What should abortion laws be?

[☭proletarian☭]

A fetus doesn't count as one, ever, so the whole argument is completely moot anyways.

Says you.

Human being = any being that is human

fetus = a being that is human

fetus = a human being

Also, 3/5 was the amount of legal standing a slave had, which was a hell of a lot more than a fetus ever has.

So, in your world the hierarchy goes

Women
White men
Black men
children (3+)
Toddlers/infants
animals
unborn children/children not yet breathing/children attached by the umbilical cord.

?

ad, which was a hell of a lot more than a fetus ever has. Plus, the argument about legal standing was the fact that the fetus is inside of the mother, so for the fetus to go up against the mother as some sort of legal battle involving it's entitlements to her, would force the fetus to be on whichever side that the mother is actually on, physically, and without any recourse to that requirement. The fetus does not have standing

So conjoined twins are not human?

it is not born or alive.

We already went over this. You said the same thing 15 or twenty pages ago and it was shot down.

Repetition does not make a false statement true.

 

[JD_2B]

A fetus doesn't count as one, ever, so the whole argument is completely moot anyways.

Says you.

Human being = any being that is human

fetus = a being that is human

fetus = a human being

You define a fetus as a being. That is one thing it is not. Thus, it cannot be construed as being a human being.

In any event.. To be or not to be. That is the woman's decision for the content of her uterus, no matter how you choose to define such a defective word, as "be", in conjugation as a present tense adjective of what TYPE of human this fetus is. It is not presently being anything of value, if the woman does not value it, which means that regardless of whether she uses a doctor or not, she can very easily choose to get rid of it, or make a choice that rids her of it.

Also, 3/5 was the amount of legal standing a slave had, which was a hell of a lot more than a fetus ever has.

So, in your world the hierarchy goes

Women
White men
Black men
children (3+)
Toddlers/infants
animals
unborn children/children not yet breathing/children attached by the umbilical cord.

?

No- animals and fetuses would be on the same level- And I truly do not know why you are pulling this race card. I am anything but racist or prejudice, and your conclusion that I am is only more proof that you do not use logical thought when you respond. You just react according to whatever your extreme feelings are about some fact that someone posted.

ad, which was a hell of a lot more than a fetus ever has. Plus, the argument about legal standing was the fact that the fetus is inside of the mother, so for the fetus to go up against the mother as some sort of legal battle involving it's entitlements to her, would force the fetus to be on whichever side that the mother is actually on, physically, and without any recourse to that requirement. The fetus does not have standing

So conjoined twins are not human?

Conjoined twins are human beings once they are born. Having to stand on one side or another, in a courtroom, for conjoined twins who are contesting being, say, split apart- does not have any relevance to this discussion and is a moot point, because both twins can confer with their representatives with the other one's ears covered. A fetus cannot do this.

it is not born or alive.

We already went over this. You said the same thing 15 or twenty pages ago and it was shot down.

No it wasn't. It was appealed to, using various emotional conclusions which were not based on factual evidence or linear thought processes, even. This shoots nothing down, it only frustrates the other debater, causing them to not want to continue attempting to hold an intelligent dialogue, because clearly the other person involved is claiming to have all the facts, and in fact, having none.

Repetition does not make a false statement true.

It sure as hell doesn't, now does it. However, in your case, it seems that one must waste a lot of energy repeating themselves, just to defend your consistent personal ad hominem attacks, all because you cannot support your own assertions with fact.
Boo hoo.. Stop being such a crybaby.

 

[FA_Q2]

aaaaarrg…. My last post never showed up for some reason. Many pages lost

PROVE that is is CONSCIOUS, and not merely having neurological REFLEXES. Having a REFLEX does not make one conscious. As such, it does not make one sentient.
Having a reflex WILL cause the brain to activate. Of course it will. Our ability to SEE that the brain caused a reflex does not mean that the organism is conscious of that activity.

I belive that I addressed this already but here it is…
The reason I cannot agree that pro’s assertion of when brain activity develops into sentence is because it is inherently and measurably random akin to muscle twitches in an adult. This is not consciousness. Later, the brain becomes organized and able to react to stimuli. THAT is a sign of consciousness and fairly decisive one at that. You brushed aside the evidence I brought fourth with NO evidence of your own, that is the emotional response you claim you have overcome.

It boils down to this: Me, bern and pro argue that the life of a child outweighs the right of the mother to not be inconvenienced or uncomfortable during the pregnancy term. You believe the mothers right outweighs the child’s. It is that simple. I have no idea why you continue to make this argument that the child is not conscious before it take a breath as I cannot even find a left wing loony site to support that insane claim. Instead, you should at least concede that point and sot on your autonomy throne.

pro
When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.

Sorry I came back to this so late but JD drowned everything out. I can’t even find my original post which had three references to fetal brain development. Basically they stated that the brain developed early in week 6 but most agree that the brain is not fully functional and activity is akin to random muscle twitches. Here are some more that I found:

Medical statements on fetal sensing of pain -- On fetal pain. Seems there are the proper connections AND reactions at 20-24 weeks

http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf -- Suggest that the brain is sufficiently developed to learn and experience the world they are in at 30 weeks. It also states this development begins at 6 to 7 weeks but does not assert it is fully complex enough at that point. It also gives the opposing view.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie – Not much info as you have to pay to access medical journals but it does put a bottom of 18-25 weeks for a floor and 30 for a likely time that sentience develops.

All the papers I have read seem to say the same thing; sentience is possible at 20 weeks and likely at 30. Hence, first trimester only and I would even be willing to go to month four but I believe that should be the upper limit as the higher brain functions begin to make the necessary connections between the separate parts of the brain to form a consciousness mind.

My original post also included a sound study where fetuses were recorded to react to music played on the mother’s stomach and not react to music played for the mother herself.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You define a fetus as a being. That is one thing it is not.

Fail.

• S: (n) being, beingness, existence (the state or fact of existing) "a point of view gradually coming into being"; "laws in existence for centuries"
• S: (n) organism, being (a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently)

WordNet Search - 3.0

In any event.. To be or not to be. That is the woman's decision for the content of her uterus, no matter how you choose to define such a defective word, as "be", in conjugation as a present tense adjective of what TYPE of human this fetus is.[/QUOTE]

So you now admit that we're speaking about a human? That you change your position so many times is evidence that you're making it up as you go along.

How many 'types' of humans are there?

It is not presently being anything of value,

So you decide who is or is not of value? You know what such philosophies are called? Eugenics. Amerrica's seen your kind before.

if the woman does not value it, which means that regardless of whether she uses a doctor or not, she can very easily choose to get rid of it, or make a choice that rids her of it.

And if she does not value you, a 5-year-old, or black people?

No- animals and fetuses would be on the same level

Let the record show she has stated that the hierarchy of life is:


Women
White men
Black men
children (3+)
Toddlers/infants
ants, bugs, cats, children attached via the umbilical cord, unborn children

Conjoined twins are human beings

Then you recant your earlier assertions that fetuses are not humans because they are attached to and dependent on another person's body?

Conjoined twins are human beings once they are born. Having to stand on one side or another, in a courtroom, for conjoined twins who are contesting being, say, split apart- does not have any relevance to this discussion and is a moot point,

So you admit your courtroom analogy is bullshit....

No it wasn't. It was appealed to, using various emotional conclusions which were not based on factual evidence

The scientific definition of alive is not 'emotional conclusions'. We use science, you appeal to your sexism.

or linear thought processes, even

Tell us again about how you're going to have fido's puppies

 

[☭proletarian☭]

FA, i will read your posts later, when I have time to do so, and respond once I have done so.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

FA, your last link is to an error page.

 

[JD_2B]

aaaaarrg…. My last post never showed up for some reason. Many pages lost

PROVE that is is CONSCIOUS, and not merely having neurological REFLEXES. Having a REFLEX does not make one conscious. As such, it does not make one sentient.
Having a reflex WILL cause the brain to activate. Of course it will. Our ability to SEE that the brain caused a reflex does not mean that the organism is conscious of that activity.

I belive that I addressed this already but here it is…
The reason I cannot agree that pro’s assertion of when brain activity develops into sentence is because it is inherently and measurably random akin to muscle twitches in an adult. This is not consciousness. Later, the brain becomes organized and able to react to stimuli. THAT is a sign of consciousness and fairly decisive one at that. You brushed aside the evidence I brought fourth with NO evidence of your own, that is the emotional response you claim you have overcome.

We will see if that is true, below. Thank you for the links.

It boils down to this: Me, bern and pro argue that the life of a child outweighs the right of the mother to not be inconvenienced or uncomfortable during the pregnancy term.

But you make exceptions. How do you rationalize those exceptions as anything but emotive, when you yourself just admitted that as long as the fetus can have a reflex to pain, then the mother's discomfort and lifestyle means nothing to you? Why are the reflexes of the fetus more important to it's right to life, than the state it was in, just days before it was capable of reflexing that way?

You believe the mothers right outweighs the child’s. It is that simple. I have no idea why you continue to make this argument that the child is not conscious before it take a breath as I cannot even find a left wing loony site to support that insane claim. Instead, you should at least concede that point and sot on your autonomy throne.

I don't believe it is conscious, before birth or during. I do understand that it has a functional brain, and is capable of having reflexes and even remembering. That is not the same thing as being conscious. YOU want to say that having a functioning brain that causes reflexes makes a thing conscious. I respectfully disagree, because you know and I know that having brain activity and the ability to reflex is not the equivalent to consciousness, in any born human. It should not, then, be applied to a fetus.

pro
When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.

Sorry I came back to this so late but JD drowned everything out. I can’t even find my original post which had three references to fetal brain development. Basically they stated that the brain developed early in week 6 but most agree that the brain is not fully functional and activity is akin to random muscle twitches. Here are some more that I found:

Medical statements on fetal sensing of pain -- On fetal pain. Seems there are the proper connections AND reactions at 20-24 weeks

LMAO!! A link to "religious tolerance". Could you find me anything more biased than this, so that I can continue ROTFLMAO!!!!

Ever heard of the "silent scream" abortion video? Well, there are people amongst you who believe that the 8 week gestated embryo is actually showing obvious signs of having a "developed brain", and that the open mouth mechanism going on during the abortion, goes hand in hand with all the jerking around. These are not RANDOM twitches. These are pain responses. I believe that. Fetuses can feel as early as 6 weeks into gestation. What a bunch of doctors are quoted saying on religious tolerance means absolutely zilch to me. All that is, is a bunch of people giving you their perspective on the random twitching, and actual reflexes of the embryo and fetus, and talking you into believing that just because they have reflexes, then those actions are not random.
Religious Tolerance is not a medical journal, and will NOT tell you that the fetus does not understand pain. All you are seeing and hearing about is a brain and body connection which shows that the brain is functional and that it is working properly. It does not mean that having a reflex is the same as a voluntary movement. Even yawning and stretching, thumb sucking, etc- are not voluntary movements, contrary to what you have been fooled into thinking.

My sources:

White, Lois. Foundations Of Maternal & Pediatric Nursing, pages 10 and 128 (2004): "By the end of the 12th week, skeletal muscles begin involuntary movements....The newborn may cry and have muscular activity when cold, but there is no voluntary control of muscular activity."

^ a b Becher, Julie-Claire. "Insights into Early Fetal Development", Behind the Medical Headlines (Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow October 2004): "Purposive movement depends on brain maturation. This begins at about 18 weeks' gestation and progressively replaces reflex movements, which disappear by about 8 months after birth....Reflexes are very different from purposeful voluntary movements which develop during the first year of life."

So you see, purposeful movements are voluntary, and they do NOT happen until after the baby is born, and OUTSIDE of the woman. Voluntary movements would be scientifically disastrous for the mother, especially during child birth. Child birth results in pain, for both the mother and fetus, whose head actually gets squished and reduced in size by the birth canal. This is the reason why born babies have "soft spots" on their heads. The cranium does no fully fissure itself together until AFTER birth, because the skull portions must be squeezed out, as one head. Very painful, indeed. The shoulders are the next big portion to push through, but because the human body contains joints, and the fetal body has very little muscle, then the shoulders get pushed out fairly easily. If a fetus could make purposeful voluntary movements, then this could mean very bad things for the mother throughout the time frame in which purposeful, voluntary movements existed (again, they do not exist) including displacement of the placenta or umbilical cord, fetal movements tearing the uterus, and the fetus placing itself in a breech position, voluntarily. That makes no sense whatsoever.

http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf -- Suggest that the brain is sufficiently developed to learn and experience the world they are in at 30 weeks. It also states this development begins at 6 to 7 weeks but does not assert it is fully complex enough at that point. It also gives the opposing view.

This article notes:

The way in which fetal nerve cells work (in terms of neurotransmitter
and receptor function) is also quite different. Also ‘feedback’
mechanisms to dampen response do not develop fully until after
birth.

Also, the remainder of this "newsletter" is merely a back and forth on differentiating opinions on whether it takes a "fully developed" brain to have function (this is in the words of the newsletter author- clearly pro lifers, as they are the only "organizations" involved in spreading this kind of rhetoric) Heres a funny video:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw[/ame]

That is also more proof that these anti abortion protesters are completely driven by an emotional response to pictures of aborted fetuses, many of which are not real in the first place.

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/ref/10.3109/14767059209161911?cookieSet=1

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie – Not much info as you have to pay to access medical journals but it does put a bottom of 18-25 weeks for a floor and 30 for a likely time that sentience develops.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


Either Moot.. Or some kind of virus. Thanks.. ?

All the papers I have read seem to say the same thing; sentience is possible at 20 weeks and likely at 30. Hence, first trimester only and I would even be willing to go to month four but I believe that should be the upper limit as the higher brain functions begin to make the necessary connections between the separate parts of the brain to form a consciousness mind.

The only way of being able to even claim that is based on fetal pain reaction, which does not indicate sentience or consciousness. And if fetal pain is the issue, and the doctor or patient feels strongly about it, then the fetus can be given anesthesia, before the abortion takes place. No problem.

My original post also included a sound study where fetuses were recorded to react to music played on the mother’s stomach and not react to music played for the mother herself.

And that study was inconclusive, as it stated itself, claiming that they did not have adequate technology to make an accurate conclusion about it.

Also, a fetus's brain could not at all be affected by headphones being put on the woman's ears, so the entire premise of the study is ridiculous, at best.

 

[Bern80]

I don't believe it is conscious, before birth or during. I do understand that it has a functional brain, and is capable of having reflexes and even remembering. That is not the same thing as being conscious. YOU want to say that having a functioning brain that causes reflexes makes a thing conscious. I respectfully disagree, because you know and I know that having brain activity and the ability to reflex is not the equivalent to consciousness, in any born human. It should not, then, be applied to a fetus.

Again oh logical one. You need to consider the other beliefs your position requires. It would require that you believe the conciousness occurres at a specifics point in time, like a light switch being flipped from off to on. Further it would require that you believe conciousness occurs the second the head is out. Consiousness deals with the development of the mind, so tell us what happens in the mind in that brief period between being in the birth canal to being fully born. Is it logical to believe that two independent unrelated processes; 1) birthing and 2) reaching full concsiousness occurr at the exact same time all the time?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Also, a fetus's brain could not at all be affected by headphones being put on the woman's ears, so the entire premise of the study is ridiculous, at best.

Could it be effected by being in the blast zone of a MOAB?

 

[JD_2B]

I don't believe it is conscious, before birth or during. I do understand that it has a functional brain, and is capable of having reflexes and even remembering. That is not the same thing as being conscious. YOU want to say that having a functioning brain that causes reflexes makes a thing conscious. I respectfully disagree, because you know and I know that having brain activity and the ability to reflex is not the equivalent to consciousness, in any born human. It should not, then, be applied to a fetus.

Again oh logical one. You need to consider the other beliefs your position requires. It would require that you believe the conciousness occurres at a specifics point in time, like a light switch being flipped from off to on.

I do believe this. I believe that the moment the baby breathes its own air, it becomes alive, and is henceforth considered an individual. If this belief was so inaccurate, then why is it the legal standard?

Further it would require that you believe conciousness occurs the second the head is out.

This I do not believe. The head being out does not equate to the baby breathing it's own air, and therefore does not equate to the baby achieving consciousness. Breathing is involuntary- and all involuntary physical capacity must be fulfilled before the baby becomes a living being, capable of voluntary thought/ sentience.

Consiousness deals with the development of the mind,

No.. Neurology deals with the development of the brain. Consciousness is simply the state of awareness. Furthermore:
Mind - Definition

Using the term "mind", relates very closely to a fetus being capable of reasoning. Can you prove that a fetus can reason?
Also:

[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]neu·rol·o·gy[/SIZE][/FONT] (n

-r

l

-j

, ny

-) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]NOUN:[/SIZE]
The medical science that deals with the nervous system and disorders affecting it.

[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]con·scious[/SIZE][/FONT] (k

n

sh

s) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]ADJECTIVE:[/SIZE]

1. 1. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
   2. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
3. Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
4. Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.
5. Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.
6. Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.

[SIZE=-1]NOUN:[/SIZE]
In psychoanalysis, the component of waking awareness perceptible by a person at any given instant; consciousness.[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]ETYMOLOGY:[/SIZE][/FONT]
From Latin c

nscius : com-, com- + sc

re, to know; see skei- in Indo-European roots

so tell us what happens in the mind in that brief period between being in the birth canal to being fully born.

Until it breathes, the fetus is pushed by the woman, to get it out. Also there are contractions. During this time, the only oxygen received by the fetus is through the umbilical vein, and the used blood is returned to the woman via the two umbilical arteries.
Actually, full fledged consciousness may not actually begin for a full five minutes following initial breathing, if the umbilical cord cannot be cut in time. See it takes five minutes for the veins to collapse and stop circulating in the infant, after birth, if the umbilical cord is not cut. Regardless of whether babies in this instance are fully cognitive or not until five minutes after birth, we still consider them to be living beings, based on the fact that they are now, for all rational, legal, and scientific purposes, generally self sustaining individuals, as the umbilical cord CAN be cut, if there was any issue, and the baby CAN get artificial ventilation if needed.
During the birthing process, the fetus can actually not survive, if the umbilical cord becomes faulty, or if any number of complications occur, and without affecting the mother, however slightly, it is not possible to treat the fetus as a separate entity.
Sentience in and of itself is something that the fetus has been gestating and developing the neurological connections it needs in order to achieve live birth and sentience.. But, like a six month old baby who could not hold it's bottle one day, and could do it the next day, or the 14 month old who could not walk one day, but walked the following day- gestation is similar. It is in preparation for LIFE. A 5 month old baby can touch the bottle, as a reflexive reaction, and cry because it knows it is uncomfortable. Holding the bottle is a voluntary response, and also happens virtually overnight. Crying may be considered communicating, also, but it is really not the same. "First Words", are also not communicating. Usually they are "da-da" or some other nonsensical (although voluntary) verbalization that is merely a repetition of what they heard others say, like in the cases of talking birds. Also, pointing at "da-da" and saying "daddy" or "da-da" is a great way to condition the child's memory that pointing at a male (this can happen with any male that even looks like dad, much akin to newborns who root at the breasts of women who are not their mothers, and often times the chests of men who are also not their mothers.) in order to cause it to say Da Da when it sees that male. The baby has no clue what a da da is, only that this male is someone who is present. If the male is not active in his life, then by all definitions of how a baby learns to think about fathers, the word could be used towards any number of males, who are also only very infrequent caretakers in the infant's life, as well. I used to babysit this little girl between the ages of 2 and 5, whose daddy had a dark beard. A full beard, I should specify. Well, when she saw any man on TV with the same beard, she would point to him and say "Daddy!!!", and when she looked at the pictures in this cartoon book we would read, she would see a drawing of a guy with a black beard, and shriek with joy "Daddy!!".. Not that this story has any relevance to this debate, lol- because the little girl knew something about her daddy (who I suspect was somewhat absent from her life, even though he lived with his wife and children), so claiming that she was not aware of her dad would be irrational also.

I digress.. Just because something CAN be sentient, does not mean that it IS, no matter how much you want to assume such a thing. When my son was a baby, he used to "root" for milk, on my boyfriend's chest. We got a big kick out of it. My son was clearly sentient, though. He knew he was hungry, and he actively looked for nourishment. (even when he just cried, he was still sentient.. but the crying was an involuntary response to the discomfort of colic that he probably did not understand himself, because I could feed him, which would make him quiet during the time he had the bottle, change him, which would calm him while he was getting the fresh diaper on, burp him, which he enjoyed more than less, hold him, which he loved, etc, and he would still cry. He clearly did not understand his own discomfort or he would have continued to cry even while I was changing his diapers and feeding him, holding him, etc.- So anyways, there was obviously some kind of sentience going on, because he calmed down and then got upset again, but even for a 4 month old baby, this consciousness is hardly something that one could be so quick to claim as being capable of processing and understanding discomfort!)
Oh and I am not saying that infants are not people, either, so please do not verbally attack me with a slew of ad hominems in response to the facts I have presented to you. I am sick of you and your homeys treating me like a sicko wicked "pro death" bitch just because I don't agree that fetuses are people, so that is going to come to a screeching halt, here and now, if you please.

Is it logical to believe that two independent unrelated processes; 1) birthing and 2) reaching full concsiousness occurr at the exact same time all the time?

I do not believe that born infants have full consciousness, either. Actually, until the baby hits their first birthday, they generally do not even have a full grown brain.
I also find it completely irrational to think that a fetus can make voluntary movements in the uterus, because this would cause a major hazard to it's chances of growing to the point of maturing enough to reach the stage of full term live birth. You want to say that fetuses can make conscious, voluntary movements while they are living inside of a person's body, and that, my friend, is just not sensible at all. It's not even logical.

 

[Bern80]

I don't believe it is conscious, before birth or during. I do understand that it has a functional brain, and is capable of having reflexes and even remembering. That is not the same thing as being conscious. YOU want to say that having a functioning brain that causes reflexes makes a thing conscious. I respectfully disagree, because you know and I know that having brain activity and the ability to reflex is not the equivalent to consciousness, in any born human. It should not, then, be applied to a fetus..........

uh just stay tuned. Working on another reply that will hoepfully get this on a different footing.

 

[Bern80]

Not necessarily. They develop brain activity, through brain development, and the potential for acquiring consciousness. Actually, neurological development begins at conception, which means that the brain grows. For anything to grow in size, their must be some neurological processes at work, meaning that there is brain activity at work. Just because the brain WORKS, does not mean that a state of consciousness is present, as well.
Like I said- PROVE otherwise. Basic Logic should tell you that Brain Activity and consciousness are not one and the same.

Where did I EVER contend that brain activity equals conciousness? Again it is you are presuming things, not me. I am well aware that brain activity occurrs before actual conciousness. My contention is simply that to believe that that specific aspect of brain activity occurs within mere seconds and happens to also coincide with be birthed (hence why you would have to believe it does occur within mere seconds) is highly illogical and unlikely. I still don't believe you understand the beliefs required of your position so I'm gonna lay out simply what it sounds to me like you believe and you can correct me if I'm wrong, then point out what those beliefs require

1) You believe abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason.

2)You believe a baby only has conciousness after being birthed.

I also have reason to believe that your own beliefs stem more from an emotional perspective, based on the vagueness of your posts, your refusal to show me anything of evidential merit, that a fetus can think, or have cognition, and the most obvious- the misspelling of words, making it appear that you are just coming to a conclusion based on intuition, rather than logic, using symbolism rather than concrete fact, to come to that conclusion. To figure out why and how you came to your conclusion, you are using backwards logic, aka induction, to find the root of your answers.

That would be wishful thinking on your part. I don't know what else to tell you other than you're simply going to have to take my word that emotion has very little to do with my opinion on abortion.

You KNOW that just as a 9 month fetus has a full brain, which shows far more function than an 8 month fetus has, and a LOT more that we can SEE happening than in an embryo. You also KNOW that "see it to believe it" is an illogical way of thinking, but you have a hard time believing that any zygote or fetus is capable of thought, or brain function, because it cannot be measured or seen by YOU, or science as a whole, at least not as of yet. That is a fact based pattern of reasoning, but it is not deductive, it is inductive, and conditional reasoning. Conditional meaning that in your personal opinion, since born infants have the ability to think, then fetuses do too. There is no actual evidence to support this, empirical or otherwise, and thus it is simply just YOU making an observation, coming to a conclusion, and then trying to explain that conclusion, and justify it. THAT is why it is illogical.

Wrong on every count. Again all I contend is that it is illogical to believe that conciousness occurs no earlier than immediately before the child is born and is fully concioous immediately after. What I ask is that you forget for a moment what you think you know to answer a hypothetical question to get this debate on footing such that we understand each other. Again forget what you think you know; If you KNEW that a baby had consciousness prior to birth at some point in the developmental cycle, would change your position that abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason?

I am debating certain specific points of development with several people on here, so excuse me for saying so- but what was your stance again?
I ask, because if you feel that abortion is okay in the first trimester, and yet wish to assert that second and third trimester abortions should be illegal, or you argue that it is okay up to a certain week, etc- Then specify which week of gestation that is, and what happened in the minute between the second trimester and the first, or the second time frame in which you deem abortion as being immoral and the first, in which you deem it moral. Or maybe you don't agree with abortion whatsoever.. There are at least 6 people on here who I have been discussing this with, so forgive me, but message boards are highly impersonal, and I do not remember your particular stance. Explain that, though, please, if you will. =)

Again my belief is pretty simple. I don't know specifically when conciousness occurs in the developmental cycle. You are the only one that has claimed to know this so far, albeit only as an implicit part of your position. What I am fairly confident in and what is grounded in logic and evidence is that a baby achieves concsiousness at some point while still in the womb. I believe

Again, murder is a legal term, and emptying an organ that is within my body is not criminal, nor should it be.
I do not think that recognizing the fact that my UTERUS is MINE, to do with as I wish, is some kind of a warped view. I do think that YOUR feeling that government can and should have the right to turn an bodily organ, that may or may not work, within a body, which may or may not continue to function for another 9 months, into some kind of mandatory baby oven, is not exactly being brutally honest about what you are even proposing. It is MY uterus, and whether I do or do not want anything in it, I am allowed to make the choice of disposal, or full term gestation, at my sole discretion. Like I said many times before, this will ALWAYS be at my own discretion. I can take a belly flop off of a high dive, if I want, even if the government wrote some law saying I should not have that kind of right. I can "accidentally" put too much paprika in my food, or overdo it on Vitamin C, as well. I can ask a friend to whack my belly a few times with a bat, if I want to. If that is an option that I am afraid of taking, because it could hurt- I could always just DROP some 15 pound weights on my tummy, using a simple pulley system, and laying down. What can the government do? Not much. That is autonomy, in a nutshell, like it or not.

Sure you have the option to do all of those things. But more and more it sounding like you don't really care whether or not a baby is considered a human being or not. That is what I am trying to figure out. Because if you don't, that is if your position on when abortion should be allowed doesn't change if, for argument's sake, you KNEW that a baby was a human being, a big chunk of this debate about concsiousness, sentients and all of that is irrelevant.

<sigh> Read the whole thread, please. I have already covered this a few times. The mother is not responsible for the baby, physically, after it is born. The father can feed it, other women can nurse it (it happens ALL OVER THE WORLD THIS WAY, by the way) and other people can take 24/7 responsibility for it. Being responsible for a child is not physiological, it is sociological. Make the difference clear to yourself, please. Choosing not to take care of one's child is generally not neglect. There are safe baby drops, friends, family, and child care providers out there that are all sociologically responsible for babies. Next...

Do you understand the difference between responsibility and dependance. The later is what I am arguing. I did not say that the mother is just as responsible for her baby pre-birth as she is after. I said their is very little difference between the dependance a child has on the mother pre-birth and the dependance it has on the rest of the world to take care of it after birth. In terms of it's ability to take care of itself, by itself. Very little, arguably nothing, has changed.

Women are just as innocent as the contents of their uterine walls are. Why should the fetus get some entitlement to remain there, above and beyond the woman's entitlement to not have to go through with a nine month pregnancy and birthing process?
Remember- you have to be aware of your own assertions, and the lack of logic that you put into them. It is entirely illogical to say that one innocent life should not trump another innocent life, but you yourself are arguing that the fetus should have rights, which would mean that it's rights should trump those of the mother. Please explain.

I don't look at really as what rights woman does or doesn't have to here uterus. The argument I beileve that overrides that is where is the point that it is okay to make another life suffer the consequences of your lack of responsibility/poor judgement?

Sure- but to err is human. To be allergic to hormonal birth control is not uncommon.. and the inability to be able to pay for said birth control is another issue entirely. Hence, the whole health care reform debate, when it comes to including birth control options. Please be aware that not everyone has access or knowledge, even, of basic sex ed. The lady that brought me for my abortion, told me a couple of funny stories of how uneducated some of the people she had met were. She was a Hospital Corpsman in the Navy, and we worked at the same command. One story was about a young lady (in the USN) from Tennessee, who had never heard of birth control, and when asked how babies are made, answered "Well, both people have to close their eyes really tight, cross their fingers, and wish for it, of course!!"
Another gal, slept in the rack just above this corpsman's bed, and my friend would wake up in the morning with actual RAGS, dangling from the bed rails. These rags were being used to absorb menstrual blood. They were hanging there to dry, for reuse later. She gave the young lady (another one from the hills of TN) some feminine hygiene pads. The next morning, the pads were stuck to the side of the rack, all washed up, and ready to be reused.
Of course, not everyone who experiences an unwanted pregnancy is so uneducated. Even Doctors experience them, sometimes. Condoms are only listed as being 85% effective, with perfect storage and use, and these are frequently misused, or delivered in very hot box trucks, where their integrity is compromised. Those jellies also are only about 80-85% effective, and again, that is with perfect use. Some of them, you have to wait 15 minutes to use them.
Many people also think that "withdrawal" is an effective method of birth control, and do not understand or know that pre-ejaculate happens before the male orgasms, which can cause pregnancy. Even if a man ejaculates on the OUTSIDE of the vagina, and even one little drop of sperm gets on the vaginal lips, the "labia major", even- the woman can get pregnant.
Pregnancy does NOT always happen by consent- You can take that to the bank.

Consent is not the point. Of course I believe a woman has the right to prevent being pregnant. My point is that unless you are extremely ignorant of human biology, you know that if a man has ejaculated in you or even close to in you, consensual or otherwise, there is the possibility that you could be pregnant. Further women have several options well before the second trimester to prevent pregnancy and find out if they are pregnant.

?????????????? You make no fucking sense. Hilarious!!! Since when are chairpersons, salespeople, and spokespersons, not fucking PEOPLE?? BOY OH BOY!!!

Yeah what prolet said. I'm not sure how much more basic I can make it for you. You response to my definition is the equivalent of saying that ANY thing defined as a person is either a chairperson, or spokesperson, salesperson, etc. All of those things are persons, but not all persons are those things. Clear enough for ya?

 

[JD_2B]

Not necessarily. They develop brain activity, through brain development, and the potential for acquiring consciousness. Actually, neurological development begins at conception, which means that the brain grows. For anything to grow in size, their must be some neurological processes at work, meaning that there is brain activity at work. Just because the brain WORKS, does not mean that a state of consciousness is present, as well.
Like I said- PROVE otherwise. Basic Logic should tell you that Brain Activity and consciousness are not one and the same.

Where did I EVER contend that brain activity equals conciousness? Again it is you are presuming things, not me. I am well aware that brain activity occurrs before actual conciousness. My contention is simply that to believe that that specific aspect of brain activity occurs within mere seconds and happens to also coincide with be birthed (hence why you would have to believe it does occur within mere seconds) is highly illogical and unlikely. I still don't believe you understand the beliefs required of your position so I'm gonna lay out simply what it sounds to me like you believe and you can correct me if I'm wrong, then point out what those beliefs require

1) You believe abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason.

Yes I believe that women should not be criminally prosecuted for making decisions that affect their bodies, lives, or spirit, just because someone somewhere deems that certain movements of a fetus are equivalent to the movements of a conscious being.

2)You believe a baby only has conciousness after being birthed.

Yes, that is true. I believe that the building blocks to attaining consciousness are present prior to birth, prior to the fetus completing all of the necessary prerequisites required of involuntary bodily function, before it can achieve sentience.

I also have reason to believe that your own beliefs stem more from an emotional perspective, based on the vagueness of your posts, your refusal to show me anything of evidential merit, that a fetus can think, or have cognition, and the most obvious- the misspelling of words, making it appear that you are just coming to a conclusion based on intuition, rather than logic, using symbolism rather than concrete fact, to come to that conclusion. To figure out why and how you came to your conclusion, you are using backwards logic, aka induction, to find the root of your answers.

That would be wishful thinking on your part. I don't know what else to tell you other than you're simply going to have to take my word that emotion has very little to do with my opinion on abortion.

OK

Wrong on every count. Again all I contend is that it is illogical to believe that conciousness occurs no earlier than immediately before the child is born and is fully concioous immediately after. What I ask is that you forget for a moment what you think you know to answer a hypothetical question to get this debate on footing such that we understand each other. Again forget what you think you know; If you KNEW that a baby had consciousness prior to birth at some point in the developmental cycle, would change your position that abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason?

As I have said many many times, Legally- probably not. I would personally, however, remain open minded to the woman having a limited array of SOCIALLY acceptable reasons to terminate the pregnancy, for the same Personal moral reasons that I have today, none of which include anything to do with fetal rights, or the fact that the fetus was (hypothetically speaking) conscious. There is such a thing as anesthesia, so the consciousness of the fetus is truly a moot point, as far as I am concerned.

Again my belief is pretty simple. I don't know specifically when conciousness occurs in the developmental cycle. You are the only one that has claimed to know this so far, albeit only as an implicit part of your position. What I am fairly confident in and what is grounded in logic and evidence is that a baby achieves concsiousness at some point while still in the womb. I believe

??

I think that there is no logical reason to believe that a fetus can process and reason and understand ANYTHING, or that it can make voluntary movements, which would be hazardous to not only itself, but the woman who is carrying it. This can only logically happen when it is born.

Sure you have the option to do all of those things. But more and more it sounding like you don't really care whether or not a baby is considered a human being or not. That is what I am trying to figure out. Because if you don't, that is if your position on when abortion should be allowed doesn't change if, for argument's sake, you KNEW that a baby was a human being, a big chunk of this debate about concsiousness, sentients and all of that is irrelevant.

Actually, as usual, you really undermine my position when you say things like that. Your perception of my position on abortion is very different than what kind of a moral compass I have, personally, but you have arbitrarily decided that you will mesh the two together. You also discount my personal opinions on late term abortion, and mesh them together with my legal opinions on it. Clearly, all of this is very emotional for you.. But since you refuse to admit that- allow me to clear a few things up please.

Personally- I don't think women should abort past the first trimester. My reasons for this have nothing to do with sentience, or anything you might try to personally decide my opinion on this is based on. I simply think that it is more dangerous to have a late term abortion than it is to have one in the first 4 months. (and yes I think that the 4th month should be within the time frame for abortion on demand, legally, too)

Legally- I do not think that women should be imprisoned for having and executing full autonomy of their bodies, no matter what phase of the pregnancy they are in. What kind of punishment should a woman who aborts in the second or third trimester get, if this was done illegally?

Do you understand the difference between responsibility and dependance. The later is what I am arguing. I did not say that the mother is just as responsible for her baby pre-birth as she is after. I said their is very little difference between the dependance a child has on the mother pre-birth and the dependance it has on the rest of the world to take care of it after birth. In terms of it's ability to take care of itself, by itself. Very little, arguably nothing, has changed.

So now, you are changing your argument about dependence on the mother, regarding her responsibility (which, by the way, I responded to in a very civil way, and was practically burned at the stake for saying that being responsible for a baby is societal, and not necessarily the mother's responsibility).
And yes- the dependence on the world's society to be available to care for it and such, is far different from it's dependence on the mother to be ALIVE, HEALTHY AND UNHARMED, in order for it to grow. Society may have a hundred people caring for that baby, who can all get sick and die, while they are caring for that baby, but the baby will not die, also. This is not so with the woman carrying a ZEF. You HAVE to admit that to yourself. It is MUCH MUCH DIFFERENT.

I don't look at really as what rights woman does or doesn't have to here uterus. The argument I beileve that overrides that is where is the point that it is okay to make another life suffer the consequences of your lack of responsibility/poor judgement?

You are unbelievable. Instead of giving a rational response, you again resort to factless emotional rhetoric, and abusive language that suggests that all women who abort must immediately be "life takers", who have no sense of "responsibility", and use, exclusively "poor judgment". Thinly veiled attack. Not cool.

Sure- but to err is human. To be allergic to hormonal birth control is not uncommon.. and the inability to be able to pay for said birth control is another issue entirely. Hence, the whole health care reform debate, when it comes to including birth control options. Please be aware that not everyone has access or knowledge, even, of basic sex ed. The lady that brought me for my abortion, told me a couple of funny stories of how uneducated some of the people she had met were. She was a Hospital Corpsman in the Navy, and we worked at the same command. One story was about a young lady (in the USN) from Tennessee, who had never heard of birth control, and when asked how babies are made, answered "Well, both people have to close their eyes really tight, cross their fingers, and wish for it, of course!!"
Another gal, slept in the rack just above this corpsman's bed, and my friend would wake up in the morning with actual RAGS, dangling from the bed rails. These rags were being used to absorb menstrual blood. They were hanging there to dry, for reuse later. She gave the young lady (another one from the hills of TN) some feminine hygiene pads. The next morning, the pads were stuck to the side of the rack, all washed up, and ready to be reused.
Of course, not everyone who experiences an unwanted pregnancy is so uneducated. Even Doctors experience them, sometimes. Condoms are only listed as being 85% effective, with perfect storage and use, and these are frequently misused, or delivered in very hot box trucks, where their integrity is compromised. Those jellies also are only about 80-85% effective, and again, that is with perfect use. Some of them, you have to wait 15 minutes to use them.
Many people also think that "withdrawal" is an effective method of birth control, and do not understand or know that pre-ejaculate happens before the male orgasms, which can cause pregnancy. Even if a man ejaculates on the OUTSIDE of the vagina, and even one little drop of sperm gets on the vaginal lips, the "labia major", even- the woman can get pregnant.
Pregnancy does NOT always happen by consent- You can take that to the bank.

Consent is not the point. Of course I believe a woman has the right to prevent being pregnant. My point is that unless you are extremely ignorant of human biology, you know that if a man has ejaculated in you or even close to in you, consensual or otherwise, there is the possibility that you could be pregnant. Further women have several options well before the second trimester to prevent pregnancy and find out if they are pregnant.

Yes I understand that. That does not mean that the ones who were too ignorant about birth control to use it should be criminalized for having to save for three months to have a fourth month abortion, or that those who were on birth control, causing them to have two periods a year, should be criminalized, for not wanting a pregnancy, and not knowing until they were 6 months along, that a pregnancy was present. I agree that it sucks, but that is too bad. It is especially too bad for a woman who makes that kind of decision, as 1:16,000 of those Third trimester abortions end in death for the woman, as it is. That doesn't mean that it should not be her right to go ahead and abort it. Some men say they have had a vasectomy, just to have unprotected sex, even when they knew that the woman was not on birth control. There are a lot of naive and even stupid people in this world, and they shouldn't be treated as criminals for making unhealthy decisions.

?????????????? You make no fucking sense. Hilarious!!! Since when are chairpersons, salespeople, and spokespersons, not fucking PEOPLE?? BOY OH BOY!!!

Yeah what prolet said. I'm not sure how much more basic I can make it for you. You response to my definition is the equivalent of saying that ANY thing defined as a person is either a chairperson, or spokesperson, salesperson, etc. All of those things are persons, but not all persons are those things. Clear enough for ya?

Nope. I have never heard of, seen, or gotten any kind of orders, understandings, knowledge, or otherwise from a fetusperson, so to me this is all emotionally charged rhetoric on your side's behalf. =)

 

[FA_Q2]

pro
FA, your last link is to an error page.

informahealthcare

The link still worked for me though. Here it is again.

But you make exceptions. How do you rationalize those exceptions as anything but emotive, when you yourself just admitted that as long as the fetus can have a reflex to pain, then the mother's discomfort and lifestyle means nothing to you? Why are the reflexes of the fetus more important to it's right to life, than the state it was in, just days before it was capable of reflexing that way?

And where did I make any exceptions? Once again, I EXPLICITLY stated that I did not believe in any exceptions except imminent danger to life and I do not need to explain the obvious and already covered reasons why imminent danger is a reason to abort. Its ability to feel pain and reflexes are not the point, the ability to process and attain a form of consciousness that is. Those articles here and posted earlier show that the brain is sufficiently developed and active enough for that to occur and ignoring the data does not change that. There are some people that hold a fetus is not conscious and the evidence used to prove that also proves that a child is not conscious up to a full year. That IS pure lunacy and as of yet I have not seen ANYTHING that suggests a fetus is not a conscious being by week 30.

 

[JD_2B]

Again, your link is inconclusive, as stated here:

It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.


Plausible does not mean "conclusive". Also, the 30th week is beyond the beginning of the third trimester, so even using a plausibility template, such as this, one cannot continue to want women criminalized for wanting abortions on demand any sooner than that week, if that desire is based on sentience.

But you make exceptions. How do you rationalize those exceptions as anything but emotive, when you yourself just admitted that as long as the fetus can have a reflex to pain, then the mother's discomfort and lifestyle means nothing to you? Why are the reflexes of the fetus more important to it's right to life, than the state it was in, just days before it was capable of reflexing that way?

And where did I make any exceptions? Once again, I EXPLICITLY stated that I did not believe in any exceptions except imminent danger to life and I do not need to explain the obvious and already covered reasons why imminent danger is a reason to abort. [/quote]

EXCEPT that the word EXCEPT is the root word for the term and functionality of the word "exception".
Besides- "Imminent danger", at least in the world of third trimester abortionists, means "possible risk to death" and is a game of statistical risks to the mother. You invalidate my own statistical risks to the mother, based on her weight gain, and possibility of having a heart attack or gestational diabetes. When playing statistics, be sure that your own statistical risks are no less than 100%, especially when one claims that other statistical risks of death or serious injury are far less, because I guarantee you that 100% of women who have died of a heart attack or during childbirth, CAUSED by the condition of being pregnant, after seeking abortion services in a locale that does not allow or offer them, did still die. I can also guarantee you that 100% of women who have full term pregnancies die, also. Some die as a result of pregnancies, and the weight gain involved, which contributed to them getting cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. That statistic is a little bit difficult to argue with. So.. Go ahead and define "imminent danger", and try like hell to justify a woman dying from weight gain caused by multiple pregnancies, compared with her dying during the pregnancy.. Nothing is really nearly as imminent as you make it out to be, except for ectopic pregnancies, which can last for several weeks without treatment, as well.

Its ability to feel pain and reflexes are not the point, the ability to process and attain a form of consciousness that is. Those articles here and posted earlier show that the brain is sufficiently developed and active enough for that to occur and ignoring the data does not change that.

The articles say no such thing. They say that the earliest POSSIBLE week that sentience is "plausible" is the 30th.
The articles say all of the same things, also, that I myself have previously agreed to- that the brain can be capable of such sentience. However, I refuse to accept that capacity is equivalent to actual functionality. We do not use all of our brains at the same time, and we are adults. In fact, we use very little of them, at any given time, no matter how hard we try to think. Our brains clearly are fully functional and appear to have the capacity to function as a whole, but that does not mean that they actually DO function that way. We lack a lot in the realm of perception, which can unfortunately shadow a lot of truths for people, causing us to come to conclusions that do not have any corresponding evidence to back up.

There are some people that hold a fetus is not conscious and the evidence used to prove that also proves that a child is not conscious up to a full year. That IS pure lunacy and as of yet I have not seen ANYTHING that suggests a fetus is not a conscious being by week 30.

Again- Me saying that a fetus is not conscious at week 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, or 40, is not the same thing as me saying that a baby is not conscious.

And you haven't proven squat, so stop trying to convince yourself you have.

 

[Father Time]

Also, a fetus's brain could not at all be affected by headphones being put on the woman's ears, so the entire premise of the study is ridiculous, at best.

Could it be effected by being in the blast zone of a MOAB?

Is that the thing that the police use to blast noise into crowds for riot control?

 

[JenT]

Is a fetus alive? yes. Is it human? yes. It is a "being" in fact, there is a flash of electricity that happens at the point of conception that last time I looked, doctors were unable to explain.

My son stood larger than life, the sun dancing on his hair, his eyes sparkling as he laughed with his teammates in all the bravado only teamates can share. Grinning from ear to ear, ahead in a major semi-pro football game, my son was radiant with the joy of it, and I thanked God for days such as this.

I once had the RIGHT to kill him. For a second I imagined him not there.

That thought shot through my body like ice and anger at women like Nancy Pelosi welled up inside. What kind of monster would fight to kill innocents? What sick and twisted people are these to campaign that our tax dollars be used to MURDER men like my son, to confuse young teens carrying children, to convince them they aren&#8217;t children at all but worthless cells. Those poor teens and young women have no idea what they&#8217;re doing and how they would regret it for the rest of their lives.

Personal testimony
Abortion: young and deceived by Jen Shroder

 

[eots]

A fetus doesn't count as one, ever, so the whole argument is completely moot anyways.

Says you.

Human being = any being that is human

fetus = a being that is human

fetus = a human being

You define a fetus as a being. That is one thing it is not. Thus, it cannot be construed as being a human being.

In any event.. To be or not to be. That is the woman's decision for the content of her uterus, no matter how you choose to define such a defective word, as "be", in conjugation as a present tense adjective of what TYPE of human this fetus is. It is not presently being anything of value, if the woman does not value it, which means that regardless of whether she uses a doctor or not, she can very easily choose to get rid of it, or make a choice that rids her of it.



No- animals and fetuses would be on the same level- And I truly do not know why you are pulling this race card. I am anything but racist or prejudice, and your conclusion that I am is only more proof that you do not use logical thought when you respond. You just react according to whatever your extreme feelings are about some fact that someone posted.

Conjoined twins are human beings once they are born. Having to stand on one side or another, in a courtroom, for conjoined twins who are contesting being, say, split apart- does not have any relevance to this discussion and is a moot point, because both twins can confer with their representatives with the other one's ears covered. A fetus cannot do this.

We already went over this. You said the same thing 15 or twenty pages ago and it was shot down.

No it wasn't. It was appealed to, using various emotional conclusions which were not based on factual evidence or linear thought processes, even. This shoots nothing down, it only frustrates the other debater, causing them to not want to continue attempting to hold an intelligent dialogue, because clearly the other person involved is claiming to have all the facts, and in fact, having none.

Repetition does not make a false statement true.

It sure as hell doesn't, now does it. However, in your case, it seems that one must waste a lot of energy repeating themselves, just to defend your consistent personal ad hominem attacks, all because you cannot support your own assertions with fact.
Boo hoo.. Stop being such a crybaby.

for the most part abortion is a horrific, selfish act of terrible violence regardless of mans laws or public opinion

 

[Father Time]

Is a fetus alive? yes. Is it human? yes. It is a "being" in fact, there is a flash of electricity that happens at the point of conception that last time I looked, doctors were unable to explain.

My son stood larger than life, the sun dancing on his hair, his eyes sparkling as he laughed with his teammates in all the bravado only teamates can share. Grinning from ear to ear, ahead in a major semi-pro football game, my son was radiant with the joy of it, and I thanked God for days such as this.

I once had the RIGHT to kill him. For a second I imagined him not there.

That thought shot through my body like ice and anger at women like Nancy Pelosi welled up inside. What kind of monster would fight to kill innocents? What sick and twisted people are these to campaign that our tax dollars be used to MURDER men like my son, to confuse young teens carrying children, to convince them they aren&#8217;t children at all but worthless cells. Those poor teens and young women have no idea what they&#8217;re doing and how they would regret it for the rest of their lives.

Personal testimony
Abortion: young and deceived by Jen Shroder

As I watched another shouting fest that was most abortion threads a horrible thought hit me.

I could make a worthless appeal to emotion right now.

The thought jolted through my body like a defibrillator. What kind of slow witted dolt would result to such cheesy drek? What kind of a person would result to just trying to tug on the heartstrings, and hurl insults, instead of attempting to argue their side? What kind of a person does it take to just run around screaming bloody murder (literally) at confused teens, and everyone else. As I looked down from my high horse at such people I could not help but shake my head in disgust.

Sorry, were you saying something?

 

[eots]

yes I was saying that for the most part what a selfish, horrific act of violence abortion is regardless of how it is rationalized with tales of poor confused teens..