Fletch,
You would think that those would be a bigger issue now, you know to “Save the Babies” since abortion is currently legal.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Fletch,
You would think that those would be a bigger issue now, you know to “Save the Babies” since abortion is currently legal.[/quote]
As is, regardless of abortion law, yes I do think there should be more of those. And I do think it would help pregnant mothers make the better choice with current abortion law. My understanding is that abortion is sometimes a choice made out of fear, helplessness, and despair. At least for those not fully indoctrinated into thinking that unborn human babies aren’t persons or human lives.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
In the spirit of this thread and the overall lack of common sense of the Anti-Free Will side of this argument, could I ask you guys to prove something to me? Prove to me that abortion rates will drop in the US if abortion is made illegal, and while you are at it prove to me that the rates of child abuse, neglect and abandonment will decrease.
Hell since you will be busy finding facts to back up those claims, show me how the additional 1.6 million children born in the US (since nobody will have abortions) will be cared for, and by whom. SO it is simple, you see abortion as a problem, you are also all (or almost all) voting for a Presidential candidate that wants to reduce teachers, police, and firefighters, and is against women’s health agencies and contraception so explain to me how we will educate and protect those unwanted children once they are born.
Tip: Abstinence is not a solution it is a talking point.
I expect to hear no answers (because you have none) several deflections (par for the course) some name calling and of course at least one “It’s not my problem/fault.”
You will find out (through research) that abortion rates are higher in countries where it is illegal or more restrictive. You will find out the economic and social cost of 20,000,000 unwanted children over 10 years and you will ignore it all, thump your bible proudly and say, “Abortion is a sin”, or if you are an atheist “abortion is murder”, the end result is the same, you want to trade one solution for a set of problems that you admittedly cannot solve.[/quote]
Everything you wrote is a strawman. None of this has a barring on whether or not the fetal human is in fact human. Try to stay on topic. Introducing a bunch of irrelevant shit will not make a human stop being a human.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
One last question before bed:
A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?
What’s the difference, right? No big deal.
Same question for the child at 30 weeks.
Same question for the child at 40 weeks.[/quote]
Most people would say it is not ethical, this is why the first trimester is a more accepted answer which is a big difference from 20+ weeks.[/quote]
And, specifically, what is this difference that is so big?
[/quote]
I asked this earlier but maybe you missed it but it might help better answer your question which you keep asking in various forms. What is your scientific definition of a human? Is it a specific DNA sequence, something less/more?[/quote]
My answer is:
- It must be alive.
- It must be autonomous.
- It must be human in nature (I.E. DNA)
If you have those 3 things you have a human life. You cannot have a human life if any of those components are missing. There is nothing you can do to make it not a human life when it meets those requirements and you cannot say that something that meets those 3 requirements are not a human life.[/quote]
Okay lets start with the first human that ever lived. What would you call their parents? which are obviously not human since their offspring was the first and not them.[/quote]
What the hell does ‘the first human who ever lived’ have to do with whether or not a fetal human is a human?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
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?[/quote]
Interesting post.
To address a couple of points from the last few pages:
I have probably spoken to way more women about their abortion experiences than any of you. Women my age (almost 47) are pretty forthcoming. And not ONE has ever expressed regret for her decision.
The comment that women suffer more mental angst post-abortion than post-rape is extremely offensive to me. Have any of you ever been raped by a man? I didn’t think so. I’d like to
see the evidence on that claim.
[/quote]
Who said this? Where? If it was said, I missed it.
Good grief. Are you serious? Please tell me you do not have any children of your own if you actually view human life in this manner. The miracle of the conception of a new human life, her growth inside of what should be the safest place in the entire world, childbirth with all its agony struggle and the final tiny, struggling, fragile, wet, wrinkled, squirming, screaming beautiful little creature that finally justifies it all.
And you can’t even call it a human because it’d mean you would have to face the monstrous act you are here promoting for what it really is, the wholly selfish, narcissistic choice to snuff out the life of a new little human being who doesn’t even get to have any say in the matter whether she lives or dies because, well, because it inconveniences you for around 9 months.
Parasitic form of life. Wow.
I love the “I support abortion but I would never have one.” line of bullshit reasoning.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
One last question before bed:
A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?
What’s the difference, right? No big deal.
Same question for the child at 30 weeks.
Same question for the child at 40 weeks.[/quote]
Most people would say it is not ethical, this is why the first trimester is a more accepted answer which is a big difference from 20+ weeks.[/quote]
And, specifically, what is this difference that is so big?
[/quote]
I asked this earlier but maybe you missed it but it might help better answer your question which you keep asking in various forms. What is your scientific definition of a human? Is it a specific DNA sequence, something less/more?[/quote]
My answer is:
- It must be alive.
- It must be autonomous.
- It must be human in nature (I.E. DNA)
If you have those 3 things you have a human life. You cannot have a human life if any of those components are missing. There is nothing you can do to make it not a human life when it meets those requirements and you cannot say that something that meets those 3 requirements are not a human life.[/quote]
Okay lets start with the first human that ever lived. What would you call their parents? which are obviously not human since their offspring was the first and not them.[/quote]
What the hell does ‘the first human who ever lived’ have to do with whether or not a fetal human is a human?[/quote]
Because you seem to think they have some special property I am not aware of.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Maybe.
But personhood is absolutely irrelevant here.
Again :
Personhood may be the basis of our right to sue and be sued in court, but it’s certainly not the basis of our right to life.
Our right to life is unconditionnal per definition.
You’re alive : you have a right to life.
If it was not the case, our right to life would not be a right to life at all, but only a “right to life as…[insert what you want here]”.
A person, for example.
Adding such a criterium only narrow the spectrum of ethics (and the number of beings we have to respect)
Problem is that narrowing the spectrum of ethics is the mean, the end and the very definition of evil.
[/quote]
by your same definition a tumor is alive and has the right to not be cut out[/quote]
In our universe, Tumors are not organisms.
An organism is a continuous and autonomous system made of biological tissue, “programmed” by an individual, specific DNA.
Moreover, even the simplest of organism are able to respond to some stimuli, and manifest some kind of homeostasis.
A tumor may be made of biological tissue, but it does not fit any of the other criteria.
Contrary to a fetus, a tumor really just a clump of cells.
This argument is even worst than the “if a fetus is an human being then masturbation is genocide” argument. And it says a lot.
[/quote]
Ummm…your original post doesnt mention the word organism in it once so why are you switching which words we are talking about? You only specified that if you are alive you have a right to life. A tumor is alive by just about every acceptable medical/biological definition.
Care to stay on topic?
[/quote]
You’re playing with words here, and it won’t do the trick.
When i said “you’re alive : you have a right to life”, i was obviously speaking about living BEINGS.
Not about biological tissue, or “living things”.
A tumor is not an organism, so it’s not a being at all. It’s not a “you”, and the proposition “you’re alive : you have a right to life” doesn’t apply to it.
A non-being can not have a right to anything, per definition.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Maybe.
But personhood is absolutely irrelevant here.
Again :
Personhood may be the basis of our right to sue and be sued in court, but it’s certainly not the basis of our right to life.
Our right to life is unconditionnal per definition.
You’re alive : you have a right to life.
If it was not the case, our right to life would not be a right to life at all, but only a “right to life as…[insert what you want here]”.
A person, for example.
Adding such a criterium only narrow the spectrum of ethics (and the number of beings we have to respect)
Problem is that narrowing the spectrum of ethics is the mean, the end and the very definition of evil.
[/quote]
by your same definition a tumor is alive and has the right to not be cut out[/quote]
In our universe, Tumors are not organisms.
An organism is a continuous and autonomous system made of biological tissue, “programmed” by an individual, specific DNA.
Moreover, even the simplest of organism are able to respond to some stimuli, and manifest some kind of homeostasis.
A tumor may be made of biological tissue, but it does not fit any of the other criteria.
Contrary to a fetus, a tumor really just a clump of cells.
This argument is even worst than the “if a fetus is an human being then masturbation is genocide” argument. And it says a lot.
[/quote]
Ummm…your original post doesnt mention the word organism in it once so why are you switching which words we are talking about? You only specified that if you are alive you have a right to life. A tumor is alive by just about every acceptable medical/biological definition.
Care to stay on topic?
[/quote]
You’re playing with words here, and it won’t do the trick.
When i said “you’re alive : you have a right to life”, i was obviously speaking about living BEINGS.
Not about biological tissue, or “living things”.
A tumor is not an organism, so it’s not a being at all. It’s not a “you”, and the proposition “you’re alive : you have a right to life” doesn’t apply to it.
A non-being can not have a right to anything, per definition.
[/quote]
Where does this right to life come from exactly?
You THINK many things, but never have evidence. shrug
I mentioned a soul because you refuse to understand science.
Finally; If a human blastocyte is not a “future child,” what are they?
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
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 “future child” when they are NOT a human blastocyte? A source to prove your claim, please.”
I have no idea what you are asking, please rephrase.[/quote]
Chile. Prove to me there are more abortions now, compared to previous of '89 Then your last statement is random things you made up, you never even provided a source. Finally, all the reasons in the world would never justify the slaughter of fifty two million children.
This EXACT SAME justification was used by the German’s in killing the of about three million Jews.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
In the spirit of this thread and the overall lack of common sense of the Anti-Free Will side of this argument, could I ask you guys to prove something to me? Prove to me that abortion rates will drop in the US if abortion is made illegal, and while you are at it prove to me that the rates of child abuse, neglect and abandonment will decrease.
Hell since you will be busy finding facts to back up those claims, show me how the additional 1.6 million children born in the US (since nobody will have abortions) will be cared for, and by whom. SO it is simple, you see abortion as a problem, you are also all (or almost all) voting for a Presidential candidate that wants to reduce teachers, police, and firefighters, and is against women’s health agencies and contraception so explain to me how we will educate and protect those unwanted children once they are born.
Tip: Abstinence is not a solution it is a talking point.
I expect to hear no answers (because you have none) several deflections (par for the course) some name calling and of course at least one “It’s not my problem/fault.”
You will find out (through research) that abortion rates are higher in countries where it is illegal or more restrictive. You will find out the economic and social cost of 20,000,000 unwanted children over 10 years and you will ignore it all, thump your bible proudly and say, “Abortion is a sin”, or if you are an atheist “abortion is murder”, the end result is the same, you want to trade one solution for a set of problems that you admittedly cannot solve.[/quote]
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Pretty sure there aren’t too many men writing letters to their skin grafts. Yet, we very often DO hear of stories just like the one above. Yet, you have already trivialized the loss that thousands, millions of women, even, have felt as little more than a misguided emotional reaction to societal pressure. [/quote]
Actually, based on what I’ve read, I doubt most see their abortion as a real loss, assuming it’s an unwanted pregnancy.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
If you really believe this, then why do you have such a limited stance on justifiable abortions? What’s the difference, right? [/quote]
Why are you conflating my stance on abortion with what we’re currently discussing?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Exactly what is your point in doggedly pursuing this side track? [/quote]
Well there’s two reasons.
- You gave your reasoning as to why a woman should go ahead with her pregnancy even if she is raped. One reason according to you was that abortion traumatizes many women and to minimize emotional damage she should just give birth to the child. I then pointed out giving birth is much more likely to traumatize a woman than an abortion. This side discussion started and you told me you believed your anecdotal evidence trumped studies and the opinions of experts in the medical community.
As someone who thinks a woman should be given the choice of having an abortion in the instances of rape, I was hoping you would soften your stance on abortion in this instance (I guess I’m a little delusional).
- I’ve seen you, pat, Tribulus, Brother Chris, Sloth and SM all assert this as being true (Sloth and SM did it here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/obamas_war_on_women?id=5192159&pageNo=2)
I really care if my beliefs are true and I assume you do too. Can you not see why it’s a bad idea to peddle a poor argument?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
All I can gather from everything you’ve typed is that abortion is no big deal and that the women who whine about them should suck it up, and that there aren’t that many women who give a flip about having their child ripped from their womb.[/quote]
Come on, you know I’m not telling suffering women to ‘suck it up’. What I’m saying is that there’s no causal link between mental health problems and abortion. That in all likelihood, when a woman suffers some sort of mental issue post-abort, the abortion procedure itself is generally not the culprit. At least not anymore often than surgery in general. Just to be perfectly clear, I believe people who are mentally damaged deserve treatment and am not minimizing their pain in anyway.
You love using these emotionally charged sentences. “there aren’t that many women who give a flip about having their child ripped from their womb.” Holy cow!
I doubt the liberal pro-choice 21 year old sees her abortion in the terms you describe. Again, you saw the word parasite used in this thread.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
We haven’t even touched on evolution and how women are genetically programmed to protect the carriers of their genetic information, that is their children, even unto death. Maybe that only kicks in after the child’s “life” begins. Which was…wait, when was that again? [/quote]
Whatever evolution says, it doesn’t speak to the morality of abortion.
On a side note, according to this mainstream Christian website evolution is the foundation for abortion:
“As the creation foundation is removed, we see the godly institutions also start to collapse. On the other hand, as the evolution foundation remains firm, the structures built on that foundationâ??lawlessness, homosexuality, abortion, etc.â??logically increase. We must understand this connection.”
KD,
"Chile. Prove to me there are more abortions now, compared to previous of '89 Then your last statement is random things you made up, you never even provided a source. Finally, all the reasons in the world would never justify the slaughter of fifty two million children.
This EXACT SAME justification was used by the German’s in killing the of about three million Jews."
-I have no idea what you are saying. You are not answering or providing proof, you are just rambling.
and
"You THINK many things, but never have evidence. shrug
I mentioned a soul because you refuse to understand science.
Finally; If a human blastocyte is not a “future child,” what are they?"
I posted the link several pages back with the British Study about fetuses and pain. Additionally a zygote and a blastocyte are exactly what they are called, a zygote and a blastocyte, not a fetus or a person. A soul has no place in this discussion unless you said “Fuck it” and fell back on religion as your motivating force (which it pretty clearly is) because as you may have noticed, science and the law do not support your position at all. And by the way, when I post an opinion I say “i think…” because it is my own personal bias not a scientific guideline.
Brian, you have fallen by the wayside. You believe killing an innocent child is acceptable and justifiable so your “thoughts” are severely misguided. You asked for proof that banning abortion would solve the problem and you think because I give you a simple answer of Chile, I am rambling? Chile is a country that has outlawed abortion has not seen the negative consequences you assumed would occur.
Secondly, a blastocyst is just a term; a HUMAN blastocyst identifies the species of the body. Additionally, I am glad British medicine never said ALL fetuses are the same, at the same level of development.
You seem to be bringing up the same arguments over and over without digesting my responses that confront those arguments.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
I have no idea what you are saying. You are not answering or providing proof, you are just rambling.
I posted the link several pages back with the British Study about fetuses and pain. Additionally a zygote and a blastocyte are exactly what they are called, a zygote and a blastocyte, not a fetus or a person. A soul has no place in this discussion unless you said “Fuck it” and fell back on religion as your motivating force (which it pretty clearly is) because as you may have noticed, science and the law do not support your position at all. And by the way, when I post an opinion I say “i think…” because it is my own personal bias not a scientific guideline.
[/quote]
“Clump of cells” that doesn’t look human at all.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
One last question before bed:
A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?
What’s the difference, right? No big deal.
Same question for the child at 30 weeks.
Same question for the child at 40 weeks.[/quote]
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
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]
Okay, a couple of questions about this:
1.) How does a human’s ability to feel pain or her state of consciousness justify the taking of her life? Why do these criteria matter, specifically?
To clarify, I believe we both agree that the organism we are discussing is, indeed, an individual human being. You are one of the ONLY posters currently on this forum who both supports abortion but is also willing to recognize that what is being killed is not, nor is it equivalent to, a mass of cells, tissue, sperm, organ, tire iron, Illuminati decoy, Thetan, or anything other than a complete, individual human, with the exact same potential to grow into a walking, talking, tap-dancing human, same as any of us. Your willingness to admit this, along with a couple of other things recently, while others posters squirm and redefine words and back track and bravely run away has caused me to respect you quite a bit more than I used to. One more time: I appreciate your candor.
Now, with this in mind, and to take one of your examples: What is so special about pain? How does pain itself come to be the determining factor in the life or death of an individual human? Moreover, and still related (and to add yet another parenthetical, please correct me if you do not agree with any of this), how can a so-called Right to Life even exist if we can find a loophole in which this “right” suddenly doesn’t count? That would be more accurately called, "the privilege of life, " a term which I’m sure will affect an irritating but almost certainly temporary rush of cognitive dissonance within the brains of our resident abortion proponents.
- On what basis do you justify the termination of human life at this stage of development but not another? If you do not agree that it is also justifiable to kill someone in a coma, knocked out, under anesthesia, in a deep drunken sleep or similar, then your argument lacks a certain distinction that rectifies this disparity. If the right not-to-be-murdered is afforded in toto to the big human but the small one has to “earn” this right by…wait for it…not-being-murdered for the first three months of her life, then your argument lacks an important premise.
What, exactly, is the difference in kind between big homo sapiens sapiens that affords him a special protected status that small homo sapiens sapiens is not equally entitled to?
Edit: dang tags[/quote]
To confirm your belief, yes; I don’t think a fetus is any less human than a birthed child, nor is it relevantly different from a fully grown adult in my opinion.
Painlessness is just a personal preference, . I’m not a sadist and if I required a mercy killing (for whatever reason), I would want it to be painless. So, at least for the sake of internal consistency, I couldn’t approve of any sort of mercy killing done without some sort of anaesthesia, savour for maybe an immediate life-or-death situation.
I do view a coma as largely the same situation, just a bit more complicated. For example, this person has an established life with attachments and maybe family of his own. But the biggest factor here, with all the examples you listed, is consent. A sleeping person still has self awareness, so, in my opinion, they have a say. I base this on nothing other than the fact that I would want a say in my own mercy-killing if it were possible. If my input is impossible (for example, I received severe brain damage from a fall or something), then I really couldn’t care… literally.
This is the same as with a fetus. Granted, at one point the fetus will grow into something self-aware with a survival instinct, but if you wait until that point you’ve defeated the purpose of a mercy-killing.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
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?[/quote]
What arguments?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
most rape victims have spoken on how it took them longer to deal with the abortion than to heal from the rape itself.
[/quote]
This.[/quote]
Oh I don’t think he gets much real life interaction with women so don’t take that comment too seriously.[/quote]
Lol. Guess you must have given up on even trying to look like you could put forth a logical argument.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Because you seem to think they have some special property I am not aware of.[/quote]
That they are a human being?
KD,
I just saw something that may have changed my mind. Don’t worry it wasn’t anything you wrote.
As an aside:
The research was published Thursday in the journal, Lancet.
Abortion rates were lowest in Western Europe ? 12 per 1,000 ? and highest in Eastern Europe ? 43 per 1,000. The rate in North America was 19 per 1,000. Sedgh said she and colleagues found a link between higher abortion rates and regions with more restrictive legislation, such as in Latin America and Africa. They also found that 95 to 97 percent of abortions in those regions were unsafe.