This is What's Wrong With Abortion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

Alright! No penalty for stabbing someone on a respirator. Go for it!

…i think a body that has no chance of regaining consciousness should’nt be put on a respirator indefinitly…

You still always put them on one initially. Stabbing someone in a coma is murder.

…sure, the decision to end that person’s was made by someone else. A woman ending a pregnancy makes that decision about herself, not someone else. Why? Because a fetus is not yet someone else. I know we will never agree on this, so this debate could end here, if you want…
[/quote]

What is it, if not a person. And when does it graduate to person hood. Babies have been born as early as 21 weeks, you know…

182

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
That doesn’t make the laws less contradictory. Nor does it stand a lipid test. People are going to jail for the murder of unborn children. If what you are saying is 100% accurate, that wouldn’t be possible.

It’s very true. Very few Supreme Court rulings come through with acceptable readings for cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C, triglycerides, direct LDL-C, and VLDL-C.

That does not make them any less valid.

I think, however, that perhaps you mean “litmus test.”[/quote]

YAR! Sorry, I’m have cholesterol problems, so I have it on the brain. Nyuk Nyuk.

Although in todays world lipid may be a more appropriate saying.

183

[quote]pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

So are unborn babies, one. Two, slavery was upheld by the constitution itself up until the 14th amendment. Where are abortion is not. So yes they were different but both are wrong and both upheld by the government. Except one goes so far as to uphold murder itself.

…a fetus does not breath air Pat, you know that…

What do you thing the unbilical cord is pumping in to the baby, gasoline? The baby in this story, did in fact breath before the clinic worker wrapped the kid in a paper bag to choke it’s air supply…So a 21 week baby can breath on it’s own, at least for a while…Is that not a human being doing that?[/quote]

…well, does the fact that the bodies reflexes fire mean that the fetus, at that point in it’s development, ís a human being? Is the fetus conscious like we are? That’s debateable, but i’m not willing to hinge any argument on a single, regretable incident…

184

[quote]pat wrote:
What is it, if not a person. And when does it graduate to person hood. Babies have been born as early as 21 weeks, you know… [/quote]

…that claim has been refuted earlier in this thread. How do you define personhood? By mental and emotional faculties only, or simply the fact that a body has gained a few responses to stimuli?

185

Many mentally handicaped people have a different consciousness, look at autism. Do they not qualify as human?

What about kids in general? their view of the world changes radically as they grow. Are they “more” human as an adult or kid?

How about you explain what the consciousness of a fetus is like and how it differers from “normal humans” to disqualify them from humanity.

Tell me what “like we are” means. If I have Asperger’s am I somehow less human?

186

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
What is it, if not a person. And when does it graduate to person hood. Babies have been born as early as 21 weeks, you know…

…that claim has been refuted earlier in this thread. How do you define personhood? By mental and emotional faculties only, or simply the fact that a body has gained a few responses to stimuli?[/quote]

Refutation is a strong word sir. There are many cases in which people who exist outside your specified criteria and would yet still be constituted as a murder to terminate their life. You mental and emotional faculties are really nothing more than response to stimuli. For however you complicated you feel human behaviour is, it really is not. There are only three primary factor for determining behaviour. One is genetics which is plain wiring which determine how stimuli will be received and processed. Then there is opperant and classical conditioning. Those three in tandem will determine how a person will react to stimuli.
Hence, that definition is a reach, not a refutation.

187

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

So are unborn babies, one. Two, slavery was upheld by the constitution itself up until the 14th amendment. Where are abortion is not. So yes they were different but both are wrong and both upheld by the government. Except one goes so far as to uphold murder itself.

…a fetus does not breath air Pat, you know that…

What do you thing the unbilical cord is pumping in to the baby, gasoline? The baby in this story, did in fact breath before the clinic worker wrapped the kid in a paper bag to choke it’s air supply…So a 21 week baby can breath on it’s own, at least for a while…Is that not a human being doing that?

…well, does the fact that the bodies reflexes fire mean that the fetus, at that point in it’s development, ís a human being? Is the fetus conscious like we are? That’s debateable, but i’m not willing to hinge any argument on a single, regretable incident…

[/quote]

A child has been born and is in fact living being born at 21 weeks. Was it not a person at 22 weeks? Could you go and squash it’s head and not be accused of murder?

188

[quote]pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

Alright! No penalty for stabbing someone on a respirator. Go for it!

…i think a body that has no chance of regaining consciousness should’nt be put on a respirator indefinitly…

You still always put them on one initially. Stabbing someone in a coma is murder.

…sure, the decision to end that person’s was made by someone else. A woman ending a pregnancy makes that decision about herself, not someone else. Why? Because a fetus is not yet someone else. I know we will never agree on this, so this debate could end here, if you want…

What is it, if not a person. And when does it graduate to person hood. Babies have been born as early as 21 weeks, you know… [/quote]

Yes and all but one of them have died.

189

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

Alright! No penalty for stabbing someone on a respirator. Go for it!

…i think a body that has no chance of regaining consciousness should’nt be put on a respirator indefinitly…

You still always put them on one initially. Stabbing someone in a coma is murder.

…sure, the decision to end that person’s was made by someone else. A woman ending a pregnancy makes that decision about herself, not someone else. Why? Because a fetus is not yet someone else. I know we will never agree on this, so this debate could end here, if you want…

What is it, if not a person. And when does it graduate to person hood. Babies have been born as early as 21 weeks, you know…

Yes and all but one of them have died.[/quote]

We will all die, does that make us not persons?

190

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Many mentally handicaped people have a different consciousness, look at autism. Do they not qualify as human?

What about kids in general? their view of the world changes radically as they grow. Are they “more” human as an adult or kid?

How about you explain what the consciousness of a fetus is like and how it differers from “normal humans” to disqualify them from humanity.

Tell me what “like we are” means. If I have Asperger’s am I somehow less human?[/quote]

…a fetus’ brain isn’t developed enough to be conscious. That’s the difference…

191

[quote]pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
What is it, if not a person. And when does it graduate to person hood. Babies have been born as early as 21 weeks, you know…

…that claim has been refuted earlier in this thread. How do you define personhood? By mental and emotional faculties only, or simply the fact that a body has gained a few responses to stimuli?

Refutation is a strong word sir. There are many cases in which people who exist outside your specified criteria and would yet still be constituted as a murder to terminate their life. You mental and emotional faculties are really nothing more than response to stimuli. For however you complicated you feel human behaviour is, it really is not. There are only three primary factor for determining behaviour. One is genetics which is plain wiring which determine how stimuli will be received and processed. Then there is opperant and classical conditioning. Those three in tandem will determine how a person will react to stimuli.
Hence, that definition is a reach, not a refutation.[/quote]

…which all require some level of consciousness, and consciousness requires a well developed cerebral cortex. At 21 weeks a fetus does not have a cerebral cortex developed enough to give rise to consciousness, but it’s body does respond to certain stimuli it does not need a brain for: e.i. pain and breath reflexes…

…so, from my POV [for what that’s worth] a fetus can not yet be seen as a complete human being, with all the rights associated with complete human beings…

192

[quote]pat wrote:

A child has been born and is in fact living being born at 21 weeks. Was it not a person at 22 weeks? Could you go and squash it’s head and not be accused of murder?[/quote]

…this is your claim, which you have to substantiate. I apologize in advance for not taking your word for it…

193

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
What is it, if not a person. And when does it graduate to person hood. Babies have been born as early as 21 weeks, you know…

…that claim has been refuted earlier in this thread. How do you define personhood? By mental and emotional faculties only, or simply the fact that a body has gained a few responses to stimuli?

Refutation is a strong word sir. There are many cases in which people who exist outside your specified criteria and would yet still be constituted as a murder to terminate their life. You mental and emotional faculties are really nothing more than response to stimuli. For however you complicated you feel human behaviour is, it really is not. There are only three primary factor for determining behaviour. One is genetics which is plain wiring which determine how stimuli will be received and processed. Then there is opperant and classical conditioning. Those three in tandem will determine how a person will react to stimuli.
Hence, that definition is a reach, not a refutation.

…which all require some level of consciousness, and consciousness requires a well developed cerebral cortex. At 21 weeks a fetus does not have a cerebral cortex developed enough to give rise to consciousness, but it’s body does respond to certain stimuli it does not need a brain for: e.i. pain and breath reflexes…

…so, from my POV [for what that’s worth] a fetus can not yet be seen as a complete human being, with all the rights associated with complete human beings…

[/quote]

So how big does a cerebral cortex have to be to be human and deserve protection. If you are going to make judgments about life and death based on these sorts of things, you need to define human consciousness, brain size, and prove what fetus consciousness is.

By the way to my understanding becoming fully self aware takes years after birth. It is not a default human characteristic.

194

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote: So how big does a cerebral cortex have to be to be human and deserve protection. If you are going to make judgments about life and death based on these sorts of things, you need to define human consciousness, brain size, and prove what fetus consciousness is.

By the way to my understanding becoming fully self aware takes years after birth. It is not a default human characteristic.[/quote]

…suffice to say that there is insufficient development prior to 23 weeks. After 23 weeks there’s rapid brain development, and not surprisingly, that’s also the cut-off point by law…

…but let’s focus for a bit on what we cán agree on:

  1. I also would like to see the number of abortions performed each year reduced, but do you agree with me that, even if abortion is outlawed, you’d never be able to reduce abortion to zero?

  2. Do you agree with me that proper sex-ed of young teens is important to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

  3. Do you agree with me that abstinence-only programs are woefully incompetent at reaching it’s goal?

  4. Do you agree with me that pharmacists should not be allowed to deny women morning-after pills based on religious grounds?

  5. Do you agree with me that condoms should be available in highschools?

195

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote: So how big does a cerebral cortex have to be to be human and deserve protection. If you are going to make judgments about life and death based on these sorts of things, you need to define human consciousness, brain size, and prove what fetus consciousness is.

By the way to my understanding becoming fully self aware takes years after birth. It is not a default human characteristic.

…suffice to say that there is insufficient development prior to 23 weeks. After 23 weeks there’s rapid brain development, and not surprisingly, that’s also the cut-off point by law…

…but let’s focus for a bit on what we cán agree on:

  1. I also would like to see the number of abortions performed each year reduced, but do you agree with me that, even if abortion is outlawed, you’d never be able to reduce abortion to zero?

[/quote]
yes

yes, but I’m sure we disagree on where that responsibility lies.

yes, again responsibility of whom though.

not to individual women, but I don’t think you should be able to force a business to sell anything. If they don’t want to sell an item to anyone you are going to use force to make them do something against their beliefs?

100% NO. I don’t believe the government should fund subjective debated moral objectives. You’d be forcing people to fund things against their morals and beliefs.

Unless of coarse it is a private school, in which case they can do what they want, and I would support it.

196

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

…but let’s focus for a bit on what we cán agree on:

  1. I also would like to see the number of abortions performed each year reduced, but do you agree with me that, even if abortion is outlawed, you’d never be able to reduce abortion to zero?

yes

  1. Do you agree with me that proper sex-ed of young teens is important to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

yes, but I’m sure we disagree on where that responsibility lies.[/quote]

…i don’t follow?

[quote]3. Do you agree with me that abstinence-only programs are woefully incompetent at reaching it’s goal?

yes, again responsibility of whom though.[/quote]

…again, explain further?

[quote]3. Do you agree with me that pharmacists should not be allowed to deny women morning-after pills based on religious grounds?

not to individual women, but I don’t think you should be able to force a business to sell anything. If they don’t want to sell an item to anyone you are going to use force to make them do something against their beliefs?[/quote]

…beliefs should never enter this equation. But i believe the way a pharmacy does business in the US and here in Holland differ from eachother. Here pharmacies aren’t privately owned, but are licensed by the state to sell drugs. That means that pharmacies here are obligated to give the customer whatever the doctor has prescribed. I’m not sure how it works in the US…

[quote]4. Do you agree with me that condoms should be available in highschools?

100% NO. I don’t believe the government should fund subjective debated moral objectives. You’d be forcing people to fund things against their morals and beliefs.

Unless of coarse it is a private school, in which case they can do what they want, and I would support it.[/quote]

…beliefs have nothing to do with the public school system. It’s pragmatic for the state, or federal government, to supply condoms in highschools simply because that is far cheaper than having a lot of teenage mother’s, and you have a lot of teenage mothers, scroll halfway down for the stat of 2002:Teenage pregnancy - Wikipedia

197

What was teenage pregnancy like before abortion was legal, the welfare state, and condoms distributed in schools?

198

Its amazing how much interest arguments like this create and how many people are willing to argue for their belief yet so few people actually do anything to improve the situation; that is the morally disgusting part.

Everyone has such strong opinions on who is right and wrong; yet so few take any action to create a society where abortions aren’t even considered because there are better options available. Why not focus on the root causes instead of simply arguing for the moral high ground while sitting idly by.

199

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What was teenage pregnancy like before abortion was legal, the welfare state, and condoms distributed in schools?[/quote]

married or unmarried lol…

200

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

…but let’s focus for a bit on what we cán agree on:

  1. I also would like to see the number of abortions performed each year reduced, but do you agree with me that, even if abortion is outlawed, you’d never be able to reduce abortion to zero?

yes

  1. Do you agree with me that proper sex-ed of young teens is important to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

yes, but I’m sure we disagree on where that responsibility lies.

…i don’t follow?

  1. Do you agree with me that abstinence-only programs are woefully incompetent at reaching it’s goal?

yes, again responsibility of whom though.

…again, explain further?

  1. Do you agree with me that pharmacists should not be allowed to deny women morning-after pills based on religious grounds?

not to individual women, but I don’t think you should be able to force a business to sell anything. If they don’t want to sell an item to anyone you are going to use force to make them do something against their beliefs?

…beliefs should never enter this equation. But i believe the way a pharmacy does business in the US and here in Holland differ from eachother. Here pharmacies aren’t privately owned, but are licensed by the state to sell drugs. That means that pharmacies here are obligated to give the customer whatever the doctor has prescribed. I’m not sure how it works in the US…

  1. Do you agree with me that condoms should be available in highschools?

100% NO. I don’t believe the government should fund subjective debated moral objectives. You’d be forcing people to fund things against their morals and beliefs.

Unless of coarse it is a private school, in which case they can do what they want, and I would support it.

…beliefs have nothing to do with the public school system. It’s pragmatic for the state, or federal government, to supply condoms in highschools simply because that is far cheaper than having a lot of teenage mother’s, and you have a lot of teenage mothers, scroll halfway down for the stat of 2002:Teenage pregnancy - Wikipedia

[/quote]

beliefs and values have everything to do with an education system.

If you were to justify everything about best for state and cheapest, you would agree with euthanasia. You think the state can do something considered immoral if its cheaper?