Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[JBeukema]

My understanding is that JB is pro-choice, but doesn't feel the need to lie and pretend basic biology is something that it isn't in order to facilitate being pro-choice. I'm not entirely sure how he DOES justify abortion under those circumstances, though.

I value the mind, not the body. Basically, my argument is that until certain brain structures are present, the mind cannot emerge from a human brain. Hence, the child is fundamentally no different than someone in a persistent vegetative state. In one example, there person is gone. In the other, no individual yet exists. How can I harm a non-existent person? I am killing a living thing yet, but the system destroyed has not yet given rise to a unique mind.

The internet might give rise to Skynet one day, but today it has not. Ergo, destroying that system by unplugging all the computers cannot harm an individual who does not exist.

I value not the flesh, but that which makes us unique individual persons. In religious terms, this individual essence is what the concept of the 'soul' is an attempt to understand and explain.

 

[Gadawg73]

This is a stupid argument for abortion. Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???

A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.

Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.

Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.

BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.

Key word being "complications". I know from experieince just how far they will actually go to avoid them.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/04/csection-rates-association-lawsuits.html

Not what the doctors state and my cousin is a doctor.
They are on the increase because they want to do it and anything can be deemed a "complication".

 

[Synthaholic]

an unborn child is a seed?


you fail biology forever

Your argument is that these organisms are the beginnings of a baby. Correct?

No, dumbass, that would be Mr. Plant Kingdom's argument. JB's argument was that a fetus is an organism, and thus ALREADY a baby.

And he is wrong.

 

[Synthaholic]

Answer my question, please.

It is a human child from the point of fertilization

that is the biological reality

at what point we deem a baby a toddler, a preteen, a teenager, an adult, and an old woman has nothing at all to do with whether it's okay to kill her in cold blood

You got a reading problem?

And again, he is wrong.

 

[JBeukema]

Your argument is that these organisms are the beginnings of a baby. Correct?

No, dumbass, that would be Mr. Plant Kingdom's argument. JB's argument was that a fetus is an organism, and thus ALREADY a baby.

And he is wrong.

A baby is not a scientific term. Like 'child', it refers simply to a young human.

A foetus is a human at an early stage of development- a young human.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is a human child from the point of fertilization

that is the biological reality

at what point we deem a baby a toddler, a preteen, a teenager, an adult, and an old woman has nothing at all to do with whether it's okay to kill her in cold blood

That is not a biological reality. There are reasons that the science of biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for example.

A child is a young human. Zygotes, foetuses, and toddlers are all children.

NY has a point. There IS a reason why biology/medicine has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, etc. But that reason isn't what NY thinks it is. Those terms exist to denote a specific stage in the life cycle/development of the baby, the same way we have the terms newborn, toddler, adolescent, and adult. They don't exist to denote different life forms.

 

[Gadawg73]

Omg you're an idiot.

SLAM DUNK

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/04/csection-rates-association-lawsuits.html

"Of the 9 most common reasons for obestric malpractice suits 6 allege failure to perform a C section or failure to perform a C section sooner"

Well DUH.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The smaller a child is, the less human it is, I guess.

Which is funny, since I don't remember the definition of "human" saying anything about size.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The smaller a child is, the less human it is, I guess.

I wonder how they feel about dwarfs

I guess I'm glad I have really big babies, because it apparently means that MY kids are more human than other people's.

 

[JBeukema]

That is not a biological reality. There are reasons that the science of biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for example.

A child is a young human. Zygotes, foetuses, and toddlers are all children.

NY has a point. There IS a reason why biology/medicine has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, etc. But that reason isn't what NY thinks it is. Those terms exist to denote a specific stage in the life cycle/development of the baby, the same way we have the terms newborn, toddler, adolescent, and adult. They don't exist to denote different life forms.

I refer you to the post right above yours


'baby' and 'child' simply refer to young humans

an early stage of development means youth

a foetus is a young human

 

[Cecilie1200]

Omg you're an idiot.

What do you expect? He's a man, and he's never been pregnant or had to give birth. And he's sure as HELL not a doctor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is a stupid argument for abortion. Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???

A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.

Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.

Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.

BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.

Bullshit. The umbilical cord was around my very neck. They didn't slice my mother open; the nurse manually removed the cord from my neck so the birthing could continue.

True. No doctor wants to put a woman in labor under anesthesia and cut her open if he can avoid it, and they will go to great lengths to keep the delivery vaginal if they can. C-sections are strictly a last resort, because - John Edwards notwithstanding - they increase the risk to both the mother and the baby, which means they increase liability.

 

[Shadow]

BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.

Key word being "complications". I know from experieince just how far they will actually go to avoid them.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/04/csection-rates-association-lawsuits.html

Not what the doctors state and my cousin is a doctor.
They are on the increase because they want to do it and anything can be deemed a "complication".

Maybe everything can be "deemed" a complication. But a C-Section can create complications for both the mother and child. I thought pro choice folks were against "complications" to the mothers health? Guess not huh?

Top 5 Reasons Not To Have A C-Section

Risks to Mother:

These days we tend to think of surgery as an easy fix for so many of our problems or concerns. We tend to forget that surgery is a life-threatening procedure, no matter how routine. Having a c-section means a longer recovery time, surgical risks such as infections, bleeding, and complications from anesthesia including pneumonia. There is an increased risk of blood clots, a higher chance of needing an emergency hysterectomy, and a higher incidence of a return trip to the hospital. C-sections leave the mother open for damage to her bowels and bladder, to increased blood loss and the need for a blood transfusion, as well as a higher risk of maternal death.


Top 5 Reasons Not To Have A C-Section | Parenting Squad

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your argument is that these organisms are the beginnings of a baby. Correct?

No, dumbass, that would be Mr. Plant Kingdom's argument. JB's argument was that a fetus is an organism, and thus ALREADY a baby.

And he is wrong.

Gee, coming from you, that means . . . absolutely nothing.

 

[AllieBaba]

That is not a biological reality. There are reasons that the science of biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for example.

A child is a young human. Zygotes, foetuses, and toddlers are all children.

NY has a point. There IS a reason why biology/medicine has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, etc. But that reason isn't what NY thinks it is. Those terms exist to denote a specific stage in the life cycle/development of the baby, the same way we have the terms newborn, toddler, adolescent, and adult. They don't exist to denote different life forms.

If I had a file for good abortion stuff that would go in it...

 

[syrenn]

And to think it was you who started this thread accusing the pro-choice people of not being able to make a cogent well thought out argument.

Unreal.

What about shooting it as it's crowning? Halfway out? One toe in?

Right after her water breaks?

Five minutes before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?
Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

The day before that?

Ten seconds before that?

One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?

When does what change?

According to your 'reasoning'

there is absolutely no difference, by any measure of morality or criminality, between a woman who has used RU486 to terminate a pregnancy,

and Susan Smith, who for those who don't recall, was the woman who drowned her two children in her car.

Now, seriously people, be honest here...

...how many of you can wholeheartedly and without qualification agree with Beukema on his/her stance?

Some will some wont. Its an emotional call. I do not agree. What he is stomping his feet about is where you draw the line of "life"

My threshold of where life in and of itself begins, for a baby, is where it can be a stand alone viable living entity. If that be with with medical help, fine, but it must have life for and of itself.

 

[syrenn]

The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).

Nobody gives a shit what you do with your body. What's at issue is whether or not you may harm another human being- killing generally being recognized as harmful.
Homicide has always been recognized as a social issue. If I shoot you in the face, it sure as hell is society's business why I did so, so it can be determined whether my acts are acceptable or whether I am guilty of some crime, such as homicide or manslaughter.

When you rely on emotions and refuse to address the matter honestly, you are no different than the wackos waving bibles around. You might be on the other side of the isle, but you are a mirror image of the same mindset.

Then Cesarean sectioning it out at 4 weeks, giving it birth, wont mater then if it is not part of a womans body.

This is a stupid argument for abortion. Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???

A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.

Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.

Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.

We have argued this before. An abortion carries the same medical risks of all of those things.

This is not about the mother, this is about where you draw the line of where that "life" begins.

 

[JBeukema]

but i am being honest. Its not of your business what my family does.

oh no? Try that line when you're in court for domestic violence and let us know how that works out for ya

what my wife, Gf, lover does with their body.

Another human being is not your body

Why can't you people ever be honest?

abort your fetus.

You abort an attempt to copy a file. You don't 'abort' a human life- you kill a human being. People don't 'expire' like a newspaper subscription. They die. It's still fucking shell shock.

That is your choice and should remain so

Like the choice to 'make a deposit' in an 'unwilling sperm recipient'?

 

[Shadow]

Then Cesarean sectioning it out at 4 weeks, giving it birth, wont mater then if it is not part of a womans body.

This is a stupid argument for abortion. Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???

A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.

Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.

Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.

We have argued this before. An abortion carries the same medical risks of all of those things.

This is not about the mother, this is about where you draw the line of where that "life" begins.

Really?? I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?

 

[JBeukema]

What he is stomping his feet about is where you draw the line of "life"

No, that's a question of biology that was settled a long time ago. Why can't you people ever be honest?

My threshold of where life in and of itself begins, for a baby,

There is not room for opinion. You can't just decide that the earth is flat- it's round whether you like it or not.