Where should the line be drawn on abortion?

[koshergrl]

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

 

[Vidi]

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

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

But I could be splitting hairs.

 

[Vidi]

I'm waiting for Noomi to make some sort of point about corpses and unborn children. I think what she's trying to voice is that death is a stage, just like all the others, and that somehow means abortion is okay.

Basically, she's arguing to a point that was never made. She said no babies were killed via abortion (which is untrue just on the face of it, anyway...there are many instances where babies HAVE been killed via abortion, after birth or during it) and my point was that "baby" is just a term used to identify a DEVELOPMENTAL stage. Not just a stage, a developmental stage. Fetus, baby, child, adolescent, adult...all are DEVELOPMENTAL stages of human beings.

Death is NOT a developmental stage, because once a person dies, it ceases to develop.

The unborn aren't dead until they're killed. So the parallel is moot.

Whew, theres alot to respond to here.

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

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


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

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

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

THAT is the debate is it not?

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

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

 

[Noomi]

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

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

 

[koshergrl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe the law should.

 

[koshergrl]

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

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

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

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

 

[Noomi]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Noomi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe the law should.

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

 

[Vidi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe the law should.

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

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

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

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


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

 

[koshergrl]

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

 

[Vidi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe the law should.

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

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

 

[koshergrl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe the law should.

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

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

The above link suggests that only 30-40% of ALL fertiolized eggs implant. That means a 60-70% rate of what you demand is life is being ended completely naturally. \ An egg that isn't implanted doesn't create a pregnancy, and so abortion isn't even possible. So I'm not talking about those fertilized eggs.

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


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

Ok I guess.

 

[catzmeow]

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

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

 

[koshergrl]

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

 

[Noomi]

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

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

 

[Dr Grump]

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

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

Definitely yes to the first two....

 

[koshergrl]

that is an example of conservatives being inconsistent.

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

Yet they accept the court’s interpretation of the second amendment with regard to an individual right and the right to self-defense, when neither can be found in the text of the amendment.

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

ad hominem

Please, highlight the ad hominem comment in this post.

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

Argumentum Ad Hominem

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

And the last paragraph is another logical fallacy...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Inappropriate in a clean (or real) debate.
Reported.

hey Koshergirl.....read the beginning of the last paragraph by becki....I was directly responding to her inflammatory remark...in a non-inflammatory way, I might add.

You just don't like what I had to say.

Nope, it's trolling and as such not appropriate for this forum. It doesn't adhere to the standard of clean debate, and neither does the post above. Which I also flagged.

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

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

 

[koshergrl]

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

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

Would you like to make a point?

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

 

[Noomi]

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

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

Different argument.

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