What should abortion laws be?

[Cecilie1200]

It clearly IS about what one woman is goign to do to her body

Wrong. Time for a remedial biology lesson: Another organism is not a part of your own body.

On the other point if a life form can not live a sustained life on its own with out the using another lifeforms' energy, its usually defined as a parasite.

Like you. See, you need the energy you get from other lifeforms- that's why you eat.

Perhaps I should be more specific than since you don't understand what I meant.

While I do use energy from other lifeforms. I acquire the food on my own. Weather its go out and buy some meat or, in the animal world, hunting or grazing. A unborn fetus can't be removed from the host and still survive. Does that make more sense to you now?

You acquire food "on your own" by getting it from someone else, just by purchasing it rather than through an umbilical cord. Even if you hunt it yourself, you are still acquiring energy from other lifeforms . . . the lifeforms you hunt and kill (or pull up from the garden, for that matter).

As for removing a fetus from his mother's womb and his inability to survive it, the operative question becomes, "So what?"

On the other note about children suffering its pretty cut and dry. People are becoming sexually active at younger ages and many do not use protection. Now that child will/ could suffer from lack of real support monetarily and mentally. A 14 year old doesn't have the money or the maturity to raise a child properly.

Does the word "adoption" ring any bells in your skull?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ipsl, I have made these same points over and over again with these idiots, and they do not seem to want to face facts on this issue.. I just don't want to see you wasting several weeks and forty more pages on people whose minds are too jaded by emotion to see the facts for what they are. =)

Perhaps Ipsl will have more luck than you because he avoids telling us how dogs can impregnate humans.

Probably not, since the arguments are still crap, but at least he won't be the object of ridicule you are.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

At least she's easy, Cecile, and therefore of use.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By this logic, a sperm cell is a person...

Sperm is human... sperm is not dead... Sperm is a person. Fucking idiot. Try Try again...

In this case you are using human as adjective to describe the sperm (obviously not all sperm is human sperm). In the case of the definition of person, human is used as a noun modified by the word alive.

Regardless those are the definitions of the terms. You either have to modify your qualifier for justifying abortion to something other than whether a fetus is a person or explain how your justification is compatible with the accepted definitions.

Oh for crying out loud- you have got to be kidding me. You are claiming that just because something has human DNA, and is growing, it is alive, and as long as it is human and alive then it is a person. This is YOUR logic that is wrong, not mine. By YOUR logic, you even think that a blastocyst or embryo is a person, based on it being human, and growing.

All I have ever asked of you is to be consistent with your logic, and you cant even do that much.

Yeah, he's claiming that because something is growing, it's alive . . . BECAUSE IT IS. Only living things truly grow. Anything else is only referred to as "growing" through loose language usage, since that's how it appears.

I love how you triumphantly proclaim that that logic makes an embryo a person, as though you think that definitely shows a flaw in the logic. An embryo IS a person, however.
A very, VERY young one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

On the other note about children suffering its pretty cut and dry. People are becoming sexually active at younger ages and many do not use protection. Now that child will/ could suffer from lack of real support monetarily and mentally. A 14 year old doesn't have the money or the maturity to raise a child properly.

This is probably the worst justification for abortion there is and a cop out more than anything. We should abort babies because of how their lives MIGHT turn out?

You've never heard abortionists make the argument that we should view abortion as a "mercy killing" because we're sparing children from having terrible lives? "Every child a wanted child" was a very popular abortion slogan for a while, until pro-lifers began pointing out the ugly truth behind it, and that many of the greatest people in history had truly appalling childhoods.

They've also tried to make the argument - debunked now - that legalized abortion lowers the crime rate, so we should kill children for the good of society.

 

[Cecilie1200]

On the other note about children suffering its pretty cut and dry. People are becoming sexually active at younger ages and many do not use protection. Now that child will/ could suffer from lack of real support monetarily and mentally. A 14 year old doesn't have the money or the maturity to raise a child properly.

This is probably the worst justification for abortion there is and a cop out more than anything. We should abort babies because of how their lives MIGHT turn out?

So an abortion should never happen even if its a homeless woman? Or a 14 year old should have the baby even if she doesn't want it? And I would say that many laws made are based on statistics and (I would hope) common sense.

So now you feel that it's better to kill the children of "undesirables" like homeless people? Exactly where would you like to draw the line of "undesirables" who shouldn't procreate?

I'm not sure what to say to the notion that unwanted babies deserve to die. Words fail me in expressing my revulsion.

Many laws ARE based on statistics and common sense. Many are not. The more emotional the issue, the less likely that is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So an abortion should never happen even if its a homeless woman? Or a 14 year old should have the baby even if she doesn't want it? And I would say that many laws made are based on statistics and (I would hope) common sense.

If only there were some practice....

were people who couldn't care for their children...

could find good homes for them...

and people who can't have kids...

could 'adopt' the child...

if only such a thing existed...

And if people used it more and there was a higher demand for adoptions I would agree with that being and end all be all. I don't think that point is really valid. The foster care system is pretty full.

There are lots of reasons that foster care is so full, and it isn't because there aren't people who want to adopt unwanted babies, and even unwanted older children. One big reason for the overflow in foster care is that many of the children there are not available for adoption because the system is trying to reunite them with their parents. I'd have to look up the statistics, if they're even available, but I'd guess those children make up a goodly portion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So now you're advocating homicide because we have to kill the children to protect the children from too many children?


Seriously?

To a certain degree yes. If you'd like to word it in order to degenerate the conversation that's fine. So you don't have a counter point?

I think just restating your position serves as a counterpoint. Why is it that people who think killing to prevent harm to the environment through overpopulation always think it's someone ELSE who should die?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why not just kill, Ispl, then? Are we to begin deciding who should live and who should die for not transgression for some vague 'greater good' or sick 'morality'? America did something similar in the 20's. Should we focus on the poor, since they can't 'contribute' and are, therefore, part of 'the problem'? What about the feebleminded, the crippled, and undesirable races and children of criminals.

America already went that route....

good and evil (transgressions) are just as subjective as "the greater good"

However overpopulation and human effects on the world are very objective.

Yeah, that's why no one argues that point . . . oh, wait, they do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why not just kill, Ispl, then? Are we to begin deciding who should live and who should die for not transgression for some vague 'greater good' or sick 'morality'? America did something similar in the 20's. Should we focus on the poor, since they can't 'contribute' and are, therefore, part of 'the problem'? What about the feebleminded, the crippled, and undesirable races and children of criminals.

America already went that route....

good and evil are just as subjective as "the greater good"

However overpopulation and human effects on the world are very objective.

Let the record show Ispl does not deny that (s)he's no different than the eugenicists of the 20's and (s)he supports choosing who's worthy of life.

I wonder if Ipsl has ever read "A Modest Proposal", and if he thought it was a serious suggestion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes it does. If you agree that the environment has some control over our well being than it surely has.

Overpopulation can lead to disastrous effects on the bio-sphere. If someone doesn't want a child, and that child will cause damage to the environment, I don't see why they should not be allowed to abort.

We all damage the environment. That doesn't mean it's right to kill each other.

This is where the fundamental difference is. I don't look at early abortions as killing. Right and wrong are only dictated by the populous of that particular society. Prohibition used to be considered right until the population changed their view.

The fact that abortions are killing is not a matter of opinion any more than the facts of what a fetus is are. When are you people going to get over thinking that biological/scientific fact is up for a vote?

Feel free to make the argument that killing unborn babies is moral, if you think you can manage it. But don't waste our time with a puerile attempt to assert that abortion isn't killing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The only thing funnier (and more pathetic) than that post is that JD(who believes in invisible people and talking bushes) thanked you for it.

Does she believe in invisible people and talking bushes? I thought she just believed that her dog could impregnate her.

FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way.

.

I dunno if that means she believes everything else in the Bible, but I guess she DOES believe the Bible is a medical textbook.

 

[Cecilie1200]

At least she's easy, Cecile, and therefore of use.

Lord knows, she has provided me and my friends many hours of amusement at her expense.

 

[Ipsl]

Parasite - an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

That sounds like a fetus to me.

 

[Ipsl]

We all damage the environment. That doesn't mean it's right to kill each other.

This is where the fundamental difference is. I don't look at early abortions as killing. Right and wrong are only dictated by the populous of that particular society. Prohibition used to be considered right until the population changed their view.

The fact that abortions are killing is not a matter of opinion any more than the facts of what a fetus is are. When are you people going to get over thinking that biological/scientific fact is up for a vote?

Feel free to make the argument that killing unborn babies is moral, if you think you can manage it. But don't waste our time with a puerile attempt to assert that abortion isn't killing.

I don't think they are babies if they are unable to exist without the direct heklp from the mothers body. I also don't think it would be immoral to do have an abortion. Besides morality has nothing to do with laws. You want to base an argument on morals or ethics there is a different area for that.

Any other assumptions you'd like to make and continue to insult me?

 

[Ipsl]

So now you're advocating homicide because we have to kill the children to protect the children from too many children?


Seriously?

To a certain degree yes. If you'd like to word it in order to degenerate the conversation that's fine. So you don't have a counter point?

I think just restating your position serves as a counterpoint. Why is it that people who think killing to prevent harm to the environment through overpopulation always think it's someone ELSE who should die?

So you do a agree that overpopulation is a problem. Thats good to know.

 

[Ipsl]

Let the record show Ispl does not deny that (s)he's no different than the eugenicists of the 20's and (s)he supports choosing who's worthy of life.

Again your dramatics and false assumptions only show your inability to have mature debate.

But to respond to your retort, you do the same thing as well every time you do or do not donate to certain charities. In fact, you've already stated that its OK to kill at certain times.

You're comparing not being able to donate to every charity on earth to homicide?

You support who is and who isn't worth of life in the same fashion that you describe.

 

[Ipsl]

Where did any peer reviewed medical research you posted ever broach the subject of personhood? I explained to you none of this is subjective. A person is defined is an alive human. You agreed a fetus is human. The definition of alive is not dead according to the dictionary. That is pretty clear cut that a a fetus is a person at some point in the womb.

By this logic, a sperm cell is a person...

Sperm is human... sperm is not dead... Sperm is a person. Fucking idiot. Try Try again...

Try some gingko biloba for your memory, so that we don't have to recite every single freaking point in every single freaking post, okay? By this point, the fact that a fetus is an organism as well as alive, where a sperm cell is not an organism in addition to being alive should not require constant repetition to be understood.

Just cause you repeat yourself doesn't make it right.

 

[Bern80]

By this logic, a sperm cell is a person...

Sperm is human... sperm is not dead... Sperm is a person. Fucking idiot. Try Try again...

Try some gingko biloba for your memory, so that we don't have to recite every single freaking point in every single freaking post, okay? By this point, the fact that a fetus is an organism as well as alive, where a sperm cell is not an organism in addition to being alive should not require constant repetition to be understood.

Just cause you repeat yourself doesn't make it right.

Since we agreed that you and I basically agree on when abortions should be allowed, the million dollar queston is do you think they should be illegal, and thus a punishable offense, at some point in the pregnancy?

 

[Ipsl]

Try some gingko biloba for your memory, so that we don't have to recite every single freaking point in every single freaking post, okay? By this point, the fact that a fetus is an organism as well as alive, where a sperm cell is not an organism in addition to being alive should not require constant repetition to be understood.

Just cause you repeat yourself doesn't make it right.

Since we agreed that you and I basically agree on when abortions should be allowed, the million dollar queston is do you think they should be illegal, and thus a punishable offense, at some point in the pregnancy?

I think that late term abortions should be illegal and a punishable offense. Though I would say that the punishment should be sterilization. Though to be honest I couldn't give you a specific time frame on when is "too late"