Let us argue about abortion

[Quantum Windbag]

Uh....sane Americans, which doesn't include you, don't support 1 human killing another human out of convenience.

The criminal believes it is convenient to kill the bank workers to get all the money, so I guess you support him killing just like a woman killing off her unborn human so she can avoid missing college, etc.

I think discussing the value of life is difficult, the article is right, pro-choice people( at least the honest ones) understand that a fetus is a human life, they(me included) simply place more value on the mothers life, than the fetus'.

sure we do. We do it with wars and the death penalty all the time.

Feel free to find any post where I support the death penalty. Until you do, I will assume the mantle of sanity in this discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Windbag is on record saying we don't need any government whatsoever, so take him seriously at your own peril.

oh i don't. His answers change every post.

government is acting unconstitutionally in his mind when they make people kick in for health coverage or say you need to wear a seatbelt.

but tell a woman she has to carry a pregnancy to term no matter what she wants?!?!?! he's all for that kind of regulation...

that's what pretend libertarians do.

it's called the spoiled brat school of politics. don't tell them what to do... don't tell businesses what to do..... but tell women what to do!

it's a religious thing.

i'm just wondering why he needed to do yet another thread on this subject.

You keep blathering about this, I keep asking you to point out where I am demanding the government take action, and you keep ignoring me. One of these days you will realize that it is actually possible to be against something without involving the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the potential of the fetus is a valid argument, i.e., that it has the potential to become a person, therefore it can't be aborted,

then the fact that the fetus is also a potential killer, since women can die in/from childbirth, justifies abortion as an act of self defense.

The argument as you state it is stupid and sophomoric.

First, the fetus is not a potential person. It is a person.100% genetically complete human person. It has its own unique fingerprints; blood type and DNA. It is a person, at a specific stage of development, that if left alone, will continue to develop at the most rapid rate of development than at any later stages.. Second, the likely-hood that an unborn baby will kill its mother are less than 1%. So using it as an argument in the abortion debate is a canard- especially in light of the fact that pre Roe, women could get abortion for such situations.


The Louisiana Study. Louisiana abortionists must fill out a form entitled "Report of Induced Termination of Pregnancy" (Form #PHS 16-ab) for every abortion he or she performs. The form warns at the top that "Failure to complete and file this form is a crime." Item 9d on this form is entitled "Reason for Pregnancy Termination."

The Office of Public Health of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals compiles these statistics. Over 14 consecutive years of record keeping (1975 to 1988 inclusive), 202,135 abortions were performed in Louisiana. Of these, the reasons were listed for 115,243 of them, as shown below;

Mother's mental health-
114,231 (99.12%)

Mother's physical health-
863 ( 0.75%)

Fetal deformity (eugenics)-
103 ( 0.09%)

Rape or incest-
46 ( 0.04%)

It is very significant indeed that more than 99 percent of all abortions performed in Louisiana are for "mental health" reasons, and less than one percent (one out of 134) abortions are performed for genuine physical health complications.

More studies

A zygote does not have fingerprints.

Neither do people without hands, I am pretty sure they are still human.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fundamental issue here is that people who claim abortion is murder have nearly no personal moral development. They simply have moral regurgitation. What I mean is that they can't actually reason through WHY killing anyone is bad. It simply is, because that's how they were taught. Therefore, that moral infancy of just following and enforcing "the rules" without understanding them leads to this type of extremist temper-tantrum-like behavior. It's right next to believing santa only brings gifts to good kids: someone is getting away with pulling a fast one on them because they don't understand the moral reasoning.

To prove the point, just ask anyone who believes killing an embryo is murder to explain why murder is wrong. Morally enlightened people can do it, understand the reasoning, and apply it appropriately. Morally immature people cannot.

OK then, explain how it is moral to kill a child 6 months before it is born but not 5 months before that date.

Alternatively, you could admit you are grasping at straws because you have no logical argument to support a position that is based entirely on ethics, not morality.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What makes a fetus that the mother decides to abort at, say, 25 weeks different from a premature baby born at the same time? The only real difference, other than the mother being selfish, is one of location, not science, since babies as young as 22 weeks have proven themselves viable.

Possibility of something happening in a one in 6 billion rate does not make for decent politics. Gather all the information on 22 week old births. Note how ridiculously rare they are. Note how all of them have terrible health problems. Note how "viability" is reliant on the full extent of every artificial life support measure we have.

But let's disregard all of that. Draw the line at 22 weeks if you'd like. The underlying argument still stands.

If your friend gets regnant after a long struggle, and ends up having a miscarriage, would you tell her it wasn't really a baby? If not, your argument is based on situational ethics, not reality.

Well, it wasn't a baby. I put up the picture of a tree and an acorn before and asked which one was a tree. None of you fools dared answer, and for good reason.

A small clump of cells is not a baby. Babies do things like, I dunno, breath and stuff. It's a fetus. There's a reason why medicine has a specific word for that specific developmental stage, and a different word for the stage that comes after birth. Most lay people don't understand the difference, and just use the term "baby" for everything. But no, let's forego science and blur the lines so you can make your terrible point.

As for a grieving loss, you say whatever you feel will help settle the emotional person. Now if you'd like to address this topic like a crying woman who just had a miscarriage, that's a different story. But I like to use those things called facts.

If we were to apply your argument to everything then computers would be the property of the electric company, not the people who fork over the money to purchase them. There are numerous real life examples of organisms that exist in symbiosis or parasitic environments. The mere existence of such a bond does not support the point you are trying to make.

Good thing we can't and should NOT apply arguments about what constitutes a complete biologic life to inanimate objects, let alone discuss ownership. Because if we were to bark up that terrible metaphor, who do you suppose represent the person who purchased the computer as it applies to ownership of the fetus? You and other random people on the internet? You would make a strong argument if you thought humans were parasites or symbiotes. Do you hold such beliefs?

When do you think it happens? What is the scientific difference between a child inside a placenta and one in the process of transiting the birth canal? If you can't explain that, you are the one that is hedging your bets in order to justify your disregard of human life.

First, fetuses do not ever reside inside a placenta, my dear hick. Then again, you can't distinguish the difference between a fetus and a baby, or a tree and an acorn, so I shouldn't hold you to such high expectations as to understand terminology like "placenta."

As to what I can only interpret to be your intended question, there are a number of physiologic changes that occur to transition a fetus to a baby. The lungs quickly empty the fluid that was previously filling them, the heart stops bypassing blood past the lungs, closing off pathways within it. In fact most of the circulatory system dynamically changes. The bowel springs to life and starts to move. Bacteria begin to cover the baby inside and out, and with that the immune system starts to respond accordingly.

You really don't understand this concept at all, do you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It does not need to think, it is programmed to act. It cannot help itself. EVERYTHING that you have, biologically speaking, was present the moment your mother's ova and father's sperm joined.

Well, no. Biologically speaking, you're wrong. Most genes aren't even being expressed in a zygote. In fact, you couldn't tell the difference between a human and dog zygote. To claim it's biologically complete is short sighted. The entirety of its epigenetics hasn't even been turned on yet. Heck a live child is not even a biologically complete human, and you're claiming a zygote is? By the way, I just laid a logic trap for you, hoping you'll walk right into it.

First, the fetus is not a potential person. It is a person.100% genetically complete human person. It has its own unique fingerprints; blood type and DNA.

I couldn't help notice you had to clarify that the only part of it that is complete is the genetics. It's a good thing you did, because that's about the only thing that's complete in a zygote. Everything else, unfortunately, is far from being a complete human. Or are you naive enough to believe that 46 chromosomes in a cell is all that's needed to be a complete human? Here, let's try a simple test. Which one is a tree right now?

I'm fairly certain most 4 year olds can get this question right. Let's see if hicks can.

You are killing a human with a heartbeat, brain, eyes, fingers, etc by crushing its head and then sucking it out of its killer mother.

I love how anti-abortion people always cite outlawed methods that are no longer used in this country as their argument.

As usual you fail to understand the argument. It is already in the DNA. So, like a new born baby boy does not have a beard, a zygote, does not yet have its finger prints. But both have them already pre-programmed in their individual DNA. Nothing you add changes that.

And potential for growth is meaningless in the real world. We don't make laws based on something that is "pre-programmed." My DVR doesn't have American Idol shows on it after I pre-program it to record them next week.

If you are truly short-sighted enough to believe that a zygote is a human being, than how do you react to up to 25% of all zygotes being lost or removed by the body naturally? Is that just nature's pre-programmed method of murder?

There you go again.

What, other than raw material, is needed for a human zygote to grow into a human being? By the way, it is actually possible for a trained individual to distinguish between the zygote of a dog and that of a monkey, yhe fact that I, personally, can not do so is irrelevant. Additionally, this thread is about induced abortions, not natural processes. Stop pretending they are equivalent.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think discussing the value of life is difficult, the article is right, pro-choice people( at least the honest ones) understand that a fetus is a human life, they(me included) simply place more value on the mothers life, than the fetus'.

Of course the question isn't the mothers life, if it were, there would be no issue. The question is whether the mothers convenience is more important than the baby's life.

Life to life, no question, only tiny fraction oppose abortion if the mothers life is at stake. But that is literally a one in a million situation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Having sex with your dog is illegal.

That depends on where you are when it happens.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're a libertarian because you don't have morals like liberals, but you like less govt and lower taxes

How can one claim to like less government, but also want to government to legislate morality?

H0w can you claim you don't want government to legislate morality?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The pro-life people want the fetus to be considered a person under the law.

The abolitionist people want negroes to be considered a person under the law.

The more things change, the more democrats remain the same......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You mean my opinion to not have my son go to school in prison? And that we need to start treating our mentally ill different?
I think it is my business what goes on at my son's school, and I work with the mentally ill. So your point again?

Get the schools back in control of the parents instead of the feds and you will have a lot more say about what happens at your sons school. Unfortunately, for you, you actually think having the feds in charge of your son's school makes sense.

I do? I might but where have I said that?

You oppose the DOE? When did that start?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't just mention justification.
You will never understand what it's like to make that decision or go through it... But it doesn't stop you from judging someone... Hmmmm

Justification: 1: the act, process, or state of being justified by God
2a : the act or an instance of justifying : vindication
b : something that justifies

Thanks?

An argument that I don't understand something, even if it is true, is only a means to justify. If you actually support something learn to think, and argue, in order to defend your position with reason.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

False premise. She doesn't have to prove that. You have to prove she isn't.

prove free will exists.

I don't have to.

You do if you agree with her that they are using it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Neither is a formless mass of cells. But you seem to like those an awful lot.

Actually, I just like science and truth. When you show me a kidney that, left in its natural environment, eventually becomes what even you admit is a breathing human being you will force me to concede that you won this particular debate on points. Until then, I will stick to the incontrovertible fact that a kidney is not a human being, and a fetus is.



You tell me, you are the one that thinks there is a difference between a child in the womb of a woman who "chooses" not to keep it and one who does. Personally, I think it is easier to treat both of the exactly the same.

Okay, I'm not going any farther than this. You apparently need to learn some biology 101.

What part of biology 101 taught you that life is not life simply because you are incapable of admitting you are wrong?

For a guy who believes we don't need any government you sure seem keen on using government to ban abortion.

For a guy that claims to be smart you sure seem to think that everyone who disagrees with you wants to use government to impose their opinions on others.

Try finding one place in this thread, or anywhere else, I said that government should ban abortions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

DNA doesn't think.

Don't tell Dawkins that, he will prove you wrong.

Why don't you prove me wrong.

Define thinking and I will.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Personhood amendments are designed to take away a woman's rights over her own body and hand control over to the state. I would think you would be opposed to such huge government overreach. Banning abortion is one thing, personhood bills are a whole different set of totalitarianism.

I would think you would stop using strawmen arguments about big government against me.

 

[AmyNation]

Personhood amendments are designed to take away a woman's rights over her own body and hand control over to the state. I would think you would be opposed to such huge government overreach. Banning abortion is one thing, personhood bills are a whole different set of totalitarianism.

I would think you would stop using strawmen arguments about big government against me.

Do you disagree personhood bills are a government overreach, or simply disagree with my assumption that you would oppose such laws?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What makes a fetus that the mother decides to abort at, say, 25 weeks different from a premature baby born at the same time? The only real difference, other than the mother being selfish, is one of location, not science, since babies as young as 22 weeks have proven themselves viable.

Possibility of something happening in a one in 6 billion rate does not make for decent politics. Gather all the information on 22 week old births. Note how ridiculously rare they are. Note how all of them have terrible health problems. Note how "viability" is reliant on the full extent of every artificial life support measure we have.

Translation, "thinking makes my head hurt, don't ask me hard questions."

This thread is not about political options, it is about abortion itself. I am not advocating political options here, I am challenging you to argue about the issue. As of yet, all you can do is argue about semantics and laws.

What, specifically, is different about the child inside a mother who wants an abortion from one inside one who doesn't? Provide scientific evidence to support your position.

But let's disregard all of that. Draw the line at 22 weeks if you'd like. The underlying argument still stands.

What is the underlying argument, other than you are right and I am wrong?

If your friend gets regnant after a long struggle, and ends up having a miscarriage, would you tell her it wasn't really a baby? If not, your argument is based on situational ethics, not reality.

Well, it wasn't a baby. I put up the picture of a tree and an acorn before and asked which one was a tree. None of you fools dared answer, and for good reason.

I did not answer because the question is irrelevant, we are not talking about plants here, we are talking about humans. For one thing, I eat plants, but I have never eaten a human being.

A small clump of cells is not a baby. Babies do things like, I dunno, breath and stuff. It's a fetus. There's a reason why medicine has a specific word for that specific developmental stage, and a different word for the stage that comes after birth. Most lay people don't understand the difference, and just use the term "baby" for everything. But no, let's forego science and blur the lines so you can make your terrible point.

You don't know what babies do? Perhaps that is the root of the problem, you should come back when you understand that part.

As for a grieving loss, you say whatever you feel will help settle the emotional person. Now if you'd like to address this topic like a crying woman who just had a miscarriage, that's a different story. But I like to use those things called facts.

Believe it or not, I actually read the oped I posted to start this thread. One of the points she raised was the fact that the "pro choice" side of the issue has to deal with the fact that sometimes a fetus is a baby. Maybe you should go back and read it, so you can understand what this thread is actually about.

If we were to apply your argument to everything then computers would be the property of the electric company, not the people who fork over the money to purchase them. There are numerous real life examples of organisms that exist in symbiosis or parasitic environments. The mere existence of such a bond does not support the point you are trying to make.

Good thing we can't and should NOT apply arguments about what constitutes a complete biologic life to inanimate objects, let alone discuss ownership. Because if we were to bark up that terrible metaphor, who do you suppose represent the person who purchased the computer as it applies to ownership of the fetus? You and other random people on the internet? You would make a strong argument if you thought humans were parasites or symbiotes. Do you hold such beliefs?

Do I believe humans are symbiotic organisms? Considering that we absolutely cannot survive without intestinal organisms that help us digest food I would have to say yes. That comes with the caveat that I know very little about biology, so could be wrong.

When do you think it happens? What is the scientific difference between a child inside a placenta and one in the process of transiting the birth canal? If you can't explain that, you are the one that is hedging your bets in order to justify your disregard of human life.

First, fetuses do not ever reside inside a placenta, my dear hick. Then again, you can't distinguish the difference between a fetus and a baby, or a tree and an acorn, so I shouldn't hold you to such high expectations as to understand terminology like "placenta."

Unlike you, I don't claim to be perfect, I meant embryonic sac.

Nice to see that, despite your superior intelligence, you don't actually have an answer to my question though.

As to what I can only interpret to be your intended question, there are a number of physiologic changes that occur to transition a fetus to a baby. The lungs quickly empty the fluid that was previously filling them, the heart stops bypassing blood past the lungs, closing off pathways within it. In fact most of the circulatory system dynamically changes. The bowel springs to life and starts to move. Bacteria begin to cover the baby inside and out, and with that the immune system starts to respond accordingly.

You really don't understand this concept at all, do you?

Those sound mechanical, not something that magically happens to change a non human into a human. What makes a baby not alive simply because you refuse to accept it is alive?

 

[PredFan]

Nonsense. The GOP is actively trying to ban abortion at the state level, with real measures and real legislation.

Incorrect. Some members of the GOP are trying to.

The official position of the national GOP party is the desire to ban all abortion with a constitutional amendment.

Link?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Personhood amendments are designed to take away a woman's rights over her own body and hand control over to the state. I would think you would be opposed to such huge government overreach. Banning abortion is one thing, personhood bills are a whole different set of totalitarianism.

I would think you would stop using strawmen arguments about big government against me.

Do you disagree personhood bills are a government overreach, or simply disagree with my assumption that you would oppose such laws?

I think laws against murder are government overreach, but the rest of you idiots need rules in order to survive.