The Abortion Thread

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Myth 13

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I think you’re exaggerating the brutality of of an abortion. Most abortions are done early enough that such a thing isn’t necessary. Besides, a fetus can’t feel pain until 20 weeks, maybe later.

A fetus isn’t a concious being, nor can it feel pain. I don’t see any reason to not let the final decision be the mother’s. [/quote]
[/quote]

http://news.discovery.com/human/fetus-pain-abortion-law.html

Oops. Oh well, you can’t win 'em all, kneedragger.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If a fetus did not develop a head or a brain wouldn’t you allow a woman to have an abortion?[/quote]

Does the child have any chance at survival?[/quote]

I know of one case where a baby was born without a brain.[/quote]

That’s a media spin. When they say ‘without a brain’ they are talking about a fully developed brain. This kid at least has a brain stem, otherwise, he’d be dead. A brain stem is technically a brain.
[/quote]

Granted, but he’s missing the part of the brain that allows him to be self-aware.

Tigger you are seriously FUN! Please do not ever leave. I feel like a cat chasing one of those mouse toys ; )

However you can keep trying . . . .

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
http://news.discovery.com/human/fetus-pain-abortion-law.html[/quote] First line of the article. “Scientists disagree on how early fetuses may feel pain” shrug

[quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouge_test[/quote] I have to be honest, I never even clicked on this one. Wikipedia has never and WILL NEVER be accepted in any kind of serious discussion, article, or even a journal article. Does T-Nation even use the pages in the papers they post on this web site? Something tells me no, maybe occasionally one slips by but never very often. I wonder why that would be? Huh . . . . could one of the reasons be that anyone with an email can change the information found there? Can you use the site as a source in the schools found in Canada? Well you can’t here in the States.

Thanks for playing though. I know you looked hard for the information you found on the sites. Please come back soon. I typed this response in a few moments with my one functional arm, but it was enjoyable :o ]

Pat,
If you destroy that zygote that zygote cannot be replaced, but that zygote will be destroyed either way when it splits into new cells. A zygote is not a person. If you won’t accept that then there is probably no way we can advance any further in this conversation. Try this hypothetical: If you had the choice of saving your living breathing happy 1 year old child or saving a zygote in your wifes uterus, which would you choose? If you have to think about it then you are probably a bad parent, if you look for a “Kobiashi Maru” solution (Star Trek) I will tell you in advance there is none. It is a simple argument of value, would you flip a coin, since both lives are the same in value? Or would you choose the zygote, with the hopes that it would be a cancer curing Einstein brain having genius. I will make it easier, there is no 2nd child, just a zygote and your wife, if your zygote lives your wife will die, do you kill the zygote?

As far as “Laws on the Books” that is definitely not a winner, here are some laws in the states that have fetal murder laws:

Adultery or Fornication (living togeather while not married or having sex with someone that is not your spouse) results in a fine of $500 and/or 6 months in prison.

Unnatural intercourse, if both parties voluntarily participate, results in a maximum sentence of 10 years and $10,000.

A law provides that school teachers who bob their hair will not get a raise.

A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month.

Flirtation between men and women on the streets of Little Rock may result in a 30-day jail term.

It is unlawful to walk one?s cow down Main Street after 1:00 PM on Sunday.

Installation of bathtubs with four legs resembling animal paws is prohibited.

get the point? There are laws that make no sense everywhere, and while fetal murder laws might make more sense than those above, I’m sure that at least one person will eventually have a lawyer solid enough to win the case by arguing for equal protection (if doctors aren’t charged why should I be). But until them more than half the states give no legal standing to zygotes, and those that do really have an issue with animal paw bathtubs.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

A fetus isn’t a concious being, nor can it feel pain. I don’t see any reason to not let the final decision be the mother’s. [/quote]

You cannot prove anything has consciousness or does not. You cannot look at a rock outside and know that it has no consciousness, so your wrong.

Kamui already spoke to these ridiculous assertions you’re making. Go reread his posts…[/quote]

I know you haven’t been in school for a while, but this is high-school level information now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouge_test[/quote]

You’re an anti-rock bigot.

Rock can not do the test because they have no hands.
They can not clean themselves.

It’s like totally unfair !

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

[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]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 it 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.

*Edited the mess I’d made of this post.

[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]

If someone like kamui doesn’t understand your position, it’s because your position isn’t tenable, or isn’t even making sense. Right now, seriously no sarcasm intended, I’m feeling it’s the latter.

[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]Cortes 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]

If someone like kamui doesn’t understand your position, it’s because your position isn’t tenable, or isn’t even making sense. Right now, seriously no sarcasm intended, I’m feeling it’s the latter.
[/quote]

Hopefully my last comment cleared it up.

[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]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?

Gasp, dramatic intake of a deep breath Do NOT partake in the activities which are known to create human life.

I just don’t see the problem.

[quote]TigerTime wrote: . . . . I think it’s a great mercy to not bring an unwanted child into the world.

I just don’t see the problem.[/quote]

Declaration of Independence.

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< 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]Good thing too because I would have made a dot matrix portrait of Cornelius Van Til on the mirror with my nose on the day of my birth.

KD,

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (within our narrowly confined and government approved and accepted areas)

*it’s the fine print that gets you.

Brian, you must try to be this dense. I wonder if it happens to come naturally, or does the gift erupt spontaneously? I must believe you try to be this incompetent. If it helps you to feel better, I was in a coma for over six weeks and the doctors thought I would be a vegetable the rest of my life. Be glad, they have your company for how wrong they can be.

“The fine print that gets you” is the in the COMPLETE and ENTIRE document. Here is the second sentence which that must be understood, as a portion of the whole document. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can read the Document here - America's Founding Documents | National Archives - This brings up an awesome part because the rights are bestowed upon their Creator. Doubt me? Look at the link above ^ and never once does it even hint the unborn are NOT to be considered for these unalienable rights.

Let me ask you B r i a n, can the unborn pursue the rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness after they are slaughtered after the procedure known currently as abortion?

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
KD,

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (within our narrowly confined and government approved and accepted areas)

*it’s the fine print that gets you.[/quote]

The Declaration of Independence isn’t a legal document.

Stay up north in Canada raj. “Abraham Lincoln cited the Declaration to support his argument that slavery was not legal, in part on the language that â??all menâ?? were granted certain inalienable rights.” - http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/declaration-of-independence.aspx -

"The writings of the founders of the nation and of the constitution provide the best look at their reasoning behind the actual laws and governing system that they put into effect. Now, when the US Supreme Court reviews cases of constitutional law, they use these secondary sources to help interpret the law.

“So while not a ‘legal document’ as such, it may have legal ramifications if it reveals something of import to the SCOTUS justices.” - Is the United States Declaration of Independence a leagal document? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board -

Objective was the word that started this whole tangent - Objective - definition of objective by The Free Dictionary - and all people have a right to life.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Brian, you must try to be this dense. I wonder if it happens to come naturally, or does the gift erupt spontaneously? I must believe you try to be this incompetent. If it helps you to feel better, I was in a coma for over six weeks and the doctors thought I would be a vegetable the rest of my life. Be glad, they have your company for how wrong they can be.

“The fine print that gets you” is the in the COMPLETE and ENTIRE document. Here is the second sentence which that must be understood, as a portion of the whole document. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can read the Document here - America's Founding Documents | National Archives - This brings up an awesome part because the rights are bestowed upon their Creator. Doubt me? Look at the link above ^ and never once does it even hint the unborn are NOT to be considered for these unalienable rights.

Let me ask you B r i a n, can the unborn pursue the rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness after they are slaughtered after the procedure known currently as abortion?

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
KD,

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (within our narrowly confined and government approved and accepted areas)

*it’s the fine print that gets you.[/quote]
[/quote]

KD,

And here I was being civil with you, but I suppose it was too much to ask for you to maintain some degree of politeness, so here we go.

"“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Clearly they were very narrow in this assessment as it only included white males, females of any race were excluded (fact) and black men were excluded as well (as blacks of both genders were considered property). Oddly their status as property included the unborn, who could be bought, sold and …gasp…killed.

Black men did not receive equal status under law for another 90 years or so (or 190 depending on how you view “equal”), women did not receive equal status under law for another 140 years (about the same time that a vague notion of rights for living children was enacted, living because it covered things like “work” that fetuses and zygotes rarely do.) This was eventually adopted by the UN in 1989. In the US children are eligible for certain constitutional rights, but they are not allowed the full scope of rights because they are not mature enough to use them. this is a big point, children receive rights as they age, the more mature the more rights, the less mature the fewer rights.

If you are going to use a 250 year old document (a manifesto really since its’ status as a legal document for the purpose of governing is non-existent it was merely a groundwork for later) to frame an argument, read a fucking history book, or have someone read it to you, buy books on tape, I truly don’t care how you reach some level of historical competence, but please do so before you post snarky, uneducated, poorly thought out drivel in response to a post that was giving you an “out”. The fact is the Declaration of Independence is a well written, but ultimately flawed document, because it eliminates a whole host of living, breathing humans from the equation, now if women, blacks, and children are not “covered” under the declaration, I wonder how the “unborn” fared?

I liked it better when we were civil. This is going off on a tangent that has no impact on current issues regarding abortion anyway.