The Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

But it’s good to know it’s ok to “abort” 1 year old kids.

[/quote]

If this was meant as a stand-alone joke, funny. If it was meant as a satirical criticism of my position, you don’t fully understand my position. [/quote]

I know you were just arguing against the idea that we can not prove nor disprove consciousness.

But if we were speaking about consciousness and self-awareness, it was because BrianHanson proposed it was a criterium of “humanness” and as such a criterium of our “right to life”.

I was just demonstrating (ab absurdo) why it can’t be the case : kids have a right to life well before he/she can do the rouge test.
[/quote]

A right to life is not an objective fact. I’m not proposing we kill infants because they don’t know the difference, the point I was trying to get at was that the fetus can’t make a decision either way both because it can’t feel and because it isn’t self-aware, so other than the mother’s decision, what else is there to consider?[/quote]

That’s all well and good that a new independent human being in the fetal stage of development is purportedly (not that you can know for certain) neither self-aware nor does it purportedly (not that you can know for certain) feel pain before a given month, but these statements in and of themselves are not reasons against abortion in the first place. They are mere conditions, and still pretty iffy ones at that.

What I want to know is, why? Why does it make a difference if the little tiny life can’t feel pain, or doesn’t yet know it is its own fully independent human being? You are in very dangerous territory. Genocide territory. I’m not being hyperbolic here. And both kamui and I can bury you in historical precedent if you want to continue down this road.

If you are going to demonstrate that your some month old unborn, unfeeling, self-awarenessless child is good for killin, you had better provide some actual reasons why your criterion should be any different for, say, anybody in a coma, or a totally dead drunk husband whose final act before crashing onto the living room couch one last time was to lay the final straw on the back of a camel who just happened to belong to his murderous wife.

She can use your argument, as you have presented it, in her defense. Because he fits your criteria, to a T. So now you will have to start piling all sorts of addendums and complications onto your argument in order to keep it balanced. But it’s gonna fall down eventually. It always does. Because trust me, subjected to a little scrutiny, your ethics will be shown to be untenable. [/quote]

In my opinion, if you are to perform a mercy killing, it should be done as painlessly as possible and with consent. With a fetus, it can neither feel pain, nor is it concious. That’s good enough for me to say it’s up to the mother. Whether her reasons are as simple as “I’m not ready for a child” or as serious as “this birthing could kill the both of us”, it’s not my business and I have no reason to make it my business.

362

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

But it’s good to know it’s ok to “abort” 1 year old kids.

[/quote]

Good thing I waited to read the rest of the thread before posting. Saved me some time.

TT, aside from the fact that you have some pretty primitive ideas about levels of fetal development as well as misconceptions about the actual brutality of the abortion itself, your argument itself is all over the place.

Which is it that is important? Is is self-awareness? Or the ability to feel pain? I thought we were still talking about a child on the inner threshold of the vagina. Now you are dropping “points” that could only support infanticide, yet were speaking earlier as if pain should be the deciding factor.

More importantly, please do explain WHY self-awareness, pain, or whatever your other reasons in favor of abortion matter at all. [/quote]

Since the fetus isn’t self-aware, its perspective is irrelevant. Since the fetus can’t feel pain (before 5 months), the actual method of abortion is largely irrelevant. The only factor remaining is the mother’s choice.

I’m not opposed to abortion because I see no cruelty in it. To the contrary, I think it’s a great mercy to not bring an unwanted child into the world.

I just don’t see the problem.[/quote]

So you attach ‘personhood’ to self-awareness? You have several problems. First, you cannot prove anything, other than yourself, is self aware. In a technical sense, you cannot actually prove the awareness you believe to have is self awareness… So you banking on something you can’t even know exists at all.
Second, it’s a slippery slope. As Kamui mentioned before there are many instances where a person can be in various stages in life and be in a state where they are not aware of anything. Our very own dear Kneedragger was in a coma for 6 months. He was not self-aware and could not feel pain, by your definition, he was not a person during that period of time. That’s why that argument fails. If you apply such silly notions to babies, you have to apply them every where where they occur. By your definition of person, somebody who dies during an operation, wasn’t human at the time of death, because of sedation, they were not self aware and felt no pain.

So forget about that stupid shit. There is no descernable break in the human life cycle save for death. No matter how you try to spin something the facts still remain

  • The zygote is alive
  • The zygote is human
  • The zygote is autonomous

A full grown person has these traits:

  • The person is alive
  • The person is human
  • The person is autonomous

No amount of wishful thinking is going to make this not true. My advise, watch where you put your dick. Because if you knock up a girl and parcipate in abortion you are an accomplice to murder, period.

[/quote]

You’re just moving the goal-post. A fetus can’t so much as feel. It literally could not care less what happens to it before 20 or so weeks. You could clog a black-hole with all the fucks that kid doesn’t give.

Also:

Rocks have these traits:

  • Rocks are found on Earth
  • Rocks contain minerals
  • Rocks eventually breakdown

A fully grown person has these traits:

  • The person is found on Earth
  • The person contains minerals
  • The person eventually breaks down

Therefore…?

Just because some things share certain traits doesn’t mean, well, anything. None of the similarities you listed mean a damn thing to me. It’s not as though I’m especially in favour of killing infants and not fully grown people.

363

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Women are very emotional, why don’t we take some time to discuss other things that could cause women unnecessary trauma and guilt. We should then try to make those things illegal for women only, they will thank us later.[/quote]

Where did this come from?

364

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Problem is, both science and logic support my view of the humanity of that “mass of cells.” Don’t forget that you are just a “mass of cells” as well. But let’s examine points;

Take it out of the mother and it dies:

The only reason many children are “viable” from around the 24th week is because of advances in medicine that allow us to care for the premature child from as early as this. As medical science continues to advance, the viable point will become earlier and earlier, and there is no reason to believe this will not reach back even to the “mass of cells” stage of development.

So, when that happens, will the morals of the issue have somehow shifted. Will it then be immoral?

If you want to take away choices then be part of the solution…adopt…and adopt plenty of them

Exactly how many should I adopt? Should I also build my own prison to house and feed criminals because I want to take away their “choice” to do what they do? Would one prison be enough? Certainly, as you have demonstrated, my tax dollars and my say in the electorate are clearly not enough for you. So tell me, in hard numbers, what should I give?

Let’s have it?
[/quote]

Haven’t the morals of the issue already shifted in that we do have current boundaries on the procedure different than the past? Also why it is ok to tinker with nature in this case and keep what would have been a naturally aborted “mass of cells” alive as you put medical science as the ONLY reason they are alive. Why is that not messing with God’s plan?
[/quote]

First ephrem (who should know better, but always pulls this card when his premises are worthless but he doesn’t want to back down from the position he’s committed to), and now you. Find me one place in this or any thread where I mentioned anything about God’s plan. or argued the im-morality of abortion from a theological standpoint.

To correct you, though, morals do not change. Bad will always be bad. Murder was bad before the boundaries shifted, it is bad now, it would be bad if there were no boundaries, and still bad if the boundaries were all encompassing. The things people happen to do in one time or another have no effect upon morals themselves. If what you are implying was true, then 200 years ago, slavery was moral.

The irony of this sentence doesn’t strike you?

Incorrect. Mother chooses to have sex with father, conceives, whereupon an affected third party becomes involved by no choice of her own. No growing up, raping or further crimes are necessary, as the mother and her abortionist are immediately perpetrating the crime of murder upon the child, who, by the way, already happens to be human.

You have done absolutely nothing to prove that your masses of cells and zygotes are anything other than individual human beings. Until you can, everything I say stands.

[quote]

Sorry to even type that and I dont wish any portion of that on anyone, especially you as you seem like a very decent fellow. My point is that why is allowing it to happen equal “making the world a better place” as was intimated in another post. A new life into this world is neither good or bad until they take root as a human and make actions that either positively or negatively affect their fellow beings and this earth.

My “adopt, and adopt plenty” obviously is not something you can make into a finite quantified rule (well maybe in Japan) but the point stands, if you feel every life is sacred and you protest outside of abortion clinics, it would be way more powerful (and Christian) thing to do to instead go to each mother considering the abortion and offer to adopt the child. If every mother knew that she could have a solid family structure to put the child into versus the abortion perhaps the rates would go down?[/quote]

Or, we could just live our own lives as other non-human-murdering humans and call it even.

365

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

But it’s good to know it’s ok to “abort” 1 year old kids.

[/quote]

If this was meant as a stand-alone joke, funny. If it was meant as a satirical criticism of my position, you don’t fully understand my position. [/quote]

I know you were just arguing against the idea that we can not prove nor disprove consciousness.

But if we were speaking about consciousness and self-awareness, it was because BrianHanson proposed it was a criterium of “humanness” and as such a criterium of our “right to life”.

I was just demonstrating (ab absurdo) why it can’t be the case : kids have a right to life well before he/she can do the rouge test.
[/quote]

A right to life is not an objective fact. I’m not proposing we kill infants because they don’t know the difference, the point I was trying to get at was that the fetus can’t make a decision either way both because it can’t feel and because it isn’t self-aware, so other than the mother’s decision, what else is there to consider?[/quote]

That’s all well and good that a new independent human being in the fetal stage of development is purportedly (not that you can know for certain) neither self-aware nor does it purportedly (not that you can know for certain) feel pain before a given month, but these statements in and of themselves are not reasons against abortion in the first place. They are mere conditions, and still pretty iffy ones at that.

What I want to know is, why? Why does it make a difference if the little tiny life can’t feel pain, or doesn’t yet know it is its own fully independent human being? You are in very dangerous territory. Genocide territory. I’m not being hyperbolic here. And both kamui and I can bury you in historical precedent if you want to continue down this road.

If you are going to demonstrate that your some month old unborn, unfeeling, self-awarenessless child is good for killin, you had better provide some actual reasons why your criterion should be any different for, say, anybody in a coma, or a totally dead drunk husband whose final act before crashing onto the living room couch one last time was to lay the final straw on the back of a camel who just happened to belong to his murderous wife.

She can use your argument, as you have presented it, in her defense. Because he fits your criteria, to a T. So now you will have to start piling all sorts of addendums and complications onto your argument in order to keep it balanced. But it’s gonna fall down eventually. It always does. Because trust me, subjected to a little scrutiny, your ethics will be shown to be untenable. [/quote]

In my opinion, if you are to perform a mercy killing, it should be done as painlessly as possible and with consent. With a fetus, it can neither feel pain, nor is it concious. That’s good enough for me to say it’s up to the mother. Whether her reasons are as simple as “I’m not ready for a child” or as serious as “this birthing could kill the both of us”, it’s not my business and I have no reason to make it my business. [/quote]

You are the most honest abortion proponent here. I find your views abhorrent, but at least you are willing to look at this without lying to yourself about exactly what is going on when an abortion occurs.

I have a couple of questions for you but I have to get out of here soon. I’ll get back to this later.

366

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Why do you continue to act as if you don’t get it when you do get it?

It’s the same tired old tactics you’ve used countless times before Cortes, and they’ve been refuted or explained as many times.

This is a battle you’re not going to win, not unless democracy turns theocracy.[/quote]

Sorry, eph, what tired old tactics might those be?

If you have something to say, please say it.

367

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Quit being condescending. [/quote]

I like to generally give as good as I get. Read your foolish line from your previous post.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

It isn’t an argument. It’s a common sense observation about a sub-topic. It seems I have to explain every little detail to you every time we talk about anything. [/quote]

It’s a common sense observation? Really?

My common sense would lead me to the OPPOSITE conclusion.

[/quote]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=confirmation+bias

(^_~)

Get back to me when every woman who is pro-choice has personally had her own abortion. Come on, man, if you are going to make little psychoanalytical implications about me, don’t throw up this kind of silliness afterward.

I am arguing that, actually.

I personally know women, who I am almost 100% positive were not lying to me, who were deeply mentally scarred by their abortions. This is inarguable. I personally don’t give a shit if it’s only 5% of women, though I’m sure it’s not. That would still be close to 50,000 women in America alone.

I already explained why that may be. And since, as I suspected, you still have nothing more than an abstract you googled, your opinion is no better than mine. You have now wandered into that very land you claim never to set foot in, the realm of pure conjecture. Watch:

Of course it makes perfect sense to you, because you are now doing exactly what you took me to task for earlier, making guesses without any sort of proof whatsoever. To compare the act of eating beef to the act of having your child ripped apart and sucked from your womb would probably offend the hell out of more than a few people for its presumptuousness.

You have presented an abstract, nothing more, from a study which may or may not be a piece of glorified toilet paper, and then proceeded to offer a bunch of assumed explanations for why what you say is true.

In other words, you got about as much as I do. Hell, at least I have talked to real human beings about this.

Okay.[/quote]

See my last quote above one more time. I don’t really feel like traveling down this farm road any further. If you are suggesting that NO WOMEN are MENTALLY DAMAGED from abortions and the pain and guilt of killing what in all likelihood would have grown to be a son or daughter in their own family, I will call you an absolute imbecile who has clearly never had a child or experienced what happens during pregnancy.

If you just want to continue to nit-pick, then find someone else to do it to.

*EDITED for clarity.

368

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

But it’s good to know it’s ok to “abort” 1 year old kids.

[/quote]

If this was meant as a stand-alone joke, funny. If it was meant as a satirical criticism of my position, you don’t fully understand my position. [/quote]

I know you were just arguing against the idea that we can not prove nor disprove consciousness.

But if we were speaking about consciousness and self-awareness, it was because BrianHanson proposed it was a criterium of “humanness” and as such a criterium of our “right to life”.

I was just demonstrating (ab absurdo) why it can’t be the case : kids have a right to life well before he/she can do the rouge test.
[/quote]

A right to life is not an objective fact. I’m not proposing we kill infants because they don’t know the difference, the point I was trying to get at was that the fetus can’t make a decision either way both because it can’t feel and because it isn’t self-aware, so other than the mother’s decision, what else is there to consider?[/quote]

That’s all well and good that a new independent human being in the fetal stage of development is purportedly (not that you can know for certain) neither self-aware nor does it purportedly (not that you can know for certain) feel pain before a given month, but these statements in and of themselves are not reasons against abortion in the first place. They are mere conditions, and still pretty iffy ones at that.

What I want to know is, why? Why does it make a difference if the little tiny life can’t feel pain, or doesn’t yet know it is its own fully independent human being? You are in very dangerous territory. Genocide territory. I’m not being hyperbolic here. And both kamui and I can bury you in historical precedent if you want to continue down this road.

If you are going to demonstrate that your some month old unborn, unfeeling, self-awarenessless child is good for killin, you had better provide some actual reasons why your criterion should be any different for, say, anybody in a coma, or a totally dead drunk husband whose final act before crashing onto the living room couch one last time was to lay the final straw on the back of a camel who just happened to belong to his murderous wife.

She can use your argument, as you have presented it, in her defense. Because he fits your criteria, to a T. So now you will have to start piling all sorts of addendums and complications onto your argument in order to keep it balanced. But it’s gonna fall down eventually. It always does. Because trust me, subjected to a little scrutiny, your ethics will be shown to be untenable. [/quote]

In my opinion, if you are to perform a mercy killing, it should be done as painlessly as possible and with consent. With a fetus, it can neither feel pain, nor is it concious. That’s good enough for me to say it’s up to the mother. Whether her reasons are as simple as “I’m not ready for a child” or as serious as “this birthing could kill the both of us”, it’s not my business and I have no reason to make it my business. [/quote]

You are the most honest abortion proponent here. I find your views abhorrent, but at least you are willing to look at this without lying to yourself about exactly what is going on when an abortion occurs.

I have a couple of questions for you but I have to get out of here soon. I’ll get back to this later.
[/quote]

Lookin’ forward to it.

369

Here is another point you have never once addressed Brian. What is a “future child” when they are NOT a human blastocyte? A source to prove your claim, please.

As for the last sentence of your first paragraph the unborn differ in four simple characteristics. I told you about SLED previously so there is no point in beating those traits into your thick skull again. Now remember, those four characteristics describe the difference between every person of the world today, including the unborn

This argument you are trying for is a total and complete red herring. Every pro-LIFE man in the world could be anything horrible and every pro-DEATH woman could be a perfect angel and still it would never make abortion a just thing to do. If humans were to begin at the very moment of conception, if personhood and humanity are indistinguishable, if from the very beginning of existence the unborn possess souls in the earliest stages of fertilization, if the governments primary responsibility is to equally protect everyone’s unalienable right to life, then that alone is the case for life, no matter what - the personal history or gender of those on either of the debate is irrelevant.

Abortion Regret / 1404
Personal testimonies from women (and men) who have gone through an abortion.
This abortion story came to Abort73 through our online submission form and was received from Ohio on June 9, 2012.
I had an abortion just 3 days ago, on Wednesday, at 16-weeks. I am 20-years-old and have been with my on-again-off-again boyfriend for a little over 4 years. With that being said, during the month you were conceived, I slept with someone else, while I was on a break from my boyfriend.
I completely missed my period, and while I was at work, I took a pregnancy test. I had all kinds of feelings, but I was confused. I wasn’t sure if I should be excited or mad or happy or angry. Over the course of 4 months, I treated you like any mother should. I fell asleep with my hands on my stomach every night. Eating healthy, working out, all to make sure that my little bean was on the right track to being healthy. As weeks passed by, I tried to weigh out my options with what would happen, depending on who your dad was. As weeks passed by, things got a little harder. I had moved out of my parents and was living with my boyfriend. I tried to get a paternity test for you, but I couldn’t afford it. Things went from bad to worse, quickly. Last Saturday, my boyfriend drug me out of my car and after we got inside started hitting us, and I decided I had had enough. I didn’t want this lifestyle for you, for us. But that was just an excuse to do something that I thought I had wanted to do.
The first day I went to the clinic I had to talk to a counselor to make sure that this was what I really wanted. But I couldn’t stop crying long enough to explain to her how I really felt. On my day-two appointment, I was nervous and scared. Because I was so far along, I had to vaginally insert pills inside of me to start the process. Upon receiving the pills I went into the bathroom and held my stomach one last time and told you that I was so sorry and cried and cried… and cried. But I knew if I just shoved them inside of me I would have to go through with it, even if I changed my mind.
The four-hour wait for the medicine to get in my system was the worst four hours of my life. I couldn’t believe what I had done, I kept holding onto my stomach, wondering what was happening to you inside of me. Knowing that I was sitting there murdering my own baby, my own child, my own blood. After the four hours, the nurse called my name to start the procedure. I laid on the chair and the nurse kept pushing my hair back and telling me that everything was going to be okay. With my pants off I laid there apologizing to you over and over again. The medicine began to give me severe cramps and contractions. I was screaming and turning and twisting and I just wanted my mom or my dad to be in there holding me, helping me. I was digging my nails into the chair and started shaking and sweating really bad. I jumped out of my bed and ran down the hall to the bathroom with my IV in my arm.
My nurse came into the bathroom and I was screaming at her, demanding that she got out and gave me some privacy. It was at that very moment that I knew I didn’t want to finish the procedure. I wanted you, I wanted to take away all of the pain you were feeling. While in the bathroom as I was pushing to pee, something fell out of me and water went all over my thighs and was dripping down my legs. I began screaming and three nurses came into the bathroom to drag me back to my room while explaining to me that my water had just broke.
They held me down on the table and put an oxygen mask around my face. I was shaking so bad and by then was drenched in sweat. My head was shaking so bad, and I was kicking my legs. I saw the doctor walk into the room and she went to shake my hand and I just kept telling her, please don’t hurt me, please don’t hurt me. The last thing I remember is one of the nurses telling me that she was going to begin my sedation.
After what seemed a short while I woke up with no pants on, feeling embarrassed. I put my pants back on and sat down in the wheel chair. I was moved to a recovery room where I was left to think about what had just happened to us.
I am so sorry I chose to be so selfish. And I know that I will never get you back. I didn’t even give you a chance, to grow, or to become someone. I turned my back on someone that loved me. Someone that honestly needed me, for just five more months. I puked on the drive home from being so sick to my stomach from what I had just done. I think about you all the time. I wonder what you looked like, what your nose looked like, if you would have been my first boy or girl. I made the biggest mistake of my life. Something I will never choose to endure again. I hope that one day I get to meet you and explain to you why I made the selfish choice I made. I hope that you forgive me. I love you and you will always be my first child. I hope you hold part of me wherever you are and know that I wasn’t thinking right and I would do anything to have you back. I wish that I could hold you and kiss you. My mom gave me the gift of life, and I took that from you, and here I am, laying in my boyfriend’s bed crying about something that never was supposed to happen. I should have moved out, I should have told the nurse no when she asked me if I was sure I wanted to do this today, I should have listened to my heart and I should have been the best mom in the world for you. I just want you back.
I want to be your Mom now, when it’s too late.
I Love You.
I feel so empty inside.
Age: 20
Location: Ohio
Date: June 9, 2012

One final note, you think abortion is an acceptable act until past the three month mark, when the child can feel pain. So how should a doctor test the pain threshold of the child? What happens when a child is further along their development than three months, what would you do for example they can feel pain at ten weeks? How about when a child develops slower and they still don’t have the perception? What holds a doctor to this strict guideline? What happens when one doctor still aborts children at four months up until nine months? Follow your thought to completion.

370

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Women are very emotional, why don’t we take some time to discuss other things that could cause women unnecessary trauma and guilt. We should then try to make those things illegal for women only, they will thank us later.[/quote]

Where did this come from?[/quote]

It was in the bible, page 432 I think?

371

Recent science

'04 PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS RESPONSE AFTER MISCARRIAGE AND INDUCED... : Psychosomatic Medicine - this dealt with miscarriage and abortion

'05 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=403

'11 Abortion and Mental Health Risks • AfterAbortion.org “Since many post-aborted women use repression as a coping mechanism, there may be a long period of denial before a woman seeks psychiatric care.”

Privacy laws make the data hard to find, but I still found some science.

[quote]countingbeans wrote: pAGE 9.

I don’t care what data any of you use, you are the one moving the goal posts in the span of 3 posts.

16 year old data was fine, then you used the “it’s over two decaded old” in a weak attempt to refute Raj’s data.

All I ask is there is an agreed upon acceptable time frame, from both sides.[/quote]

372

Kneedragger,

I think the 3 month limit is my own personal issue, fetuses can’t feel pain for 6-7 months according to British and American physicians. I have said three months because I think that is typically an adequate amount of time to make an informed decision, not because of any developmental reasons, I think my firm cut-off (were I making the rules) would be around the age of viability, somewhere around 22 weeks maybe a bit more, maybe not depending on the situation.
As far as the “unborn” possessing souls from conception, try not to bring religion to an argument theoretically grounded in science.

“Here is another point you have never once addressed Brian. What is a â??future childâ?? when they are NOT a human blastocyte? A source to prove your claim, please.”

I have no idea what you are asking, please rephrase.

373

Is a fetus ever called a “clump of cells?” That makes the fetus sound something other than human. If you believe the cells are another species or another type of cell type, provide evidence of this, please.

Second points you have; 1) A mother’s life is only in danger of death in third world countries where modern medicine is not accessible. - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs348/en/index.html - 2) How does perpetuating a violent act make the original act better. 3) So now some lives are worth more than another life? Good to know. Is ANY new human life ever, not dependent on another person?

[quote]storey420 wrote: First point is that YOU think its a human being (and those in line with you). I think its a “clump of cells” that will eventually grow into a human being. Although more to the point I dont have a problem with the murder of human beings in certain cases either (say like a pedophile or rapist that has been convicted and faces a death penalty).
But I’ll fill in your if/when box.
if the mother’s life is at danger carrying the child to term, if the emotional scar (like from a rape) is more than the woman wants to bear (there goes that whole her choice thing), if the cells grow into a child that would be severely deformed and co-dependent its whole existence.[/quote]

374

What was a fetus before they could feel pain?

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“Scientists disagree on how early fetuses may feel pain” shrug

[/quote]

Yes, some think it’s closer to 30.[/quote]

375

Because you have no ground to stand on?

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Declaration of Independence.

[/quote]

… I’m going to go back to ignoring you again. [/quote]

376

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Women are very emotional, why don’t we take some time to discuss other things that could cause women unnecessary trauma and guilt. We should then try to make those things illegal for women only, they will thank us later.[/quote]

Where did this come from?[/quote]

It was in the bible, page 432 I think?[/quote]

Wonderful debating skills.

377

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What was a fetus before they could feel pain?

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“Scientists disagree on how early fetuses may feel pain” shrug

[/quote]

Yes, some think it’s closer to 30.[/quote]
[/quote]

A human who couldn’t yet feel pain. Much the same as one under anesthesia or in coma.

What do I win? No, wait, lemme guess. Is it an all-expenses-paid press of the reset button? I know this game.

378

This is “The Abortion Thread” and this question is about abortion. To all the pro life people here. Of which I am most unwaveringly one myself. What if there were 100% scientific consensus that every pro death argument had been verified in their studies. 100%. The pro abortion folks are right.

ALL the science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that every last argument put forth by the abortionists is correct. Now what? Don’t go coppin out on me with something like “well that would never happen”? It HAS. What do you say?

379

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Is a fetus ever called a “clump of cells?” That makes the fetus sound something other than human. If you believe the cells are another species or another type of cell type, provide evidence of this, please.

Second points you have; 1) A mother’s life is only in danger of death in third world countries where modern medicine is not accessible. - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs348/en/index.html - 2) How does perpetuating a violent act make the original act better. 3) So now some lives are worth more than another life? Good to know. Is ANY new human life ever, not dependent on another person?

[quote]storey420 wrote: First point is that YOU think its a human being (and those in line with you). I think its a “clump of cells” that will eventually grow into a human being. Although more to the point I dont have a problem with the murder of human beings in certain cases either (say like a pedophile or rapist that has been convicted and faces a death penalty).
But I’ll fill in your if/when box.
if the mother’s life is at danger carrying the child to term, if the emotional scar (like from a rape) is more than the woman wants to bear (there goes that whole her choice thing), if the cells grow into a child that would be severely deformed and co-dependent its whole existence.[/quote]
[/quote]

There is a very good reason for calling the newly conceived human a “clump of cells” or anything other than what it clearly, unavoidably is, that is, an individual human life in a certain stage of its development.

It is the exact, and I mean exact same brand of rhetorical Newspeak that has been used time and time and time again to dehumanize a certain population in order to affect the collective acceptance and support of genocide.

380

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Recent science

'04 http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/66/5/795.full - this dealt with miscarriage and abortion

'05 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=403

'11 http://afterabortion.org/2011/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-psychological-complications-related-to-abortion/ “Since many post-aborted women use repression as a coping mechanism, there may be a long period of denial before a woman seeks psychiatric care.”

Privacy laws make the data hard to find, but I still found some science.

[quote]countingbeans wrote: pAGE 9.

I don’t care what data any of you use, you are the one moving the goal posts in the span of 3 posts.

16 year old data was fine, then you used the “it’s over two decaded old” in a weak attempt to refute Raj’s data.

All I ask is there is an agreed upon acceptable time frame, from both sides.[/quote]
[/quote]

Good stuff, kd, thanks for collecting these. Browsing them now.