What should abortion laws be?

[☭proletarian☭]

Are you still claiming the mother's blood enters the fetus?

Apparently now she's not just claiming that, she's claiming that it's the mother's heart that's FORCING oxygenated blood into the fetus.

Explain to the class how the fetus gets oxygen into its own blood, then, you stupid cuntrag.

She did twice.


I did once.


Pay attention or get the fuck out of this classroom.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

True, but "person = sentience" is entirely your opinion.

to use 'person=human organism' is meaningless. What is missing in the braindead if not the mind? If dependence on machines is all, then what of a man with a failing heart or kidneys?

To YOU it's meaningless, because you're emotionally attached to what you consider "sentience". What's missing in the braindead other than "the mind" is the rudimentary ability to self-govern, ie. to control any and all body functions. In other words, what is missing in the braindead is LIFE, which is why they're called "brainDEAD".

And no, it's not that "dependence on machines is all". A man with a bad heart has ONE malfunctioning organ. He's still alive, his brain is still controlling body function and sending out directions, but his heart isn't responding properly to those directions. In a braindead person, the organs are capable of acting on the directions, but no directions are being sent.

Computers can self-govern their systems. Are they people?


If not, then you admit that your post is meaningless, for you the above are not the criteria you consider important.

Nor is it simply the state of being alive, or every cell and every amoeba would qualify.

 

[Yukon]

ABORTION is LEGAL ! Get over it .

 

[JD_2B]

Apparently now she's not just claiming that, she's claiming that it's the mother's heart that's FORCING oxygenated blood into the fetus.

Explain to the class how the fetus gets oxygen into its own blood, then, you stupid cuntrag.

She did twice.


I did once.


Pay attention or get the fuck out of this classroom.

No She did not. She explained how blood passes through the placenta before it reaches the fetus. Tell us all how the fetus gets its own oxygen into it's blood, you fucking twits.

The fetus gets oxygen from the mother's breathing it, and oxygenating the blood that travels to it. The oxygen does pass through the placenta, which diffuses some of the oxygen that is delivered to the fetus, but the placenta would not alone be sufficient to oxygenate the fetus' blood, if it stood alone, with no woman to breathe the fucking air. The placenta is an ORGAN which acts as a TRANSPORT system, just like the veins and arteries are parts of the circulatory system, which is also a transport system. The placenta works mostly as a stabilization system for both the fetus and the mother, by diffusing oxygen to the fetus and also diffusing hemoglobin and carbon dioxide to the mother, which is released by her by the act of exhaling.
Also, the mother's blood does pool into a lake for the fetus's extremities, and this happens several times a minute, bringing oxygen to the fetus' capillaries.

I challenge y'all to show us all how the placenta makes it's own fucking oxygen. Show us how the placenta can deliver oxygen without the mother breathing air first, you fucks. It does NOT.

Transport Across the Placenta

Oh and look at how many instant biological changes happen the instant that a born baby takes a breath of air for the first time.

The pulmonary resistance is dramatically reduced ("pulmo" is from the Latin for "lung"). More blood moves from the right atrium to the right ventricle and into the pulmonary arteries, and less flows through the foramen ovale to the left atrium. The blood from the lungs travels through the pulmonary veins to the left atrium, increasing the pressure there. The decreased right atrial pressure and the increased left atrial pressure pushes the septum primum against the septum secundum, closing the foramen ovale, which now becomes the fossa ovalis. This completes the separation of the circulatory system into two halves, the left and the right. The ductus arteriosus normally closes off within one or two days of birth, leaving behind the ligamentum arteriosum. The umbilical vein and the ductus venosus closes off within two to five days after birth, leaving behind the ligamentum teres and the ligamentum venosus of the liver respectively.


Also:



Fetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A fetus is not a fucking person.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Now you're attacking me for pointing out that everything you just posted had to be explained to you 3 TIMES before you got it?


You were the one saying the mother's blood ran through the fetus, remember? Trying to 'correct' us by posting what we posted and pretending it's your position all of a sudden won't work.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

JD is not a human person.

Persons are sentient and intelligent beings.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you still claiming the mother's blood enters the fetus?

Apparently now she's not just claiming that, she's claiming that it's the mother's heart that's FORCING oxygenated blood into the fetus.

Explain to the class how the fetus gets oxygen into its own blood, then, you stupid cuntrag.

Since I've already done so at least twice, it's particularly amusing that YOU would dare to call anyone "stupid". Go back and look it up, fool.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I thought we were discussing the value of tissue versus the mind and when the organism should be protected?

No. You might have been. I'm talking dead vs. alive. I have the distinct impression that you have an emotional investment in the idea of sentience, such that you're a bit obsessed with it and unable to separate it from the simple issue of life. For myself, I don't equate the two. Many things on Earth are alive but do not exhibit the level of sentience adult humans normally have.

Exactly, and we do not treat those things as people.

Actually, some we do and some we don't, but that's beside the point and rambling down a tangent. A human doesn't stop being a human simply because his level of intelligence and brain function decrease, so he doesn't stop being a person, either. Only when he is dead does he lose that designation . . . unless you have an emotional investment in the idea of sentience.

The amount of protection given is roughly correlated with how much they resemble us in that regard. Noone cares about ants and fish, save for a few extremists, but dogs, apes, and dolphins are generally much more respected and revered for their superior intellectual abilities and, in the case of dogs, the usefulness which stems from it.

Irrelevant. As we've both pointed out to Dog Girl, the question here is what the law SHOULD be, not what it is at the moment. I still come down strictly on the side of measurable science, which gives us a choice of "alive or dead". I don't waste time with fuzzy emotional dodges like "personhood", or "sentient", because I'm not trying to justify treating human life as disposable.

Again I ask you of extraterrestrials and sentient machines- why does it matter, what system the mind emerges from?

And again I tell you that my worldview encompasses things I know to exist. I don't waste time formulating worldviews for things that are, at the moment, wholly imaginary. At such time as extraterrestrials or sentient machines show up and provide data upon which I can formulate an opinion, I'll have one.

When the body dies, we lament because the minds as well. Oft, much of the tissue can be saved and even become part of another organism (eg: transplants). Nobody in their right mind claims that any part of the mind is transferred with the hand.

No, YOU lament the mind. I don't spend that much time parsing people into component parts.

Transplants are also irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, it's fact.

no brain activity--> no emergent sentience

Sorry, but that's a dodge. I didn't say "no activity = no sentience" was your opinion. I said "the person is the sentient mind" is your opinion.

It's the reality.

The person is the mind. We recognize that when the person dies, they are gone, even if every tissue save the brain which gave rise to the ind in question could be saved.

If it was merely life that mattered, every cell would qualify. That would be utter absurdity.

Now you're starting to sound like Dog Girl, unable to differentiate between cells, tissue, and complete organisms. I'm disappointed in you.

The person is the sum total of the living human organism. A radical decrease of brain function down to the rudiments to sustain life is not death. It's just radical brain damage. Only a cessation of ALL self-governance and self-direction is death.

Asserting that sentience equals personhood over and over is not going to make it true. I have no idea why you think it will.

 

[Cecilie1200]

to use 'person=human organism' is meaningless. What is missing in the braindead if not the mind? If dependence on machines is all, then what of a man with a failing heart or kidneys?

To YOU it's meaningless, because you're emotionally attached to what you consider "sentience". What's missing in the braindead other than "the mind" is the rudimentary ability to self-govern, ie. to control any and all body functions. In other words, what is missing in the braindead is LIFE, which is why they're called "brainDEAD".

And no, it's not that "dependence on machines is all". A man with a bad heart has ONE malfunctioning organ. He's still alive, his brain is still controlling body function and sending out directions, but his heart isn't responding properly to those directions. In a braindead person, the organs are capable of acting on the directions, but no directions are being sent.

Computers can self-govern their systems. Are they people?


If not, then you admit that your post is meaningless, for you the above are not the criteria you consider important.

Nor is it simply the state of being alive, or every cell and every amoeba would qualify.

Computers are not truly self-governing OR self-sustaining, and you know it. Don't try to play games with me.

And I've already dealt with your descent into Dog Girl-territory, where you can't differentiate between cells and organisms. I'm becoming really ashamed of you, because I expected better than lame, uneducated rationalization from you.

 

[JD_2B]

Apparently now she's not just claiming that, she's claiming that it's the mother's heart that's FORCING oxygenated blood into the fetus.

Explain to the class how the fetus gets oxygen into its own blood, then, you stupid cuntrag.

Since I've already done so at least twice, it's particularly amusing that YOU would dare to call anyone "stupid". Go back and look it up, fool.

I remember your post, cocksucker- I do not need to go look through 60 pages of flame wars to look up your retarded ass post.

Go ahead- tell the class how the fetus gets oxygen without the mother's breathing aiding in that. Go ahead, you fucking ****.

 

[Cecilie1200]

JD is not a human person.

Persons are sentient and intelligent beings.

Well, see, there you go. JD is neither intelligent NOR sentient, and yet she IS a living human being, and therefore a person, albeit an incredibly stupid one who should be sterilized for the sake of protecting children and the gene pool.

 

[JD_2B]

JD is not a human person.

Persons are sentient and intelligent beings.

Well, see, there you go. JD is neither intelligent NOR sentient, and yet she IS a living human being, and therefore a person, albeit an incredibly stupid one who should be sterilized for the sake of protecting children and the gene pool.

Sentient enough to recognize that you are a dripping green **** who cant make an argument for personhood of a fetus to save her own life, who is also willing to hurt her own children and children's girlfriends if they dare make the decision to not continue a pregnancy. Go ahead, queef some more green goo in my direction, ****.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

A human doesn't stop being a human simply because his level of intelligence and brain function decrease,

Red Herring. I never said an organism ceases to be genetically human.

However, when the mind ceases to exist, there is no 'personhood' or existent self within the body- no mind = no mind. A = A.

Being genetically human is not necessary for the emergence of a sentient and intelligent mind, therefore it is not necessary to be human to be treated as any other person- eg: theoretical extraterrestrials, sentient machines, or any new species which might evolve.

Neanderthals were not 'human' (H. Sapiens Sapiens), yet they were people by any reasonable definition of the word.

No, YOU lament the mind. I don't spend that much time parsing people into component parts.

Wrong. You focus only on the parts. The body is unimportant. Only the brain gives rise to the mind. To mourn an empty corpse, especially one with no organs (eg: the viewing/wake) is to worship something which was no part of the core of the person.

Transplants are also irrelevant to the discussion.

Not when you keep arguing about the life of mere tissues.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The person is the sum total of the living human organism.

Then a man would be less of a person when he lost part of that organism- eg: a soldier who loses his legs in combat - since part of the organism is lost and the whole is therefore less than it once was.


Your claims lead to absurdity.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Explain to the class how the fetus gets oxygen into its own blood, then, you stupid cuntrag.

Since I've already done so at least twice, it's particularly amusing that YOU would dare to call anyone "stupid". Go back and look it up, fool.

I remember your post, cocksucker- I do not need to go look through 60 pages of flame wars to look up your retarded ass post.

Go ahead- tell the class how the fetus gets oxygen without the mother's breathing aiding in that. Go ahead, you fucking ****.

Tell us how you get oxygen without plants making it for you. You're dependent on the rest of the biosphere, just as a fetus is dependent upon its own environment.

We dealt with this a long time ago.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

She's human, but I no longer feel she should be treated as a person.

I swear I once had a dog who learned faster than JD does.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

JD is not a human person.

Persons are sentient and intelligent beings.

Well, see, there you go. JD is neither intelligent NOR sentient, and yet she IS a living human being, and therefore a person, albeit an incredibly stupid one who should be sterilized for the sake of protecting children and the gene pool.

Sentient enough to recognize that you are a dripping green **** who cant make an argument for personhood of a fetus to save her own life, who is also willing to hurt her own children and children's girlfriends if they dare make the decision to not continue a pregnancy. Go ahead, queef some more green goo in my direction, ****.

Weren't you just crying about flames?

 

[Bern80]

The definition here that you need to understand is how one infringes upon a life of another, and how that affects the life in question. You never stop to think about the woman's life in any way other than if it is on the verge of being lost physically. Her social life, her emotional bonds with her family or church, her life as an abused woman, her life as an abandoned woman, her life as a teenager who was the victim of incest whose father tried to force her to remain in the basement, who ran away... the woman who worked her fingers to the bone and kept herself hidden from the world for 6 months, just to be rid of the condition of being pregnant, to preserve her reputation.. None of that life stuff matters to you. You do not cherish a woman's life as anything other than a bitch with a slice of cum toilet heaven between her legs who happens to have a pulse. You know NOTHING about LIFE, or how to treasure or honor it. When you DO realize that the FETUS infringes upon a woman's life, by barring her from promotions, by causing her to need more food than she can afford to buy and eat, by making her legs hurt and her stomach upset, and her body get fat and scarred for life.. By ruining her life because she SIMPLY is not ready to have the responsibility of even having something growing inside of her, or that although she was ready when she got pregnant, her situation changed immensely and she decided LATER that she could not go through with it- Get back with us, here in a little place known as the REAL WORLD.

Til then fuck off.

I hate again to have to boil things down to the bitter truth for you. EVERYTHING you mentioned there about why a woman should have the right to abort for whatever reason comes down to one thing and one thing only, CONVENIENCE. Your rant above proves that it is YOU that only thinks of one person when it comes to pregnancy. None of the above gives you the right to kill a person. It is you that is morally bankrupt, that would allow someone to reach that level of irresponsibility, when there are so many ways to keep it from getting to that point, and still find abortion legally and morally justifiable.

I agree that everything above comes with the territory of pregnancy and accuse all you like, I am a proponent of women's rights as much as the next person 'in the real world'. But when a pregnancy gets to the point where the possibility exists that you are choosing to kill another person over financial woes, fear, back pain, social life or fucking stretch marks, or how even being in the position of making that choice at that stage of a pregnancy requires a truly amazing level of irresponsibility, your rights and my sympathies for the burden of the pregnant woman go out the window. You call it women bashing. I call it not willing to condone and astounding lack of personal accountability.

I continue to enjoy you proclaiming to be something you so obviously aren't. You are in no position to presume anything of me. You know nothing of my life or how I have come to appreciate it. As for objectivity that you claim to have, the fuck you do. If YOU valued life, you would protect it. ALL of it, not just those that are the most convenient for you. Objectively there is NO question that I value life for more than you do.

 

[JD_2B]

The definition here that you need to understand is how one infringes upon a life of another, and how that affects the life in question. You never stop to think about the woman's life in any way other than if it is on the verge of being lost physically. Her social life, her emotional bonds with her family or church, her life as an abused woman, her life as an abandoned woman, her life as a teenager who was the victim of incest whose father tried to force her to remain in the basement, who ran away... the woman who worked her fingers to the bone and kept herself hidden from the world for 6 months, just to be rid of the condition of being pregnant, to preserve her reputation.. None of that life stuff matters to you. You do not cherish a woman's life as anything other than a bitch with a slice of cum toilet heaven between her legs who happens to have a pulse. You know NOTHING about LIFE, or how to treasure or honor it. When you DO realize that the FETUS infringes upon a woman's life, by barring her from promotions, by causing her to need more food than she can afford to buy and eat, by making her legs hurt and her stomach upset, and her body get fat and scarred for life.. By ruining her life because she SIMPLY is not ready to have the responsibility of even having something growing inside of her, or that although she was ready when she got pregnant, her situation changed immensely and she decided LATER that she could not go through with it- Get back with us, here in a little place known as the REAL WORLD.

Til then fuck off.

I hate again to have to boil things down to the bitter truth for you. EVERYTHING you mentioned there about why a woman should have the right to abort for whatever reason comes down to one thing and one thing only, CONVENIENCE. Your rant above proves that it is YOU that only thinks of one person when it comes to pregnancy. None of the above gives you the right to kill a person. It is you that is morally bankrupt, that would allow someone to reach that level of irresponsibility, when there are so many ways to keep it from getting to that point, and still find abortion legally and morally justifiable.

YOU claim that a fetus is a person but if the woman's life is in danger, than it is okay to abort it. YES that is a legal and a moral justification for abortion, one that YOU make. You make the "exception" to "kill a person", assuming a third trimester fetus is a person, as long as it poses some risk of death to the woman. That is called justifying the abortion, legally. It is not ME who does this "oh lets make exceptions only for a certain type of threat"- That is YOU. What is your moral justification for forcing a woman to bring a fetus to full term, even if that means that she will lose a promotion she has been working her ass off for five years to achieve? What is YOUR moral justification that stretch marks and weight gain and any other "shallow" issues she might have, should suddenly be considered second rate to the contents of HER uterus? Why on earth would one reason to abort, and in your opinion, criminalize a woman for murder or manslaughter, all because she CHOSE to do it for a different reason than YOU would choose, be at all immoral? Just because YOUR choice would be for a different RATIONALE than hers, does not make THE RESULT of the decision any different. You say a late term fetus is a person, but you justify in killing that "person", for a certain standard- HER HEARTBEAT.
I take it a step further and say that her heart might beat, but it will not be full of joy, if she had to spend 7 months saving the money to get the fucking abortion, for whatever reason. I say that if her heart beating is important, then so should her work, her home life, her other family, and her entire pursuit of happiness, which in fact includes her self image. YOU say that her heart remaining a beating organ is the only reason to "kill another person"- And I say you are an inconsistent pile of poo for failing to see that the RESULT of the abortion is the SAME either way. And yes- Late term abortions are often planned and CHOSEN, under the advice of a doctor.

I agree that everything above comes with the territory of pregnancy and accuse all you like, I am a proponent of women's rights as much as the next person 'in the real world'. But when a pregnancy gets to the point where the possibility exists that you are choosing to kill another person over financial woes, fear, back pain, social life or fucking stretch marks, or how even being in the position of making that choice at that stage of a pregnancy requires a truly amazing level of irresponsibility, your rights and my sympathies for the burden of the pregnant woman go out the window. You call it women bashing. I call it not willing to condone and astounding lack of personal accountability.

And being pregnant involves a certain risk- the risk of death during child birth, or in the late months. You would choose to kill another person just in case that woman's risk of death was a certain percentage, rather than seeing that personal accountability and assumed risks are all part and parcel to being pregnant. The reason why late term abortions are PLANNED is because YES it is a CHOICE. You freely allow women to make that choice based on FEAR alone. FEAR of death. Well, GEE. Don't you think that one person should not have to DIE just because another person is in fucking FEAR. Get real. You are NOT a proponent of women's rights. You are an overemotional fruitcake who simply wants to decide WHEN and HOW the "killing" of unborn "people" should be allowed. You fucking retard.

I continue to enjoy you proclaiming to be something you so obviously aren't. You are in no position to presume anything of me. You know nothing of my life or how I have come to appreciate it. As for objectivity that you claim to have, the fuck you do. If YOU valued life, you would protect it. ALL of it, not just those that are the most convenient for you. Objectively there is NO question that I value life for more than you do.

I strongly disagree. I believe that I have far more compassion for a person's life, and I look at things objectively, from a long term perspective.
I also look at the potential life of the baby-to-be, and whether things have changed enough in that woman's life to justify an abortion, morally. Now, again- I personally would not abort that late on just to avoid stretch marks, lol- I said that a million fucking times now, you huked on fonix halfwit- but that does not mean that another woman might not make a decision based on that, too, or based on the fear of tearing her vagina during childbirth, or having to get a C-section. I see it this way- if a woman who is 7 months pregnant has been getting abused by her husband or boyfriend or family, etc, and this only started when they saw her showing- which would indicate she was at 5 months, at least- then she should be allowed to schedule an abortion, just to stop being abused. YOU dont give a fuck about her. You don't care AT ALL about her situation. YOU have no understanding of the facts on abused pregnant women, nor do you care enough to open your mind up to them. And what about the woman who was 6 months pregnant and on some sort of life support caused by a car accident? You do realize that pulling the plug and ventilator tube out would be like murdering the fetus "person", as you say, because WHY SHOULD THE POOR INNOCENT LITTLE FETUSPERSON HAVE TO SUFFER??

How fucking retarded are you. What a bunch of BS!!!!