This is What's Wrong With Abortion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Can one of you guys chart out how much each person is worth at each age, gender, race?

A 23 day old isn’t worth 200k. what about a 1 year old? what about a 3 year old? is “it” worth more once they learn to walk or talk? Orphans not worth investing money in if they don’t have people who love them? Do you value infants by weight? Tell me what the spending limits should be on each person.

I’m sorry, but that justification is asinine.[/quote]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I like how the defense of this case revolves around putting a price tag on life and using a probability chart for life saving equipment.
[/quote]

I find it ironic that many times those so vehemently opposed to a women’s right to abort are also those who so vehemently oppose a health care system that treats all patients with the same degree of concern, regardless of whether or not those patients can pay for it. You want capitalism? You got it.

You dont want money to be a large part of this, then do something about the way our healthcare system operates. A poor premie’s uninsured parents can’t afford to keep it alive, a poor uninsured 30 year-old high school dropout with cancer can’t afford chemo. Are you going to raise the same sort of emotional ruckus from your moral high ground about that?

My money is going on “no”. Because no one wants to pay to support those uneducated bums who cant afford the outrageous cost of healthcare or health insurance in our country. They should have known better. He deserves what he got, right?

How about we start educating these kids on how to not get pregnant in the first place? That means actually educating them instead of telling them not to have sex one day a year in their high school biology classes. Teach youth who are able to be sexually active about how to do so responsibly. Sure, you dont have to subject YOUR kids to this, you should be able to opt them out of it and teach them yourselves, but realize that there are many parents who dont care enough to know where their child even goes to school. What happens when that inevitably uneducated child gets pregnant? If abortion is murder and teaching them how to prevent a pregnancy in the first place is wrong, then please forgo bitching and moaning about all of those welfare babies that you dont want to support.

If you want to inhibit a person’s control of their own sexuality based soley on your own moral inclinations, then you better damned well be ready to pay the price for that.

142

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Can one of you guys chart out how much each person is worth at each age, gender, race?

A 23 day old isn’t worth 200k. what about a 1 year old? what about a 3 year old? is “it” worth more once they learn to walk or talk? Orphans not worth investing money in if they don’t have people who love them? Do you value infants by weight? Tell me what the spending limits should be on each person.

I’m sorry, but that justification is asinine.

DoubleDuce wrote:

I like how the defense of this case revolves around putting a price tag on life and using a probability chart for life saving equipment.

I find it ironic that many times those so vehemently opposed to a women’s right to abort are also those who so vehemently oppose a health care system that treats all patients with the same degree of concern, regardless of whether or not those patients can pay for it. You want capitalism? You got it.

You dont want money to be a large part of this, then do something about the way our healthcare system operates. A poor premie’s uninsured parents can’t afford to keep it alive, a poor uninsured 30 year-old high school dropout with cancer can’t afford chemo. Are you going to raise the same sort of emotional ruckus from your moral high ground about that?

My money is going on “no”. Because no one wants to pay to support those uneducated bums who cant afford the outrageous cost of healthcare or health insurance in our country. They should have known better. He deserves what he got, right?

How about we start educating these kids on how to not get pregnant in the first place? That means actually educating them instead of telling them not to have sex one day a year in their high school biology classes. Teach youth who are able to be sexually active about how to do so responsibly. Sure, you dont have to subject YOUR kids to this, you should be able to opt them out of it and teach them yourselves, but realize that there are many parents who dont care enough to know where their child even goes to school. What happens when that inevitably uneducated child gets pregnant? If abortion is murder and teaching them how to prevent a pregnancy in the first place is wrong, then please forgo bitching and moaning about all of those welfare babies that you dont want to support.

If you want to inhibit a person’s control of their own sexuality based soley on your own moral inclinations, then you better damned well be ready to pay the price for that.[/quote]

You assume way too much. I was actually arguing that adults be provided with at least basic care in this thread, if you read it.

However, you should find it equally (or really more) ironic that the people arguing against providing protection and care to infants are the ones that argue for providing it for adults. the adults at least have a chance to take care of themselves.

You then go on to bash conservatives for pushing their moral agenda while demanding public schools educate children about “responsible” sex. Why isn’t it working that they don’t teach about any morals and allow parents to “opt out” by teaching morals at home? You are asking your moral imperative to be the default setting for the rest of us.

143

…it’s not that difficult Pat. To the letter of the law, abortion is not murder, so that solves the paradox…

144

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:If it is murder for somebody to kill a woman’s fetus, but perfectly ok to murder it herself, how is that not a paradox. The life she is taking is not her own…It is either a person or it is not, there is no kinda, sorta here. Person or not a person. It’s murder or it’s not.

…it’s not that difficult Pat. To the letter of the law, abortion is not murder, so that solves the paradox…

[/quote]

No, one law defines a child in the womb as a human being, the other says it is not. The laws are contradictory.

145

[quote]pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote: That’s a slippery slope…So when does life begin? Inquiring minds want to know.

…life starts with awareness, imo. That means that when the brain is developed enough to be aware, that’s when life starts. So, after week 23 or thereabouts…

So if somebody is in a coma they are not alive? They certainly aren’t aware. Sorry that definition doesn’t really work. Certainly person is useless with out a brain, but If i shove a brain in a can, it’s not a person…Could be a tasty meal, but not a person. There is more to a person than just brain activity. Since not all gestation’s are the same, some awareness may come earlier or later.

If you have seen films of abortions, even early on the fetus writhes at it is getting mutilated. Like any living thing, it strives for survival, even when technically not aware. It sure knows it’s being cut up. It’s hard to say “Oh that’s not a person” and a couple of weeks later Viola! it suddenly a person. [/quote]

…not everybody in a coma is alive. The body has reflexes [pain reflexes and the gag reflex for instance] that do not require the brain to function. There’s nothing more to a persons existence than the brain; e.i. you are your brain. So only a brain that is developed enough for awareness to occur can be considered alive…

Edit: http://blip.tv/file/get/Chrisbruner-yale_psyc1102757.flv …this is a lecture from Yale University on the brain and self. Watch it, it’s pretty good…

146

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Can one of you guys chart out how much each person is worth at each age, gender, race?

A 23 day old isn’t worth 200k. what about a 1 year old? what about a 3 year old? is “it” worth more once they learn to walk or talk? Orphans not worth investing money in if they don’t have people who love them? Do you value infants by weight? Tell me what the spending limits should be on each person.

I’m sorry, but that justification is asinine.

DoubleDuce wrote:

I like how the defense of this case revolves around putting a price tag on life and using a probability chart for life saving equipment.

I find it ironic that many times those so vehemently opposed to a women’s right to abort are also those who so vehemently oppose a health care system that treats all patients with the same degree of concern, regardless of whether or not those patients can pay for it. You want capitalism? You got it.

You dont want money to be a large part of this, then do something about the way our healthcare system operates. A poor premie’s uninsured parents can’t afford to keep it alive, a poor uninsured 30 year-old high school dropout with cancer can’t afford chemo. Are you going to raise the same sort of emotional ruckus from your moral high ground about that?

My money is going on “no”. Because no one wants to pay to support those uneducated bums who cant afford the outrageous cost of healthcare or health insurance in our country. They should have known better. He deserves what he got, right?

How about we start educating these kids on how to not get pregnant in the first place? That means actually educating them instead of telling them not to have sex one day a year in their high school biology classes. Teach youth who are able to be sexually active about how to do so responsibly. Sure, you dont have to subject YOUR kids to this, you should be able to opt them out of it and teach them yourselves, but realize that there are many parents who dont care enough to know where their child even goes to school. What happens when that inevitably uneducated child gets pregnant? If abortion is murder and teaching them how to prevent a pregnancy in the first place is wrong, then please forgo bitching and moaning about all of those welfare babies that you dont want to support.

If you want to inhibit a person’s control of their own sexuality based soley on your own moral inclinations, then you better damned well be ready to pay the price for that.[/quote]

I find it ironic that the pro-choice advocates throw up a bunch of strawmen and red herrings to defend their indefensible position. The only question that matters is whether or not the life your are killing is a human one. The emotive fallacies lend no strength to the argument that you are not killing a person.

147

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:If it is murder for somebody to kill a woman’s fetus, but perfectly ok to murder it herself, how is that not a paradox. The life she is taking is not her own…It is either a person or it is not, there is no kinda, sorta here. Person or not a person. It’s murder or it’s not.

…it’s not that difficult Pat. To the letter of the law, abortion is not murder, so that solves the paradox…

No, one law defines a child in the womb as a human being, the other says it is not. The laws are contradictory.[/quote]

…and which laws are that exactly?

148

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Liberals measure compassion by how many people they can give welfare to, conservatives measure compassion by how few need it.

[/quote]

Then it ought to be in the best interest of a conservative to see that as few unwanted babies are born as possible.

Reduce the number of babies born to people who can’t care for them, and you will reduce the number of people who need to be supported by welfare.

And you may end up reducing the number of people who vote Democrat while you’re at it.

149

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote: That’s a slippery slope…So when does life begin? Inquiring minds want to know.

…life starts with awareness, imo. That means that when the brain is developed enough to be aware, that’s when life starts. So, after week 23 or thereabouts…

So if somebody is in a coma they are not alive? They certainly aren’t aware. Sorry that definition doesn’t really work. Certainly person is useless with out a brain, but If i shove a brain in a can, it’s not a person…Could be a tasty meal, but not a person. There is more to a person than just brain activity. Since not all gestation’s are the same, some awareness may come earlier or later.

If you have seen films of abortions, even early on the fetus writhes at it is getting mutilated. Like any living thing, it strives for survival, even when technically not aware. It sure knows it’s being cut up. It’s hard to say “Oh that’s not a person” and a couple of weeks later Viola! it suddenly a person.

…not everybody in a coma is alive. The body has reflexes [pain reflexes and the gag reflex for instance] that do not require the brain to function. There’s nothing more to a persons existence than the brain; e.i. you are your brain. So only a brain that is developed enough for awareness to occur can be considered alive…

Edit: http://blip.tv/file/get/Chrisbruner-yale_psyc1102757.flv …this is a lecture from Yale University on the brain and self. Watch it, it’s pretty good…

[/quote]

So plants, bugs, bacteria, most animals, est. aren’t alive?

I think you mean to say considered human, but that isn’t an exclusive human trait either. You can be non-human and self aware, thus voiding it as a qualification for what constitutes human.

150

…the emotion card is played by pro-lifers, not the other way 'round. But the question has been answered already; by the High Court in 1973…

151

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Liberals measure compassion by how many people they can give welfare to, conservatives measure compassion by how few need it.

Then it ought to be in the best interest of a conservative to see that as few unwanted babies are born as possible.

Reduce the number of babies born to people who can’t care for them, and you will reduce the number of people who need to be supported by welfare.

And you may end up reducing the number of people who vote Democrat while you’re at it.[/quote]

That is the irony of the situation. Conservatives trying to save future liberals. Liberals trying to end future liberals. Hah.

Seriously though, I realize there is a eugenics tie in with the politics of abortion.

152

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote: The only question that matters is whether or not the life your are killing is a human one. The emotive fallacies lend no strength to the argument that you are not killing a person.

…the emotion card is played by pro-lifers, not the other way 'round. But the question has been answered already; by the High Court in 1973…

[/quote]

Uh, other than the half dozen times you’ve done it in this thread?

153

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote: That’s a slippery slope…So when does life begin? Inquiring minds want to know.

…life starts with awareness, imo. That means that when the brain is developed enough to be aware, that’s when life starts. So, after week 23 or thereabouts…

So if somebody is in a coma they are not alive? They certainly aren’t aware. Sorry that definition doesn’t really work. Certainly person is useless with out a brain, but If i shove a brain in a can, it’s not a person…Could be a tasty meal, but not a person. There is more to a person than just brain activity. Since not all gestation’s are the same, some awareness may come earlier or later.

If you have seen films of abortions, even early on the fetus writhes at it is getting mutilated. Like any living thing, it strives for survival, even when technically not aware. It sure knows it’s being cut up. It’s hard to say “Oh that’s not a person” and a couple of weeks later Viola! it suddenly a person.

…not everybody in a coma is alive. The body has reflexes [pain reflexes and the gag reflex for instance] that do not require the brain to function. There’s nothing more to a persons existence than the brain; e.i. you are your brain. So only a brain that is developed enough for awareness to occur can be considered alive…

Edit: http://blip.tv/file/get/Chrisbruner-yale_psyc1102757.flv …this is a lecture from Yale University on the brain and self. Watch it, it’s pretty good…

So plants, bugs, bacteria, most animals, est. aren’t alive?

I think you mean to say considered human, but that isn’t an exclusive human trait either. You can be non-human and self aware, thus voiding it as a qualification for what constitutes human.[/quote]

…if we limit the list to mamals who have, just like us, a large cerebral cortex and are therefore [somewhat] self aware, i’d say that if you cause enough damage to their brain so that it functions jsut enough to sustain breathing but nothing else, that mamal is not alive…

…i agree that the word ‘alive’ is not the best choice, but a person in a deep, irreversable coma with little to no brain activity will die if taken of life support. I do not consider that being ‘alive’, if you get my drift…

154

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote: The only question that matters is whether or not the life your are killing is a human one. The emotive fallacies lend no strength to the argument that you are not killing a person.

…the emotion card is played by pro-lifers, not the other way 'round. But the question has been answered already; by the High Court in 1973…

Uh, other than the half dozen times you’ve done it in this thread?[/quote]

…that’s news to me DoubleDuce (-:

155

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

If it is murder for somebody to kill a woman’s fetus, but perfectly ok to murder it herself, how is that not a paradox. The life she is taking is not her own…It is either a person or it is not, there is no kinda, sorta here. Person or not a person. It’s murder or it’s not.

…it’s not that difficult Pat. To the letter of the law, abortion is not murder, so that solves the paradox…

No, one law defines a child in the womb as a human being, the other says it is not. The laws are contradictory.[/quote]

The Supreme Court ruled that it is not. You may not agree with their ruling, but as long as Roe vs. Wade stands, the highest law in the land says that an unborn baby does not have the same “human rights” as a born one does.

156

At 23 weeks old a baby is not an embryo! It’s a fetus! Some people don’t realize 23weeks = 5 fucking months! 5 fucking MONTHS!
A foetus is a living and sensitive thing capable of experiencing pain, emotional distress…! That’s not some piece of raw and dead meat!
Abortion is murder. Period.

From National Geographic In The Womb:

157

hey beserker we were not talking about 23 weeks we were talking about 21 weeks.

158

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:

If it is murder for somebody to kill a woman’s fetus, but perfectly ok to murder it herself, how is that not a paradox. The life she is taking is not her own…It is either a person or it is not, there is no kinda, sorta here. Person or not a person. It’s murder or it’s not.

…it’s not that difficult Pat. To the letter of the law, abortion is not murder, so that solves the paradox…

No, one law defines a child in the womb as a human being, the other says it is not. The laws are contradictory.

The Supreme Court ruled that it is not. You may not agree with their ruling, but as long as Roe vs. Wade stands, the highest law in the land says that an unborn baby does not have the same “human rights” as a born one does.[/quote]

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.

159

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote: The only question that matters is whether or not the life your are killing is a human one. The emotive fallacies lend no strength to the argument that you are not killing a person.

…the emotion card is played by pro-lifers, not the other way 'round. But the question has been answered already; by the High Court in 1973…

Uh, other than the half dozen times you’ve done it in this thread?

…that’s news to me DoubleDuce (-:

[/quote]

Here are a couple of the times in this thread you have attempted to further your point by playing to emotion:

"Just think: if Roe vs Wade gets overturned, you can never say “Land of the Free!” anymore…

It would be sad to have them sail the atlantic ocean to help your women out, wouldn’t it?

…a dear friend of mine was in a bad relationship in her early 20s. She had an abortion because the thought of having a child with that man, and being tied to him for the rest of her life was too much to bear. It was her choice to make, and no-one else’s…

.your life might be neatly divided into black/white and good/bad, and if that works for you than that’s great for you. But life just doesn’t work that way for most people. You, undoubtedly, believe your principles are commendable, but to me your way of thinking is rigid and devoid of compassion. Oh, but who’s having compassion for those poor aborted babies, you say? We all have, sir. It’s just that if i have to choose between the life and rights of a living, breathing person with an established life and a first trimester fetus, the choice is easy…"

That doesn’t include the terms like fetus, pro-choice, est. that are used to gloss over the natural emotion when dealing with the subject to make it more sterile. You have taken this to the point of calling a 21 week old a “clump of cells”. I think you should reconsider the emotional side of your own argument.

160

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:If it is murder for somebody to kill a woman’s fetus, but perfectly ok to murder it herself, how is that not a paradox. The life she is taking is not her own…It is either a person or it is not, there is no kinda, sorta here. Person or not a person. It’s murder or it’s not.

…it’s not that difficult Pat. To the letter of the law, abortion is not murder, so that solves the paradox…

No, one law defines a child in the womb as a human being, the other says it is not. The laws are contradictory.

…and which laws are that exactly?

[/quote]
The law that put Scott Peterson in prison for double murder for murdering his pregnant wife.