# Where should the line be drawn on abortion?



## manifold (Jul 30, 2012)

I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.

I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:

1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.

2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.

The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn?  At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

I always fight for the woman's right to choose, but.

*and it's a huge butt*

........... IF I were to travel back in time 35 years and find myself in those shoes again, I would say the point of no return is what's known as 'quickening', i.e., when the mother can sense the baby moving. I would say other than that, mid point second trimester. So that's what; 18 weeks?

Edited to reflect: This is precluding finding out further in the pregnancy that there are significant health risks to mother and/or child.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
> 
> ...



Prior to 20 weeks gestation, abortion is not murder; after 24 weeks, abortion should be illegal.  20-24 weeks is a gray area for me.  At 24 weeks, most fetuses can survive outside the womb with medical intervention, and at that point, I think the fetus's budding personhood trumps the mother's right to avoid being inconvenienced or harmed by the pregnancy.


----------



## manifold (Jul 30, 2012)

I've read both your edits and have chosen to let my 'thanks' stand.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
> 
> ...



Heartbeat


period


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 30, 2012)

hortysir said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...


According to one resource I read, the heartbeat starts at 18 days gestation in an unborn child.

As far as above 2 parameters are concerned, I am precluded from expressing any opinion that I may have on this delicate subject on both of the two counts.

Sorry.


----------



## manifold (Jul 30, 2012)

hortysir said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...




Hmmm? 

About how far along does that happen? (I know I should remember ).


----------



## hortysir (Jul 30, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I'm pretty heavily biased in the matter, too.

But I honestly feel that the heartbeat makes it a Life and, as such, should be the line.


----------



## syrenn (Jul 30, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...




I agree... after 4 months a woman should know if she wants to carry a child to term or not.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Becki says 18 days, but IDK either, for certain.

Google ranges from 18 days to 6 weeks

*shrug*


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 30, 2012)

hortysir said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


Since mine is divine knowledge of life in the womb based on one of King David's psalms (139) it is not in accordance with the two parameters listed above. That's all I can say. I'm so sorry, but I respect the OPs desire to conduct a debate on this issue that is clinical in nature, and not spiritually-based according to anyone's personal interpretation of faith, which it would be in my case since in my church, we have Old Testament scholars of full understanding sitting next to Planned Parenthood leaders and workers. (go figure).. lololol


----------



## syrenn (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
> 
> ...





For me the line is drawn when the fetus can survive without a host. A stand alone life. A life without the requirement of being connected to another living being. 

By the time a fetus is at that point it is a baby..... and if a woman wanted to have an abortion she should have done it well before that point. 

I do not agree with late term abortion unless it is for medical reasons.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

hortysir said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...



^ This.


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 30, 2012)

hortysir said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


My source says it is heard at 18 days gestation. Equipment may have improved since the 6 weeks figure was known as accurate. My mother had two children after I finished the 8th grade. She would let children in the family listen to them kick at about 5 months. My brother had his face to close and got kicked. hahahaha


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 30, 2012)

Only in cases of rape or incest (within 18 weeks) or in case of a serious threat to the mother's physical health.

No other exceptions.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

And that's why Roe v Wade and the one that followed (can never remember) HAVE to be on the books. Because what works for me doesn't work for you or Beck or Jake (who shall never be pregnant anyway). 

Each woman has to make her own decisions and handle any fallout that may or may not occur. This isn't a spectator sport. We don't get to Monday morning quarterback.


----------



## manifold (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Each woman has to make her own decisions and handle any fallout that may or may not occur. This isn't a spectator sport. We don't get to Monday morning quarterback.



Or conversely, you just might earn yourself a lifetime of monday morning quarterbacking.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 30, 2012)

Is there a medical consensus on when the fetus can feel pain?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 30, 2012)

As long as men are part of lawmaking, we will have our input and carry the day where we can.



manifold said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Each woman has to make her own decisions and handle any fallout that may or may not occur. This isn't a spectator sport. We don't get to Monday morning quarterback.
> ...


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 30, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Is there a medical consensus on when the fetus can feel pain?


Yes, Amelia. I posted the video showing the fetus in an abortion trying to elude the things they were poking him with a couple of weeks ago. It fought for its life with all its being, somehow fully aware of the danger and the location of the extinguishing equipment. It was considered to horrible and removed by the mods.

The physician discussing the fetus' elusive actions was quite clinical, but the skull removed before the body was taken out was a little too much of an ick factor for most people.

I've had university work in the anatomy using human cadavers donated to science. I don't see life, disability, dismemberment and death as some others, although I was the first to faint on day one in class. 

Even back in the 80s when I took that class, there were studies being examined that claimed fetuses can feel pain. I didn't know they knew they were being threatened, though, until I located that video which must not be shared here. Oh, and the fetus/victim was 12 weeks when it was trying to get away from its certain death by extermination equipment.

You get over ick after dissecting about 4 cadavers.


----------



## manifold (Jul 30, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a medical consensus on when the fetus can feel pain?
> ...



I'd like to see that.  Can you PM me the link?


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 30, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Is there a medical consensus on when the fetus can feel pain?





> Last of all to mature is the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for most of what we think of as mental life--conscious experience, voluntary actions, thinking, remembering, and feeling. *It has only begun to function around the time gestation comes to an end. Premature babies show very basic electrical activity in the primary sensory regions of the cerebral cortex--those areas that perceive touch, vision, and hearing--as well as in primary motor regions of the cerebral cortex.* In the last trimester, fetuses are capable of simple forms of learning, like habituating (decreasing their startle response) to a repeated auditory stimulus, such as a loud clap just outside the mother's abdomen. Late-term fetuses also seem to learn about the sensory qualities of the womb, since several studies have shown that newborn babies respond to familiar odors (such as their own amniotic fluid) and sounds (such as a maternal heartbeat or their own mother's voice). In spite of these rather sophisticated abilities, babies enter the world with a still-primitive cerebral cortex, and it is the gradual maturation of this complex part of the brain that explains much of their emotional and cognitive maturation in the first few years of life.



ZERO TO THREE:


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


Oh, I just saw this. Well, manifold, if I can find it again. I tried to find it right after it disappeared, but couldn't. I'll try again.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Arizona drew the line, and it was upheld.

Judge says Arizona's abortion ban can take effect - Boston.com



> The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights said it and another group that challenged the law plan to file an emergency appeal of Monday's decision with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
> 
> "Today's decision casts aside decades of legal precedent, ignoring constitutional protections for reproductive rights that have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court for nearly 40 years and threatening women's health and lives," said Nancy Northup, the center's president and CEO.
> 
> ...


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 30, 2012)

Two Thumbs said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...


Actually, he is doing ok, TwoThumbs. He is actually curious about a video I posted that was removed a couple of weeks ago due to its extremely bloody photographs of the aborted child. All I could find was the sanitized version of the same youtube and sent him a link. You can only view it at YouTube after you show you are older than 18. I'd say he's being a pretty standup guy about the issue. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. I've only seen the funny and silly side. This is good to see his rational side. Let's give Kudos to those who asked for a rational debate area. It's how things get discussed in the real world.


----------



## blackhawk (Jul 30, 2012)

Yeah I have no answer for this one.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 30, 2012)

One of the better threads on the subject folks.  Nice job.

Roe v. Wade was a long time ago and our understanding of a fetus/baby has improved greatly since.  I have a granddaughter on the way with a possible cleft palate.  Will know more next Monday afternoon.
So the whole subject is pretty real and immediate for us.

I think the point at which you can still have an abortion needs to be revisited and push back closer to the inception.  Maybe that is a couple of weeks sooner, maybe a bit more.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> And that's why Roe v Wade and the one that followed (can never remember) HAVE to be on the books. Because what works for me doesn't work for you or Beck or Jake (who shall never be pregnant anyway).
> 
> Each woman has to make her own decisions and handle any fallout that may or may not occur. This isn't a spectator sport. We don't get to Monday morning quarterback.



_Planned Parenthood v. Casey_, it ended the time limit established in _Roe _and replaced it with the &#8216;undue burden&#8217; standard. 



> Arizona drew the line, and it was upheld.



Likely because it doesn&#8217;t manifest an undue burden to a woman&#8217;s obtaining an abortion, where 20 weeks was deemed an appropriate time limit to make a decision. That&#8217;s also why the &#8216;personhood at conception&#8217; law in Oklahoma was struck down by that state&#8217;s Supreme Court. 

To answer the OP, it should be left up to the states to determine provided any measure complies with Constitutional case law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 30, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > And that's why Roe v Wade and the one that followed (can never remember) HAVE to be on the books. Because what works for me doesn't work for you or Beck or Jake (who shall never be pregnant anyway).
> ...



Just so.  State determination within SCOTUS guidelines.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


 
four weeks.
"Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing and your baby's heart is pumping blood."

Fetal development: The first trimester - MayoClinic.com


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

syrenn said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...


 
Is a woman a "host"? Can you support that?


----------



## Amelia (Jul 30, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > And that's why Roe v Wade and the one that followed (can never remember) HAVE to be on the books. Because what works for me doesn't work for you or Beck or Jake (who shall never be pregnant anyway).
> ...





And we the people, the citizens of these states, have an interest in the determinations our states make.  Do you have an opinion to share about the topic in your role as citizen of your state?


----------



## Vidi (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
> 
> ...



Three years ago, my wife happily announced she was pregnant...and I was furious. It was not something I wanted at this point. I have grandkids for christs sake! 

But nine weeks in we went for an ultrasound. I had never actually seen anything in any previous ultrasounds I saw...just some glob on the screen that the nurse would excitedly announce was my child...whatever...its a glob of nothing....

But this time, there was a glob with arms and legs waving wikldy like it was going LOOK HERE I AM! SEE ME?!?!?!

And I knew THAT was my child. 

My wife and I were not getting along because I had felt I had been dragged into a life changing situation that would last well into my final working years ...so much for travel and peace and quiet...

But I turned to her right then and said," Im in."

And that was that.

Now my daughter is 26 month old and the very best thing that ever happened to me.

Sure her niece is a year older than her but hey, life is strange.

At 9 weeks I saw arms and legs and saw a person. For others it might be different. 

So the answer is this:

I dont know.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

Amelia said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


 
Needs more clarification, please. He is a citizen of his state, so his opinion is made as a citizen of his state.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 30, 2012)

I've been involved in numerous message board debates concerning abortion over the years.  I used to be 100% against abortion, and I still think abortion is the wrong thing to do, but I have softened up my stance over the years.

Here is how I see it.

The medical community, attorneys and politicians have all agreed that at the point that brainwaves cease to exist in a person, then that person is legally dead.  I would use that same standard (albeit in reverse) for abortion.  At the point that brainwaves begin to exist in a fetus, then that person is legally alive.  I would accept abortion as an option as long as the fetus is absent of brainwaves, but once those brainwaves exist, abortion should not be allowed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
> 
> ...



16 to 20 weeks.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 30, 2012)

manifold said:


> I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
> 
> ...


I agree.  I believe elective abortions should be illegal (not ones that are medically necessary for a variety of reasons, but simple elective ones) at the point of viability of a preemie.  I believe that is currently around 24 weeks.

So, elective abortions up to that point should be ok.

Now, as technology improves, that time of gestation to viability might change and the law should change accordingly.

That's the way I see it.

And, on elective abortions, I am against those being paid for using government monies.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

The line on abortion can only be drawn with an eye to preventing human rights violations, and promoting safety and health, while at the same time refraining from violating any basic human rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness...the first among these being LIFE, without the other two cannot exist). 

Elective abortion should never be an option. Women do not have the right to kill other people, simply because they harbor them in their bodies. The choice of a woman is the choice of wehther or not to engage in reproductive activities, i.e., sex, and if she makes the choice to engage in activities that could potentially result in pregnancy, the ensuing pregnancy and baby therefore becomes her responsibility. Her responsibility to protect and nurture until such time as she can find someone else to protect and nurture it, if that is her desire.

Sometimes the choice has been removed from her, in the case of rape. Some argue that this indicates an acceptable use for abortion. But it is the human condition that sometimes we come under obligation to others through no choice of our own. The law recognizes that a person who sees an untended child, and then leaves that child untended, and something happens to it, is responsible for the harm that comes to it based on an understanding that we are OBLIGATED to protect the vulnerable, even when we did not choose to be a protector of that vulnerable being. Likewise, if a woman is pregnant through no choice of her own, she remains responsible for the life within her, until such time as she can find a suitable protector for that child. This has the additional bonus of removing the option of coercing incest and rape victims into abortions, thereby hiding the crime that resulted in the pregnancy in the first place.

In the rare event of pregnancies that are life-threatening, then abortion must of course be legal. This is an extremely rare occurrence, probably the most prevalent example would be a woman who discovers she has cancer during a pregnancy, and needs to aggressively treat the cancer which would harm the child. Sometimes women in this situation choose to abort, sometimes they choose to suspend treatment until after the birth of the child. They should be accomodated regardless of the decision they make in this case. There are other instances where it could be necessary to remove the baby from the mother's body in order to save the mother; and these decisions should be made by the family.


----------



## Luissa (Jul 30, 2012)

12 weeks


----------



## hortysir (Jul 30, 2012)

100 days


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 30, 2012)

Vidi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...






You sound just like the dad in Father of the Bride Part Two. Congratulations on your beautiful little daughter.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 30, 2012)

Si modo said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...



Which shouldnt be a problem as thats been the law for over three decades. 

Fortunately and wisely the courts have left the issue of when life begins to philosophers, ethicists, religious entities, and private individuals  and it should remain that way. 

Women have been having abortions for thousands of years before _Roe_ and will continue to do so regardless its legal status. Indeed, banning abortion is no solution at all. 

Whatever the solution to abortion, it may not be offensive to the Constitution, as the right to privacy is fundamental, and must never be violated by the state: 



> If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.
> 
> Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)


----------



## Gem (Jul 30, 2012)

I, personally, believe that the moment conception occurs a human life has "begun."  Life is a continuum that must begin and end somewhere.  It seems logical to me that life does not start in any other spontaneous way but sperm uniting with egg.  That zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, etc., is human life in one of its many stages along the continuum.  

So for me...I find it very disingenuous to hear people claim that an abortion is NOT ending a life.  Of course it is.  If left to its own devices it would continue through the cycle of human development - just like an infant will become a teenager.  When we abort that fetus were are killing it.  Plain and simple.

Now...that being said, simply for the sake of open, honest dialogue...I also think that abortion is a procedure that has been around for centuries in one for or another and is not going away.  We should strive to make it safe, legal, and rare.

With that in mind, I think that abortion should be legal for any reason during the first trimester - because it is an easily measurable early state of the pregnancy.  I include rape in this timeline.  I believe that if we, as women, are serious about claiming to want to be responsible for our own bodies...then we should be responsible enough to a) find out if we are pregnant within 3 months of having sex and b) deciding whether or not to continue with that pregnancy.  After that, I do not think that women should be able to end a pregnancy for reasons aside from those discussed below.

I support legal abortion in the cases of incest up until the point that the child could be viable outside the womb (22 weeks currently?) and cases where the LIFE of the mother is at stake until 22 weeks as well, unless its a medical situation where it literally is kill the viable child or kill the mother...I'm sure that is VERY rare.

So...simply put - 1st trimester except in cases of incest (because the medical community might not become aware of these pregnancies until further along) or life of mother...then approximately 22 weeks.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jul 30, 2012)

Si modo said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...



I disagree. First trimester...second and third if mother's life in danger.

Result of rape? Any time the person carrying the foetus decides...


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

The problem with abortion in the case of rape and incest is that #1, it gives rapists an "out". Victims of incest and abortion are coerced into abortion all the time, and/or abortion is used to hide the crime.

And #2, it will result in women claiming they have been raped in order to obtain convenience abortions.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jul 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The problem with abortion in the case of rape and incest is that #1, it gives rapists an "out". Victims of incest and abortion are coerced into abortion all the time, and/or abortion is used to hide the crime.
> 
> And #2, it will result in women claiming they have been raped in order to obtain convenience abortions.



Couldn't care less about the rapist getting an out. It's not about the rapist.
Woman shouldn't need an excuse or a claim about anything. If they want one they should get one. Personally, I think it is a bad decision on their part (not if they have been raped, but in general), but it is their decision.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 30, 2012)

Gem said:


> I, personally, believe that the moment conception occurs a human life has "begun."  Life is a continuum that must begin and end somewhere.  It seems logical to me that life does not start in any other spontaneous way but sperm uniting with egg.  That zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, etc., is human life in one of its many stages along the continuum.
> 
> So for me...I find it very disingenuous to hear people claim that an abortion is NOT ending a life.  Of course it is.  If left to its own devices it would continue through the cycle of human development - just like an infant will become a teenager.  When we abort that fetus were are killing it.  Plain and simple.
> 
> ...




The problem then is when is conception?

Some say egg feritlization. If thats conception then all forms of hormonal birth control are actually abortions.

Implantation into the uterus wall?

When?

My point is that the abortion debate is a never ending argument with abslutely no way to solve it...

OH WAIT! YES THERE IS!

Artificial WOMBS!

Dont want the babay? No problem! We'll remove it place it in the articial womb and 9 months later, a brand new baby tready for adoption!



ok back to reality,

its a never ending debate wuith no real solution. Its the perfect political wedge.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 30, 2012)

I'm a first trimester guy....although many of you have said 16-20 weeks, which puts it into the early-mid 2nd trimester. Which, I would be amenable to, if it would end the debate...but overall, I think three months is plenty of time to decide...even if one doesn't realize they are pregnant until the second(missed period) month...that's two months....60 days to make a decision. 

If the mother's life is in danger? Then there should be no limit....it should be up to the mother. If she wants to be the martyr so that the child lives? That's an incredible act of love and bravery.

 But I think about my wife and how much I love her....I would honor that act of love if it were her choice.....But I think of life without her, and I would prefer that she would end the pregnancy and we try again....this is all hypothetical of course, as my wife had cervical cancer and had to have a partial hysterectomy....so we will never have children together....of course....at 47 and 49? I'm just as glad.....I love her kids as if they were my own.

edit: I need to make paragraphs....which I'll do with this edit...damn this kindle fire...


----------



## Gem (Jul 30, 2012)

> The problem then is when is conception?
> 
> Some say egg feritlization. If thats conception then all forms of hormonal birth control are actually abortions.
> 
> ...



Actually, since I'm arguing for legal abortion throughout the first trimester, your point really has no teeth.  It doesn't matter whether your opinion of when conception occurs differs from someone elses if they are legally allowed to abort their child during the first three months of their pregnancy.

Will you never be able to "win" this argument with everyone?  Of course.  Some will argue that birth control pills are a form of abortion.  Some will argue that parents should legally be able to murder their toddlers.  We have never truly believed that the extremes would win this debate - we are trying to find the most reasonable middle ground.

As I stated before - while I believe that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception...I believe that our nation has a vested interest (because of a woman's right to her body, because of rape, incest, etc., because of the inherent danger of illegal abortion) in protecting legal abortion during the 1st trimester, and in cases of rape, incest, and life of mother.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jul 30, 2012)

Your life's timeline began at conception.. any real debate on that?


----------



## Gem (Jul 30, 2012)

Is there another starting point that makes as much sense?  It seems to me that before conception there were components of life - sperm, egg.  After conception, there was a growing, developing lifeform that, if left alone and if all goes according to plan, will develop into a zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teen, young adult, adult, senior, etc.

This is not a religiously-based argument.  I am perfectly willing to consider alternatives.  It just has always seemed most logical to me that we have to consider "where it all begins."  A sperm alone will never spontaneously begin to develop into a human.  Neither will an egg.  A 22-week old "fetus" may be viable outside of the womb for the first time...but its been growing and developing for 22 weeks...it didn't just appear there.  So - are we really intellectually honest if we say that at 21 1/2 weeks it "wasn't human," but at 22 weeks it was?  

Come on...lets get real.  Its always a human in its earliest stages of human development...we just don't like talking about it because the next step in honest dialogue is "At what stage of human development do we stop being ok with killing a human for our own personal convenience?"

Please note for full disclosure:  I support abortion during the 1st trimester.


----------



## bobcollum (Jul 30, 2012)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Your life's timeline began at conception.. *any real debate on that?*



Yes.


----------



## Jackson (Jul 30, 2012)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Your life's timeline began at conception.. any real debate on that?



Of course not.  We all know how to avoid a pregnancy or a new life, so we all know when life begins.


----------



## Jackson (Jul 30, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> No, you are not in the books until you are born.
> *XXXXXX*.



I have fetal pics of all my grandchildren.


----------



## Gem (Jul 30, 2012)

Moonglow Wrote:


> *XXXXXX*.


Maybe not in yours.  

But seriously...I have a picture of my son's 8-week, 12-week, and 20-week sonograms in our photo album.  They are photographs of my first child, in his earliest stages of development.  He was a human being.  He had/has a different blood-type than me, he had/has different DNA.  At 8-weeks old and earlier, he was NOT part of my body...he was a growing organism residing in my body.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 30, 2012)

Jackson said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Your life's timeline began at conception.. any real debate on that?
> ...



Even the Bible sates that until Adam had air blown through his nostrils he was not alive. Same with the multi-miliinea observation that life begins at birth when the child has the first blast of oxygen in it's lungs.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 30, 2012)

Gem said:


> Moonglow Wrote:
> 
> 
> > Notice no pics in the family album with Mom and Dad knocking boots.
> ...



That I do not doubt. I too have the pics in my album.
I have only the issue of the OP to debate. I don't use abortion and never will. i keep what is mine and raise it well.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jul 30, 2012)

Gem said:


> Is there another starting point that makes as much sense?  It seems to me that before conception there were components of life - sperm, egg.  After conception, there was a growing, developing lifeform that, if left alone and if all goes according to plan, will develop into a zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teen, young adult, adult, senior, etc.
> 
> This is not a religiously-based argument.  I am perfectly willing to consider alternatives.  It just has always seemed most logical to me that we have to consider "where it all begins."  A sperm alone will never spontaneously begin to develop into a human.  Neither will an egg.  A 22-week old "fetus" may be viable outside of the womb for the first time...but its been growing and developing for 22 weeks...it didn't just appear there.  So - are we really intellectually honest if we say that at 21 1/2 weeks it "wasn't human," but at 22 weeks it was?
> 
> ...



Excellent and reasonable response...how refreshing...

I do have those gray areas in the first trimester rape, incest or when the actual life of the mother is threatened. I don't feel comfortable with all in gray areas but ...eh.


----------



## jillian (Jul 30, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...



i would think you'd have an exception for the life of the mother, yes?

i also don't see having to deal with genetic or birth defects as being "inconvenienced". i see it as a personal choice about the quality of one's life and the quality of what one wishes to pass on to a child. so i'm not sure where that leaves the debate.


----------



## Jackson (Jul 30, 2012)

Psalm 139:15-24 (Good News Translation)

*15* When my bones were being formed, carefully put together in my mother's womb, when I was growing there in secret, you knew that I was there - *16* you saw me before I was born.


----------



## jillian (Jul 30, 2012)

Jackson said:


> Psalm 139:15-24 (Good News Translation)
> 
> *15* When my bones were being formed, carefully put together in my mother's womb, when I was growing there in secret, you knew that I was there - *16* you saw me before I was born.



with all due respect, jackson, your religion governs YOUR choices... not mine or anyone else's.


----------



## Jackson (Jul 30, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



I'm with you, Becki, lol.


----------



## Jackson (Jul 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Psalm 139:15-24 (Good News Translation)
> ...



Thank God it it governed mine or I wouldn't have had a wonderful son!


----------



## jillian (Jul 30, 2012)

Jackson said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



and if your religion governed mine, i wouldn't have my wonderful son

which is why you shouldn't be making my choices. make your own. live in good health.

don't try to make others' choices. that's the issue.... not what you, personally, find objectionable


----------



## Jackson (Jul 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I am only putting my two cents in as everyone else is.  Some are saying when the heart beats, some are saying a certain  time, well, so am I...at conception, the decision is made for me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 30, 2012)

Reading all of you, I am so glad that we live in a country with a secular constitution informed by religious and or ethical values.  If ever there were reason in and of itself for separation of organized religion and state, we see it here.


----------



## Jackson (Jul 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Reading all of you, I am so glad that we live in a country with a secular constitution informed by religious and or ethical values.  If ever there were reason in and of itself for separation of organized religion and state, we see it here.



As in so many things we do in life, it is a matter of conscience that spurs our decisions.  You are right, Jake, we are lucky to be living in this country where we have the freedoms we do.


----------



## jillian (Jul 30, 2012)

Jackson said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



i understand. but the people who think like you are the ones trying to infringe on my right to make those decisions for myself.

i don't care what anyone believes on an individual basis.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 30, 2012)

Any time a child is aborted, a decision has been made for someone else.  The selfish party remains.


----------



## JagOnDaRoad (Jul 30, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


I do not concede your point.....why don't we just agree to be civil.

At what point were you viable? At what point, had an abortion been committed, would you not be here today? 

Honestly, I am not 100% against abortion. I would accept it for: rape, primarily; severe known birth defect issues....severe; and self preservation....that event that is a doctor/patient moment when the mother's life is threatened and she and the doctor or the doctor and her advocate must make ultimate decisions. 

Barring those horrible instances, each of you who is a proponent of abortion-at-will based on a viability date is starting from a false premise. Every conception is viable until it is not. It is not only outside forces that halt a pregnancy, you are the proof that outside forces did not terminate you. Ok? 

Regarding my acceptance of rape and severe birth defects...this is a very difficult concession. As humans we know that natural selection is part of our equation...we are biological. We are animals. We are animals with a conscience. Rapist attempt to accomplish something, and while it is truly unfortunate for the offspring, I believe it would be a greater miscarriage of humanity to force to term any women forcibly impregnated. The women, in this case, and in the case of self-preservation, supersedes the fetus in importance.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 30, 2012)

Jackson said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



So are you saying that women with religion do not have abortions?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 30, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Any time a child is aborted, a decision has been made for someone else.  The selfish party remains.



So when God has done it or killed babies and children it is okay?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 30, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Any time a child is aborted, a decision has been made for someone else.  The selfish party remains.
> ...


Yes.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 30, 2012)

Where should the line be drawn on abortion? 

Why does a line have to be drawn?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 30, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Where should the line be drawn on abortion?
> 
> Why does a line have to be drawn?


First Trimester? Second? 18 years old?

No line? Really?


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 30, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Of course only God or government can decide when someone is to die.
Suicide is even illegal and sinful...

Untimate authoritaranism.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 30, 2012)

What's a person to do!


----------



## MeBelle (Jul 30, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Any time a child is aborted, a decision has been made for someone else.  The selfish party remains.
> ...



Link?


----------



## MeBelle (Jul 30, 2012)

hortysir said:


> 100 days


----------



## tinydancer (Jul 30, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Where should the line be drawn on abortion?
> 
> Why does a line have to be drawn?



Hey you tell me. 

*

Mother of two admits aborting baby a week before its due date
A mother of two aborted her own baby just a week before she was due to give birth after taking drugs bought on the internet, a court has heard.  Sarah Catt, 35 from Sherburn, North Yorkshire, deliberately brought on a miscarriage in the final stages of pregnancy, in what a judge described as highly unusual circumstances.

It is understood she purchased a quantity of the drug Misoprostol, which can induce abortion, after researching and buying it on the internet.

Police believe she terminated her pregnancy within a week of its due date, but no trace of the babys body has been found.

During the police investigation she persistently told officers she had undergone a legal termination.

But abortions in the UK can only legally be carried out up to 24 weeks and detectives said they had evidence Catt had been pregnant at her 30 week scan.

*

Mother of two admits aborting baby a week before its due date - Telegraph

When does a woman's right to choose become murder?


----------



## tinydancer (Jul 30, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Where should the line be drawn on abortion?
> ...



Trust me. 16 makes you become your own parents.

You start screaming "I brought you into this world, I can take you out".


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 31, 2012)

Jackson said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Your life's timeline began at conception.. any real debate on that?
> ...



Would that it were that simple.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

Sigh.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 31, 2012)

manifold said:


> I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
> 
> ...



I can agree with the first point but not the second, because aborting a fetus at any stage is not murder.

The line should be drawn at birth. Abortion can take place any time up until birth, after the baby is born, abortion is illegal anyway.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



Then I expect Jackson to provide proof of the following points:

1. That God exists
2. That God created people out of clay

*Edited.*


----------



## Amelia (Jul 31, 2012)

Noomi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...





What constitutes birth?  If the entity's left leg is still in the birth canal, is it okay to snip its spinal cord and vacuum out its brain?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 31, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Hmm. Good question. What would the medical field think? Is birth the moment when the head crowns? Is it the moment the body is removed from the birth canal? Is it the moment the cord is cut?

For me, a fetus becomes a person when the cord is cut, and it takes a breath. However, between the birth and the cord being cut is that grey area for me. So I would say that once labor begins, that is where the choice ends.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 31, 2012)

Dr Grump said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


That's why I said "elective".  If her life is in danger, it is no longer elective.

As far as a result of rape, I still stick with what I say.  If the mother cannot decide to terminate the rapist's child by 24 weeks, she has more issues than just being pregnant by a rapist.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 31, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



the thing about rape is the mental state if the victim....different people react in different ways. I personally believe that erring on the side of the victim is the way to go.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 31, 2012)

most of you ...i would say ...are too young to remember when abortion was illegal...pity that....if you did perhaps your views would be tempered with a little more understanding.....plus as i keep saying abortion is big business and neither party is gonna deny big business anything....

why do people become so wishy washy over abortion?  if you support it..then support elective abortions fully....i cannot imagine the state of this country if we had forced births...

if you are against abortion..then you should be against it across the board...no exceptions....
why is a fetus punished due to its father being a rapist?  if you can force births ...force them all


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 31, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Where should the line be drawn on abortion?
> ...



Not all will ever agree on this, some even thinks it is murder to take the pill.  Some think it is murder to ever abort, the morning after pill, you must have the child of a rapist, etc.

There will never be any reasonable line on this topic.


----------



## manifold (Jul 31, 2012)

strollingbones said:


> most of you ...i would say ...are too young to remember when abortion was illegal...pity that....if you did perhaps your views would be tempered with a little more understanding.....plus as i keep saying abortion is big business and neither party is gonna deny big business anything....
> 
> why do people become so wishy washy over abortion?  if you support it..then support elective abortions fully....i cannot imagine the state of this country if we had forced births...
> 
> ...



I like the absolute cut of your jib. But alas this dismisses the views of most of the population, who are firmly entrenched somewhere in that vast expanse of gray in between.  I'm not sure where that gets us.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

It gets us nowhere. This is entirely a rhetorical discussion, not a debate. It's a discussion about people's feelings.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 31, 2012)

The line, if a line would exist, came from the original Roe decision.   No restrictions in the first trimester, to save the life of the mother in the second trimester and not at all in the third trimester unless there is a danger of imminent death to the mother.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> *Edited*



a rhetorical discussion? what is a debate other than a discussion on a topic with opposing viewpoints?

We may never find common ground, but perhaps through honest, rational discussion, we can get past the "baby killer/woman hater" stuff and realize that the people on either side of the argument are not a collection of monsters.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 31, 2012)

jillian said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



That's why a firm timeline needs to be drawn so there is a set period where we can say whether the choice is for the mother or the child.

At some point, the child should have an influence on the "choice".


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



ok...forgive me my ignorance....but what is a "sock"?


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

Aside from the fact that abortion violates human rights and has been at the root of many oppressive and female-hostile movements down through the years (China's 1-child rule and the Nazi oppression of Poles, to name two), it is a threat to the health and well-being of the women that pro-abortionists claim it exists to protect.

Abortion is used by pimps and by modern-day slave traders to increase the worth of the women they abuse and depend upon. Pregnant women are a liability to those who make money off of forced prostitution and they are not earners, so women who are in these trades are forced to obtain abortions to prolong their usefulness to those who abuse them. Planned Parenthood workers have repeatedly been exposed working with those who abuse women (pimps, even parents who are hiding incest and child abuse) to coerce women and girls into getting abortions.

 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=hZrXIttkdoQ


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Aside from the fact that abortion violates human rights



Subjective opinion inflamed by hyperbole.



> it is a threat to the health and well-being of the women that pro-abortionists claim it exists to protect.



Carrying a pregnancy to term is more dangerous.



> Abortion is used by pimps and by modern-day slave traders to increase the worth of the women they abuse and depend upon. Pregnant women are a liability to those who make money off of forced prostitution and they are not earners, so women who are in these trades are forced to obtain abortions to prolong their usefulness to those who abuse them. Planned Parenthood workers have repeatedly been exposed working with those who abuse women (pimps, even parents who are hiding incest and child abuse) to coerce women and girls into getting abortions.



Fallacy of composition.  These things may well be occurring, but the majority of abortions are not occurring in these situations.  Eliminating abortion would not stop sexual slavery.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 31, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from the fact that abortion violates human rights
> ...



Carrying a pregnancy to term is more dangerous?  Really?  Care to show stats on that?  In the US death in child birth is a very low number.  I have never heard it mentioned when anyone I know was pregnant.  People didn't recoil in horror and suggest the mother save herself from death.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 31, 2012)

Pregnancy complications | womenshealth.gov


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from the fact that abortion violates human rights
> ...


 
I didn't say it would. I said it was a tool of those who subjugate and abuse women. And it is.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 31, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Pregnancy complications | womenshealth.gov



From YOUR source:

Complications of pregnancy are health problems that occur during pregnancy. They can involve the mother's health, the baby's health, or both. Some women have health problems before they become pregnant that could lead to complications. Other problems arise during the pregnancy. Keep in mind that whether a complication is common or rare, there are ways to manage problems that come up during pregnancy.

Most of those conditions listed are very managable and do not or will not result in death.  Thanks for proving my point.  NOT MORE DANGEROUS THAN CARRYING TO TERM.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

My point isn't that it's less, or more, risky than pregnancy.

My point is that it poses a risk to women's health and wellbeing, and I supported that point.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 31, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Prior to 20 weeks gestation, abortion is not murder; after 24 weeks, abortion should be illegal.  20-24 weeks is a gray area for me.  At 24 weeks, most fetuses can survive outside the womb with medical intervention, and at that point, I think the fetus's budding personhood trumps the mother's right to avoid being inconvenienced or harmed by the pregnancy.



*NO PERSONAL INSULTS.*

What is life? Is this a mystery that can't be answered? Actually, medical science has a standard definition that is also the legal definition. You know why the doctor pulling the plug on a born patient doesn't go to prison for murder? Because life IS defined medically.

Ready?

Life is the presence of brain and heart activity measurable by EEG and EKG respectively.  If there is brain and heart activity and you pull the plug, expect some prison time (until Obamacare is fully enforced.)

So when is abortion the killing of a human? When heart and brain activity are present. When is this? 5 to 6 weeks gestation. 

I know, you pro-aborts don't like science and medical fact, but there it is anyway.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> My point isn't that it's less, or more, risky than pregnancy.
> 
> My point is that it poses a risk to women's health and wellbeing, and I supported that point.



Being transported in a car, crossing a busy intersection, smoking, drinking, eating and host of other regular activities present a risk to women's health and wellbeing.  The risk needs to be balanced with the general outcome of the activity.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Complications of pregnancy are health problems that occur during pregnancy. They can involve the mother's health, the baby's health, or both. Some women have health problems before they become pregnant that could lead to complications. Other problems arise during the pregnancy. Keep in mind that whether a complication is common or rare, there are ways to manage problems that come up during pregnancy.
> 
> Most of those conditions listed are very managable and do not or will not result in death.  Thanks for proving my point.  NOT MORE DANGEROUS THAN CARRYING TO TERM.



Have you passed a bowling ball through your urethra?  When you do, you can comment on the health complications of childbirth.  I've done it twice.  

My point stands....carrying a pregnancy to term has more health risks for women than an abortion.  C-sections are major surgery.  Labor and delivery is a major surgery.  The Third trimester of pregnancy can pose major risks to women, including preeclampsia/eclampsia (can cause permanent liver and kidney damage, stroke, and heart problems).  Even a relatively minor part of delivery, an episiotomy, can cause many longterm health problems such as a prolapsed uterus/bladder, painful intercourse (for years), urinary and anal incontinence (problems with shitting/pissing yourself), etc.  

And, death remains a very real risk.

Shocking number of American women die from childbirth, pregnancy
More U.S. women dying in childbirth - Health - Pregnancy - NBCNews.com


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 31, 2012)

manifold said:


> I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
> 
> ...



I personally think at no point in the pregnancy, past the day or two after the act of creating the child, is acceptable.   I would be willing to even go up to week 3/4 when the brain and spinal cord begin to form as far as a "law" would go but my personal opinion is if its too late for the morning after pill then its too late.  Supposedly at around week 9 the fetus can feel pain, at this point it is DEFINATELY too late for any law to allow it in my opinion.

Notice my personal opinion and my personal view of what the law could allow are different.


However there are instances such as rape, incest, or the life of the mother where I would be willing to overlook that position of mine.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 31, 2012)

I trust you read these before you posted them correct?  


Every day two to three women die in the United States from pregnancy-related complications. According to the report , Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA from Amnesty International about half of those deaths are believed to be preventable. 


A key concern is the lack of prenatal care. Women who do not receive proper prenatal care are three to four times more likely to die than women who do.

Shocking number of American women die from childbirth, pregnancy


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> I trust you read these before you posted them correct?
> 
> 
> Every day two to three women die in the United States from pregnancy-related complications. According to the report , Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA from Amnesty International about half of those deaths are believed to be preventable.
> ...



Even with pre-natal care, women can suffer adverse effects from pregnancy, labor, and delivery that exceed the adverse health risks of abortion.

Per 100,000 pregnancies, 13 women die.  Per 100,000 abortions, .6 women die.  That means women are 22 times more likely to die from full-term labor/delivery than from an abortion.  The complications and medical problems caused by full-term pregnancy and L/D are also much greater and more severe.

You are not entitled to force other people to experience these risks in order to shore up your ethical views.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 31, 2012)

manifold said:


> I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
> 
> ...




As long as there are loud people who seem inclined to virtually shut down abortion, and who seem like they might be finding a political foothold where they could affect law, my position will be to err on the side of choice for the mother.  

I personally find myself wanting to draw the line at the point where the fetus can feel pain, and even more specifically and personally I never could see myself having an abortion even if I was raped, but as long as there are people such as Chuck Winder of Idaho who would put rape victims on the defensive about making the choice to have an abortion, I am in favor of erring on the side of greater access.


So I hope that the 20 week rule doesn't hurt women and I am fine at this time with those who want to keep the rule somewhere around 24 weeks.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 31, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I trust you read these before you posted them correct?
> ...



You aren't entitled to kill over 100,000 babies in your statistic .


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Legally speaking, you're mistaken.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 31, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Legally speaking, you're mistaken.



So you believe legality and ethics are one and the same? 

Abortion up until breath is drawn is legal, does that make it ethical? Slavery was legal, was it ethical?

I notice you ducked the issue of when life begins.


----------



## Paulie (Jul 31, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a medical consensus on when the fetus can feel pain?
> ...



That's disturbing.

Can you PM me the link too?


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 31, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Legally speaking, you're mistaken.
> ...



by that same token, outsourcing good paying jobs and hiding massive profits in the Cayman's is legal, but is it ethical? dropping people from their health insurance when they get "too sick" is(or was) legal, but is it ethical? Calling a pregnancy a pre-existing condition in order to deny someone coverage was legal too. Paying wages that people can't afford to live in their own country, and still charging an arm and a leg to the consumer is legal.....

I mean, if we are going to dive into the abyss of ethics and morality, the rabbit hole goes far deeper than a scared teenager who has to make an emotional, life changing decision.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 31, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> by that same token, outsourcing good paying jobs and hiding massive profits in the Cayman's is legal, but is it ethical?



Dunno, but it's an entirely different debate.

The question here is does one person have the ethical right to end the life of another for convenience?

Think about this, can a person take from another everything they have, everything they ever will have, and everything they are, because they are inconvenient?



> dropping people from their health insurance when they get "too sick" is(or was) legal, but is it ethical? Calling a pregnancy a pre-existing condition in order to deny someone coverage was legal too. Paying wages that people can't afford to live in their own country, and still charging an arm and a leg to the consumer is legal.....
> 
> I mean, if we are going to dive into the abyss of ethics and morality, the rabbit hole goes far deeper than a scared teenager who has to make an emotional, life changing decision.



Perhaps, but these duck the subject at hand.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Jul 31, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > by that same token, outsourcing good paying jobs and hiding massive profits in the Cayman's is legal, but is it ethical?
> ...



Granted:  A human should never be allowed to end another human's life for convenience, or else there's really no point in everyone coming together to form a society in the first place:  pure force in whatever hands happened to wield it would rule, period.

I beseech you, for this next bit, to put aside your dogma and try to think about this from a completely objective stance.

One reason that abortion is a trickier ethical question is that one might reasonably classify a fetus as subhuman, perhaps even as a parasite, albeit a temporary one.  During the pregnancy, the fetus -LITERALLY- survives by forceably rerouting its host's (mother's) nutrients, much like a tape worm.  Once the baby is born, this transfer of nutrients becomes a voluntary process (breast feeding), and at this point there can be no question about whether the child is its own entity.  While it's still in the womb, however. . . that little motherfucker is stealing and not paying rent.

That last bit of levity might have offended you, and I would totally understand.  If the comparison of fetuses. . . feti. . . whatever. . . and parasites offended you, however, then you clearly didn't follow the instructions, and you're probably blissfully unaware that your unverifiable morals can't rightly be used as logical premises for argument.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 31, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > by that same token, outsourcing good paying jobs and hiding massive profits in the Cayman's is legal, but is it ethical?
> ...




I thought the question here was at what point between one week and 8 months the line should be drawn for legal abortions.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 31, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Granted:  A human should never be allowed to end another human's life for convenience, or else there's really no point in everyone coming together to form a society in the first place:  pure force in whatever hands happened to wield it would rule, period.



Isn't this the ultimate argument FOR abortion, that I have the power, ergo this imbues the right?



> I beseech you, for this next bit, to put aside your dogma and try to think about this from a completely objective stance.



What dogma?

From an objective and scientific perspective, we are dealing with a human. This is verifiable by conducting a DNA test, that will confirm the species as human.

After 6 weeks gestation we are dealing with a life, per the medical definition of the AMA, heart and brain activity.

We are dealing with separate and distinct being verified by blood type, EEG, and DNA.



> One reason that abortion is a trickier ethical question is that one might reasonably classify a fetus as subhuman, perhaps even as a parasite, albeit a temporary one.



Ah, so here is the dogma.

But of course your claim is utterly false and defies objective reality. 

{an organism that lives on or in *an organism of another species*, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. }

The pro-abort position must trash scientific fact and rely on dogma in order to survive.



> During the pregnancy, the fetus -LITERALLY- survives by forceably rerouting its host's (mother's) nutrients, much like a tape worm.  Once the baby is born, this transfer of nutrients becomes a voluntary process (breast feeding), and at this point there can be no question about whether the child is its own entity.  While it's still in the womb, however. . . that little motherfucker is stealing and not paying rent.



Dogma, I see how you discard fact and objective reality in favor of it.



> That last bit of levity might have offended you, and I would totally understand.



It simply confirms that abortion is a religion to many, and highly irrational.



> If the comparison of fetuses. . . feti. . . whatever. . . and parasites offended you,



Ignorance doesn't offend me in and of itself. I do have concerns about forming public policy based on ignorance.



> however, then you clearly didn't follow the instructions, and you're probably blissfully unaware that your unverifiable morals can't rightly be used as logical premises for argument.



Ethics are not morals, nor are they "unverifiable" as you claim.

Gain some basic knowledge.

Kant's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 31, 2012)

Amelia said:


> I thought the question here was at what point between one week and 8 months the line should be drawn for legal abortions.



That was already answered.

From a medical, scientific, and ethical perspective, at the point that both heart and brain activity are present.

About 6 weeks gestation.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 31, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I trust you read these before you posted them correct?
> ...



How in the world have billions of women managed for eons and ages????


----------



## Luissa (Jul 31, 2012)

hortysir said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



They have had abortions for eons and ages by the way.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 31, 2012)

Luissa said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...



Yep.

I've mellowed with age about abortion.


----------



## Luissa (Jul 31, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the question here was at what point between one week and 8 months the line should be drawn for legal abortions.
> ...



Using the Us method for measuring gestation? Because that would be about  a week after someone finds out.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jul 31, 2012)

I would say, you can abort at any time, just no Government funding for abortions, welfare for people that do it of any kind and no money to any place that provides abortions. 

Let doctors and parents that want to do that do it. Its their life, their choice, not yours.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 31, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Legally speaking, you're mistaken.
> ...



When life begins isn't the issue.  There's lots of life out there, and you probably end quite a bit of life daily every time you wash your hands.  It's when sentient life begins.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 31, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> From a medical, scientific, and ethical perspective, at the point that both heart and brain activity are present.
> 
> About 6 weeks gestation.



No.  At 6 weeks, the fetal "brain" is beginning to form, but it does not function as you imagine a human brain functions.  There are no discernible "brain waves."  Nor has the fetus developed the ability to feel pain.  That doesn't occur until around the 22-23rd weeks.  Up until that point, the nerves aren't really connected to the "brain."


----------



## Plasmaball (Jul 31, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



..........

anyways 20 weeks has always been my cut off, but my compromise has been the issue would be dead if such an agreement was reached.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 31, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the question here was at what point between one week and 8 months the line should be drawn for legal abortions.
> ...



The line cannot be drawn at 6 weeks, because most women don't even know they are pregnant then!


----------



## Luissa (Aug 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Especially when using the US measuring system, that uses first day of your last period to measure how far long you are.


----------



## JagOnDaRoad (Aug 1, 2012)

hortysir said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


Sadly, because of the very debate about abortion, millions of women have stopped to think, hmm, maybe I should get an abortion. The result, millions will never exist. I know some of you are thinking, "Damn, I wish that debate would have been as prominent before I was born....maybe my mom would have spared me the burden of existence." 

More sadly, many were talked into abortion by some C A R I N G (sarcasm intended) creature who convinced them that "it" wasn't really human until "X" weeks, or until it could live outside the womb, or some other arbitrary "life doesn't begin until" starting point. I reiterate, because it seems to have disappeared from this debate, that the point of life beginning is at conception. Abortion occurs naturally for reasons known and unknown, and abortion is perpetrated on life intentionally, with and without good intentions, but with the same result. Many someones were never afforded the opportunity to exist. 

Societal choice? Not really, not yet. It boils down to promotion. All publicity is good publicity said someone. So, pro abortion advocates will keep this debate alive until we become a civil society that demands that abortion on demand becomes what it should be...an awful thing to consider.


----------



## Jackson (Aug 1, 2012)

JagOnDaRoad said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



 



> So, pro abortion advocates will keep this debate alive until we become a civil society that demands that abortion on demand becomes what it should be...an awful thing to consider.



Well said.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 1, 2012)

We already have abortion on demand.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Using the Us method for measuring gestation? Because that would be about  a week after someone finds out.



Facts are not dependent on the outcome you desire. The medical fact is that we have an independent, human life at about 6 weeks gestation.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Using the Us method for measuring gestation? Because that would be about  a week after someone finds out.
> ...



Then remove it and let it live.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> When life begins isn't the issue.



Really?



> There's lots of life out there, and you probably end quite a bit of life daily every time you wash your hands.



Ah, still dehumanizing the victim. Die Juden sind Nagetiere

Tell you what, do a DNA test and report back what species these sub-humans actually are. 



> It's when sentient life begins.



Are humans sentient?


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

hortysir said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



I have, as well.  I used to be 100% anti-abortion.  I had an unplanned pregnancy and did not abort.  But now, I basically think that any woman who wants to kill her unborn fetus probably isn't cut out for motherhood (at that point in time---maybe she will grow into it).


----------



## Gem (Aug 1, 2012)

> Then remove it and let it live.



Really?  Surely you see what a silly "determiner" you've just set up...but I'll play along...

See, I completely agree.  This is why I don't understand why people get so mad when I tell people I'm planning to leave my toddler alone for the two weeks my husband and I go on vacation.  If the little urchin is human - he'll survive just fine for two weeks without me.  And if he doesn't...well, then he wasn't human and my husband and I did nothing wrong...

Or...See, I completely agree.  My best friend was in the hospital a few years ago for Toxic Shock Syndrome.  When her organs starting shutting down they put her in a medically induced coma to try to stop the damage and I was all like, "No way...turn those machines off.  If she can't make it on her own...then she isn't really a human...and I'm not about to be best friends with a non-human!"

Just because a human needs support to live doesn't mean they aren't human.  And implying that because a fetus isn't capable of living outside the womb is a dangerous determiner for pro-life supporters to go by since the time when a baby can survive with medical intervention outside the mother's body is getting pushed up all the time...its currently around 22 weeks.

To say that something isn't human until 22 weeks...unless a brave doctor can somehow save a kid born at 21 weeks...then its human at 21 weeks...isn't really the argument that I would go with...especially since you're NEVER really going to be able to come to a firm determiner of where life begins that everyone will agree on anyway.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Are humans sentient?



When they stop being sentient, we remove them from life support.  This is known as "permanent vegetative state."


----------



## Luissa (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Using the Us method for measuring gestation? Because that would be about  a week after someone finds out.
> ...



You didn't answer my question. 
I am guessing you don't understand that there are two ways of measuring a pregnancy. 
When using the US method you are pregnant 40 weeks, using the method most other countries use you are pregnant 38 weeks.
In the US they go from the day you started your last period, which is obviously not When you conceived. 
When I found I was pregnant they said I was 5 weeks pregnant, when in reality I had only been pregnant for 2 to 3 weeks depending on when I ovulated.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Gem said:


> To say that something isn't human until 22 weeks...unless a brave doctor can somehow save a kid born at 21 weeks...then its human at 21 weeks...isn't really the argument that I would go with...



Strawman.  The fetus is genetically human, but lacks sentience...can't feel pain, isn't self-aware, isn't THINKING.  A mouse has more sentience than a fetus.

Abortion sucks.  I get that.  But, it beats some of the alternatives.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> No.  At 6 weeks, the fetal "brain" is beginning to form, but it does not function as you imagine a human brain functions.  There are no discernible "brain waves."



No brain waves, are absolutely present and measurable. What you claim is false. Medical science isn't kind to abortion



> Nor has the fetus developed the ability to feel pain.



Based on abortionist claims? 



> That doesn't occur until around the 22-23rd weeks.  Up until that point, the nerves aren't really connected to the "brain."



What you claim is not fact. But if it were, does that mean that we can kill at will anyone with a spinal injury? Their nerves aren't really connect to the "brain." Besides, they're inconvenient.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> The line cannot be drawn at 6 weeks, because most women don't even know they are pregnant then!



Facts don't concern themselves with what women know or don't know.

You can demand "fire cannot burn because some women don't even know flames are hot."


----------



## Ravi (Aug 1, 2012)

Gem said:


> > Then remove it and let it live.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not the one that claimed that a six week old fetus was an independent human life.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't get the pain argument. Do many people remember pain they felt in the womb?


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> No brain waves, are absolutely present and measurable. What you claim is false. Medical science isn't kind to abortion



Evidence?  You aren't a doctor.



> Based on abortionist claims?



Based upon child development websites for pregnant moms.



> What you claim is not fact. But if it were, does that mean that we can kill at will anyone with a spinal injury? Their nerves aren't really connect to the "brain." Besides, they're inconvenient.



If it isn't fact, then you can surely rebutt it with evidence.

At what point in fetal development does the fetus sense and become consciously aware of pain?  Not before the 3rd trimester according to a review of literature and research on the subject.



> Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks&#8217; gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks&#8217; gestational age, but these studies did not specifically examine thalamocortical pathways active in pain perception.


http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=294&issue=8&page=947

You aren't operating off of facts here, you're operating off of your preconceived notion of what is happening based upon anti-abortion rhetoric.


----------



## Gem (Aug 1, 2012)

> Strawman. The fetus is genetically human, but lacks sentience...can't feel pain, isn't self-aware, isn't THINKING. A mouse has more sentience than a fetus.
> 
> Abortion sucks. I get that. But, it beats some of the alternatives.



Numerous studies dispute your claims - not to mention the fact that we consistently protect the life of non-self-aware individuals.

As to your last sentence...you assume I'm anti-abortion, and you're wrong.  What I am is against the "hey, we're just sucking out a couple of your extra cells" bullshit that some in the pro-choice movement think makes an effective argument...and it doesn't.  Polls show that the majority of Americans identify as "pro-choice" but with significant qualifications such as "only during the 1st trimester" or "only in cases of rape, incest, life of mother."

The bottom line is, the faster that we are honest about the fact that we are, indeed, ending a human life during its earliest stages of development...then we can nip the endless "Its a life!  No its not!  Its a life!  No its not!" nonsense that makes up 99% of the abortion debate and everyone knows will get us NOWHERE...and debate why allowing abortion to be legal in certain situations is necessary.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Especially when using the US measuring system, that uses first day of your last period to measure how far long you are.



Words have meanings - gestation is a defined term.

6 weeks gestation means 6 weeks from fertilization.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Gem said:


> Numerous studies dispute your claims - not to mention the fact that we consistently protect the life of non-self-aware individuals.



I don't protect the lives of permanently vegetative humans, I think they have stopped being human.  And, the studies on the subject are summarized here:

JAMA Network | JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association | Fetal PainA Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence



> Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks&#8217; gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks&#8217; gestational age, but these studies did not specifically examine thalamocortical pathways active in pain perception.



I notice that you didn't link to the studies that prove your point.  *Edited.*



> As to your last sentence...you assume I'm anti-abortion, and you're wrong.  What I am is against the "hey, we're just sucking out a couple of your extra cells" bullshit that some in the pro-choice movement think makes an effective argument...and it doesn't.  Polls show that the majority of Americans identify as "pro-choice" but with significant qualifications such as "only during the 1st trimester" or "only in cases of rape, incest, life of mother."



We know more about fetal development than we've ever known.  The simple fact is that a fetus is not developed enough to be human, as most of us think of the concept, until a particular point.  How that makes you feel isn't my problem, because I don't have to persuade you. Abortion is legal, and is likely to remain legal forever.  It is not in anyone's best interests to have an additional million unwanted children dumped into the U.S. annually.  Our social welfare systems can't handle the unwanted children who've already been born.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> When they stop being sentient, we remove them from life support.  This is known as "permanent vegetative state."



Individuals are not sentient, species are. Humans are sentient as a species. *Edited.*


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > When they stop being sentient, we remove them from life support.  This is known as "permanent vegetative state."
> ...



Now that your other claims have been proven false, you've shifted the goalpost.

False.  Humans stop being sentient when their brains are not functional.  Sentience is a conscious characteristic, it is not present when the brain is not functional.

Nor is it a genetic one.  Unless you'd like to prove that claim?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

Luissa said:


> You didn't answer my question.
> I am guessing you don't understand that there are two ways of measuring a pregnancy.



I'm guessing that some are so fanatical in support of abortion that words like "gestation," which define the method of measuring pregnancy, fly right past.



> When using the US method you are pregnant 40 weeks, using the method most other countries use you are pregnant 38 weeks.
> In the US they go from the day you started your last period, which is obviously not When you conceived.







> When I found I was pregnant they said I was 5 weeks pregnant, when in reality I had only been pregnant for 2 to 3 weeks depending on when I ovulated.



When I used the word "gestation,' what I meant was "gestation."


----------



## Ravi (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > When they stop being sentient, we remove them from life support.  This is known as "permanent vegetative state."
> ...



Definition of SENTIENT
: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 

Now you're just being silly.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Tell me, uncensored.  How long would you want to be maintained on life support in a permanently vegetative state?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Strawman.  The fetus is genetically human, but lacks sentience...can't feel pain, isn't self-aware, isn't THINKING.



There we go.

As long as we can confer or revoke "sentience" then any atrocity is permissible.

The logic that every slaughter in history is based on. If the Kulacks are rats, then why should they not be killed.



> A mouse has more sentience than a fetus.



Nice.

Gee, no one has dehumanized victims and called them "rats" before.

*Edited.*  Only her abortionist knows for sure.



> Abortion sucks.



It appears to be a religion to many. 



> I get that.  But, it beats some of the alternatives.



Life?

*Administrative Note. Stop with the Digs ans Put Downs in this Forum*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

Luissa said:


> I don't get the pain argument. Do many people remember pain they felt in the womb?



Not if they are killed in the womb.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Strawman.  The fetus is genetically human, but lacks sentience...can't feel pain, isn't self-aware, isn't THINKING.
> ...



*Edited.*



I think I'm beginning to like the CDZ.


----------



## Gem (Aug 1, 2012)

> The simple fact is that a fetus is not developed enough to be human, as most of us think of the concept, until a particular point.


"As most of us think of the concept," puts the lie to your statement.  You are qualifying that because make a claim that "most people"  agree with you...which may or may not be true...that a fetus isn't human.  This is just silly....but in the end, it really doesn't matter, because your next statement appears to prove that you aren't really interested in discussing the issue with someone who might disagree with you.



> How that makes you feel isn't my problem, because I don't have to persuade you. Abortion is legal, and is likely to remain legal forever. It is not in anyone's best interests to have an additional million unwanted children dumped into the U.S. annually. Our social welfare systems can't handle the unwanted children who've already been born.



I've stated that I support legal abortion, repeatedly in this debate.  But your statement above amounts to little more than..."Nah nah ne nah nah...abortion's legal so deal with it."  Which is ludicrous, since I support it remaining legal...you just aren't willing to hear it as you continue to do exactly what stops pro-choice supporters from moving this debate forward in a useful way.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

> The simple fact is that a fetus is not developed enough to be human, as most of us think of the concept, until a particular point.



If you'd bothered to read the link study, you'd realize that my views were shaped by brain development research and legal practice in dealing with brain injury.



> I've stated that I support legal abortion, repeatedly in this debate.  But your statement above amounts to little more than..."Nah nah ne nah nah...abortion's legal so deal with it."  Which is ludicrous, since I support it remaining legal...you just aren't willing to hear it as you continue to do exactly what stops pro-choice supporters from moving this debate forward in a useful way.



If you have an argument, put forward your argument.  I'm not really interested in your ideas on how I should spin my own to be better in line with your opinions.

But thanks for the feedback.  It was...semi-interesting.  You've provided no evidence of your points and claims, and you aren't a subject matter expert.  Thus, your opinions don't carry much weight with me.


----------



## Intense (Aug 1, 2012)

Two Questions. 

What is a Soul?

When is it first present in a Human Life?


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Intense said:


> Two Questions.
> 
> What is a Soul?
> 
> When is it first present in a Human Life?



Souls are metaphysical constructs that don't exist in a scientific sense.  So, they don't really matter in this discussion, except to metaphysical adherents whose views aren't shaped by science or logic.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

What a soul probably looks like to you, in practical terms, though, Intense, is self-awareness.

When you see a human in a permanent vegetative state, who is only being kept alive via life support, where is that person's soul?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Evidence?  You aren't a doctor.



Are you?

The brain develops at around 6 weeks. Between 6 and 12 is a period of extremely rapid growth for all organs, particularly the nervous system (which you incorrectly claimed was not "attached" )

Measuring a traditional EEG can is is done on a fetus;

BBC NEWS | Health | Baby brainwaves measured in womb



> Based upon child development websites for pregnant moms.



Have you ever heard the term, "cite?"



> If it isn't fact, then you can surely rebutt it with evidence.



This is supposedly the "clean debate zone," so let's get a few things straight; when engaging in a scholarly debate of any sort, the onus of support lies with the claimant.

You may enjoy tossing our spurious claims and demanding that others proved them false, but that doesn't cut it in debate.

{ "Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing." If I say, "Anything is possible" I must admit the possibility that the statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always be specific, and can only exist in contrast to things which cannot properly be doubted. }

Dictionary of Logical Fallacies



> At what point in fetal development does the fetus sense and become consciously aware of pain?



At what age did the Buddha become enlightened?

Not relevant to a subject of medical fact.



> Not before the 3rd trimester according to a review of literature and research on the subject.



So there is no injunction against killing those who you don't perceive to feel pain?

Quadriplegics the nation over will be pleased to learn that killing them at will is now acceptable.



> Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks gestational age, but these studies did not specifically examine thalamocortical pathways active in pain perception.
> JAMA Network | JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association | Fetal PainA Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence



Well, you finally offer a cite.

I'm not sure you actually read the source, but at least you swayed from the "Alan Guetmacher Institute" for a moment.

From the AMA that you cited;

{In a study of 8 human fetuses, mediodorsal thalamic afferents were first observed in the cortical plate at 22 weeks developmental age (24 weeks gestational age)}

At the very least, 24 weeks gestational does feel pain. Again, from your cite, which apparently you failed to read.



> You aren't operating off of facts here, you're operating off of your preconceived notion of what is happening based upon anti-abortion rhetoric.



That's amusing, since many of the anti-abortion people view me as pro-abortion.

The fact is that I am basing my opinion on fact, and only fact. Based on those, I support things like RU486, "Plan B" and other abortificants because the facts show that life does not begin at conception, but those same facts also refute the pro-abort hard line that you take. I put the line at about 6 weeks. Were it set at 8, I wouldn't quibble. 

However, the arbitrary declaration that some humans are "not human" by those who wish to kill them, is a bit too reminiscent of Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Ho for my taste. Never have I seen institutional slaughter where the victims are not first dehumanized.

If you want to kill, make a valid argument for killing. dehumanizing the victim falls short of that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Now that your other claims have been proven false, you've shifted the goalpost.
> 
> False.  Humans stop being sentient when their brains are not functional.  Sentience is a conscious characteristic, it is not present when the brain is not functional.
> 
> Nor is it a genetic one.  Unless you'd like to prove that claim?



LOL


Utter nonsense. Sentience is a matter of species. Humans are a sentient species. Those who deny sentience to particular humans are fiends, seeking to justify their homicidal desires, but in utter defiance of the term.

Humans are sentient, sow bugs are not. Dogs are highly argued about. Dehumanizing the victim is common for those who wish to slaughter large numbers of their fellow humans, though your little rant is particularly absurd.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Tell me, uncensored.  How long would you want to be maintained on life support in a permanently vegetative state?



{A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

    Topic A is under discussion.
    Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
    Topic A is abandoned. 

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. }

Fallacy: Red Herring


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> *Edited.*
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'm beginning to like the CDZ.



Really?

LOL


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Are you?
> 
> The brain develops at around 6 weeks. Between 6 and 12 is a period of extremely rapid growth for all organs, particularly the nervous system (which you incorrectly claimed was not "attached" )



It is not functional in the sense that you believe it is (see article I provided twice in this thread which you clearly have not read).



> Measuring a traditional EEG can is is done on a fetus;
> 
> BBC NEWS | Health | Baby brainwaves measured in womb



From  your link, which you apparently did not read:



> To test the device, 10 pregnant women *with foetuses aged between 28 and 36 weeks* leaned into an array of 151 sensors around their "bumps".



Brain waves are not measurable in a fetus of 6-12 weeks, because the brain as you think of it does not exist at that point.  It is a clump of cells the size of a sesame seed that has only begun to form.



> Have you ever heard the term, "cite?"



See the last post I made to you, it includes a link to a summary of research on fetal brain development.



> So there is no injunction against killing those who you don't perceive to feel pain?



I see removing a fetus from the womb in the same that that I see removing an adult in a permanent vegetative state from life support.  That person is no longer sentient.



> Quadriplegics the nation over will be pleased to learn that killing them at will is now acceptable.



Are quadriplegics sentient?  



> From the AMA that you cited;
> 
> {In a study of 8 human fetuses, mediodorsal thalamic afferents were first observed in the cortical plate at 22 weeks&#8217; developmental age (24 weeks&#8217; gestational age)}
> 
> At the very least, 24 weeks gestational does feel pain. Again, from your cite, which apparently you failed to read.



This is why I support making abortion illegal somewhere between the 20th and 24th week.  At that point, the fetus's development is sufficient that removing it from the womb becomes murder.  Sentience is the difference between the cow you will eat for lunch today and a child you tuck into bed at night.



> The fact is that I am basing my opinion on fact, and only fact. Based on those, I support things like RU486, "Plan B" and other abortificants because the facts show that life does not begin at conception, but those same facts also refute the pro-abort hard line that you take. I put the line at about 6 weeks. Were it set at 8, I wouldn't quibble.



See above for where I set the line, based upon research on brain development and the odds for fetal survival outside the womb.



> However, the arbitrary declaration that some humans are "not human" by those who wish to kill them, is a bit too reminiscent of Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Ho for my taste. Never have I seen institutional slaughter where the victims are not first dehumanized.



That decision is made all the time in medical practice when dealing with patients with non-functioning brains.  It's not dehumanization, it is simply a medical decision based upon sentience.  When a person stops being sentient, he/she stops being human.  That's why it is standard medical practice to consider removing such patients from life support.


----------



## Intense (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Two Questions.
> ...



I think it does matter here. One having a Soul, would put them in the Human category, like it or not. People believing in the existence of the Soul outnumber people who don't by how much? As convenient as it is for you to dismiss the existence of the Soul, you are greatly outnumbered. By what authority or right do you claim to dismiss it? Consider also that because Science can neither prove or disprove it's existence, the problem there may actually be with Sciences, limits. There are many Scientists that believe in God. Are they disqualified because of their belief?


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Now that your other claims have been proven false, you've shifted the goalpost.
> ...



Humans who don't demonstrate sentience aren't sentient.  It's an individual-level behavior.  What do you recommend doing with patients who are brain damaged beyond recovery? Should they be maintained indefinitely on life support because they were once human?  I don't mythologize our species.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Intense said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



It may matter to you, but there is zero evidence for souls.  Unless you wish to provide some, the topic is largely irrelevant to the discussion.  If you wish to contend that souls exist and should factor into the discussion, the burden of proving this contention rests on you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Humans who don't demonstrate sentience aren't sentient.



The party will determine tests to demonstrate sentience, showers will be constructed for those who fail to meet party standards.



> It's an individual-level behavior.



If one is rewriting the language.



> What do you recommend doing with patients who are brain damaged beyond recovery?



{Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

    Topic A is under discussion.
    Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
    Topic A is abandoned. 

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. }

{*Fallacy: Red Herring*




> Should they be maintained indefinitely on life support because they were once human?  I don't mythologize our species.



Under the laws of the old republic, there was a clause;

{No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, *nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. }

Before you can kill another human, there must be due process.

Would you agree that judicial review on a case by case basis is warranted?


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Humans who don't demonstrate sentience aren't sentient.
> ...



prove that sentience is innate in the human species, then we'll talk.  Brain damaged patients are relevant, because like the unborn fetus up until around 24 weeks, *they do not have sentience*.  We feel no qualms about pulling a patient in a permanent vegetative state from a life support machine, because we know that, in human terms, they are no longer living.  They don't think.  They don't feel.  They don't sense or perceive.

The same is true for the fetus up until more than halfway of the pregnancy.  A mouse has greater sentience, can feel more pain, than a fetus who is under 20 weeks.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 1, 2012)

I draw the line at Government funding of baby killing.....

Life begins at conception and that not open to debate....The question is do you support the right for women to kill innocent babies or not. I dont support it. I will not fund it and find the US government using my tax money to fund it in any form....I am not a progressive fascist so I don't believe that life is cheapo and disposable.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> prove that sentience is innate in the human species, then we'll talk.  Brain damaged patients are relevant, because like the unborn fetus up until around 24 weeks, *they do not have sentience*.  We feel no qualms about pulling a patient in a permanent vegetative state from a life support machine, because we know that, in human terms, they are no longer living.  They don't think.  They don't feel.  They don't sense or perceive.
> 
> The same is true for the fetus up until more than halfway of the pregnancy.  A mouse has greater sentience, can feel more pain, than a fetus who is under 20 weeks.



Sentience is a concept to distinguish the *ability* to think.  Sentience is a philosophical construct which you are attempting to use as a straw man. However, sentience has never been applied on a case by case basis. Arguments by Buddhists that birds or cats are sentient are the subject of debate, arguments of whether the neighbor you hate is sentient is of no debate at all. Humans, as a species, posses the ability to think and reason, ergo humans, as a species, are sentient.

You simply are misapplying the term in a desperate attempt to erect a straw man.  Your entire argument rests on your ability to dehumanize your intended victim.  As such, you've utterly lost any rational debate.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

The concept that a human must be sentient in order to have a right to life is just another way the left is edging us towards acceptance of killing off those they consider a "drain" on resources. They start with the unborn, they move forward to adult coma victims, and along the way pick up the elderly, the depressed, the lonely, the disabled, all while speaking in soothing tones about how "civilized" it is to kill people who "want" to die, or who are not able to "actively contribute to society". 

Our right to life does not rest on whether or not we are "sentient", it never has. People at the end of their lives have the "right" be be allowed to die on their own, not to be killed, and babies have the "right" to continue to live, so they can continue to develop into the sentient beings they are already on their way to becoming.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Sentience is a concept to distinguish the *ability* to think.



No.  Sentience is the ability TO THINK and TO FEEL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience 

http://www.d.umn.edu/~dcole/sense5.html


C.S. Lewis said:  " 'Life' in the biological sense has nothing to do with good and evil *until sentience appears*."..."No doubt, living plants react to injuries differently from inorganic matter; but an anaesthetised human body reacts more differently still and such reactions do not prove sentience."

Some humans, on an individual basis, cannot think or feel.  Their brain does not function, either because it isn't developed or because of brain injury.  When their brain stops functioning (persistent vegetative state), we remove life support because they have lost their humanity (the ability to think or feel).

You're attempting to imply something else, and you need to provide evidence for that idea.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The concept that a human must be sentient in order to have a right to life is just another way the left is edging us towards acceptance of killing off those they consider a "drain" on resources.



Actually, it is an acknowledgement of what we now know about brain function that we didn't know back in the dark ages when people thought of sentience as "a soul."

Sentience, as a concept, developed in the 18th century amongst philosophers who were trying to determine what it means to be human.  Think Rousseau:  "I think, therefore, I am." 

When the thinking stops (when brain function stops), we stop thinking of a hunk of meat as human.  At that point, it is a cadaver, or will be one shortly.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

Our Declaration claims that one of the things that are "self-evident" is that all men are CREATED equal. They are equal from their creation. Equality is not dependent upon intelligence, or wealth, or stage of development.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The concept that a human must be sentient in order to have a right to life is just another way the left is edging us towards acceptance of killing off those they consider a "drain" on resources.
> ...


 
I don't acknowledge that. Can you support it?


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 1, 2012)

Supporting Abortion and Planned Parenthood means supporting racism.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I've already supported it.  Read up the  thread.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Our Declaration claims that one of the things that are "self-evident" is that all men are CREATED equal. They are equal from their creation. Equality is not dependent upon intelligence, or wealth, *or stage of development*.



I see what you did there.  The declaration was never intended as a statement on pre-born life.  When the statement was made, it referred only to adult males.

Also, this is a red herring.  If you wish to make this argument, I'd advise creating a new thread.


----------



## bobcollum (Aug 1, 2012)

thanatos144 said:


> Supporting Abortion and Planned Parenthood means supporting racism.



Link?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

No, support that the belief that people must be sentient to have a right to life. I know what sentience is. My point is that the assumption that someone must be sentient to have a right to the protection of the law is not true. I'm not challenging the definition of sentience. I'm challenging the statement that people must be sentient to be protected.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Our Declaration claims that one of the things that are "self-evident" is that all men are CREATED equal. They are equal from their creation. Equality is not dependent upon intelligence, or wealth, *or stage of development*.
> ...


 
What do you think they meant by "created"? 

"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."

And the argument belongs here. It's a rebuttal to your assertion that humans must be sentient to enjoy protection of the law.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 1, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Supporting Abortion and Planned Parenthood means supporting racism.
> ...



You need a link to the beliefs of Margret Sanger? If you dont know what your supporting how can you support it? 

The Truth About Margaret Sanger

http://blackquillandink.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/margaret-sanger-quotes.pdf

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood&#39;s Racist Founder - YouTube


----------



## bobcollum (Aug 1, 2012)

thanatos144 said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



This doesn't provide any evidence to your claim.

So is the problem with many opinions.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 1, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...



Yes all you can do is ignore and deny cause the truth is hard.


----------



## bobcollum (Aug 1, 2012)

thanatos144 said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



You've potentially proven that a woman that died in 1966 was racist. 

Your initial claim covered a much broader area.


----------



## manifold (Aug 1, 2012)

thanatos144 said:


> Supporting Abortion and Planned Parenthood means supporting racism.



I don't follow.


----------



## manifold (Aug 1, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Supporting Abortion and Planned Parenthood means supporting racism.
> ...



He's drawing a subjective inference, of some kind, which by definition makes it his opinion.

I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt and assume he really does hold the opinions he posts.

Where he loses me is how he connects the two.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Aug 1, 2012)

thanatos144 said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Easy there with the generalities, tiger.  I'm pro-choice in terms of what I think the Federal govt's stance should be and pro-life in my own personal, moral values.

I don't support using tax payer dollars to fund abortion, and I don't support the use of abortion to forcefully cull the herd for racist or economic (or any) reasons.

Don't tell me what I do and don't support, please 

Edit:  Quoted the wrong post.  Correct post'er, though.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> No.  Sentience is the ability TO THINK and TO FEEL.
> 
> Sentience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> D. Cole: Sense and Sentience



You are still confused. 

Being able to feel has no impact on the equation, the key word here is "ability." 

Humans, as a species have the ability to think and feel. Regardless of whether certain members of the species lack the ability to think and feel, the SPECIES has this as defining characteristic.

We cannot declare that a sociopath, lacking empathy, is not human. (You might, but doing so is irrational.)



> C.S. Lewis said:  " 'Life' in the biological sense has nothing to do with good and evil *until sentience appears*."..."No doubt, living plants react to injuries differently from inorganic matter; but an anaesthetised human body reacts more differently still and such reactions do not prove sentience."



So you would claim that a person anesthetized forfeits all rights and can be killed at will?



> Some humans, on an individual basis, cannot think or feel.  Their brain does not function,



Yet civilized societies continue to regard them as human. 



> either because it isn't developed or because of brain injury.  When their brain stops functioning (persistent vegetative state), we remove life support because they have lost their humanity (the ability to think or feel).



The ability to feel is lost in many spinal injuries, is your argument that the inability to feel renders the person "non-human" and without legal protection?



> You're attempting to imply something else, and you need to provide evidence for that idea.



I don't imply anything, I am openly stating that the philosophical construct of "sentient" is applicable to a species, not on an individual basis. The desire to dehumanize intended victims notwithstanding.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 1, 2012)

*Where should the line be drawn on abortion? 
*

Coat hangers...  definitely no coat hangers...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Actually, it is an acknowledgement of what we now know about brain function that we didn't know back in the dark ages when people thought of sentience as "a soul."
> 
> Sentience, as a concept, developed in the 18th century amongst philosophers who were trying to determine what it means to be human.  Think Rousseau:  "I think, therefore, I am."
> 
> When the thinking stops (when brain function stops), we stop thinking of a hunk of meat as human.  At that point, it is a cadaver, or will be one shortly.



The extension being, "you don't think, therefor I am justified in killing you." Not exactly what Rousseau postulated, is it?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

thanatos144 said:


> You need a link to the beliefs of Margret Sanger? If you dont know what your supporting how can you support it?
> 
> The Truth About Margaret Sanger
> 
> ...



Classic causation failure;

Syllogism:

Sanger was a racist
Sanger promoted abortion
therefor, abortion is racist.

Do you see the flaw?

In fact, Sanger promoted abortion to FURTHER her racism, as a tool rather than as an outcome. Sanger wanted to abort black babies because she viewed blacks as "mud people." Abortion didn't form her view, Eugenics did, abortion was the REACTION to her views, not the cause.

Thus, causation fails and your syllogism along with it.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

manifold said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Supporting Abortion and Planned Parenthood means supporting racism.
> ...


 
The connection is the numbers.

Blacks are targeted by Planned Parenthood, both here and abroad, and are 3x as likely to have abortions. That, along with the fact that Sanger's stated mission was to eliminate undesirables (which she stated were black and brown people) shows a link between racism and Planned Parenthood.

"Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America."

"Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." 

http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The extension being, "you don't think, therefor I am justified in killing you." Not exactly what Rousseau postulated, is it?



Are hospitals justified in pulling the plug on life support of a permanently vegetative adult?

The parallels are the same.  When brain function ceases, the person is considered medically dead.  So, in other words, it is a direct extension of Rousseau:  "I do not think, therefore, *I am not*."  I, of course, being the awareness of self and any other thing.  

The thinking is what makes us human.  It doesn't have to be high level thinking, but that thinking has to occur, otherwise, it's still life, but it isn't really human life.  What separates humans from mice or dogs or cows or cockroaches is sentience.  You recognize this separation, you just believe that fetuses are somehow mystically more important than an adult human in a vegetative state.

I've provided clear evidence that fetuses are not able to sense ANYTHING until around the 20th week.  They don't hear, feel, think, see or perceive. Up until the brain develops to a degree of complexity that these tasks are possible, these higher level thinking functions do not exist.  Thus, terminating a pregnancy before the point of sentience is not the same, morally, as killing someone.  Because, in order to kill someone, *  they have to be sentient*.  Otherwise, it isn't isn't killing.  It's dinner.

You have zero problems with dinner, you're just having religious objections to being classified in the same way that you classify other living beings.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

Not really, as a person in a persistent vegetative state is never going to become a walking, talking, thinking person ever again. Persistent vegetative state isn't a development stage that someone will grow out of if left alone. If it was, that would paint a completely different picture.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You are still confused.
> 
> Being able to feel has no impact on the equation, the key word here is "ability."
> 
> Humans, as a species have the ability to think and feel. Regardless of whether certain members of the species lack the ability to think and feel, the SPECIES has this as defining characteristic.



Humans after 24 weeks have this ability.  Before that point, they don't.  That's where the line exists.



> We cannot declare that a sociopath, lacking empathy, is not human. (You might, but doing so is irrational.)



A sociopath can see, touch, taste, smell, and think.  A 20-week old fetus can't do any of those things.  But, we do declare that sociopaths who commit serious crimes aren't human and should be culled from the herd.  I doubt that you have a problem with that sort of culling.  So, you only value SOME human life, not all.



> So you would claim that a person anesthetized forfeits all rights and can be killed at will?



Strawman.  Try reading the quote again, and let's see if you can figure out Lewis's point without me having to explain it.




> Yet civilized societies continue to regard them as human.



Civilized is a subjective term.  What is regarded as human is cultural.  Infanticide was normal throughout human history in many so-called civilized societies.



> The ability to feel is lost in many spinal injuries, is your argument that the inability to feel renders the person "non-human" and without legal protection?



NO, because the person who's lost sensory ability retains the ability to think.



> I don't imply anything, I am openly stating that the philosophical construct of "sentient" is applicable to a species, not on an individual basis. The desire to dehumanize intended victims notwithstanding.



You are creating a new definition of the term which is not standard and designed only to support your paradigm.  *Edited*
Provide a source which substantiates your attempt to redefine the term, and we can discuss it.  Otherwise, try to keep up.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Not really, as a person in a persistent vegetative state is never going to become a walking, talking, thinking person ever again. Persistent vegetative state isn't a development stage that someone will grow out of if left alone. If it was, that would paint a completely different picture.



The rights of sentient humans outweigh the rights of non-sentient humans.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

Support that.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Support that.



I don't have to.  The Supreme Court already did, in Rowe v. Wade (1973).  I support the role of the supreme court in interpreting the rights of Americans as outlined in our constitution and bill of rights.


Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests &#8211; protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life". Following its earlier logic, the Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician*. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health. The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician's right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest &#8211; not women's rights in general.[25] The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.[26]



Roe v. Wade explicitly stated that in the first trimester, when abortion is safer than childbirth, and the child is non-viable, the mother's rights trump that of the child.  In the third trimester, when the fetus becomes viable (and sentience occurs), the right of the fetus then is equal to the mother's rights, and the pregnancy cannot be terminated unless the mother's heatlh is in jeopardy.

My views are in line with Roe v. Wade.  You wish to push for a state incursion that significantly exceeds Roe v. Wade, thus the onus of proving the need for this change rests with you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Are hospitals justified in pulling the plug on life support of a permanently vegetative adult?



*Edited.*

Is a permanently vegetative adult going to be perfectly self sustaining in 6 months?

Otherwise, you have created another false dichotomy.



> The parallels are the same.



Not even close. One has no chance of recovery, while the other is undamaged. The baby is perfectly healthy.



> When brain function ceases, the person is considered medically dead.  So, in other words, it is a direct extension of Rousseau:  "I do not think, therefore, *I am not*."  I, of course, being the awareness of self and any other thing.



I find it telling that you gravitate to Rousseau; he who declared that the underclasses were "Ape Men" not worthy of civil protection, that property rights were a farce; and like all of the left, a totalitarian opposed to the very concept of liberty.

{The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked. Then only, when the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and right of appetite, does man, who so far had considered only himself, find that he is forced to act on different principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations. Although, in this state, he deprives himself of some advantages which he got from nature, he gains in return others so great, his faculties are so stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul so uplifted, that, did not the abuses of this new condition often degrade him below that which he left, he would be bound to bless continually the happy moment which took him from it for ever, and, instead of a stupid and unimaginative animal, made him an intelligent being and a man} 



> The thinking is what makes us human.



Rousseau postulates that obedience to rulers is what makes us human. Without submission to rulers, we are but a " stupid and unimaginative animal."  Rousseau promoted a dictatorship of the proletarians a full century before Marx and was unquestionably the catalyst for many of the ideals that would ultimately form Marxism.

Perhaps love of abortion is simply a manifestation of the hatred one feels for the species in general?



> It doesn't have to be high level thinking, but that thinking has to occur, otherwise, it's still life, but it isn't really human life.  What separates humans from mice or dogs or cows or cockroaches is sentience.  You recognize this separation, you just believe that fetuses are somehow mystically more important than an adult human in a vegetative state.



*Edited.*

"The worth of a man is not what he is, but the potential of what he may become," - Voltaire

We are more than a snapshot in time, otherwise one would be justified in killing those asleep or who have fallen ill.



> I've provided clear evidence that fetuses are not able to sense ANYTHING until around the 20th week.



You have provided the limitations of our technology to determine precisely what developments are present or absent.

At 6 weeks gestation, we have DNA that confirms the species as human, blood type distinct from the mother, a functioning brain and a functioning heart. Further, we have irrefutable evidence that the condition will IMPROVE, rather than degrade.

Your position is spurious and defies scientific fact, a justification made for a conclusion held, rather than a conclusion drawn from the available facts.



> They don't hear, feel, think, see or perceive.



{Ann Byrd began reading her baby Dr. Seuss books as soon as she became pregnant. She read emails aloud at work and her husband recited whatever he was reading in bed. She also played the fetus a classical music CD for 30 minutes each day. &#8220;My husband and I have a long-standing joke that our gene pool has a little too much chlorine in it,&#8221; she says. &#8220;We were going to do everything we could to make him as smart as possible.&#8221;

She believes her son recognized that music when he was born. &#8220;It was the CD we used to calm him,&#8221; Byrd says. Today, the 4 year old&#8217;s vocabulary is advanced and he tested into his district&#8217;s gifted program. &#8220;There&#8217;s no proof that any of this did anything for his intelligence, but I honestly believe it played a role,&#8221; she says.

While babies may recognize the stories they were read or music they listened to in the womb, experts say there&#8217;s no evidence that prenatal exposure to classical music or books will make your baby smarter. We do know that once they&#8217;re born, babies know the sound of their mother&#8217;s voice and prefer hearing it. They also prefer to hear whatever language she&#8217;s been speaking, since they&#8217;re familiar with those sounds.}

Pregnancy Magazine | Baby's First Classroom



> Up until the brain develops to a degree of complexity that these tasks are possible, these higher level thinking functions do not exist.  Thus, terminating a pregnancy before the point of sentience is not the same, morally, as killing someone.  Because, in order to kill someone, *  they have to be sentient*.  Otherwise, it isn't isn't killing.  It's dinner.



*Edited.* you abuse the word "sentient." Which is the CAPACITY not the actuality.



> You have zero problems with dinner, you're just having religious objections to being classified in the same way that you classify other living beings.



*Edited.*

The last refuge of the pro-abort.

Tell us, which "religion" is it that I follow?


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Another straw man.



It isn't a strawman.  Human viability/sentience is determined by brain function.  This is the legal standard used by Roe v. Wade to determine that the rights of the mother trumped the rights of the fetus until the fetus attained viability.  



> Otherwise, you have created another false dichotomy.



My argument isn't a false dichotomy.  



> Not even close. One has no chance of recovery, while the other is undamaged. The baby is perfectly healthy.



The baby isn't a baby yet.  It's a non-sentient fetus who is who has no rights.



> I find it telling that you gravitate to Rousseau; he who declared that the underclasses were "Ape Men" not worthy of civil protection, that property rights were a farce; and like all of the left, a totalitarian opposed to the very concept of liberty.





> {The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked. Then only, when the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and right of appetite, does man, who so far had considered only himself, find that he is forced to act on different principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations. Although, in this state, he deprives himself of some advantages which he got from nature, he gains in return others so great, his faculties are so stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul so uplifted, that, did not the abuses of this new condition often degrade him below that which he left, he would be bound to bless continually the happy moment which took him from it for ever, and, instead of a stupid and unimaginative animal, made him an intelligent being and a man}
> 
> Rousseau postulates that obedience to rulers is what makes us human. Without submission to rulers, we are but a " stupid and unimaginative animal."  Rousseau promoted a dictatorship of the proletarians a full century before Marx and was unquestionably the catalyst for many of the ideals that would ultimately form Marxism.



The above quote is a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" and is irrelevant to this discussion.



> We are more than a snapshot in time, otherwise one would be justified in killing those asleep or who have fallen ill.


Strawman



> You have provided the limitations of our technology to determine precisely what developments are present or absent.



Multiple studies have documented the absence of fetal sentience prior to 24 weeks and in some cases, after 24 weeks.  Thanks to neo-natal care capacity increases, research has been conducted on fetal response in premature infants.



> At 6 weeks gestation, we have DNA that confirms the species as human, blood type distinct from the mother, a functioning brain and a functioning heart. Further, we have irrefutable evidence that the condition will IMPROVE, rather than degrade.



The rights of a 6 week old clump of cells are not equal to the rights of a fully functioning adult woman.



> {Ann Byrd began reading her baby Dr. Seuss books as soon as she became pregnant. She read emails aloud at work and her husband recited whatever he was reading in bed. She also played the fetus a classical music CD for 30 minutes each day. &#8220;My husband and I have a long-standing joke that our gene pool has a little too much chlorine in it,&#8221; she says. &#8220;We were going to do everything we could to make him as smart as possible.&#8221;
> 
> She believes her son recognized that music when he was born. &#8220;It was the CD we used to calm him,&#8221; Byrd says. Today, the 4 year old&#8217;s vocabulary is advanced and he tested into his district&#8217;s gifted program. &#8220;There&#8217;s no proof that any of this did anything for his intelligence, but I honestly believe it played a role,&#8221; she says.



Reaching for straws here?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

Abortion before the fetus is viable is no one's business but the woman's. 

I don't know why so many people believe they have the right to control women's bodies but if you turned the question around ... Ask who has the right to control YOUR body, you would say the same. Your body is yours and only you should have control over what you do with it. 

No exceptions.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

Your body is yours.

A child's body is not your body.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

Catz please provide the law that says only sentient humans are afforded rights established by the Declaration of Independence....

Still waiting.

Meanwhile, if sentience is the only thing that determines whether a being is afforded protection of the law, then animals would have equal rights, as they are sentient beings.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Your body is yours.
> 
> A child's body is not your body.



IF it can survive without the woman.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

No, that's not true. If an unborn baby was just a part of the mother's body, it wouldn't be called an abortion, it would be an amputation.

Abortion means to kill the fetus. If you can kill the baby without killing the mother, it is a separate life. Therefore, she has no right to kill it.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Catz please provide the law that says only sentient humans are afforded rights established by the Declaration of Independence....



The Declaration of Independence applies to adults.  Children don't have rights, per se, but are considered property of their parents until they turn 18 by U.S. law.  Most of the rights elaborated in the constitution do not apply to children.  Children are not considered to necessarily have a right to free expression, a right to free speech, a right to privacy, a right to free association, or a right to keep and bear arms.  This is why schools are able to implement dress code policies, etc.,; why buying a firearm has an age limit; and why parents/legal guardians have to sign their consent for children to receive services/medical treatment, etc.  It's also why you can search your children's rooms on an at-will basis, legally speaking.

Are you espousing a position of being a child liberationist?  That's interesting, but not really relevant in this thread.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Therefore, she has no right to kill it.



Actually, this is wishful thinking on your part.  The Supreme Court has determined that she does, within the first and second trimesters.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

I'm not talking about whether she can legally kill it. I'm talking about whether she has the right to, and rights are not determined by law. If they were, then human rights violations could not take place if they are legal. But we know that they do.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I'm not talking about whether she can legally kill it. I'm talking about whether she has the right to, and rights are not determined by law. If they were, then human rights violations could not take place if they are legal. But we know that they do.



Actually, the only role of the Supreme Court is to interpret legislation in the context of rights as outlined in the constitution and bill of rights.  So, when the court decided in Roe v. Wade, they clarifying the balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the state.  

Civics ftw.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

As I said, rights exist separate from law.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 1, 2012)

Intense said:


> Two Questions.
> 
> What is a Soul?
> 
> When is it first present in a Human Life?


I'd say a soul is a spiritual presence of a human being

I associate life beginning when a fertilized egg attaches to the mother's body and begins the process of growing when being nurtured by her body's agreement to do so by chemically accepting its attachment and beginning a process of feeding it.

These are not conscious decisions. They are physical decisions, detached from reason by chemical messages on cell membranes. Our forbears called it the miracle of God.

People who hate new life call it inconvenient and set out to get rid of the life growing in their body. That is a conscious decision, just like agreeing to unprotected sex was a decision, or deciding to rape an underage girl or not use protection in a casual act of sexual intercourse is a decision.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> As I said, rights exist separate from law.



Supreme court decisions delineate rights and overturn/uphold laws.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 1, 2012)

1. in terms of prevention of abortion,
in order for laws not to burden the woman more than the man with unequal responsibility
the line should be drawn at the first report of "relationship abuse"
where both parties can be subject to counseling to correct the cause of the problem

if any instance of unwanted sex/children/pregnancy/abortion
were reported as "relationship abuse"
then both parties could be held responsible for resolving the conflicts by getting help

2. in terms of aborting pregnancy,
this should be a medical and spiritual decision
where no coercion should be imposed on any party, for or against.

as long as people don't agree where to draw the line legally, the
pressure to lobby and compete politically, as well as the division
between groups and resources, obstructs access to freer choices.

it is best to make decisions by consensus, using all available input
information and resources, and to keep politics out of it.

Once people agree how to work together to solve problems, both before and after, better policies can be made that reflect such agreements instead of skewing them with politics.


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not talking about whether she can legally kill it. I'm talking about whether she has the right to, and rights are not determined by law. If they were, then human rights violations could not take place if they are legal. But we know that they do.
> ...



from what I  understand, the reason the Courts found the law against abortion unconstitutional is that it criminalized the woman without providing for "due process" and a chance to defend herself based on mitigating circumstances and causes.

if the issue were focused on regarding how to eliminate unfair criminalization,
maybe the dialogue debates and efforts would turn to resolving problems causing
unwanted pregnancy and abortion in ways that don't unequally discriminate against the women more than the men in the situation.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> People who hate new life call it inconvenient



*Edited.*  I'm a mother with two children.  I don't "hate new life," I brought two new lives into the world, one at great personal risk to myself.  But, I recognize that not everyone is cut out for motherhood, and there are already too many unwanted children in the U.S.  I would not choose to have an abortion, but if my 14-year-old son got a girl pregnant, I would encourage her to take RU-486 and terminate the pregnancy.

No kid needs a 14-year-old father, and my son needs a kid at this point in his life even less than he needs another hole in his head.

I work with unwanted children for a living, and I recognize there are worse things in life than terminating a 4-week-old fetus.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > As I said, rights exist separate from law.
> ...


 
Rights exist apart from the law. It used to be legal to own slaves, but their rights were being violated all the same. Eventually the law changed, but that doesn't mean their rights weren't violated before the change. It is legal to stone women in certain countries...it is still a violation of their human rights to do so. It used to be legal to rape your wife...and yet her human rights were violated when that happened.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, that's not true. If an unborn baby was just a part of the mother's body, it wouldn't be called an abortion, it would be an amputation.
> 
> Abortion means to kill the fetus. If you can kill the baby without killing the mother, it is a separate life. Therefore, she has no right to kill it.



The fact that people decided to give an abortion a separate moniker does not dictate the nature of an abortion.

And we kill living things all the time.  The crux of the question is on whether or not you consider a fetus "human" enough not to allow killed.  Deny it up and down, there are circumstances aplenty that apply to a fetus that don't apply to a person already born, when not applying your personal morals to the equation you have to admit that the argument isn't simple or definitive.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

I know the argument isn't simple. However, I also know that law does not bestow rights upon humans. Catz is using the fact that law has determined that abortion is legal to make the argument that abortion doesn't violate the rights of the fetus, and it's a fallacious argument.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

As is the argument that non-sentient humans have no rights.


----------



## Borillar (Aug 1, 2012)

manifold said:


> I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
> 
> ...



I am morally opposed to abortion, but I understand and support a woman's right to choose one. I would draw the line at the point where a baby would be able to survive outside the womb on its own. The only thing superseding that would be the medical needs of the mother.

This thread and the other one regarding no abortions allowed for rape or incest have been interesting reading. I mentioned in the other thread that it was interesting to contrast the views of those on the right vis-a-vis Abortion and banning Assault Weapons.
You get rigid resistance against limiting gun rights with regard to assault weapons, the only purpose of which is to kill masses of humans. However, they would happily compromise or eliminate altogether a woman's reproductive and privacy rights, because humans (fetuses) are being killed (surgically removed).


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 1, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> The fact that people decided to give an abortion a separate moniker does not dictate the nature of an abortion.
> 
> And we kill living things all the time.  The crux of the question is on whether or not you consider a fetus "human" enough not to allow killed.  Deny it up and down, there are circumstances aplenty that apply to a fetus that don't apply to a person already born, when not applying your personal morals to the equation you have to admit that the argument isn't simple or definitive.



Whether *YOU* consider a Jew, or a black, or a fetus, human is of no relevance.

The *FACT* is that they all are human. A simple DNA test confirms it in every case. That the common tactic is to dehumanize the intended victim alters nothing.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 1, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Two Questions.
> ...



no one "hates new life". that's hyperbole, and you know it.

The truth is...you can associate life with whatever you choose, but you ate never, ever going to get your way in this. I think it's time for people like Koshergirl and yourself to realize that. It does no good to pound your heads against a wall. The best thing that can come about is to have a reasonable compromise. In a compromise, neither side gets it's way completely.

As far as God. goes? That's between him and the sinner...it's really none of your business.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 1, 2012)

> This thread and the other one regarding no abortions allowed for rape or incest have been interesting reading. I mentioned in the other thread that it was interesting to contrast the views of those on the right vis-a-vis Abortion and banning Assault Weapons.
> You get rigid resistance against limiting gun rights with regard to assault weapons, the only purpose of which is to kill masses of humans. However, they would happily compromise or eliminate altogether a woman's reproductive and privacy rights, because humans (fetuses) are being killed (surgically removed).



That is an example of conservatives being inconsistent. 

They scoff at the made up right of privacy, arguing its not in the Constitution, and advocating an expansion of government authority into citizens private lives. 

Yet they accept the Courts interpretation of the Second Amendment with regard to an individual right and the right to self-defense, when neither can be found in the text of the Amendment. 

If one believes in restricting government and preserving his civil rights  be it the right to privacy with regard to abortion or the right to own a handgun  he must adhere to a consistent application of those restrictions, otherwise his argument is fatally undermined.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 1, 2012)

Supporting abortion is supporting the death of innocent babies.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

Also inappropriate.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 1, 2012)

thanatos144 said:


> Supporting abortion is supporting the death of innocent babies.



There are no babies killed during abortion.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

Irrelevant. "Baby" is just a developmental stage. Fetus is the developmental stage before baby. Child is the developmental stage after baby. Adolescent is the developmental stage after child. Adult is the developmental stage after adolescent. 

They're just names of the developmental stages of a human being. But they are all human beings.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Irrelevant. "Baby" is just a developmental stage. Fetus is the developmental stage before baby. Child is the developmental stage after baby. Adolescent is the developmental stage after child. Adult is the developmental stage after adolescent.
> 
> They're just names of the developmental stages of a human being. But they are all human beings.



Is a rotting corpse a human being?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

No, a rotting corpse is a rotting corpse, and dead.

Are you now arguing that a fetus is dead before the abortion?


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 1, 2012)

Borillar said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Supporting abortion is supporting the death of innocent babies.
> ...



Innocent was the opertive word.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, a rotting corpse is a rotting corpse, and dead.
> 
> Are you now arguing that a fetus is dead before the abortion?



No, I am saying there are also stages. A stage when a person comes into being, and the final stage when the person is dead. A fetus is not a person because its life has not officially begun.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

"dead" is not a stage of development.

Sorry.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

"Life from conception to old age and death includes prenatal, infant,  toddler, preschooler, child, adolescent, adult and older adult stages. 
Read more: Human Life Cycles & Transitions | LIVESTRONG.COM
​


----------



## Noomi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "dead" is not a stage of development.
> 
> Sorry.



Death is when development ceases. It is still a stage.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

So? Nobody is arguing that a dead person has the right to life. Perhaps you should state where you're going with this.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> So? Nobody is arguing that a dead person has the right to life. Perhaps you should state where you're going with this.




As a Christian, I believe that Death is indeed a stage in development.

But I could be splitting hairs.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I'm waiting for Noomi to make some sort of point about corpses and unborn children. I think what she's trying to voice is that death is a stage, just like all the others, and that somehow means abortion is okay.
> 
> Basically, she's arguing to a point that was never made. She said no babies were killed via abortion (which is untrue just on the face of it, anyway...there are many instances where babies HAVE been killed via abortion, after birth or during it) and my point was that "baby" is just a term used to identify a DEVELOPMENTAL stage. Not just a stage, a developmental stage. Fetus, baby, child, adolescent, adult...all are DEVELOPMENTAL stages of human beings.
> 
> ...





Whew, theres alot to respond to here.

From your own development stage list you have conception, prenatal , infant. Obviously prenatal and conception are before birth.

I think we can all agree that post birth is ALIVE. ( unless still born obviously splitting hairs ) 


So the question is when is it life...and thats what I see you and Noomi disagreeing on.

I for one do NOT believe life begins at conception. Conception is generally regarded as fertilization of the egg. However, not all fertilizaed eggs are then implanted. Many are in fact expelled during ovulation. So I do not see it as life until after AT LEAST implantation.

Kosher, you may however disagree with that and say NO! Conception is life. Moomi on the other hand may believe that its not life until the heart begins to beat or even until the baby is breathing air with its own lungs outside the mother.

THAT is the debate is it not?

I dont think ANYONE would come right out and say," I am in favor of murdering babys!" I think they justify abortion by saying its not YET a baby and therefore not a problem.

Once we agree that the debate is WHEN its a baby, a human, a life, then everyone can stop being monsters in the eyes of their opponents because its just an argument over time itself.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> So? Nobody is arguing that a dead person has the right to life. Perhaps you should state where you're going with this.



Then why are brain dead people kept alive on life support? I assume you think the machine should be switched off, regardless of the wishes of the family?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

Baby is a developmental stage...and the argument is not, nor has it ever been, about when a fetus becomes a "baby". Some people call the unborn "babies" but it doesn't matter...baby, fetus..those are stages of a living organism...

LIFE starts at conception. That is not the argument, either. Abortion means "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus" http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/abortion...there is no question that a fetus has life prior to an abortion. 

The question, in this debate, isn't whether or not it's alive. It's whether or not killing it is justifiable, and whether or not the thing you are killing is a human being deserving of protection of the law.

Those who agree that abortion should be legal say the law should not protect it, because the mother "owns" it and until it can live without her, it is hers to do with as she pleases. But that doesn't wash, because infants are also dependent upon their mothers, and mothers (so far) aren't allowed to discard their babies, at least not legally.

Some say that because it isn't a SENTIENT being, we have the right to destroy it. But sentience is not what determines whether or not something is deserving of the protection of the law. The law protects the lives of people regardless of their capabilities, at least in this country. 

The argument that it isn't human doesn't work, it is human, with a complete and separate dna from its mother....and it is alive, as it is developing. 

So the argument isn't whether it's alive, or whether it's sentient, or whether it's a baby...it's whether or not the law should protect it, based on the fact that it's a living human being....

And I believe the law should.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > So? Nobody is arguing that a dead person has the right to life. Perhaps you should state where you're going with this.
> ...



Uh, no. Brain dead people aren't dead in the sense that a rotting corpse is. MY point is that it is irrelevant to this discussion.

And THIS particular post is especially irrelevant, as I absolutely don't believe that.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



A brain dead person is dead because when you turn off life support, they die, so yes, my question is relevant.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Baby is a developmental stage...and the argument is not, nor has it ever been, about when a fetus becomes a "baby". Some people call the unborn "babies" but it doesn't matter...baby, fetus..those are stages of a living organism...
> 
> LIFE starts at conception. That is not the argument, either. Abortion means "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus" http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/abortion...there is no question that a fetus has life prior to an abortion.
> 
> ...



Do you believe that women should be forced to carry to term their unwanted babies?


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Baby is a developmental stage...and the argument is not, nor has it ever been, about when a fetus becomes a "baby". Some people call the unborn "babies" but it doesn't matter...baby, fetus..those are stages of a living organism...
> 
> LIFE starts at conception. That is not the argument, either. Abortion means "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus" http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/abortion...there is no question that a fetus has life prior to an abortion.
> 
> ...



yes, life begins at conception IS an argument. One that must be back up with scientific evidence that proves it. An unimplanted fertilized egg can be "flushed out" through natural processes thus preventing pregnancy. 

http://www.eubios.info/TM.htm

The above link suggests that only 30-40% of ALL fertiolized eggs implant. That means a 60-70% rate of what you demand is life is being ended completely naturally.

and thats why I suggest that, in my opinion, a more accurate assessment would be life begins at implantation. 


I am not debating if abortion is right or wrong. I am simply pointing out that until we can all agree on when life begins, the debate is one of semantics only.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

I believe if a woman is pregnant, she is obligated to protect her child until birth, yes. And after birth, until the baby is safely placed with someone else who will provide for it.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Baby is a developmental stage...and the argument is not, nor has it ever been, about when a fetus becomes a "baby". Some people call the unborn "babies" but it doesn't matter...baby, fetus..those are stages of a living organism...
> ...




If its a matter of just unwanted. THAT being the ONLY factor. Then adoption is a better option in my opinion.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Baby is a developmental stage...and the argument is not, nor has it ever been, about when a fetus becomes a "baby". Some people call the unborn "babies" but it doesn't matter...baby, fetus..those are stages of a living organism...
> ...


Ok I guess.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> As is the argument that non-sentient humans have no rights.



Please, articulate the rights held by non-sentient humans.  I await your answer with bated breath.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

You were going to support your assertion that the law protects only sentient humans.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I believe if a woman is pregnant, she is obligated to protect her child until birth, yes. And after birth, until the baby is safely placed with someone else who will provide for it.



So pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke, or drink during the pregnancy? How about playing sports? Might harm the fetus. Should she do anything stressful? Might harm the fetus...


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I believe if a woman is pregnant, she is obligated to protect her child until birth, yes. And after birth, until the baby is safely placed with someone else who will provide for it.
> ...



Definitely yes to the first two....


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > c_clayton_jones said:
> ...



"*Argumentum ad Hominem *(abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy       			of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement        			or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness        			of the argument."

Argumentum Ad Hominem

He isn't attacking the argument. He's just pointing out what he sees as hypocrisy. Which isn't making an argument.

And the last paragraph is another logical fallacy...


----------



## AVG-JOE (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



*If you think something is inappropriate for the CDZ please just flag it and ignore it.  When you guys quote the problem posts and comment on them, Management ends up paying overtime to clean up the mess.

Please... Flag 'em and Forget 'em. *


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I believe if a woman is pregnant, she is obligated to protect her child until birth, yes. And after birth, until the baby is safely placed with someone else who will provide for it.
> ...



Would you like to make a point?

Meanwhile;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/30/indiana-prosecuting-chinese-woman-suicide-foetus


----------



## Noomi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



No it isn't. If the woman smokes through her pregnancy, how is she protecting her baby? She isn't. You said she is obliged to protect it, but then you say she isn't?


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> ^^^inappropriate.



Its not inappropriate and its NOT trolling.

His point is that what another woman does with HER body is her own business and not yours. 

So the question to you is: By what right do you claim to force your beliefs on another person?

( There is a very good logical answer to that question. I am hoping you actually come up with it. )


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 1, 2012)

"Grief stricken and under heavy sedation, she was unaware that within  half an hour of her baby's death a detective from the city's homicide  branch had arrived at the maternity ward and had begun asking questions.While  Shuai was embarking on a journey into bereavement that continues to  this day, the Indianapolis authorities were also setting out, albeit  along a very different path. On 14 March last year Shuai was arrested  and taken into custody in the high-security Marion County prison, where  she was held for the next 435 days, charged with murdering her foetus  and attempted feticide. If convicted of the murder count she faces a  sentence of 45 years to life."


Indiana prosecuting Chinese woman for suicide attempt that killed her foetus | World news | guardian.co.uk



You're obligated to protect your baby. You probably aren't going to be prosecuted unless you actually kill it, though.


Again, do you have a point?


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I agree with Kosher on this one.

IF a woman decides to carry to term, then, in my opinion, she has accepted the responsibility and therefore would be obliged to protect that child until birth.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 1, 2012)

Just to throw some controversy into the mix. It seems to me that abortion is the symptom of the problem and not the direct problem. The direct problem is the breakdown of the traditional family and Men & women running away from taking responsibility for their actions.

Granted if we have to draw a line for abortion, if you had a choice in the actions that made the child, you should take responsibility for the child. If you didn't, there are much better options to abortions, but I think we could discuss more flexibility there. Not really sure why a little child should suffer for someone elses choices or crimes.

But like I said, we need to address the underlying issues. not just debate about the symptoms.


----------



## newpolitics (Aug 1, 2012)

manifold said:


> I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
> 
> ...



When it has a central nervous system and accompanying brain. Conception and heart-beats are too early. 24 weeks sounds good, and the women must be allowed to choose before then. Nobody using theological motivations should be allowed to change laws concerning this, because this is not based on science. Science and the medical establishment must be the deciders of this.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 1, 2012)

yeou're right avatar....things were so much nicer in the 50's when things were cheap, jobs were plentiful and good paying and people's stress level wasn't nearly what it is today.You don't think that the financial decline of a large percentage of our population has something to do with issues like divorce, single parenthood, and promescuity? It all works hand in hand.,..I believe.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 1, 2012)

rdean said:


> This would be a better country if Republicans cared more about babies than fetuses.



This would be a better country if we had the courage to do the hard work needed to solve difficult problems like abortion, not take the lazy, easy way out by simply banning it, and violating our Constitutional principles in the process.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> yeou're right avatar....things were so much nicer in the 50's when things were cheap, jobs were plentiful and good paying and people's stress level wasn't nearly what it is today.You don't think that the financial decline of a large percentage of our population has something to do with issues like divorce, single parenthood, and promescuity? It all works hand in hand.,..I believe.



I think some people look at those things as causes and other look at them as effects. 

And I think the truth is somewhere in between.


----------



## Intense (Aug 1, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...



All of our Laws are based and Rooted in Consent of The Governed. It is not for you to say what motivations should effect other peoples positions.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

But law does not dictate a right. Our founding fathers believed that rights are bestowed by God, regardless of the law of the land or anything else, and that a good government protects those rights.

And that is, in fact, the consensus of the world...that rights exist regardless of what the law dictates, and laws that violate those rights are in fact laws that oppress and violate humanity.

The law making it legal to abort is one of those laws, along with laws that dictated the legality of slavery, and laws that allow tyrants to butcher and murder their people, or laws that allow the strong to kill and subjugate the weak. Those are bad laws, and regardless of the fact that they are laws does not change the fact that the people they are enacted against have a right to be protected from them. Even if it means going against the law that dictates the legality of the oppression.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

Vidi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^inappropriate.
> ...



By the same right that any human has to force their beliefs upon another when they are protecting the vulnerable. We all have the right, and the obligation, to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and to stand for what is right. If nobody ever forced their beliefs upon anyone, then nobody would ever be held accountable for hurting others. Obviously, the person who is doing the hurting believes they have a good reason for what they do...they are imposing their "belief" upon the person they harm. We impose our "beliefs" upon people when we prevent them from doing it. We don't live in a world where everybody just ignores what everybody else is doing based on "I can't impose my beliefs on them".


----------



## Vidi (Aug 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> But law does not dictate a right. Our founding fathers believed that rights are bestowed by God, regardless of the law of the land or anything else, and that a good government protects those rights.
> 
> And that is, in fact, the consensus of the world...that rights exist regardless of what the law dictates, and laws that violate those rights are in fact laws that oppress and violate humanity.
> 
> The law making it legal to abort is one of those laws, along with laws that dictated the legality of slavery, and laws that allow tyrants to butcher and murder their people, or laws that allow the strong to kill and subjugate the weak. Those are bad laws, and regardless of the fact that they are laws does not change the fact that the people they are enacted against have a right to be protected from them. Even if it means going against the law that dictates the legality of the oppression.



Im sorry but thats not entirely accurate.

The Founders believed that SOME rights were unalienable. Unalienable rights ( life , liberty, pursuit of happiness ) were God given. But OTHER rights were given through law. This is why God is mentioned in the Declaration, but not once in the Constitution except with the phrase " In the year of our Lord " which is only signifying the date.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 2, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Yet she refuses to answer my question as to whether it is okay for a woman to smoke and drink through her pregnancy.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

I know that. But we are talking about life.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Well, you said that a woman is obliged to protect her fetus, did you not? Therefore I assume you believe that because this woman did not protect her fetus, she should be punished.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Not to the point where it harms the baby. And I posted a link that showed that women are prosecuted for doing things that harm/kill their unborn children.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I know that. But we are talking about life.



Yes, life which can be harmed from the mother smoking.

Is a pregnant woman who smokes protecting her unborn child? Yes or no?


----------



## Noomi (Aug 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



I don't think they should be, but then, when I see a pregnant woman smoking, it makes me mad. If you choose to have your baby, you must want it to be as healthy as possible, and I hate it when women just smoke and drink and assume the baby will be okay.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
> ...



That's exactly what proponents of negative eugenics say, and it's wrong. Pure science and medicine do not see right or wrong, and should never be the "only" ones to decide ethical decisions upon which people's lives hang.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



But then who should be the ones to decide?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


People...   What an idea!!!

I will say that I agree with your statement that no theological reasons should be used, that is not the place of the government.  Forgive me if I am repeating anything that has been said ( I did not read over the last ten pages) but I place the line in the second trimester when the brain begins to form one coherent pice.  The brain is what really defines us as people and I think that makes this a perfect place to set the line.  It also gives those seeking abortion more than enough time to actually get one. 


An abortion debit in the clean room... This should be interesting.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 2, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



This debate is actually going well. I prefer to debate without resorting to insults just because two people disagree.

A question - when in the second trimester? At the beginning, the middle, or the end?


----------



## Ravi (Aug 2, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> yeou're right avatar....things were so much nicer in the 50's when things were cheap, jobs were plentiful and good paying and people's stress level wasn't nearly what it is today.You don't think that the financial decline of a large percentage of our population has something to do with issues like divorce, single parenthood, and promescuity? It all works hand in hand.,..I believe.


Back in the good old days, unwed pregnant women were sent off to baby farms, forced to bear a child and then forced to give it up for adoption.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...


Somewhere between the beginning and middle.  Not married to a peticular week number.  It has to be in the second trimester to allow for the rights of the mother and can't be in e third to allow for the rights of the unborn.  All in all, I think that you should have the ability and responsibility to have taken care of e situation pretty early in the second trimester.  There really is no excuse to wait much longer if you are going to abort.  Why do you ask?


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 2, 2012)

Abortion is murder. It is that simple. Just cause it is murder made legal by morally debased hedonism driven people does not change this.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > yeou're right avatar....things were so much nicer in the 50's when things were cheap, jobs were plentiful and good paying and people's stress level wasn't nearly what it is today.You don't think that the financial decline of a large percentage of our population has something to do with issues like divorce, single parenthood, and promescuity? It all works hand in hand.,..I believe.
> ...



And then picked up their lives where they left off.

Now they are forced to abortion clinics, where they are forced to kill their babies.

In the first instance, nobody dies. In the second instance, one person always dies...and sometimes 2.

However, your comment doesn't speak to the discussion.


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 2, 2012)

What ever happened to personal responsibility.. and mind your own business?


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 2, 2012)

copsnrobbers said:


> What ever happened to personal responsibility.. and mind your own business?


Does that mean people can kill adults as long as they mind thier own business?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

Personal responsibility and "mind your own business" does not extend to the point that we ignore the situation when innocent people are being hurt. 

You don't stand by and "mind your own business" when a child is being beaten in the street (at least I hope not). You don't stand by and "mind your own business" when you hear screams next door. Personal responsibility does not give a person the right to take the life of another, no matter how inconvenient they find the existence of that other person.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 2, 2012)

There is something wrong, at the outset, with finding a violation of human rights when we expect a 14 year old to learn to control themselves.  If you really want 14 year olds to start controlling themselves there has to be consequences.   Such as a forced marriage.  Kicked out of school, create a work permit category and tell these 14 year old fathers to start supporting their children.    People aren't animals who can't control themselves when they are in the mood to rut.  Make the consequences severe enough and they will stop finding a right to have sex at the local Wal Mart.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 2, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > yeou're right avatar....things were so much nicer in the 50's when things were cheap, jobs were plentiful and good paying and people's stress level wasn't nearly what it is today.You don't think that the financial decline of a large percentage of our population has something to do with issues like divorce, single parenthood, and promescuity? It all works hand in hand.,..I believe.
> ...



In those days, they had no real choices unless they had the money to go to another country for an abortion. Or they could get a very dangerous and illegal abortion here. 

Abortion is a legal choice and no one's business besides the woman's. Period.

(Anyone who is interested, look up the history of Florence Crittenton Services. A job I had while in college was as a night watchmen at one. )


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 2, 2012)

I support the original Roe decision as written but it should not be a federal law.  It should be left up to the states.   Since abortion and birth control are "choices" that women are free to make, contraceptives should be treated as any other elective medical procedure and paid for by the person making the decision to have the elective service.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> There is something wrong, at the outset, with finding a violation of human rights when we expect a 14 year old to learn to control themselves.  If you really want 14 year olds to start controlling themselves there has to be consequences.   Such as a forced marriage.  Kicked out of school, create a work permit category and tell these 14 year old fathers to start supporting their children.    People aren't animals who can't control themselves when they are in the mood to rut.  Make the consequences severe enough and they will stop finding a right to have sex at the local Wal Mart.



Sex at Walmart? say what now?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 2, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



Also, back in the Old Days, there were orphanages for unwanted babies , as well as financial aid for those who chose to keep their baby. Now, the R wants to do away with the kind of assistance that would make it possible for women to keep their baby AND get an education, get decent work so they can support themselves. The same Rs who want to control women's reproduction choices refuse to even consider that it takes two to get pregnant and that the father has EQUAL responsibility for the child. 

Things are different now but even so, no one has the right to control women's reproduction. No one except the owner of that body and that life and that is and will always be the woman. No one else.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 2, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > There is something wrong, at the outset, with finding a violation of human rights when we expect a 14 year old to learn to control themselves.  If you really want 14 year olds to start controlling themselves there has to be consequences.   Such as a forced marriage.  Kicked out of school, create a work permit category and tell these 14 year old fathers to start supporting their children.    People aren't animals who can't control themselves when they are in the mood to rut.  Make the consequences severe enough and they will stop finding a right to have sex at the local Wal Mart.
> ...



Apparently, there is an assumption about who it is that has abortions. FACT is, 2/3rds are medically necessary and the very last thing the woman wants. 

Even if its not a wanted pregnancy, there is no such thing as a woman or young girl who starts out wanting an abortion. 

You also occasionally hear of women who use abortion as a form of birth control. Nonsense, of course.


----------



## Intense (Aug 2, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Reason has a place, Dogma, less so. You have no Right to be inside Someone Else's head, when They have a decision to make. It is not your or my place to decide what factors another Individual is allowed to base his or her decision on, Theological or not, a Vote is a Vote.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


 
Support that, please.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

*Edited: Keep it Civil*

From Guttmacher:

"&#8220;Women&#8217;s primary reasons for making this difficult decision are based on a lack of resources in light of their current responsibilities. Typically, more than one reason drives the decision, and these reasons are frequently interrelated.&#8221;

Why Do Women Have Abortions?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

In fact, medical reasons aren't even cited:

"*
RESULTS:​*_​​​​The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman&#8217;s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child.  ... Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."

Why Do Women Have Abortions?​

_


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 2, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> yeou're right avatar....things were so much nicer in the 50's when things were cheap, jobs were plentiful and good paying and people's stress level wasn't nearly what it is today.You don't think that the financial decline of a large percentage of our population has something to do with issues like divorce, single parenthood, and promescuity? It all works hand in hand.,..I believe.



I think divorce, single parenthood and promsecuity are some of the biggest contributing factors for why our finances are a mess.

When we keep the commandments, we will prosper in the land. When we don't, we won't.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

The truth is, our society started to decline sharply when we stepped away from traditional values, starting in the late 60s. That is when we bought the hype that no-fault divorce would be a good thing, that promiscuity is normal and acceptable, that abortion could legally replace responsible behavior and non-fatal methods of birth control, and a single parent could do "just as good" a job as a two-parent family.

Obviously, we were duped.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



No one forces anyone to have an abortion....well, a mother might strongly suggest it to her daughter.... the father of the child might pressure the mother....but make no mistake...That CHOICE is the pregnant woman's.
I don't know where you get your information...but I'd like to see your words backed up by hard data that says Women in this country are FORCED to have an abortion.

You said it, prove it.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

Of course women get forced to have abortions.

In China, it's government policy.

"Recent reports of women being coerced into late-term abortions by local officials have thrust China&#8217;s population control policy into the spotlight and ignited an outcry among policy advisers and scholars who are seeking to push central officials to fundamentally change or repeal a law that penalizes families for having more than one child. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/w...-one-child-law-is-growing.html?pagewanted=all

In the US, it's a problem that is increasingly recognized as a human rights violation.

"
Earlier this month, a 32-year-old pregnant woman, known only as Mary Moe, narrowly avoided being subjected to a forced abortion and sterilization--at the hands of her own parents.
The story has outraged thousands on either side of the political aisle. Moe, who suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder, was being treated in a Massachusetts hospital. When she became pregnant, doctors were purportedly concerned that her medications could harm the unborn child. So they recommended an abortion. 
The problem is, Moe is a Catholic, who has expressed vocal opposition to abortion.
Since Moe planned to keep her baby, her parents, in conjunction with the doctors, filed a petition with the local courts, which would give them the power to force her to get an abortion."

Massachusetts Forced Abortion Order Shocks U.S. | Population Research Institute


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

unless you provide supporting evidence. I've had one say that 2/3 of abortions occur for medical reasons (which I easily and completely revealed as a lie..not a mistake, but a lie) and now you have said that "no" women are coerced into abortion...equally easily exposed as a lie.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

"
The judge ordered that Moe's parents be appointed as coguardians and that Moe could be "coaxed, bribed, or even enticed ... by ruse" into a hospital where she would be sedated and an abortion performed. Additionally, sua sponte, and without notice, the judge directed that any medical facility that performed the abortion also sterilize Moe at the same time "to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future." 

"
The parties estimate that Moe may be up to five months pregnant. 
"

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/z-pdf-archive/120119_mary_moe.pdf

And the order was vacated.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

Women who get more than one abortion are most likely to be coerced/abused:

"Among other factors, a history of physical or sexual abuse was associated with repeat induced abortion. Presentation for repeat abortion may be an important indication to screen for a current or past history of relationship violence and sexual abuse. "

Characteristics of women undergoing repeat induced abortion
_CMAJ March 1, 2005 vol. 172 no. 5 _doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1040341


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

Studies show that women with abusive partners are much more likely to get abortions, and that women who get abortion are very likely to have abusive partners:

"Men aged 18 to 35 years (n = 1318) completed assessments of perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV), abortion involvement, and conflict regarding decisions to seek abortion. IPV was associated with greater involvement by men in pregnancies ending in abortion and greater conflict regarding decisions to seek abortion. IPV should be considered within family planning and abortion services; policies requiring women to notify or obtain consent of partners before seeking an abortion should be reconsidered; they may facilitate endangerment and coercion regarding such decisions."

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2009.173393 
So I think we have established that women are forced into abortion, quite frequently. None of these peer-reviewed articles indicate it is a rarity at all, but rather that it happens quite often and needs to be considered very carefully.

Which of course, it isn't.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 2, 2012)

thanatos144 said:


> Abortion is murder. It is that simple. Just cause it is murder made legal by morally debased hedonism driven people does not change this.



No one is suggesting that you should have one.  I have no problem with your ethical views, but you aren't entitled to force other people to live based upon your ethics.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Studies show that women with abusive partners are much more likely to get abortions, and that women who get abortion are very likely to have abusive partners:
> 
> "Men aged 18 to 35 years (n = 1318) completed assessments of perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV), abortion involvement, and conflict regarding decisions to seek abortion. IPV was associated with greater involvement by men in pregnancies ending in abortion and greater conflict regarding decisions to seek abortion. IPV should be considered within family planning and abortion services; policies requiring women to notify or obtain consent of partners before seeking an abortion should be reconsidered; they may facilitate endangerment and coercion regarding such decisions."
> 
> ...



Your study doesn't prove what you suggest it does.  Your study proves that men are more often involved in abortion decisions when there is IPV present.  It doesn't show that this occurs often (most relationships don't experience IPV).


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

When it comes to human rights violations, or perceived human rights violations, the "you aren't entitled to interfere" argument no longer applies.

Abortion is seen as a human rights violation by those who believe an innocent is being killed; and is unquestionably a human rights violations in many situations that include coercion. So this is one situation where the trite argument "it's none of your business" does not apply.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Studies show that women with abusive partners are much more likely to get abortions, and that women who get abortion are very likely to have abusive partners:
> ...


 
Yes, it shows exactly what I suggest it does, as I did not state that most relationships involve interpersonal violence.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 2, 2012)

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I disagree. Its when we are outraged that we are more likely to demand a "fix'. I would say anger is very much a part of the issue.

Now let me challenge you, if I may...

When you see a pregnant woman smoking and drinking, you are outraged because of the harm it can do that child, correct?

Now, IF one believes that a child is alive immediately upon conception, then wouldnt the act of abortion cause just as much if not more outrage? 

After all, what more harm can be done to a child than taking its whole existence away?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 2, 2012)

In an abstract way.

But your personal feelings have no place in a clean debate.


----------



## Intense (Aug 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> In an abstract way.
> 
> But your personal feelings have no place in a clean debate.



I would disagree with that.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> In an abstract way.
> 
> But your personal feelings have no place in a clean debate.



I would disagree.

In many arguments, you will find conflicting science. This argument in fact would fall into that category. We do not agree on the facts. When ddoes like begin being the biggest example.

I can throw in my feelings on the subject, but I cannot say with 100% certainty that I am correct because science cannot say when exactly human life begins. We CAN say this and this and this have to happen in order to create human life, but not when the conciousness or the soul ( if one believes in the soul as Im sure both you and I do ) enters that body.

So all we can go on is our feelings on the subject.

In fact, I would say in your case, feelings are very much a part of the subject. And I mean that without ANY malice whatsoever.  I think from your posts that you are someone who feels that abortion is murder and you feel the deaths of those children deeply. Its what makes you such a passionate advocate for your point of view and I think something to take pride in, not something to run away from.

Theres nothing wrong with passionate debate, as long as it doesnt become a trade of insults.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



You stated that *women are forced into abortion quite frequently*.  The study doesn't provide this information.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 2, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



The 2/3rds figure has been proven false so I wont go into that.  As for women using abortion as a form of birth control, that can and does happen.  I would doubt that it is overly prevalent but my sister in law was one such person.  After her 4th abortion, she had an infection and it caused her to be sterile, and it served her right.  She called my wife after looking for sympathy.  Lets just say the conversation went so well she would not even call her for a few years after that.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 2, 2012)

Intense said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



That is true but it totally ignores the fact that there is a third party involved in this, the child.  I really do not care what you want to call it or how much you want to ignore its existence, abortion should not be legal at any time for any reason without regard to the child.  That life has rights.  Does that mean abortion should be illegal period?  No.  It also meant that third trimester abortions are abhorrent as well.  There is a line and it must be drawn.  The question we are faced with is where.


----------



## Politico (Aug 3, 2012)

manifold said:


> Where should the line be drawn on abortion?



When a bunch of strangers get together and start trying to tell someone what they can do.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 3, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Good question.

When I see a pregnant woman smoking, it is clear to me that she has chosen to have her baby. If she chooses to continue with her pregnancy, then I believe she should do everything she can to ensure the child is healthy - and smoking is the worst thing you can do when pregnant.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 3, 2012)

Politico said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Where should the line be drawn on abortion?
> ...



I agree, and I am yet to hear from any lifer why they feel justified in controlling the reproductive system of a woman.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Aug 3, 2012)

As far as the technology goes, abortion as a procedure is not going anywhere.  

The trick to drawing a line around it is to keep it safe and out of the black market by keeping it legal and available, while preventing abortion from becoming a profitable stand-alone industry.

As with most things in our non-transparent politics... follow the money.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 3, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



That's what this thread is about, finding that line. The absolutists on either side of this debate don't seem to want to find that line. Which is fine, they are certainly entitled to their opinions. But it's not very practical.


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 3, 2012)

Politico said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Where should the line be drawn on abortion?
> ...



So no laws ever?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 3, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...


 

You must have missed my reference to China.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 3, 2012)

Noomi said:


> There are no babies killed during abortion.



Did you think pregnant women carry chickens, then?


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 3, 2012)

"64% of women reported feeling pressured to abort.1 

&#8226; Most felt rushed or uncertain, yet 67% weren&#8217;t counseled.1
&#8226; 79% weren&#8217;t told of available resources.1 ​



&#8226; 84% weren&#8217;t sufficiently informed before abortion.1
&#8226; Pressure to abort can escalate to violence.2 ​



&#8226; Homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women.3
&#8226; Clinics fail to screen for coercion.4 ​



&#8226; Women nearly 4 times more likely to die after abortion.5

&#8226; Suicide rates 6 times higher after abortion.6 
&#8226; 65% of women suffer trauma symptoms after abortion.1​ 


1. VM Rue et. al., &#8220;Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,&#8221; _Medical Science __Monitor _10(10): SR5-16 (2004).​


2. See the Abortion is the UnChoice for futher information and cases.

3. I.L. Horton and D. Cheng, &#8220;Enhanced Surveillance for Pregnancy-Associated Mortality-Maryland, 1993-1998,&#8221; ​​_JAMA _285(11): 1455-1459(2001); see also J. Mcfarlane et. al., "Abuse During Pregnancy and Femicide: Urgent Implications for Women's Health,"_Obstetrics & __Gynecology _100: 27-36 (2002).​​​​​


4. See stopforcedabortions.com.
5. M Gissler et. al., &#8220;Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage,&#8221; ​_Acta Obsetricia __et Gynecologica Scandinavica _76:651-657, (1997). Another study found that, compared to women who gave birth, women who had abortions had a 62% higher risk of death from all causes for at least _eight _years after their pregnancies. DC Reardon et. al., &#8220;Deaths Associated With Pregnancy Outcome: A Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women,&#8221; ​
_Southern Medical Journal _95(8):834-41, (2002).​


6. M Gissler et. al., &#8220;Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage,&#8221; ​_Acta Obsetricia __et Gynecologica Scandinavica _76:651-657 (1997); and M. Gissler, &#8220;Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000,&#8221; _European J. Public Health _15(5):459-63 (2005).​


http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf​


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 3, 2012)

AVG-JOE said:


> As far as the technology goes, abortion as a procedure is not going anywhere.
> 
> The trick to drawing a line around it is to keep it safe and out of the black market by keeping it legal and available, while preventing abortion from becoming a profitable stand-alone industry.
> 
> As with most things in our non-transparent politics... follow the money.



Abortion is already a multi-billion dollar industry. The passion of the pro-abortion crowd isn't based on an innate hatred of babies, but on a desire to make a profit.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 3, 2012)

Not only do the majority of women who get abortions feel "pressured" to abort (see above) but they are also much, much more likely to be abused or murdered.

"Women with unwanted or mistimed pregnancies are at an increased risk for violence by their partners compared with women with intended pregnancies."

Since the huge majority of women who get abortions are aborting based on "mistimed" or unintended pregnancy, it follows that these are women who are much more likely to be suffering abuse.

Additionally, women who are receiving government benefits (foodstamps) and at the lower end of the education/income spectrum are also much more likely to be abused. Since the large majority of women who seek abortions state they do so because they don't want to interrupt their education plans or because they don't feel they can afford a child, then it follows that these are women at the lower end of the education/income spectrum, and thus at higher risk of abuse.

The relationship between pregnancy intendedne... [Obstet Gynecol. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## Borillar (Aug 3, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Not only do the majority of women who get abortions feel "pressured" to abort (see above) but they are also much, much more likely to be abused or murdered.
> 
> "Women with unwanted or mistimed pregnancies are at an increased risk for violence by their partners compared with women with intended pregnancies."
> 
> ...



Do you want these women, who are "at the lower end of the education/income spectrum" and in possibly abusive relationships to be forced to carry to term children that are unwanted, unneeded, and unaffordable? Once born, the children would likely be subjected to the same abuse and poor conditions. And at the same time, conservatives want to remove the social safety net, so these poor mothers wouldn't even get the paltry benefits they receive now? Mothers seeking to better themselves via education, would be forced to stop to take care of a child, dooming herself to remain poor and uneducated. While I would hope that the expectant mother would consider adoption before abortion, pregnancy and delivery are not mere trivial inconveniences. They are life changing experiences, not to mention the expense.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 3, 2012)

Please support your assertion that women who obtain abortions would otherwise be "doomed" to remain poor and uneducated, or that their children would be poor and abused if they had them. Support your assertion that dead is preferable to poor and uneducated. Support your statement that women who are pregnant must stop to take care of a child.  

And allow me to pose a question to you...do you think it's better that women who are abused continue to be abused and their children killed by an organization that doesn't properly screen for abuse, and when it finds it, doesn't report?


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 3, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> You must have missed my reference to China.



China =/= U.S.  Chinese issues have little bearing on U.S. law.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 3, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Not only do the majority of women who get abortions feel "pressured" to abort (see above) but they are also much, much more likely to be abused or murdered.



*The majority of women who get abortions feel pressured? * Please, provide substantive evidence (and the study you posted earlier does not prove this claim.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 3, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "64% of women reported feeling pressured to abort.1
> 
> &#8226; Most felt rushed or uncertain, yet 67% weren&#8217;t counseled.1
> &#8226; 79% weren&#8217;t told of available resources.1 ​
> ...



Your cut-and-paste article misrepresents the footnoted studies.

Here's a link to the full study listed as footnote 1.  http://www.medscimonit.com/fulltxt_free.php?ICID=11784

64% of American women felt pressured by others get an abortion, but the study does not specify that this pressure was coming from an abusive boyfriend or spouse.  It could have been from friends, parents, or others.  Further, it is a small scale research project with non-statistically representative data from 2 U.S. abortion clinics and 1 russian hospitals.  Generalizing it, as you have done, is intellectually unethical.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 3, 2012)

No, it's really not. I posted that to support my statement that women were frequently coerced into abortion, as a response to your comment that I hadn't supported that.

And the study is fine. The Medical Science Monitor International Medical Journal for Experimental and Clincial Research had no problem with it, which is why they published it...and based on their acceptance of it, I accept it as well. This publication is peer reviewed.

"Medical Science Monitor is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal that publish original articles in experimental and clinical medicine and related disciplines such as molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, biophysics, bio- and medical technology. "

"...The registered manuscripts are sent to independent experts for scientific evaluation. We encourage authors to suggest the names of possible reviewers, but we reserve the right of final selection. The evaluation process usually takes 1-3 months. Submitted papers are accepted for publication after a positive opinion of the independent reviewers. Authors should return a corrected paper within 3 months."

It passed muster.

http://www.medscimonit.com/page.php?IDpage=21&p=4


----------



## Borillar (Aug 3, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Please support your assertion that women who obtain abortions would otherwise be "doomed" to remain poor and uneducated, or that their children would be poor and abused if they had them. Support your assertion that dead is preferable to poor and uneducated. Support your statement that women who are pregnant must stop to take care of a child.
> 
> And allow me to pose a question to you...do you think it's better that women who are abused continue to be abused and their children killed by an organization that doesn't properly screen for abuse, and when it finds it, doesn't report?



It was your contention that these women are likely to be abused, yes? Is it a stretch to think that if they had children, they would also be abused?

A woman is trying to get ahead by attending college. College is expensive. She gets pregnant and decides to (or is coerced into) carry to term. She is forced to drop out in order to care for the baby because child care is expensive, and being a full time mother is time consuming, demanding, and also expensive. Without the college degree, she is less in demand in the work force and has to scrape by on menial jobs. Between motherhood and work, where is the time or money to try and go back to school?

I did not make the assertion that dead is preferable to poor and uneducated. In some cases though, it might be a matter of taste. Some people think it is better to die in childbirth, starve in misery, or die in a war than to have never lived at all. 

My own preference would be adoption. I was adopted, my father in law was adopted, and I have an adopted son who is now an adult with 2 adopted kids of his own. If my 13 year old daughter were raped and got pregnant, I would support abortion in that case.

As far as the abuse questions go, of course I don't think that women should be abused, nor do I think they should remain in an abusive relationship. I don't know if domestic abuse is something that is part of planned parenthood's charter. Perhaps it should be. Should that disqualify a person seeking an abortion? Perhaps the woman wants to get away and doesn't want to carry her abuser's child.


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 3, 2012)

*Where should the line be drawn on abortion?*


Right about where the head of the unborn child is about to be crushed.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 3, 2012)

Borillar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Please support your assertion that women who obtain abortions would otherwise be "doomed" to remain poor and uneducated, or that their children would be poor and abused if they had them. Support your assertion that dead is preferable to poor and uneducated. Support your statement that women who are pregnant must stop to take care of a child.
> ...


 
Preference and taste  have no place when it comes to determining whether another person should live or not. And your personal hypotheticals do not support your previous assertions.

There is no evidence that abortion reduces the incidence of child abuse/neglect/poverty. There is plenty of evidence that coercion is a very real issue when it comes to women obtaining abortions (64 percent maintain that they were pressured..that's a huge number).


----------



## Borillar (Aug 3, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Yes, obviously children born into a situation where there is domestic abuse, neglect, and poverty will suddenly transform everything into goodness and light. There is probably just as much coercion wrt women carrying to term.

As far as preference and taste, neither yours or mine count for anything. We have settled case law supported by the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments to the constitution supporting a woman's right to choose. You may not like it, but it is what it is.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 3, 2012)

Where to draw the line on abortion?  Late term only.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 4, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > There are no babies killed during abortion.
> ...



They carry fetuses.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Aug 4, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



fetus,

  term used to describe the unborn offspring in the uterus of vertebrate animals after the embryonic stage (see embryo). In humans, the fetal stage begins seven to eight weeks after fertilization of the egg, when the embryo assumes the basic shape of the newborn and all the organs are present. This stage continues until birth. The fetus is protected by a sac of amniotic fluid that also enables movement to occur. The placenta and umbilical cord are the sources of oxygen and nutrients and the means of waste elimination.

During the fetal stage, the body grows larger, the proportions of the features are refined, and organ development is completed. During the seventh and eighth weeks, the body grows more erect, the chest area develops, and the face begins to acquire a human look. In the third month, facial features continue to develop, nails form, ossification centers develop in bones, the sex of the unborn can be determined, and the fetus is capable of responding to outside stimulation. During the second trimester (fourth to sixth months), distinctive facial features develop, the fetal heartbeat can be detected, and fetal quickening (movements) can be felt externally. In the third trimester (the seventh to ninth months), the body proportions, except for the somewhat large head, are established, the skin becomes smoother, and the organs develop sufficiently for the newborn to function on its own.

If the fetus is expelled before 36 weeks of gestation are completed, it often can survive outside the womb, but artificial assistance, such as intravenous feedings and strict maintainance of the ambient temperature, may be needed during the remainder of its normal developmental period. Such births are called premature. Fetuses expelled before that period are not viable and are termed either a miscarriage or an abortion. A dead fetus delivered in the third trimester is termed stillborn. 

Fetus | Learn everything there is to know about Fetus at Reference.com


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 5, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Call it what you will, playing a semantic game does not change the fact that a baby is killed during an abortion.  Whatever term you use does not change the fact that you are ending the existence of a unique and growing human.  Call it a baby or fetus, a rose is still a rose.


----------



## PixieStix (Aug 5, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




Yeah, if a fetus wasn't something that is alive and viable, then why is there fetology
[f&#275;tol&#8242;&#601;j&#275;]
Etymology: L, fetus + Gk, logos, science
the branch of medicine that is concerned with the fetus in utero, including the diagnosis of congenital anomalies, the prevention of teratogenic influences, and the treatment of certain disorders. Also called embryatrics.


----------



## JagOnDaRoad (Aug 5, 2012)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Very clinical. Those damned pesky fetuses. If women laid eggs we could just decide if we wanted breakfast, or a family. Is that too much?


----------



## JagOnDaRoad (Aug 5, 2012)

Borillar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Borillar said:
> ...



Problem is: Biology. Solution is Intelligence. Today we have condoms. Today we know what causes pregnancy. Today we have a pro-sex-any-way-you-want-whenever-you-want society that has decided when that inconvenient being enters our schedule we can delete it. We legislated an ugly, reprehensible solution to a societal problem. We have no strength at the top of our intellectual heap....only wimps, wimps who will not stand for what is right.   

Intelligence: Biology mandates the urge to procreate. We know it. The girls, no longer the ungainly twigs, seduce the boys; the boys, no longer repelled by their weakness and now  enticed with girl's new attributes, pursue. It is up to us to keep these biological magnets apart until they can couple with the understanding that if they don't prevent pregnancy they will produce a life. Ya know, this is a job for a really intelligent group of people....and as I see it we just don't have enough intelligence to get the job done. 

So, let's just uncork this whole thing. Why, pray tell me, is prostitution illegal? Can't a girl or guy make a buck doing what everyone just takes for granted? Heck, if it's perfectly legal to give it away then abort a human life, what is the problem with prostitution. " I say who, I say when." So, then that girl who is being abused and living in poverty can make a decent living, right? That would fix it...nice clothes, a new car, warts.

Why are X-rated movies X-rated?  Let's go prime time! We practically dish the crap out on public TV. We talk about it over the airwaves all day long.

Am I mixing up issues? I don't think so. Am I moralizing? Well, do we have any morals? Because if we don't have any how can I be moralizing?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 6, 2012)

Noomi said:


> They carry fetuses.



No doubt excited women run about declaring "I'm having a fetus - which is not human according to the pro-aborts." 

If a position requires one to employ disingenuous language, one can be assured they are on the wrong side of the issue.


----------

