarries, the penalty is a fine. If men struggle and a pregnant woman is herself killed, the penalty is death. Pretty simple.

It's worth noting, here, that Christian anti-choicers love to cite a particular Bible passage to support their views. From the first chapter of Jeremiah:
"Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

The anti-choicers love to harp on the bit about how God "knew" the prophet before he was born. If you actually read the passage, you'll find that it also says God knew the prophet before he was "formed" in the "belly." God was planning Jeremiah's life before he was even conceived. The anti-choicers cite this passage as proof that God "knows" an individual person while they are still unborn, but the passage actually argues that God recognizes human personhood BEFORE conception. Which then makes you wonder why they aren't criminalizing male masturbation and female menstruation.

The only reason I haven't bookmarked this page yet is that it's ridiculously easy to find on Google. (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm)

Fine, still it's quite clear that this is certainly not an impartial source, but a source with an agenda.

From what I understand, the brainwaves TCT is referring to are brainwaves associated with higher order brain function. Brain stem function and a level of motor control are both achieved earlier in development.

However, loss of that higher order brain function is the indicator of brain death in fully developed patients. So it does make sense, from a certain viewpoint, to say that a functioning brain must include that function.


So the brain does have a function then?


That someone is a corpse. Legally, brain death is death. We can keep the tissue alive for a time, but the person is dead.

Why hello there.

The anti-choicers love to harp on the bit about how God "knew" the prophet before he was born. If you actually read the passage, you'll find that it also says God knew the prophet before he was "formed" in the "belly." God was planning Jeremiah's life before he was even conceived. The anti-choicers cite this passage as proof that God "knows" an individual person while they are still unborn, but the passage actually argues that God recognizes human personhood BEFORE conception. Which then makes you wonder why they aren't criminalizing male masturbation and female menstruation.

Or really also wonders why they find this surprising at all because God is in their view supposedly omiscient and would know who was going to be born, and aborted, long before it happens.

So the brain does have a function then?

There are functioning neurons, yes.

But the function we use medically to define life is not there.

Why hello there.

Hello what? A dead person has ceased to be a person. That's what happens when you die.

A corpse is an ex-person.

There are functioning neurons, yes.

But the function we use medically to define life is not there.


So only if the brain functions to a high standard is it deemed a person. Again, do you not agree then that this makes the definition of person, even if medically defined, arbitrary?


Hello what? A dead person has ceased to be a person. That's what happens when you die.

A corpse is an ex-person.

So what do you call someone who is in a coma with practically no brain function (like a fetus), if you don't call it a person?

So what do you call someone who is in a coma with practically no brain function

Brain dead.

I agree with the authors point of view. I however do believe that there are certain situations in which abortion should be allowed.

1. Rape- if the person was raped and can prove it somehow then they should be allowed to have an abortion that way they do not have a constant reminder of that horrific experience. Be it rape by boyfriend, family member, stranger...rape is all the same and I cannot imagine what it would be like first of all being raped and secondly getting pregnant from it and be constantly reminded that there is something growning in you that was the result of some asshole doing that to you.

2. Woman's Health- like the author of the thread said, if the woman could die from being pregnant then maybe she should consider the abortion, but that is totally up to her. If she would like to try and have the baby or if she would rather the baby live than her it is her choice.

3. Disease- If they find that the child will not be able to survive for even a few minutes out of the womb because of some disease then maybe they could get one. It would probably be less traumatizing than giving birth to the kid only to watch it die a few moments later. I have no personal experience in this and this is all speculation but I that is how I believe I would feel. But ya never know.

Those are the only situations when abortion should be allowed. If people want to be stupid and have unprotected sex or not plan ahead then they should have to take care of the thing that they made. It was their mistake and they should take care of it. If they really don't want it then they could always give it up for adoption. There are plenty of good families out there that cannot have children for fertility reasons or other reasons. Babies do not stay parentless for long.

Also, having a kid will not ruin your life. My mother had a kid when she was 18. She graduated from high school while she was still pregnant. She then waited 3 years then went to college. My mom's husband died when my older sister was 5 i believe, so she was raising a kid alone, working AND going to school. My mom made it through it. She has a good job and she met my father. Did getting pregnant ruin her life? No. You just need a postivie outlook and say "I CAN DO THIS!" It wont be easy but I believe anyone has the strength to do it.

Well before I go, one more thing. I believe it is as much of the father's choice as it is the woman's. I think that the impregnated woman should at least tell the father that she is getting an abortion. I know of someone who got his girlfriend pregnant and was really excited about becoming a father and went around for a good week I believe telling people that he was going to be a dad only to find out that his girlfriend had gotten it aborted. That is not right. And I am not saying that if the father wants it aborted and she wants it that she should go out and get one. But she should still talk options with the father.

Ok well I believe that is all. You may not like my opinion and that is fine dont. I just wanted to express how I feel on this issue since most people don't seem to want to discuss it.

So what do you call someone who is in a coma with practically no brain function (like a fetus), if you don't call it a person?

A Norwegian Blue.

Brain dead.

So saying "this person is in a coma" would just be wrong?


[QUOTE=CthulhuFhtagn;13545139]A Norwegian Blue.

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/compdiff/norwegia.jpg

Naaah that's not dead, it's just sleeping. :p

What charge should be brought upon a person who unwantedly aborts a woman's child? Should they be changed with manslaughter/murder? In this case I would feel that the aborter has caused the death of the baby which the mother wanted, and could reasonably be charge with murder.

If the mother had not wanted the baby, I do not see why my opinion should change.

Well, first we are not speaking of a baby. But of a mass of cells. It's not really alive (it couldn't survive without direct, constant support from the mother body), and his definitely not a human being. It has no brain, no nerve, no heart, nothing. What makes killing a human being so much unacceptable is that a human being is a self-aware, conscientious entity. A fetus is none of this.

Then, it is a woman right because pregnancy has a very strong impact on a woman life. Even if we discard the charge of raising the baby, pregnancy itself is usually painful, nearly always debilitating, prevents the woman from working, trouble her sleep and eating habits, ... If the woman cares a tiny bit about the baby, she'll also restrain from drinking alcohol, coffee, or taking most of drugs when she's ill. It's very intrusive to her life, and for several long months. And it is always risky, even if the risk is low with modern medicine, childbirth and pregnancy still kill some women.

Imposing that to someone who doesn't want it, because of a mass of cells which no more human than a tree, is a violation of their right.

Where to draw the line (how many weeks after conception it is acceptable to abord) is the only question which matters.

So only if the brain functions to a high standard is it deemed a person. Again, do you not agree then that this makes the definition of person, even if medically defined, arbitrary?

Not really, no. I think it's one of the few definitions that makes sense.

So what do you call someone who is in a coma with practically no brain function (like a fetus), if you don't call it a person?

There is quite a difference between a coma and brain death. Quit shifting goalposts.

Not really, no. I think it's one of the few definitions that makes sense.


Just because you are comfortable with the definition, just because you think it is practical, does not make it objective.


There is quite a difference between a coma and brain death. Quit shifting goalposts.

Notice I said coma with barely any brain function at all, not just someone in a coma. I'm not shifting goal posts, I'm just making the analogy more accurate to fit what the condition of the fetus is.

Well when I was born I was naked.

How 'bout that. So was I.
Lunatic Goofballs, of course, was not. The greasepaint wasn't so bad, but the clown shoes were murder on his mother.

Notice I said coma with barely any brain function at all, not just someone in a coma. I'm not shifting goal posts, I'm just making the analogy more accurate to fit what the condition of the fetus is.

So according to you a fetus had conciousness and a life before... well... it came to be in the "comatose" state you describe ?

snip

You have made a few points that a worthy of comment, however, you present us with your opinion all. Proclaiming your opinion as universal and thus 'law' is not a very convincing argument.

The 'fetus' as you put it is a mass of cells. However, according to western developmental biology the fetal stage begins 9 weeks after fertilization. At this time rudimentary heart, brain, and lungs have formed. True, they are still forming and require the mother to survive but I see little reason why this "assistance" makes the developing child not human.

Is a person on life support "not a person"?

You also contend that having a baby impacts a woman's life and therefore she should have a choice about it. However, as soon as one considers the possible baby and the impact on its life, abortion seems to be less attractive (to me at least).

Further more, this does not address my former question in the least way, please do not respond to my conversation by changing the subject.

Or really also wonders why they find this surprising at all because God is in their view supposedly omiscient and would know who was going to be born, and aborted, long before it happens.

Freedom of choice. God ultimatly does know what choice will be made but he still waits to see what happens.(I have heard it as an analogy to a movie. God can choose to know what is going to happen. Like you can choose to skip to the end and see the hero kill the villian in an epic duel. But you watch the whole movie because you want to see what leads to that epic duel. God does the same thing I believe. He chooses to wait and see.) God also knows what could have been if they hadn't been aborted. Maybe cured cancer or AIDS. But then agian they mgiht have been a drug dealer too.

So according to you a fetus had conciousness and a life before... well... it came to be in the "comatose" state you describe ?

No, but how is 'had a functioning brain but not now' any more meaningful than 'will have a functioning brain'?

I am agianst Roe vs. Wade but not becasue I am agianst abortion(I am against it). I don't think it is a legal decision. The supreme court basically made abortion illegal. It was legislating there. The supreme court is not supposed to legislate but to determine if the actions and legislation of the other branches are legal. Congress did not ban abortions. Therefore it does not fall under it's jurisdiction. Based on the 9th and 10th ammendmants I belive it is up to individual states to decide. This will please most people cuz the liberal states will vote to allow abortion and the conservative states will vote to ban it thus meaning you will probably be happy with the outcome in your state.

You completely don't understand Roe v. Wade. First -- um, yes, it WAS a legal decision in that the LEGAL system examined it and made a decision.

The Supreme court decision there boiled down to "not our business, let it be between a woman and her doctor."

Thirty-one years after the US Supreme Court decided, in the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 [1973]), that the right to privacy extends to a woman's decision of whether or not to have an abortion, http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/roe/overview.php

Please, please, pleas know what you're talking about before you make statements.

Roe v. Wade = laughable.

So a woman eats her baby but the court can't charge her with murder because they do not have the legal power to examine her stomach contents (thus invading her privacy)?

No, but how is 'had a functioning brain but not now' any more meaningful than 'will have a functioning brain'?

The person in a coma has lost something - but (s)he was a person. You can describe him (or her).

The fetus has not yet been a person. If you stop it from getting a brain it will never become a person. So who is the person that lost something ?

Roe v. Wade = laughable.

So a woman eats her baby but the court can't change her with murder because they do not have the legal power to examine her stomach contents (thus invading her privacy)?

:rolleyes:

The fetus has not yet been a person. If you stop it from getting a brain it will never become a person.

So if a person steals all the fruit off a farmer's tree he should be charged with theft? However, if the person chops down the tree before the fruit have developed the farmer cannot complain about the loss of his crops, only that of the tree?

The person in a coma has lost something - but (s)he was a person. You can describe him (or her).


So now we're back again. Do you then hold that (s)he is now technically not a person?

oh sweet.
so i am free to kill anything unable to survive on its own, without human intervention?
so mentally deficient people, cancer patients, anyone under the age of 10, i am free to kill them all as much as i want?

i think it's funny that you try to justify killing a helpless fetus by saying that it is helpless.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that 'mentally deficient people, cancer patients, anyone under the age of 10' could breathe on their own without having to have their oxygen taken from someone else's bloodstream, could eat on their own without having to take their nutrition from someone else's bloodstream, were (generally) able to communicate with other humans and make their needs known, had evolved personalities, were (generally) ambulatory, did not still eliminate toxins by dumping them into their mother's bloodstream, and in all ways were NOT STILL LIVING INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON.

Please try not to make such idiotic statements by quoting a fragment of what I posted, twisting the context in some bizarre leap of logic, and then acting all proud of yourself while you make some snarky comment. It doesn't reflect well on you.

So if a person steals all the fruit off a farmer's tree he should be charged with theft? However, if the person chops down the tree before the fruit have developed the farmer cannot complain about the loss of his crops, only that of the tree?

Ehm...

The farmer cannot complain about the loss of crops that do not exist. So indeed, he can only complain about the loss of the tree.

You're really good at crappy arguments, aren't you?

Ehm...

The farmer cannot complain about the loss of crops that do not exist. So indeed, he can only complain about the loss of the tree.

You're really good at crappy arguments, aren't you?

Well, actually, depending on what country you are from you will find different laws on this subject. Indeed if you deprive someone of an expected income or possession, you can be sued for it (in some places).

But thank you for your valiant effort.

So now we're back again. Do you then hold that (s)he is now technically not a person?

Depends on how far gone they are. If it is merely a very,very deep coma of which they can theoretically recover - they are still a person.
If their brain is liquefied a la Schiavo - not anymore. But they were before.

The fetus on the other hand NEVER was. And if killed NEVER will be.
See the difference ?

Christian anti-choicers particularly amuse me, given that the Word of their God specifically informs them that abortion is not equivalent to killing a born person. I don't expect them to listen to reason, or to me, but I would think they'd listen to their own God...

they listen to their ministers and priests instead.

Come come, some of us know what it says, AND are pro-choice, AND are Christian too!

It does?

For some the "message" is too cryptic, so they need interpreters.


And as for the thread issue: A woman's body is hers alone and only she determines what happens with it or what is allowed to lodge inside.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Might not be the passage referred to, but fairly clear anyways...

Well, actually, depending on what country you are from you will find different laws on this subject. Indeed if you deprive someone of an expected income or possession, you can be sued for it (in some places).

But thank you for your valiant effort.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to provide these laws, hmm?

Perhaps you could be so kind as to provide these laws, hmm?

You can look them up if you are interested in learning about them.

here is a page on recouping lost wages as an example:

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/lost_wages_personal_injury_claim.htm

At least in the United States if someone in effect takes away what you had reasonably expected to have you can sue to get it. However, often suing is not necessary as most people with common sense and empathy with fellow human beings will see that this is pretty black and white.

Might not be the passage referred to, but fairly clear anyways...

There are however quite a few different translations for that passage (pity the book was not written in the much clearer English...) . The life for life thing can in fact refer to the life of the mother - which would make the loss of the fetus something that only requires a fine determined by the father. Considering how careless the Bible is with possibly pregnant woman throughout the whole book, never having any consideration at all for the unborn children when ordering the women to be killed, that translation/interpretation is quite likely also the correct one.

That in practice makes the Bible pro-choice. Putting the choice with the father instead of the mother, but pro-choice nevertheless. Killing the fetus is only a crime if daddy says so.

Come come, some of us know what it says, AND are pro-choice, AND are Christian too!

for sure.

but a person who is anti-all-abortion for religious reasons has probably followed their priest/minister's opinion rather than reading through the bible for themselves.

the catholic church's ban on abortion isnt based on the old testament but on the principle that all life and death decisions belong to god. in today's world that has to be parsed some due to the amazing medical advance of the past 100 years but its still a guiding principle. i dont have a problem with that, but i do think that it should have no force of law.

Roe v. Wade = laughable.

So a woman eats her baby but the court can't charge her with murder because they do not have the legal power to examine her stomach contents (thus invading her privacy)?
:rolleyes:

So if a person steals all the fruit off a farmer's tree he should be charged with theft? However, if the person chops down the tree before the fruit have developed the farmer cannot complain about the loss of his crops, only that of the tree?

Perhaps you could be so kind as to provide these laws, hmm?

Actually, I happen to know this is true, at least, in Yorkshire. If you hit a sheep, you not only have to pay for the value of the sheep but the value of all the lambs and wool it might have produced in its lifetime... and I believe at least a portion of the profit those potential sheep might have produced.

Roe v. Wade = laughable.

So a woman eats her baby but the court can't charge her with murder because they do not have the legal power to examine her stomach contents (thus invading her privacy)?

You seem to be implying that eating babies is wrong? :confused:

You seem to be implying that eating babies is wrong? :confused:

No! NO! Adam Smith was right!

i don't see how you can say its the womans body and its her choice. at the moment the of conception a new completely different strand of DNA is created, thus not her body. Also I believe the law should be set straight if you want to keep abortion legal then killing a pregnat wonamn shouldn't be two counts of murder since its just a part of her body and not a person. If not then we can all just sit back and wait a few years and the liberal party will just abort themselves out of existence if we're lucky... problem solved.

No! NO! Adam Smith was right!

Adam Smith?

Adam Smith?

Adam Smith was a Scottish philosopher/economist who wrote "The Wealth of Nations," in which he jokingly suggests that many economic hardships could be solved by the raising of children for human consumption. (I am sorry I brought this up it has no baring on the discussion at hand and was meant as humorous rebuttal to New Genoa).

Notice I said coma with barely any brain function at all, not just someone in a coma. I'm not shifting goal posts, I'm just making the analogy more accurate to fit what the condition of the fetus is.

A coma is still quite different from brain death or even a persistent vegetative state.

If you really want an accurate medical analogy to the fetal state being discussed, anencephaly would probably be the best choice. It would definitely be better than using coma.

Have you ever heard of pithing? It is sometimes used before dissecting a frog so that students can observe lung and heart function without causing pain to the animal. The heart will remain beating and the body will continue breathing, but voluntary action and pain are not possible. That's another good analogy.

i don't see how you can say its the womans body and its her choice.

Because it is. Are you saying that the woman's body belongs to someone else?

at the moment the of conception a new completely different strand of DNA is created, thus not her body.

The developing embryo/fetus is not her body, but the womb it resides in is. Hence the reason that she can deny it use of said womb.

Also I believe the law should be set straight if you want to keep abortion legal then killing a pregnat wonamn shouldn't be two counts of murder since its just a part of her body and not a person.

Interestingly enough, no law has been used to prosecute someone for two counts of murder with a pre-viable fetus.

If not then we can all just sit back and wait a few years and the liberal party will just abort themselves out of existence if we're lucky... problem solved.

Yes, because believing that the choice should be available means we'll all make that choice....
:rolleyes:

Okay so I really don't see how anybody could say that abortion is a women's rights issues, unless someone was forcing abortions on women. Because in fact it is incredibly dangerous for a woman to have an abortion.

Secondly, how anyone can say that the "fetus" is not a living thing, for whatever reason (such as that it can't breathe on its own) is not looking at the facts. Doctors procalim someone is dead NOT by whether or not they are breathing, but by whether or not their heart has stopped beating. Within the first 4 weeks of pregnancy the fetus has already developed a brain, spinal cord, and circulatory system. At week 5 the baby's heart is beating. Also, how can you expect the baby to be breathing on its own, its immersed in fluid, I'd like for you to completely immerse yourself in water and start breathing. The baby doesn't develop lungs until the last weeks of pregnancy because it doesn't need them.

Of course, maybe that only makes a difference to me.

Interestingly enough, no law has been used to prosecute someone for two counts of murder with a pre-viable fetus.


Do you know if anyone has ever had these charges brought against them? I would be interested in reading the ruling.

Adam Smith was a Scottish philosopher/economist who wrote "The Wealth of Nations," in which he jokingly suggests that many economic hardships could be solved by the raising of children for human consumption.

I know who Adam Smith was, but I don't believe he ever suggested, jokingly or otherwise, that children should be raised for human consumption.

Perhaps you are thinking of Jonathan Swift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal).

Perhaps you are thinking of Jonathan Swift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal).

Aye, JS is another baby eater alright... but he was an Irish one I believe.

40 days after conception the fetus has a heart beat and brainwaves. Anything after 40 days after conception is murder. Anything before is fair abortion. PERIOD. If you are stopping brainwaves and a beating heart, you are killing a living being. It may be justified in the case where the mother will die or the baby will have severe defects, but once the baby is able to live outside the uterus, it is NEVER justified.

40 days after conception the fetus has a heart beat and brainwaves. Anything after 40 days after conception is murder. Anything before is fair abortion. PERIOD. If you are stopping brainwaves and a beating heart, you are killing a living being. It may be justified in the case where the mother will die or the baby will have severe defects, but once the baby is able to live outside the uterus, it is NEVER justified.

It isn't able to live outside the uterus after 40 days.

Considering that we can store cells in deep-freeze and not irreversibly denature their proteins, and we're good at implanting zygotes, it's not too much of a long shot to do the same with embryos.

You can't denature a protein by reducing heat, you need either excessive heat or some kind of chemical (usually by an acid/base)...

If you are stopping brainwaves and a beating heart, you are killing a living being.

Thus, we should never kill for meat. Period.

Right?

The developing embryo/fetus is not her body, but the womb it resides in is. Hence the reason that she can deny it use of said womb.


There are so many occasions though that people do not legally have a right to their body and choices about it that to give the right in this case seems odd to me.

Indeed Roe v. Wade ended up being won over privacy, not autonomy.

Thus, we should never kill for meat. Period.

Right?

Some people believe this in fact. Those empathetic assholes.

Some people believe this in fact.

I actually think the arguments against eating meat are far stronger than the arguments against abortion.

But it seems strange that so many anti-abortionists whine endlessly about the fetus--which is essentially non-sentient when killed--while ignoring the suffering of animals in the meat industry.

I actually think the arguments against eating meat are far stronger than the arguments against abortion.

But it seems strange that so many anti-abortionists whine endlessly about the fetus--which is essentially non-sentient when killed--while ignoring the suffering of animals in the meat industry.

I think that most half way intelligent anti-abortionists know/believe that the aborted fetus feels no pain, but rather they are against the "killing" of a possible human.

I don't really see much legal cross over between killing an animal and a human. But if you bring up moral cross over... well that is something else... and I can assuredly tell you that when morality is brought up there can be no "correct answer."

Okay so I really don't see how anybody could say that abortion is a women's rights issues, unless someone was forcing abortions on women.

Because women have the right to control their own bodies, including the right to decide whether or not another entity will use said body.

Because in fact it is incredibly dangerous for a woman to have an abortion.

An early term abortion is actually safer for her than continuing the pregnancy. There are risks associated, of course, but there are risks associated with any medical decision.

Secondly, how anyone can say that the "fetus" is not a living thing, for whatever reason (such as that it can't breathe on its own) is not looking at the facts. Doctors procalim someone is dead NOT by whether or not they are breathing, but by whether or not their heart has stopped beating.

This is incorrect. Loss of brain function is the marker for medical death. It is possible for someone to be declared dead even if their heart is still beating. For those who are organ donors, the heart is still beating when the organs are harvested.

Within the first 4 weeks of pregnancy the fetus has already developed a brain, spinal cord, and circulatory system.

This is patently incorrect. You don't even see the first randomly firing neuronal activiity until later than that. And the suggestion that the embryo (we're not talking about a fetus when we're talking about 4 weeks) has a developed circulatory system without a heartbeat is ridiculous. It is actually the flow of blood that drives a great deal of the circulatory development.

At week 5 the baby's heart is beating.

This, at least, is fairly accurate. That is about the time that the heart begins spontaneously beating. I believe it actually occurs sometime in the 4th week.


Do you know if anyone has ever had these charges brought against them? I would be interested in reading the ruling.

The Scott Peterson case is the big one that most people know about. His wife was 8 months pregnant, IIRC.

40 days after conception the fetus has a heart beat and brainwaves.

As has already been discussed and sourced, the brainwaves statement is incorrect.


There are so many occasions though that people do not legally have a right to their body and choices about it that to give the right in this case seems odd to me.

No, there aren't. Even convicted felons have the right to make their own medical decisions and the right not to have their bodies used against their will.

Indeed Roe v. Wade ended up being won over privacy, not autonomy.

The two are related.

I think that most half way intelligent anti-abortionists know/believe that the aborted fetus feels no pain, but rather they are against the "killing" of a possible human.

But they fail to explain why. What's wrong with it?

But if you bring up moral cross over... well that is something else... and I can assuredly tell you that when morality is brought up there can be no "correct answer."

I think you're wrong.

What gives you this assurance? And are you really content to say that there was nothing incorrect about, say, Nazism?

No, there aren't. Even convicted felons have the right to make their own medical decisions and the right not to have their bodies used against their will.

It is against the law for me to inject myself with heroin, and thus some control of what I do with my body has been taken away from me.

The police may take DNA samples from me with a court order, and thus some control over my body has been taken from me.

I never gave my mother permission to give birth to me nor did I consent to my body's construction, and thus some control over my body has been taken from me.



The two are related.
Everything is related to everything else, and the claim that two things are completely unrelated in effect relates them to one another.

I would not totally disagree with you, however, the gravity of the situation compels me to require further similitude.

What gives you this assurance? And are you really content to say that there was nothing incorrect about, say, Nazism?

To a Nazi there may not be, who I am to declare my view is more correct then his?

To a Nazi there may not be, who I am to declare my view is more correct then his?

Do you believe anyone can ever be correct about anything?

What's the difference?

Do you believe anyone can ever be correct about anything?

What's the difference?

I believe a fact is "correct," but I would not assign the category of fact to something like the moral superiority of the tenets of Nazism.

It very well may be the case the my belief in facts is incorrect.

40 days after conception the fetus has a heart beat and brainwaves. Anything after 40 days after conception is murder. Anything before is fair abortion. PERIOD. If you are stopping brainwaves and a beating heart, you are killing a living being.

The "40 days" figure you cite is not true -- as is explained at length here (http://tigtogblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/fetal-brain-development-myths-and.html) and here (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm).

It may be justified in the case where the mother will die or the baby will have severe defects, but once the baby is able to live outside the uterus, it is NEVER justified.

The point at which a baby is able to live outside the uterus is know as the point of viability. As I've already explained in this thread, (1) over 99% of abortions are pre-viability, (2) those abortions that are performed post-viability ARE justified by medical necessity, and (3) post-viability abortions are already illegal in the US and UK except where medically necessary.

I believe a fact is "correct," but I would not assign the category of fact to something like the moral superiority of the tenets of Nazism.

Why not?

Why not?

I wouldn't know how to assign the statement "Nazism is right" as 'fact.' I cannot measure the "rightness" of Nazism. I have a gut feeling about whether it is right or wrong, but my feeling might differ some someone else's.

In contrast. I would contend that the statement "the Earth's atmosphere is composed of less then 5% Argon" is a fact, because if scientist A measures the level, and then scientist B measures the level, taking into account experimental errors, their measurements would show that Argon composes less then 5% of Earth's atmosphere.

I wouldn't know how to assign the statement "Nazism is right" as 'fact.' I cannot measure the "rightness" of Nazism.

Why not? There are lots of arguments one way or another. Can't you evaluate them rationally?

Why not? There are lots of arguments one way or another. Can't you evaluate them rationally?

My rational may differ from someone else's rational, an example of this might be the debate between prochoice and right-to-lifers.

Just because there are circumstances doesn't make it right. I belive the only times it is right to kill are in self defense, in defense of others that cannot defend themselves, and executing violent criminals.

Perfect! Save their life at birth so you can kill them properly as adults...Brilliant!

The "40 days" figure you cite is not true -- as is explained at length here (http://tigtogblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/fetal-brain-development-myths-and.html) and here (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm).

Awesome source, thanks for the reference.

Perfect! Save their life at birth so you can kill them properly as adults...Brilliant!


And technically, abortions are in self defense - it prevents the embryo/fetus from leeching energy and nutrients of the mother, so even if you consider a fetus a human abortions should be protected as self defense.

Am I the only one who realizes that this thread is completely pointless in the way that it is entirely subjective? My gosh...

LOL, quoting a prochoice advocate on the quality of Pro-life arguments is like letting an accused murderer be his own judge and jury...

Mattorn;13545548']Am I the only one who realizes that this thread is completely pointless in the way that it is entirely subjective? My gosh...
Please refer to the first post for clarification on this issue.

Okay so I really don't see how anybody could say that abortion is a women's rights issues, unless someone was forcing abortions on women. Because in fact it is incredibly dangerous for a woman to have an abortion.

Secondly, how anyone can say that the "fetus" is not a living thing, for whatever reason (such as that it can't breathe on its own) is not looking at the facts. Doctors procalim someone is dead NOT by whether or not they are breathing, but by whether or not their heart has stopped beating. Within the first 4 weeks of pregnancy the fetus has already developed a brain, spinal cord, and circulatory system. At week 5 the baby's heart is beating. Also, how can you expect the baby to be breathing on its own, its immersed in fluid, I'd like for you to completely immerse yourself in water and start breathing. The baby doesn't develop lungs until the last weeks of pregnancy because it doesn't need them.

Of course, maybe that only makes a difference to me.

Wrong on all accounts.
Abortions performed by trained doctors and nurses are by FAR less dangerous than giving birth (even medically supervised birth).
And doctors don't determine death by looking at the heartbeat (that can be kept going for quite a while with a pacemaker), they pronounce someone dead once he/she is braindead.
Foetuses start showing higher brain activity starting from somewhere around the 20th week of pregnancy, well into the second trimester. Until such time, it's fair to assume that we are not talking about a living person.

Wrong on all accounts.
Abortions performed by trained doctors and nurses are by FAR less dangerous than giving birth (even medically supervised birth).

Note that this is true for early term abortions. Late term abortions carry equivalent or higher risk. Of course, elective abortions are early term...

Carry on. =)

Mattorn;13545548']Am I the only one who realizes that this thread is completely pointless in the way that it is entirely subjective? My gosh...

How is it subjective ? What a fetus is and isn't can be determined quite objectively. As one can determine what a pregnant woman is and isn't.

Of course, it is true that some people think that the wellbeing of a blob of cells outweighs the rights of a woman. But THAT is the topic of this thread.

Until such time, it's fair to assume that we are not talking about a living person.

I think many people would disagree with this statement.

My rational may differ from someone else's rational,

You may both use reason and arrive at different conclusions. But one of you may have made an error. Or perhaps not--perhaps there is more than one correct answer. But that does not mean that there are no incorrect ones.

an example of this might be the debate between prochoice and right-to-lifers.

People argue militantly about evolution and creationism, too. Does that mean there is no objective answer?

Nonsense, I made one post agggees ago simply stating that abortions when the fetus is viable DO happen, without saying anything on whether they are nessecerry or not (that wasn't the point). Then you annoyingly came in here a few pages later going on a massive rant about it, lets just drop it.

I'm willing to drop it, but you simply shouldn't have made the statement in the first place and you should recognize your point has been rebutted.


It is an individual, if your cat had human DNA then it would be a person. But actually, I made no such assumption anyway, all I said was that the definition of person is arbitrary, someone else said that when a fetus is aborted it never has a brain or heart, I challenged that.

1. So the only difference between my cat and a person with a right to life and other human rights is species? Care to try to justify that morally?

2. The definition of person is no more arbitrary than the definition of what entities have a right to life and other human rights (i.e., persons).

3. I believe the assertion in question was that it was pretty clear that something without both a heart and a brain is not a person. This led to your argument that a fetus has a functional brain. My argument was you aren't being realistic about when abortions happen during gestation -- (1) most abortions precede the fetal stage when brain development begins and (2) almost all abortions precede any meaningful brain function. Regardless, abortions occur long before an unborn has a claim to personhood.


I'm sceptical of this, since you are a lawyer not a scientist, and you seem to be interpreting very complex medical data into something quite seemingly simplistic. I'll accept I'm wrong about this if someone who is a scientist confirms this, or if you are able to show me a credible source that also agrees with this simplification.

And yet, even when a credible source is provided AND others such as Dempublicents confirm my simplification, you still reject it. Apparently you are immune to facts.


I used some sources of guttmacher myself, look it up, it's near where Laerod pointed out that my first source was obviously biased.

1. Your Guttmacher sources concerned when abortion happens and why it happens and did not address fetal development. Your only source on that was the vague and unsupported Wikipedia citation.

2. You informed me that the Guttmacher courses were tl:dr. Did you read them or not?


Is someone who is basically a brain dead vegetable, completely dependent on machines to survive, now not a person?

Yes. Brain death = no longer a person. :headbang:


I never said it did. At the beginning I made two comments, one that a fetus is completely human, and one stating that person-hood is arbitrary.

Already dealt with, but let me add that the argument is whether being "completely human" is morally relevant. Redwulf and others have argued it is not, by itself, sufficient to establish rights. I would add that it is neither sufficient nor necessary. You have failed to justify otherwise.


I believe and have seen sources showing that an embryo can theoretically be fertilized and develop outside of the womb, not dependent on the mother at all, but instead from chemicals and machinery to stimulate the fetus and replicate the environment inside the womb. I'll see what I can find.

Good luck finding those sources.

But, if an embryo or fetus can be safely removed from the womb without injury to it, then we shouldn't have a problem. Women could have control over their bodies without destruction of the unborn. Win, win.

Fine, still it's quite clear that this is certainly not an impartial source, but a source with an agenda.

You were given an impartial and detailed medical source and you claimed you needed something more simplistic. When given something more simplistic you claim it isn't impartial enough, even though it is full of citations to medical journals. :rolleyes:

Probably most of these points have already been made, but I'll go ahead and say them anyway (because it's tax season and I don't have the time or attention span to read the rest of the notes *grin*).

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later?

Most abortion laws are fairly specific about this. First trimester abortions, except in cases where the mother's life is in actual danger, are the only legal abortions. Why first trimester? Probably because right around the beginning of second trimester is when brain activity is found in a fetus. This makes the division pretty clear, the law considers the fetus to have "rights" when it's a thinking being.


You know what? If you don't want it, give it up for adoption.

Sure, most of us would far rather have been given up for adoption rather than aborted. However, you're talking about taking an already overstressed, overburdened, and horrendously underfunded system and adding in millions of additional bodies to feed, clothe, house, etc. The adoption system can't really handle the amount it takes in currently...will it be better to add in those millions more so we can see even worse problems?

The fact that you got drunk one night and had unprotected sex does NOT entitle you to kill another person.

Let's go with the standard response to this...what if the woman was raped? Should HER life be messed up or ruined for something that's not her fault? And if you make abortion illegal except in cases of rape...there's going to be a whole lot of women who "got drunk one night and had unprotected sex" claiming they were raped just to get the abortion. That's all that will change (other than some men might have their lives ruined when these women point their fingers at them).

I couldn't bring myself to slog through all 29 pages of the same shit again, but I read the first 4 pages and the last 4 pages of this thread, and it seems to me the OP has done us a favor.

By using the stereotypical anti-choice rhetoric but stripping the religious gloss off it, he reveals the fundamentally sexist and mysogynist nature of the entire anti-choice position. The arguments boil down to this:

- Other people should have the right to use women's bodies for their own purposes. Women should never have a right to say no to this or use their bodies for anything else.
- Women should never have the authority or power to make their own decisions. They should always submit to someone else's authority over their bodies.
- Whatever a woman does with her life, it is never as important as what someone else wants to do with it, so other people should get to dictate when she has to stop whatever she is doing, to do what they want her to do.
- Women have the least rights of all people on the planet. In fact, even fetuses who are not legal persons and have no actual ability to exercise rights even if they had them still should have legal superiority over women.

Regardless of whether the anti-choice argument comes from a religious person or a non-religious person, it always contains the above features. Every time, without exception. All of the ones I read at the beginning and end of this thread certainly contain them.

Many times it also comes with the disclaimer (as in the OP) that this has nothing to do with women's rights. That claim makes obvious sense within the anti-choice argument because they have already (theoretically) stripped women of all rights (to the extent of making them legally inferior to clumps of cells), and if women have no rights, then how can anything be a matter of women's rights? We may as well say it's a matter of unicorns, if we follow their worldview.

Of course, the anti-choice argument is in no way connected to reality.

- In reality, there is no such thing as an elective abortion of a viable fetus. All late term abortions are matters of medical necessity, and of the very tiny number performed annually, many of those are aborting pregnancies where the fetus is already dead or dying in the womb. So, while women's rights may not be a myth, "abortion kills babies" most certainly is a myth.

- All elective abortions are performed early enough in the pregnancy that no viable individual is being killed. In other words, no being that had a life of its own is dying as a result of a woman making a choice. The VAST majority of elective abortions are done at such an early stage, that no being at all can be said to exist -- unless the anti-choicers would like to extend legal personhood to individual cells or even strands of DNA.

- In reality, slavery is illegal, so all people (even the female ones) do own their own bodies, and nobody gets to use those bodies for their own purposes against the owner's will.

- In reality, there is no requirement to be a "Good Samaritan." It does not matter if the embryo will die if I don't let it use my body to sustain its life. It's my body, and no means no. This will not be changed by adorably pathetic fairy tales about poor little babies made up by strangers who have far less to do with my pregnancy than a 2 week-old embryo does. I don't have to care about the clump of cells attached to my uterus, and if I don't already care about it (i.e. if I don't want to be pregnant), the carryings-on of anti-choicers will not change my mind.

- In reality, even if the laws were rewritten to strip women of all rights and subject them to the will of their new embryionic overlords, there would be no way short of complete totalitarianism to enforce such laws. Look, for example at Ireland where women simply hop over to England to get abortions in total disregard of the law; Germany where the law is a mere empty sop to the anti-choice side, saying abortion is illegal but refusing to punish it at the same time; or Ecuador, which has been rendered a dystopian police state and more than half its population criminalized (all to the detriment of the nation as a whole) by its draconian abortion ban -- yet abortion is still not gone from Ecuador.

What that means, basically, is that you can't get rid of abortion, because abortion is a necessity. No law against abortion has ever succeeded in stopping it because people do it out of necessity. And if I ever need an abortion, I will get one, no matter what the law says.

And THAT is completely beside any question of my legal rights as a woman. My rights will be a second front in this battle, as far as I'm concerned.

Probably most of these points have already been made, but I'll go ahead and say them anyway (because it's tax season and I don't have the time or attention span to read the rest of the notes *grin*).



Most abortion laws are fairly specific about this. First trimester abortions, except in cases where the mother's life is in actual danger, are the only legal abortions. Why first trimester? Probably because right around the beginning of second trimester is when brain activity is found in a fetus. This makes the division pretty clear, the law considers the fetus to have "rights" when it's a thinking being.




Sure, most of us would far rather have been given up for adoption rather than aborted. However, you're talking about taking an already overstressed, overburdened, and horrendously underfunded system and adding in millions of additional bodies to feed, clothe, house, etc. The adoption system can't really handle the amount it takes in currently...will it be better to add in those millions more so we can see even worse problems?



Let's go with the standard response to this...what if the woman was raped? Should HER life be messed up or ruined for something that's not her fault? And if you make abortion illegal except in cases of rape...there's going to be a whole lot of women who "got drunk one night and had unprotected sex" claiming they were raped just to get the abortion. That's all that will change (other than some men might have their lives ruined when these women point their fingers at them).

I believe you're not legally able to consent to sex while drunk, so they were actually raped.

It should be noted that for adoption you need to have the baby, which can cause serious health prolems and results in much pain for the woman having the baby.

Furthermore, the premise of the pro life argument is that abortion is the murder of an innocent being. If you were raped, you aren't allowed to murder an innocent person, so according to the pro-life doctrine there should be norape exception, meaning that a rapist and a glob of cells have more control over your body than you do.

You may both use reason and arrive at different conclusions. But one of you may have made an error. Or perhaps not--perhaps there is more than one correct answer. But that does not mean that there are no incorrect ones.

People argue militantly about evolution and creationism, too. Does that mean there is no objective answer?

Ok... can you prove that Nazism is "incorrect" as you put it. Like I said before believe it is wrong, but I have no way to objectively measure this belief.

With evolution and creationism there are scientific facts which some people claim support evolution. Other scientists hold to creationism. Some as you have alluded to even believe both are possible. However, this is a different cause then morality. You would not say that an animal evolving is "morally just" (at least I wouldn't).

You might say the belief in evolution is "immoral" but how the heck would you measure it? What evidence would you use to prove that person A was a better person because they believed in evolution and person B was a moral degenerate because they believe in creationism.

I contend that you cannot calculate these things, and thus they are qualitative, not quantitative. They are subjective, at least to me, and cannot be given the status of a "fact".

I think many people would disagree with this statement.

Why? If somebody is braindead, he/she is dead for all purposes, and you don't find anyone arguing about that.
And yet, some folks have a problem with the very same definition to specify when a non-animate object becomes a person.
Would you advocate to keep braindeads in life support till they start to whiff?

Snip

I don't want to sound like a total dick, but can you prove that a woman should have equal rights?

I am not advocating that they should not. I believe they should have equal rights.

However, there are many societies where all sorts of people are marginalized. Why should it be different for women? What inherent right do you have to rights? A constitution might say you have some but where does it say you do in nature?

If someone is just going to pull some rights out of the air and claim them, then someone else is just going to pull some rights out of the air and assign them to a fetus.

What that means, basically, is that you can't get rid of abortion, because abortion is a necessity. No law against abortion has ever succeeded in stopping it because people do it out of necessity. And if I ever need an abortion, I will get one, no matter what the law says.


Just because you can't get rid of something doesn't mean it is ok. I doubt that the world will ever be free of rape but I still don't like it and I believe there should be laws against it. The same goes for child soldiers, etc, etc.

I fail to see how a fetus is a human being, and therefore why this is even a neccesary discussion.

I fail to see how a fetus is a human being, and therefore why this is even a neccesary discussion.

Because it has the possibility to be a human life. And just like there are laws that protect people from lost wages, there should be laws protecting a fetus from the loss of its possibility to be a human being.

I don't want to sound like a total dick, but can you prove that a woman should have equal rights?

I am not advocating that they should not. I believe they should have equal rights.

However, there are many societies where all sorts of people are marginalized. Why should it be different for women? What inherent right do you have to rights? A constitution might say you have some but where does it say you do in nature?

If someone is just going to pull some rights out of the air and claim them, then someone else is just going to pull some rights out of the air and assign them to a fetus.

The only right that exists "in nature" is the bigger guy is right.
Human Rights are a common denominator formulated a good while ago and agreed on by different societies. And society is what gives you rights.
Without a society to enforce it, you would not have any rights at all.

And Human Rights say that not only do women have the same rights as men, every human being has an inalienable right to decide about their own bodies.

The only right that exists "in nature" is the bigger guy is right.
Human Rights are a common denominator formulated a good while ago and agreed on by different societies. And society is what gives you rights.
Without a society to enforce it, you would not have any rights at all.

And Human Rights say that not only do women have the same rights as men, every human being has an inalienable right to decide about their own bodies.

Yeah, so you agree that Human Rights are completely made up things. People just invented the idea. It is totally possible that a society might give men every right and restrict women's rights to nothing. Thank you for stating my point so historically and authoritatively.

Because it has the possibility to be a human life. And just like there are laws that protect people from lost wages, there should be laws protecting a fetus from the loss of its possibility to be a human being.

Every egg in my body has the possibility of becoming a human being. Does that mean I should stop taking the pill, cause I'm depriving them of their possible potential? Should I also be forced to have sex constantly during fertile periods to make sure every egg will get a chance to be fertilised?
And if "I do have a spontaneous natural abortion (which does actually occur in up to 50% of all pregnancies), should I be jailed for manslaughter?

It is against the law for me to inject myself with heroin, and thus some control of what I do with my body has been taken away from me.

The police may take DNA samples from me with a court order, and thus some control over my body has been taken from me.

I never gave my mother permission to give birth to me nor did I consent to my body's construction, and thus some control over my body has been taken from me.

Everything is related to everything else, and the claim that two things are completely unrelated in effect relates them to one another.

I would not totally disagree with you, however, the gravity of the situation compels me to require further similitude.

Perhaps you should actually read Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), AND Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992), before you spout more nonsense.

The 14th Amendment protects liberty. Abortion is a protected liberty. It has its roots in the Court's privacy jurisprudence (see Roe; Griswold v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479), 381 U.S. 479 (1965)), but it is not limited to such a right of privacy. The Court in Planned Parenthood was more explicit about the woman's autonomy. Further, the right to privacy means more than you appear to acknowledge.

Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that your examples are pertinent, the right to control over one's own body is not made non-existent by the facts that sometimes compelling state interests may be said to override the absolute boundary of such a right. The imposition imposed by a law against abortion substantially violates a woman's rights.

Because it has the possibility to be a human life.

So does a sperm. So does an egg. Once we figure out cloning, so will every single cell in your body.

So the hell what?

Yeah, so you agree that Human Rights are completely made up things. People just invented the idea. It is totally possible that a society might give men every right and restrict women's rights to nothing. Thank you for stating my point so historically and authoritatively.

They didn't "invent" them.
People are born with a sense of morality, it's a genetically determined function of our brains. And that sense of morality has led to the formulation of these explicit rights.

Every egg in my body has the possibility of becoming a human being. Does that mean I should stop taking the pill, cause I'm depriving them of their possible potential? Should I also be forced to have sex constantly during fertile periods to make sure every egg will get a chance to be fertilised?
And if "I do have a spontaneous natural abortion (which does actually occur in up to 50% of all pregnancies), should I be jailed for manslaughter?

I believe some people would say "yes" to some or all of those.

If you are asking for my opinion then I would say no. Because I see a difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg.

Because it has the possibility to be a human life. And just like there are laws that protect people from lost wages, there should be laws protecting a fetus from the loss of its possibility to be a human being.

Please explain this comparison in detail. Center questions:
1. Why is losing something you had equivalent to losing something you never had ?
2. At what point does ending the possibility of the creation of a new person become "wrong" in your eyes ?
The *exact* point and underlying reasoning please. Include why it is not wrong for a woman to not spend every moment trying to get pregnant.

It is against the law for me to inject myself with heroin, and thus some control of what I do with my body has been taken away from me.

Actually, no.
What's illegal is owning the heroin, not using it.


The police may take DNA samples from me with a court order, and thus some control over my body has been taken from me.

Again, no. They can't.


I never gave my mother permission to give birth to me nor did I consent to my body's construction, and thus some control over my body has been taken from me.

And you might die tomorrow in a car crash. Rights don't protect people from accidents.

It is totally possible that a society might give men every right and restrict women's rights to nothing. Thank you for stating my point so historically and authoritatively.

A right from a legal perspective is a legal regime, that's correct. And societies can create their own legal regimes, that's correct. The fact that you felt the need to state such an obvious truism suggests something not so flattering about yourself.


And in the US we have a legal regime, called the constitution, which says that, according to those legal regimes, women have equal rights.

Ok... can you prove that Nazism is "incorrect" as you put it.

With respect to its moral tenets? Yes. I bet you didn't expect that answer. ;)

But the argument is somewhat involved, and we are already rather off-topic.

You might say the belief in evolution is "immoral" but how the heck would you measure it?

You're implying that moral truth must be somehow "empirical": "how the heck would you measure it?" I suggest, instead, that it is rational.

And, if we think rationally about it, protecting abortion rights makes sense. I'll give the abbreviated version. First, we have no particularly compelling reason to care for fetuses at all. They are not persons and they are not sentient. Second, freedom is very important--so important that we should not deprive some members of society of their basic freedom even if such a refusal comes at the cost of life.

Naturally, of course, people opposed to abortion rights might and do attempt to counter such arguments. You assume that any such disagreement is ultimately inconclusive, but I see no reason to make this assumption.

I believe some people would say "yes" to some or all of those.

If you are asking for my opinion then I would say no. Because I see a difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg.

And what difference would that be, then?

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?
We draw the line at whatever our best scientific estimate is as to when the fetus gains a consciousness to lose; destroy the fetus BEFORE then, so that a consciousness doesn't start and end.

That said, though, I do disagree with the "woman's rights" approach to the issue. We see opposition to abortion associated with sexism, so why don't we see opposition to embryonic stem cell reserach associated with prejudice against those who have diseases curable through it?

I don't want to sound like a total dick, but can you prove that a woman should have equal rights?

I am not advocating that they should not. I believe they should have equal rights.

However, there are many societies where all sorts of people are marginalized. Why should it be different for women? What inherent right do you have to rights? A constitution might say you have some but where does it say you do in nature?

If someone is just going to pull some rights out of the air and claim them, then someone else is just going to pull some rights out of the air and assign them to a fetus.
I'm not sure, but I'm fairly confident that I will soon have enough hard evidence to prove that you are an internet troll.

I notice that, having had your ludicrous arguments debunked by facts, you have spent the last several pages trying to argue that facts are subjective and you should be able to reject the ones that don't support your claims and make up new ones to fill the gap. But as the late great Patrick Moynihan (US Senator) once put it, "We can all have our own opinions, but we cannot all have our own facts."

There are countless ethical, philosophical and pragmatic arguments about WHY people SHOULD have equal rights, which lay out in detail the many benefits of egalitarian societies. But I am not going to cite any of them. Instead, I will answer you in the vein you seem to prefer -- of total subjectivity -- and say, it does not matter whether anyone on the planet SHOULD have equal rights with anyone else. I SAY they will have them, and I will do whatever I can do to ensure that that happens. Why? Because I SAID SO. That is the way I want it. That is the way it will be. I don't have to prove a goddamned thing about shoulds or shouldn'ts.

It's exactly the same with the anti-choice crowd. They want their way and they are bound and determined to force me to comply with their demands. The "reasoning" behind their agenda is completely irrelevant to both them and me. All that matters is who will hold sway.

I say that the patterns of history show my side to be the stronger. I believe this is because a practical necessity is at its core, but that is another "why" that doesn't really matter. All that matters is that every so often, one side tries to create an unequal system by subjugating women (the usual target group) to their will, and a battle rages for a while, and the other side, which favors egalitarianism and individual liberty prevails in the end. A little while later, it starts again. What do we learn? That people who like to control and bully others never give up, but they always lose, too.

Just because you can't get rid of something doesn't mean it is ok. I doubt that the world will ever be free of rape but I still don't like it and I believe there should be laws against it. The same goes for child soldiers, etc, etc.
As usual, you completely ignore the point made in favor of melodramatic ramblings, including the insistent comparison of abortion to actual crimes. Troll-ish. Not quite there yet, but your long, pointless, off-topic sidebar about how you can't tell if there were any errors in Nazism already got you so close to the brass troll ring, I'd say you've almost got it.

You may both use reason and arrive at different conclusions. But one of you may have made an error. Or perhaps not--perhaps there is more than one correct answer. But that does not mean that there are no incorrect ones.

A logical process is always based in certain axioms that are taken for granted as true. Axioms are generally untestable.

If two people start with different axioms, they may both use reason and arrive at very different conclusions.

You seem to be implying that eating babies is wrong? :confused:

Not if you're the Bishop of Bath and Wells, it's not!

Just because you can't get rid of something doesn't mean it is ok. I doubt that the world will ever be free of rape but I still don't like it and I believe there should be laws against it. The same goes for child soldiers, etc, etc.

Let's say that there was good evidence that (1) laws against rape didn't significantly reduce rape, (2) laws against rape caused tens of thousands of women to die each year and millions to suffer injury, and (3) there were ways to decrease rape that were far more effective, would you still believe in laws against rape?

(Before you dismiss this hypothetical as unrealistic, you should read this (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html), this (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html), and maybe this (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract) (subscription required)).

And that doesn't even consider that laws against rape protect individual liberty and autonomy while laws against abortion do the opposite.

The fact that abortion is just as common -- but far, far more dangerous -- where abortion is outlawed is an independent reason why abortion should be legal. (Note: legal abortion is among the safest of surgical procedures, but illegal abortions kill about 70,000 women every year!)

Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives, family planning, etc, not by attempts to enslave and endanger women.

No! NO! Adam Smith was right!

Adam Smith?

I do believe he's mistaken Jonathan Swift for Adam Smith. As I recall, Jonathan Swift was a satirist and Adam smith mostly an economist...

If two people start with different axioms, they may both use reason and arrive at very different conclusions.

I have never denied this possibility.

Because it has the possibility to be a human life. And just like there are laws that protect people from lost wages, there should be laws protecting a fetus from the loss of its possibility to be a human being.

People are protected from lost wages because they are already human persons with all the rights therein.

We do not, however, extend rights to people based on what they might eventually be. I don't have a right to collect a retirement check because I might eventually reach retirement age. My niece is not entitled to vote because she might live to be 18.

And an embryo is not entitled to the rights associated with human person hood because it might eventually become a human person.

Of course, even if it was entitled to such rights, those rights would not include dominion over my body.


I have never denied this possibility.

I know, just thought I'd add that in there. =)

Let's say that there was good evidence that (1) laws against rape didn't significantly reduce rape, (2) laws against rape caused tens of thousands of women to die each year and millions to suffer injury, and (3) there were ways to decrease rape that were far more effective, would you still believe in laws against rape. (Before you dismiss this hypothetical as unrealistic, you should read this (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html), this (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html), and maybe this (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract) (subscription required)).

And that doesn't even consider that laws against rape protect individual liberty and autonomy while laws against abortion do the opposite.

The fact that abortion is just as common -- but far, far more dangerous -- where abortion is outlawed is an independent reason why abortion should be legal. (Note: legal abortion is among the safest of surgical procedures, but illegal abortions kill about 70,000 women every year!)

Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives, family planning, etc, not by attempts to enslave and endanger women.
Very well said. Thank you.

Ther's one little detail I keep noticing that bothers me, and I'd like to ask your opinion about whether you think it is significant. Laws against rape (as an example) make it illegal to do something to someone else (rape). Laws against abortion make it illegal NOT to do something for someone else (give birth). To me, this is a significant difference that invalidates the comparisons between abortion laws and anti-rape/anti-murder laws (a comparison the anti-choice side loves to make).

Furthermore, anti-rape laws are invoked after a person has already done something deemed wrong (committed rape), and all they do is take away the rapist's liberty after appropriate conviction and the rapist having a chance to argue his side of the case. Anti-abortion laws are brought to bear on women who have done nothing wrong, committed no crime, and what they do is force a woman to put her health and life at significant risk, without trial or hearing of any kind. Finally, the harm done by rape can be exhibited and demonstrated by testimony of the victim. It is absolutely impossible to interview an embryo, so there is no evidence whatsoever that abortion actually harms anyone.

Because of these differences, the comparison between rape and similar crimes and abortion just infuriates me. They seem, in fact, to be exact opposites of each other in every way.

Every egg in my body has the possibility of becoming a human being. Does that mean I should stop taking the pill, cause I'm depriving them of their possible potential? Should I also be forced to have sex constantly during fertile periods to make sure every egg will get a chance to be fertilised?
And if "I do have a spontaneous natural abortion (which does actually occur in up to 50% of all pregnancies), should I be jailed for manslaughter?

Yes, of course... Did no-one tell you your role in life was to make babies?

Just as you said the right to swing a hammer ends where it would contact your face, the right of a fetus to exist within a woman's uterus ends with her unwillingness to carry it.
sorry Kat, but I got an image of a fetus being served with an eviction notice...
:p

Every egg in my body has the possibility of becoming a human being. Does that mean I should stop taking the pill, cause I'm depriving them of their possible potential? Should I also be forced to have sex constantly during fertile periods to make sure every egg will get a chance to be fertilised?
Well, you know, pinning down the fertile periods is not 100% accurate, so you ought to have sex continuously, just in case.:fluffle:

Pinning down the fertile period is a lot less accurate than "not 100%". As far as I'm aware, humanity is the only species to have evolved concealed ovulation. Since this means, as you say, that people need to have sex continuously in order to procreate, there must obviously be some evolutionary benefit to be gained from sex quite aside from the provision of more humans. Scientists are still trying to figure out what that benefit is.

This also means that the rhythm method is quite spectacularly useless as a method of contraception.

Other things unique or nearly so to the human species include menopause, complex tool use, and religion.

Other things unique or nearly so to the human species include menopause, complex tool use, and religion.

*worships menopausal complex tool use*

And an embryo is not entitled to the rights associated with human person hood because it might eventually become a human person.


You are 100% correct. However, some people believe that an embryo should be entitled to these rights.

You are 100% correct. However, some people believe that an embryo should be entitled to these rights.

In the future, we will be able to turn a skin cell into a human though cloning. Humans inadvertantly destroy millions of skin cells a day - should we all be tried as mass murderers?

Snip

I am fully aware that "back alley abortions" are extremely dangerous, however, making abortion legal to reduce the risk of the operation is just not justifiable to me.

As usual, you completely ignore the point made in favor of melodramatic ramblings, including the insistent comparison of abortion to actual crimes. Troll-ish. Not quite there yet, but your long, pointless, off-topic sidebar about how you can't tell if there were any errors in Nazism already got you so close to the brass troll ring, I'd say you've almost got it.

I did not bring up Nazism, someone else asked me a question about it and I responded.

Furthermore, if you equate my angst at ending the potential life of a human being as melodramatic then I believe you are at fault and not me. I contest that even those in favor of prochoice would not feel any glee in abortion and would not consider it so lightly.

You are 100% correct. However, some people believe that an embryo should be entitled to these rights.

Perhaps. I think they're harder to find than you think. Many people will say they do, but they don't when you really get down to details.

But, either way, anyone who uses "it will one day be a person" argument to justify such beliefs is not using a valid argument. Unless, of course, they think toddlers have the right to vote and 20-somethings should be drawing retirement benefits.

Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives, family planning, etc, not by attempts to enslave and endanger women.

I agree with this statement so much that it makes me ashamed not to have mentioned it earlier. I do not believe that any woman takes pleasure in abortion and the idea that one would is disgusting. Education of both men and women on the issue is of the utmost importance, and if the abortion issue can be nullified through education then I will be the first one to support tax dollars being spent in such a way. Thank you for bringing this issue to light.

snip

I fail to see how the severity of taking someone's life can be equated to these things, however if that is how you see it I will not try to dissuade you from your view. However, I remain steadfast that the potential for human life is quite a marvelous thing.

sorry Kat, but I got an image of a fetus being served with an eviction notice...
:p

Naughty JuNii! now I have the urge to PhotoChop.....

This is mostly your fault.... ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/eviction.jpg?t=1206143594

I fail to see how the severity of taking someone's life can be equated to these things, however if that is how you see it I will not try to dissuade you from your view. However, I remain steadfast that the potential for human life is quite a marvelous thing.

Dem's point was that if a fetus should be accorded all the rights of a person, because one day it might be one, then toddlers should be allowed to vote because one day they might be old enough to do so, same thing with the 20 year-olds, they might one day be old enough to draw retirement benefits.

Do you really not see that it is the same argument?

However, some people believe that an embryo should be entitled to these rights.

no they don't. not really. they claim that embryos are persons, but they do not actually believe this. and their reasons for claiming it in the first place are fundamentally flawed and cannot withstand even basic scrutiny. which was sorta the point of what you were responding to.

I fail to see how the severity of taking someone's life can be equated to these things, however if that is how you see it I will not try to dissuade you from your view. However, I remain steadfast that the potential for human life is quite a marvelous thing.

I wasn't equating them. I was pointing out that rights are not based in what an entity will be. They are based in what an entity is.

We're not talking about taking someone's life. Under that argument, we're talking about ending the potential for there to be a someone.

I agree with you that the potential for human life is a marvelous thing. I think it is very important. But I do not pretend that potential = actual.

As another analogy, suppose I had some eggs.

I point to those eggs and say, "That's a cake. Eat it for dessert."
You say, "That's not a cake. It's just eggs."
I say, "But it could be a cake, if I mixed it with some other things and let it cook. Therefore it is a cake right now and should be treated as such."

You say.....

Actually, no.
What's illegal is owning the heroin, not using it.


In fact most parolees must submit to drug testing and the "possession" of drugs is not really taken into consideration at all. As an example (of which there are copious more).


Again, no. They can't.
LOL, yes they can (at least in the country I live in).



And you might die tomorrow in a car crash. Rights don't protect people from accidents.
This doesn't even address what I said.

Dem's point was that if a fetus should be accorded all the rights of a person, because one day it might be one, then toddlers should be allowed to vote because one day they might be old enough to do so, same thing with the 20 year-olds, they might one day be old enough to draw retirement benefits.

Do you really not see that it is the same argument?

I see what he was getting at, but as i said before I do not think the severity or gravity of the situation lends itself to such comparisons.

As another analogy, suppose I had some eggs.

I point to those eggs and say, "That's a cake. Eat it for dessert."
You say, "That's not a cake. It's just eggs."
I say, "But it could be a cake, if I mixed it with some other things and let it cook. Therefore it is a cake right now and should be treated as such."

You say.....

wait 9 months and I will deliver to you a glorious cake.

I see what he was getting at, but as i said before I do not think the severity or gravity of the situation lends itself to such comparisons.

It's not a matter of comparison. It is the exact same argument, simply applied in another situation.

If the argument itself is illogical, the "severity or gravity" of the situation does not matter. The argument is still illogical.

It doesn't matter if we're talking about a cake or an embryo, what something might eventually be is not what it currently is.

Oh, and she, not he. =)

wait 9 months and I will deliver to you a glorious cake.

So the eggs aren't a cake and you won't eat them for dessert?

no they don't. not really. they claim that embryos are persons, but they do not actually believe this. and their reasons for claiming it in the first place are fundamentally flawed and cannot withstand even basic scrutiny. which was sorta the point of what you were responding to.

I would warn you from trying to read the minds and heart of others...it is quite hard.

I was indeed point to a fundamental flaw in "belief" but if one uses this flaw to discredit one side of the argument, one most also consider it true for the otherside. That was my main point.

I would warn you from trying to read the minds and heart of others...it is quite hard.

You don't have to read their minds or hearts. They'll flat-out tell you all the ways that they think an embryo should be treated with less importance than a born human being.

Suppose I tell you my computer is perfect. But, you question me and find that I will list flaws it has. Do I really believe it is perfect?

So the eggs aren't a cake and you won't eat them for dessert?

They have the potential to become a cake, and to say they don't is just stupid. If I had a dozen eggs in my refrigerator and someone came along and broke it I would get mad even though I am not in the habit of eating raw eggs.

They have the potential to become a cake, and to say they don't is just stupid.

They do have that potential.

But that potential does not make them a cake. And you don't treat them like a cake.

You don't have to read their minds or hearts. They'll flat-out tell you all the ways that they think an embryo should be treated with less importance than a born human being.

Suppose I tell you my computer is perfect. But, you question me and find that I will list flaws it has. Do I really believe it is perfect?

If you refer to my post in question you will see I wrote "some people believe..." Are you really ruling out the possibility that a single person believes an embryo has rights? Because if you are I have news for you... you are wrong.