The Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

Myth 5

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
the church changed their position in 1869, far from the middle ages.

a zygote is alive, it is life, it is not a human being

it is not a person unless a new definition of that word has sprung up. a zygote lacks organs, sensation, thought, the ability to demonstrate any sentience at all.

comparing drunks, the disabled, and zygotes is ridiculous, because as I have already stated, a zygote is not a person, though it is alive.

an egg does not contain the same traits as a chicken, it is a precursor to a chicken, it starts as a single celled organism and then gradually grows into a chicken.

it is perfectly reasonable to deny the personhood of a zygote, since it is not a person, it is a zygote[/quote]

42

You talk nothing but fluff, never even addressing the original topic. You side step, almost like a world class boxer, almost.

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Kneedragger,

We live in the US not China.
It is usually best to use a site that is not clearly a right to life site as your main argument. I could link to a pro-choice website that would have experts arguing the exact opposite, you would probably call them “evil baby killers”.
And yes I used a right to life site in my argument, but it’s okay because I am arguing the other side, I was just using it for data.[/quote]

43

Actually, many of the above have been and/or are partially or totally denied personhood in many legal systems. Including modern and democratic ones.
With very concrete consequences.

While we are at it, you can add “racially inferior people” and “the women” to this list too.

History show us that we should be extremely careful when we try to reduce the extension of the concept of humanity.

44

Kamui,

However this is not the case in modern day america which is the time and place I am arguing.

Kneedragger,

Thank You?

45

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You talk nothing but fluff, never even addressing the original topic. You side step, almost like a world class boxer, almost.

BrianHanson wrote:
Kneedragger,

We live in the US not China.
It is usually best to use a site that is not clearly a right to life site as your main argument. I could link to a pro-choice website that would have experts arguing the exact opposite, you would probably call them “evil baby killers”.
And yes I used a right to life site in my argument, but it’s okay because I am arguing the other side, I was just using it for data.[/quote]

Double Duce just accused him of the same thing. But as I’ve been saying that is what B r i a n does best. He’s a light weight liberal who moves out of the way when the facts come rolling in.

46

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Kamui,

However this is not the case in modern day america which is the time and place I am arguing.
[/quote]

Really ?

In modern day america “personhood” is legally defined as the ability to sue and be sued in court.
Corporations may have it.
But young children, people in deep coma, disabled people, people with psychosis etc do not (or only partially).
And given your criteria, my cat should have it.

“They all experience pain” : check
“they can express some level of self awareness” : “some level” is vague enough → check
“they can often communicate” : check
“they think” : i can’t prove it but i can’t prove that YOU think either, so → check
“they dream” : check
“they have developed and they are out of the womb” : check.

47

Btw, all these criteria are not equivalent, and you seem to have a tendency to multiply them and play with them in a quite frivolous way.

If “feeling pain” is a criterium of intrinsic value then we should make veganism mandatory asap.
if “the presence of thought” is a criterium of intrinsic value, i’m free to kill a good third of my students.*
Regardless, it’s not the same thing.
At all.

*and most libertarians too.

48

Kamui,

Strange I did not find that definition at all, I also would think that if you chose that argument to shoot down my classification, it would at the very least destroy yours (a fetus or zygote has no ability to sue or be sued), however the mentally ill can be sued, a small child can be sued, as can a person with Alzheimers and since there is no test of competence to sue someone the mentally ill, children and PWD’s can all file suit as well. I did a quick legal search and strangely cats cannot file suit (I don’t think that’s fair but hey…).

I also think that ability to sue is a weak attempt at misdirection, when I am sure we are clear about personhood being that representation of humanness that we see from infancy to adulthood and beyond, but if we are going just legally, again I would have to say that my definition is correct (look at the law) and yours is flawed.

49

I call things as I see them and your response is one of “Thank You?” Understand the post I type before you reply. Even comprehend the posts I do not directly address to you. Like the myth and fact portion of a previous post on page 2.

Brian, understand the words that I type and then try to provide a coherent, relevant, and conclusive response to the discussion we are having.

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Kneedragger,

Thank You?[/quote]

edited slightly

50

“No Hope” was what the doctors told this couple about their son’s chance of survival.

â??No hope.â?? Those are the two words I distinctly remember from that day in March 2000. My husband Santhosh and I, along with my parents and brother, were shocked to hear that our first baby had no chance at life due to the multiple birth defects found on the ultrasound.

Our baby had a cleft lip, cleft palate, and a ventricular septal defect. However, it was what the perinatologist could not find that concerned him. He could not find the babyâ??s stomach. Basically, the stomach was trapped in the lung cavity, which wouldnâ??t allow the lungs to develop and function at the time of birth.

â??There is no hope that this baby will live.â?? According to our specialist, with all the birth defects, the best medical option was an abortion.

51

Shock, grief, disbelief and so many questions flooded our minds as we left the office. After we reached home, our pastor gathered with us to pray. As we wept before the Lord, God gave Pastor Abraham a word from Jeremiah 18:3-4:

Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

The verse was a beautiful illustration of the miracle we believed would take place for our baby. Even though the potterâ??s vessel was marred, he did not discard it, but used the same clay to make another vessel. We put our trust in God and His Word. The news of the poor prognosis for our baby spread to our relatives and friends throughout the world. People were praying for us. We believed that God was healing our baby.

52

On July 27, 2000, Philip Santhosh Mathews was born. Born alive! They brought him to me briefly after his birth, and he just stared quietly at me with one eye wide open, as if saying â??Thank you, mommy, for life!

53

After we brought Philip home, he had to see one of his seven doctors at least once a week. The cardiologist would get chest x-rays every one to two weeks. Finally, in October he told us,â?? whatever you all are doing, keep doing it. His heart is getting back to normal size.â?? Praise God, all we were doing was praying! Genesis 18:14 says â??Is there anything too hard for the Lord?â?? The following March he was weaned off his heart medications, because the holes in his heart had closed up on their own.

54

Developmentally, when I think about where Philip is now and where he was twelve years ago, I cannot help but give thanks to God. We had been told that he would have seizures and have motor coordination delays and mental retardation because of a missing portion of his brain. You would never think about that while watching him play with his siblings today!

Due to his oral surgeries, Philip had more difficulty putting sounds together and communicating. He attended Siskin Childrenâ??s Institute where the speech therapists taught us all sign language. Again, in Godâ??s own time, he finally began to speak fluently by age three.

Philip used to be so fearful of unfamiliar faces or even unfamiliar toys. Over time, he transformed into the social butterfly he is today. No one is a stranger to him, he only meets friends.

In spite of hardships he has endured, God has given him a heart to trust Him. In April 2009, he asked Jesus to come into his heart and be his Savior. In his childlike faith and powerful testimony he has inspired and strengthened us to start Love Without Reason (www.lovewithoutreason.org

), a non-profit organization, to help children born with craniofacial deformities who cannot afford surgery or aftercare.
We believe God alone can transform the â??marred vesselsâ?? and refashion them, both in a physical and spiritual sense.

The Word tells us that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. He alone can change the hopeless situations and turn it into one full of hope. He is the God of all hope.
â?? with Lovely Mathai.

55

An unbelievable story: Olympic gymnast Dominque Moceanu discovers her long-lost â??secretâ?? sister
by John Jalsevac Tue Jun 12, 2012

Over at JillStanek.com , LauraLoo has posted a video that is so astonishing it’s hard to believe that it’s true. It’s all about Olympic gold-medallist gynmast Dominique Moceanu and her discovery of a sister she never knew she had, because she was given up for adoption at birth.

But it’s not the mere fact that she had a sister who was adopted as a baby that is so amazing. What’s so unbelievable is that her sister was born with no legs, but despite her disability, has gone on to become a competitive gymnast. In fact, long before Dominique’s sister ever knew that the two were related, she had idolized Dominique as her favorite gymnast.

It’s a pretty incredible, and very heartwarming story. Check it out.

56

[quote] Cortes wrote:

I actually thought about you when I wrote the question. As much as I disagree with you, you have my respect in that you are one of more logistically consistent posters when it comes to straight moral discussions.

Thanks for answering. I fully agree with your statement that, for the entirety of a being’s existence (note you even said the word “being”) it is “human.” (Not exactly sure about the before conception part, but it is irrelevant to the point).

Now, wouldn’t you agree that a “being” that is “human,” could logically be called a “human being?” I did not mention “sovereign,” and that for a reason. As soon as you talking “sovereign,” you get into territory that allows you to justify infanticide as well as a whole host of other justifications for murder. People in comas are no longer “sovereign,” for example. And newborn infants are in exactly the same position of helplessness as are babies in the last few weeks of pregnancy. Now extrapolate logically from this.

Thanks for having the balls to answer.

Edit: typo [/quote]

When I say human before conception, I’m talking about the gametes. I consider a sperm cell to be as ‘human’ as any other particular cell with human genetic material, that’s what I meant by that.

Anyway,

By “sovereign” I meant independent specifically from the womb. Sure, an infant needs care or it will die, but not in the same way a fetus does. A mother can leave an infant alone for an hour and his bodily functions won’t stop functioning, but if a mother left her unborn infant in another room it probably wouldn’t last more than a few minutes. They’re both dependant, but not in the same way.

Now, I could come up with some cryptic philosophy that justifies abortion but not infanticide based on this difference, but you wouldn’t accept it and, to be honest, neither would I. They way I see it is, sometimes killing is the lesser evil. In my opinion, aborting an unborn child when it is little more than the gametes that conceived it is better than carrying an unwanted child full term just to dump them into an orphanage as soon as they’re born.

57

[quote]kamui wrote:
Btw, all these criteria are not equivalent, and you seem to have a tendency to multiply them and play with them in a quite frivolous way.

If “feeling pain” is a criterium of intrinsic value then we should make veganism mandatory asap.
if “the presence of thought” is a criterium of intrinsic value, i’m free to kill a good third of my students.*
Regardless, it’s not the same thing.
At all.

*and most libertarians too.

[/quote]

Kamui, this guy is a complete waste of time. He’s not here to honestly debate and I’m convinced he’s either a troll or has some kind of weird mental disorder.

Just letting you know, as I have not seen you around and you may not have caught his last 200 some odd empty-headed wastes of bandwidth.

58

[quote]TigerTime wrote

They way I see it is, sometimes killing is the lesser evil. In my opinion, aborting an unborn child when it is little more than the gametes that conceived it is better than carrying an unwanted child full term just to dump them into an orphanage as soon as they’re born. [/quote]

All other arguments aside for the moment, I’m asking you honestly. If it was you who was that fetus, if you could have the choice, would you rather just be aborted? Or, orphanage be damned, would you want a fighting chance?

59

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote

They way I see it is, sometimes killing is the lesser evil. In my opinion, aborting an unborn child when it is little more than the gametes that conceived it is better than carrying an unwanted child full term just to dump them into an orphanage as soon as they’re born. [/quote]

All other arguments aside for the moment, I’m asking you honestly. If it was you who was that fetus, if you could have the choice, would you rather just be aborted? Or, orphanage be damned, would you want a fighting chance?
[/quote]

I don’t know. Personally, I think you always have everything you need to be happy, so I have no problem conceiving a happy life for myself under those circumstances. However, I can’t stand the thought of being a burden.

It would come down to the specifics of the situation, but If I had to answer, I think in most cases I would side with the abortion. Not that I would ever know, as the concept of the self doesn’t set in for a few years after birth anyway.

60

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

The Church has always held that the woman is the second victim of abortion.

[/quote]

Can you go into more detail on the above if you don’t mind?[/quote]

I can’t. I’ll have to research it more. But, I’ll get back with an answer. The reason why I don’t much know beyond that stance is that discussions don’t really go that direction and they don’t get much in depth most of the time. So, I haven’t been pressured to look into the ideas behind the culpability of the woman beyond that she’s considered the second victim of abortion.

But, I’ll do my best.