Abortion II: The Reckoning Revenge! IN CINEMASCOPE!

[RobQel-Droma]

I think this argument would get a lot more support if someone could offer a rational argument for why fetuses should be considered "beings". After that, we can begin having similarly rational discussion about what rights these "beings" have and how they relate to other beings, etc.

 

You asked for it.

 

(this was something I wrote some time ago, so I might as well use it here)

 

"The arguments [for abortion] are many: a fetus can't feel pain, so it's not immoral; a fetus actually isn't fully human yet, so it's not murder; women have the right to choose to abort if it would be hard to take care of the newborn.

 

To start with the first... If a person can't feel pain, does that give you the right to kill them? I thought that there was quite a few people who are Pro-Choice who also against the death penalty? But that's painless too, right?

 

However, logic aside... Dr. Collins, author of the medical teaching text Principles of Anesthesiology, argues that the unborn may experience pain as early as nine weeks, but certainly by 13 weeks. To come to the point, it's no exaggeration to say that abortion not only kills babies, it tortures babies.

 

As abortionist Dr. Warren Hern said, "The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current" during a D & E abortion.

 

Secondly, what makes a fetus any less human? Is there any scientifically proven difference? Well, there are a few - four to be exact. Would you like to know what they are?

 

1. Environment

2. Development

3. Level of dependency

4. Size

 

Those are the only verifiable differences. Let's take them one at a time.

 

Environment:

 

Yes, there is a difference between a fetus and a child. One is inside the womb, and one is outside in the world. But why would location make any difference? Does the fetus magically "become human" as it makes it's way outside of the mother? Not that I know of. So, obviously, the location has nothing to do with being more human.

 

Development:

 

True, a fetus is less developed than anyone else. And an infant is less-developed than a child. A child is less-developed than an adult. So what? Do we judge how human someone is by how developed they are? By that logic, a retarded child is almost sub-human compared to an adult. (come to think about it, wouldn't that mean it would be ok to kill a retarded child?)

 

Some maintain that a fetus is not actually developed into a living organism, but how can you prove that? Although the unborn's humanity, as I have said, has nothing to do with it's level of development, it's rapid growth does point to its status as a complete, self-sustaining organism. In fact, prenatal development progresses so fast that by day 43, an unborn has a heart that is beating and brain wave activity we can measure on an electroencephalogram. Did any of you Pro-Choice people know that...

 

Level of dependency:

 

Again, fairly obvious. Would a teenager be less human because he/she is dependent on someone? Or would someone with a terminal disease that is fully dependent on medical equipment and/or medication to stay alive be less human?

 

Size:

 

I hope I don't have to explain this very much. Is Shaquel O'Neal any more human than the midget next door?

 

So, that pretty much brings me to the end of my argument. To talk about the last point, I will say this: women who abort had the choice to have sex with whoever it was, they had the choie to take the risk that the intercourse would produce a child, they had the choice to not use some kind of birth control....

 

And you want them to have the choice to commit murder? I'm not forcing my beliefs down someone's throat, since last time I checked, murder was a crime. So why should they have that choice? Please... there's this thing called adoption. If you are unable to take care of the child, then put it up for adoption. Seems a win-win for everyone, and people don't have to murder because a new baby inconveniences them.

 

That's pretty much all I have to say. Life is precious, and it shouldn't be sacrificed just because someone doesn't want to have to deal with a new baby."

 

No doubt that your generalization fits some measurable percentage of welfare recipients, but even you seem willing to concede that it doesn't apply to everyone. Perhaps we'd be better off spending our time trying to figure out how to make sure the people that legitimately need help get it rather than categorically vilifying welfare and its recipients?

 

Oops, am I sorry. I forgot that anything less of exact statistics pretty much means "total generalization" to you, and, as a matter of principle, should be ignored.

 

And yes, I think we should.

 

Is there proof when life begins now? What if my religious beliefs state life begins at birth. Then would my religious beliefs forced down others throats make it morally correct to have an abortion.

 

See what I stated above. It's not my religious beliefs, it's science. And logic. And just a little bit of "Thou Shalt Not Murder".

 

I actually believe those that can work should, but not everyone on the welfare rolls are ripping off the system. Some are not fortunate enough to have the ability to work and some are even children. So are you are saying we should allow every fetus to grow into a child and then allow those that parents do not have the means to feed the child to starve to death?

 

Does anyone understand something called "adoption"?

 

It isn't? For some reason I thought gay marriage and “family values” were important topics to the right.

 

They are. Or "family values" doesn't mean anything to you? We can't try and keep a moral society, otherwise it's judging those who don't want to follow morals/ethics?

 

Sounds a like a political “hot button” of judging others to me in order stir up the masses. Or are amendments to the Constitution common place now?

 

Got to admire the Left. They're just so understanding about accepting anyone and everyone.[/sarcasm]

 

Sorry about the sarcasm, but I really have a hard time with your statement. If you want to keep thinking that the Left is a bunch of golden tolerant do-gooders, fine, but.... somehow I don't see them abstaining from judging people either. Or haven't you heard any of their criticism/hatred/attacks against Bush and the Republicans lately?

 

I am not saying people cannot legally judge someone that comments a crime. I’m saying it is not my place to judge someone that may not live their life to the same code of conduct I do. People have different religious and moral beliefs, but society’s laws must be obeyed.

 

Amen. I'm glad at least one person doesn't think the extreme (i.e. people can do whatever they want, if it is in accordance with their religious/moral beliefs).

 

That said you are correct all the more reason for sex education in order to give people the tools needed to prevent preventable STDs.

 

Unfortunately, sex ed or not, people still do what they want.

[mimartin]

Fair enough. Now, how exactly do you determine that point? Many believe that that moment is conception.[/Quote]Many also believe it happens at birth. Fact is there is no way to know because we cannot even prove a soul existence. That is what I meant by forcing my religious beliefs down peoples throats. If we avoid looking at this through religious eyes, I would go with brain activity to determine when the fetus becomes human. After all, you cannot feel pain without the brain interrupting those electrical impulses as such. Without that interruption what looks like pain could only be an involuntary reaction, even plants have such and I would not put a plant on the same level has a human life.

I'm guessing this kind of scrutiny is why many people don't like to be held up as role models. The difference between Bubba and Gingrich(?) is that one broke the law and abused his office, the other just acted like a callous jackass. I don find it ironic that someone as "smart" as Clinton couldn't have crafted a more believable story. I guess the blood really does leave the brain in situations like that. [/Quote] I still fail to see the abuse of office on Clinton side. I guess the Republican Congress could not see it or he would not have served out his term. I did see someone that lied to the American public, but other Presidents have also lied and are still lying to us. The problem I see with Clinton is he lied under oath, which should be punishable and he was punished by being disbarred.

So, by that logic, telling someone to abstain would be even more invaluable b/c an ounce of prevention is worth more than a ton of cure.

I’m all for teaching abstinence as it is the only 100% way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Of course, it is also common sense, if you do not have sex you will not get pregnant. Therefore, it should not an entire course to teach abstinence. It can be taught with other forms of safe sex practices in case the hormone infected youth does not have the willpower or the patience not to practice abstinence. All I was taught was abstinence and the only thing that saved me was luck, because I was a hormone infected teen.

[Achilles]

You asked for it.

 

(this was something I wrote some time ago, so I might as well use it here)

 

"The arguments [for abortion] are many: a fetus can't feel pain, so it's not immoral; a fetus actually isn't fully human yet, so it's not murder; women have the right to choose to abort if it would be hard to take care of the newborn.

 

To start with the first... If a person can't feel pain, does that give you the right to kill them?

Not at all...when we're talking about people. In this case, we aren't: we're talking about fetuses and embryos. Reminder: the challenge was to provide a rational argument for fetuses should be considered people.

 

However, logic aside... Dr. Collins, author of the medical teaching text Principles of Anesthesiology, argues that the unborn may experience pain as early as nine weeks, but certainly by 13 weeks. To come to the point, it's no exaggeration to say that abortion not only kills babies, it tortures babies.

Still waiting.

 

PS: 86% of abortions take place before week 13. I'm no expert and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess, but I imagine that 2nd trimester abortions rarely have anything to do with "I decided that I don't want to be pregnant anymore". And most states already have laws stating that 3rd trimester abortions can only be performed if there is a health risk to the mother.

 

Secondly, what makes a fetus any less human? Is there any scientifically proven difference? Well, there are a few - four to be exact. Would you like to know what they are?

 

1. Environment

2. Development

3. Level of dependency

4. Size

 

Those are the only verifiable differences. Let's take them one at a time.

 

Environment:

 

Yes, there is a difference between a fetus and a child. One is inside the womb, and one is outside in the world. But why would location make any difference? Does the fetus magically "become human" as it makes it's way outside of the mother? Not that I know of. So, obviously, the location has nothing to do with being more human.

I wasn't aware that we were arguing human vs. non-human. The challenge was to provide a rational argument for why fetuses should be considered people.

 

Development:

 

True, a fetus is less developed than anyone else. And an infant is less-developed than a child. A child is less-developed than an adult. So what? Do we judge how human someone is by how developed they are? By that logic, a retarded child is almost sub-human compared to an adult. (come to think about it, wouldn't that mean it would be ok to kill a retarded child?)

If the fetus is "less-developed" to the extent that they don't have a brain or a heart? If someone doesn't have brain activity or a heartbeat, we generally consider them to be dead. I don't understand the logic behind the argument that it's somehow immoral to "kill" something that isn't alive.

 

But to your point, no doubt that the 14% of abortions that do take place outside of the first trimester are in fact killing something that is alive. I guess I would want to know that if this did take place, it did so for a very good reason (i.e. to save the life or the health of the mother, etc). I don't understand the logic behind the argument that once a fetus can be considered "alive", that fetus' life takes precedence over everything else.

 

Some maintain that a fetus is not actually developed into a living organism, but how can you prove that? Although the unborn's humanity, as I have said, has nothing to do with it's level of development, it's rapid growth does point to its status as a complete, self-sustaining organism. In fact, prenatal development progresses so fast that by day 43, an unborn has a heart that is beating and brain wave activity we can measure on an electroencephalogram. Did any of you Pro-Choice people know that...

I'd be more than happy to take a look at any source you'd like to provide that shows this. I'm betting it'll be a Pro-Life website

 

Level of dependency:

 

Again, fairly obvious. Would a teenager be less human because he/she is dependent on someone? Or would someone with a terminal disease that is fully dependent on medical equipment and/or medication to stay alive be less human?

?

 

Size:

 

I hope I don't have to explain this very much. Is Shaquel O'Neal any more human than the midget next door?

I'm afraid you might have to. I'm not sure how this is related to the topic of abortion, let alone a rational argument for why a fetus without any brain activity or a heartbeat should be considered a person.

 

So, that pretty much brings me to the end of my argument. To talk about the last point, I will say this: women who abort had the choice to have sex with whoever it was, they had the choie to take the risk that the intercourse would produce a child, they had the choice to not use some kind of birth control....

That's the end? I'm still waiting for argument that you said you were going to provide

 

And you want them to have the choice to commit murder? I'm not forcing my beliefs down someone's throat, since last time I checked, murder was a crime.

Yep, murdering people is generally considered to be a crime (obvious exceptions being self-defense, etc).

 

So why should they have that choice?

During the first trimester, it isn't murder so the point doesn't apply. In later trimesters there is usually a health issue. So why shouldn't a woman have a choice as to whether or not she gets to live?

 

Please... there's this thing called adoption. If you are unable to take care of the child, then put it up for adoption. Seems a win-win for everyone, and people don't have to murder because a new baby inconveniences them.

 

That's pretty much all I have to say. Life is precious, and it shouldn't be sacrificed just because someone doesn't want to have to deal with a new baby."

Are you prepared to stand behind the argument that this is the only reason for abortion?

 

Oops, am I sorry. I forgot that anything less of exact statistics pretty much means "total generalization" to you, and, as a matter of principle, should be ignored.

Yes, I do consider generalizations to be generalizations. They have their place in discourse also, however I think it's wise to recognize them for what they are.

[Totenkopf]

Many also believe it happens at birth. Fact is there is no way to know because we cannot even prove a soul existence. That is what I meant by forcing my religious beliefs down peoples throats. If we avoid looking at this through religious eyes, I would go with brain activity to determine when the fetus becomes human. After all, you cannot feel pain without the brain interrupting those electrical impulses as such. Without that interruption what looks like pain could only be an involuntary reaction, even plants have such and I would not put a plant on the same level has a human life.

 

Ok, when do you see the soul as "entering"? Also, at what arbitrary point do you support declaring a developing human "human" (it ain't no seahorse in there )?

 

 

I still fail to see the abuse of office on Clinton side. I guess the Republican Congress could not see it or he would not have served out his term. I did see someone that lied to the American public, but other Presidents have also lied and are still lying to us. The problem I see with Clinton is he lied under oath, which should be punishable and he was punished by being disbarred.

 

His handling of the whole thing was an abuse of office. Chief law enforcement officer of the land and he lies under oath as well as advising at least one other. I don't care that he lied about a liasson(s) w/an underling. He knew what kind of press he was dealing with since watergate, so he should have come clean and quickly tried to put it behind him. Instead, he got himself disgraced and disbarred. Yay, Bill!(sarcasm). Half of Congress impeached him and the other half may have been too vulnerable to corruption charges of their own to follow through. Makes you wonder about all those missing FBI files ala Craig Livingstone (the man to toxic for anyone to admit knowing.......yet somehow...).

 

I’m all for teaching abstinence as it is the only 100% way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Of course, it is also common sense, if you do not have sex you will not get pregnant. Therefore, it should not an entire course to teach abstinence. It can be taught with other forms of safe sex practices in case the hormone infected youth does not have the willpower or the patience not to practice abstinence. All I was taught was abstinence and the only thing that saved me was luck, because I was a hormone infected teen.

 

We are/were all "hormone addled" as teens, but we're supposed to be higher order animals with minds and willpower. You will never completely (short of some kind of mind control, I suppose) eradicate the possibility that teens (hell, never mind adults) will not use their brains in this area. However, perhaps a healthy dose of shame and stigmatizing certain behaviors (but isn't that what liberals do with political correctness at the universirty level now anyway) would go further than "here's a condom and a few other devices in case you don't want to control yourself" does now. If I tell you something is bad, but give you the means to do an end run around it, should I be surprised when you take the 2nd option?

 

@achilles--

PS: 86% of abortions take place before week 13. I'm no expert and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess, but I imagine that 2nd trimester abortions rarely have anything to do with "I decided that I don't want to be pregnant anymore". And most states already have laws stating that 3rd trimester abortions can only be performed if there is a health risk to the mother.

 

Oops, am I sorry. I forgot that anything less of exact statistics pretty much means "total generalization" to you, and, as a matter of principle, should be ignored.

 

Yes, I do consider generalizations to be generalizations. They have their place in discourse also, however I think it's wise to recognize them for what they are.

 

My, what a convenient style of conterargument. Also, I'm sure you merely assume the states do their due diligence in assuring that this is so, no?

[mimartin]

Ok, when do you see the soul as "entering"? Also, at what arbitrary point do you support declaring a developing human "human" (it ain't no seahorse in there )?

I don’t know. I have been taught both ways in church so I don’t know. I would like to believe it enters at birth, but that is for personal reasons and is not grounded in religion or anything else. It comes from someone close to me having multiple stillbirths.

However, perhaps a healthy dose of shame and stigmatizing certain behaviors

I believe there is already too much shame and stigmatizing associated with adolescents and young adults and that is why suicide is the third leading cause of death for ages 15 to 24 years in the U.S.

If I tell you something is bad, but give you the means to do an end run around it, should I be surprised when you take the 2nd option?

 

Why would we tell someone sex is bad? Why would they believe us about anything else if we openly lied to them?

 

Telling them honestly what can happen if they have sex, even protected sex, would be what I would do. Telling them that protected sex is not 100% foolproof and what can happen both with STDs and with unwanted pregnancy.

 

I was only given one option and I still made an end run around it. It is called youth and the belief that you are immortal. I was also told to just say no to alcohol and drugs. I guess, I wasn’t that bad I listened on one out of three.

[Totenkopf]

I wouldn't say that it was (that's the "it feels so good part"), just that having it whenever, with whomever, whereever isn't automatically ok either (ie probably bad). Stigmatizing a behavior isn't necessarily the same as banishment, either. That's where all the 'splaining comes in Lucy. Seriously, just like when you punish a child for doing something stupid, you don't just hit them/yell at them and forget about it. You also have to explain to them why they are being punished and that it's not a repudiation of them as a person, but rather the behavior. Sort of like the love the sinner, hate the sin admonition. Frankly, only telling them about the fallibility of the mechanics of preventative sex is falling short of your responsibility. We aren't robots afterall (or I'd bet the suicide rate would be a LOT lower, barring someone altering our "programming" ). Btw, which 1/3 did you listen to?

 

Lest I forget, saying "hey, I'm only young" is no more convincing an excuse than "I was only following orders".

[RobQel-Droma]

Not at all...when we're talking about people. In this case, we aren't: we're talking about fetuses and embryos. Reminder: the challenge was to provide a rational argument for fetuses should be considered people.

 

This was intended as a response against quite a few arguments used by Pro-Choice people, so it might not all be relevant.

 

PS: 86% of abortions take place before week 13. I'm no expert and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess, but I imagine that 2nd trimester abortions rarely have anything to do with "I decided that I don't want to be pregnant anymore".

 

No doubt that your generalization fits some measurable percentage of abortions, but even you seem willing to concede that it....

 

PS: Oh, and as I stated in my argument, and also by the site I will reference below, an unborn has a beating heart and brain-wave activity by day 49. Week 13 would be day 91....

 

And most states already have laws stating that 3rd trimester abortions can only be performed if there is a health risk to the mother.

 

Good for them.

 

I wasn't aware that we were arguing human vs. non-human. The challenge was to provide a rational argument for why fetuses should be considered people.

 

Well.... I dunno.... I just usually consider a human being a "person''....

 

If the fetus is "less-developed" to the extent that they don't have a brain or a heart? If someone doesn't have brain activity or a heartbeat, we generally consider them to be dead. I don't understand the logic behind the argument that it's somehow immoral to "kill" something that isn't alive.

 

As I say below, you have no way of deciding whether there is life in the fetus or not. Neither do I. However, I do believe that most of what I referred to in my argument was when a fetus had brain-wave activity and a heartbeat.

 

I don't understand the logic behind the argument that once a fetus can be considered "alive", that fetus' life takes precedence over everything else.

 

?

 

I would think that someone's life would be very important....

 

I'd be more than happy to take a look at any source you'd like to provide that shows this. I'm betting it'll be a Pro-Life website

 

Why yes, I suppose you could call it that. Way to try and discredit my source before I even show it.

 

Of course, it could just be that someone who had this information would agree with the Pro-Life side of things after seeing it....

 

Clicky

 

Not my only source, but many of the info I used is presented there as well, so its a good summary.

 

I'm afraid you might have to. I'm not sure how this is related to the topic of abortion, let alone a rational argument for why a fetus without any brain activity or a heartbeat should be considered a person.

 

First of all, I was never trying to say that a fetus without brain activity or a heartbeat should be considered a person. Secondly, remember that I wrote this for something else, and so some points I touch on may not quite be relevant to the topic at hand.

 

Thirdly, you have no scientific evidence that a fetus does not have life at that moment, and I have no scientific evidence that it does. I would think such a scientifically minded person as yourself would realize that, and that you cannot hope to prove something like that. So, you have no rational argument that it shouldn't be considered a person, either.

 

That's the end? I'm still waiting for argument that you said you were going to provide

 

Thanks for the little jab, but I believe I fully provided an argument.

 

During the first trimester, it isn't murder so the point doesn't apply. In later trimesters there is usually a health issue. So why shouldn't a woman have a choice as to whether or not she gets to live?

 

You say this as if every pregnant woman in "later trimesters" is likely to drop dead from the baby.

 

Are you prepared to stand behind the argument that this is the only reason for abortion?

 

I believe that I was clear that my argument was why abortion was wrong; not about the reasons for it.

 

Yes, I do consider generalizations to be generalizations. They have their place in discourse also, however I think it's wise to recognize them for what they are.

 

"...and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess..."

 

I'll be ignoring that part of your post, then...

 

Thanks for your response.

 

If pain is the determining factor and by this logic a cow can feel pain. Am I a participant in murder because I ate a hamburger tonight? Brain function would be a more persuasive argument to when life begins in my opinion. As a religious person when the soul enters the body would as be a determining factor for me.

 

I believe it is fairly clear that my argument was not entirely based on the pain factor. You seemed to have singled this out but ignored the rest.

 

Yes, I do and I admire anyone that adopts a child, but not all children even get a chance at adoption.

 

So we should kill those who don't? I don't consider it my place to decide that a child would not get the chance to live because I consider life to be a worse option.

 

You also have to admire the Right, they get so far by just sprouting rhetoric that only divides the country. The same politician preaching “family values” leaves his wife while she is undergoing cancer treatments for his mistress, but Bill Clinton is the bad guy. Another talks about “family values” yet invest in a porn movie. The right is pretty accepting too, but only to those on the right.

 

And the Left is any different? My point was that simply because of one's political affiliation, it does not make them any better of a person. You seemed to think that the Left were just great people while the Right was a bunch of dirty hypocrites... I was trying to persuade you otherwise.

 

And yes, Bill Clinton (Mr. I did not have sex with that woman and I lied about it) is the bad guy as well as the other politician you referred to. I never said that the Right was infallible and perfect, just that the Left (in fact, neither side) was even close.

[mimartin]

I believe it is fairly clear that my argument was not entirely based on the pain factor. You seemed to have singled this out but ignored the rest.[/Quote] Pain was the only part of your argument that I considered to have any scientific basics. If the fetus could feel pain (not involuntary muscle response) that would give merit to brain function and would no longer require me to force my religious beliefs down someone else throats to say early term abortions should be illegal.

 

So I will go back to that post and answer your question.

 

Secondly, what makes a fetus any less human?

A fetus is not human for the same reason a corpse is no longer human, lack of brain function.

 

So we should kill those who don't? I don't consider it my place to decide that a child would not get the chance to live because I consider life to be a worse option.[/Quote] We should not kill children, I would not even kill a fetus because of my beliefs. However, a fetus is not a child. Like I said early when we can grow the fetus outside the woman womb to full term then I would be all for outlawing all abortions. Until then I feel I would be forcing my religious beliefs and morals down someone’s throat by outlawing it.

 

Second, I will state it again not all unwanted children are adopted now. In what shape will these unwanted children from unwanted pregnancy be in? How are we going to stop their mothers from drinking, smoking, doing drugs and doing all the other prenatal care? Are we going to hire baby police to monitor them? How are we going to force these parents to give the child up for adoption and not either abuse it or kill it after it is born?

 

And the Left is any different? My point was that simply because of one's political affiliation, it does not make them any better of a person. You seemed to think that the Left were just great people while the Right was a bunch of dirty hypocrites... I was trying to persuade you otherwise.

 

And yes, Bill Clinton (Mr. I did not have sex with that woman and I lied about it) is the bad guy as well as the other politician you referred to. I never said that the Right was infallible and perfect, just that the Left (in fact, neither side) was even close.

Never said the left was any different other than they are not running every election on “family values.” That is where the term hypocrites come from in my mind.

 

There are bad people and good people on both sides. Someone can be of a Religious mind on either side. Some people can be on the Right because of their religious beliefs and some can be on the Left because of their religious beliefs.

 

One thing I would like to ask, how did Bill Clinton’s lie affect the country? Did one person die because of that lie? I’ve lied and I have lied about having sex. I actually thought that is what a gentleman did. Have any of you heard your not suppose to “kiss and tell.”

[Achilles]

This was intended as a response against quite a few arguments used by Pro-Choice people, so it might not all be relevant.

It seems that we agree that it isn't.

 

No doubt that your generalization fits some measurable percentage of abortions, but even you seem willing to concede that it....

Generalization? I don't believe I generalized at all. I think I was quite explicit that I was making an assumption about 2nd trimester abortions.

 

PS: Oh, and as I stated in my argument, and also by the site I will reference below, an unborn has a beating heart and brain-wave activity by day 49. Week 13 would be day 91....

Funny. I predicted that it would be a pro-life web site and you delivered. Did you have a legitimate source (you know, the kind that cite their work, etc) that I can look at?

 

Well.... I dunno.... I just usually consider a human being a "person''....

I am not aware of any human women that have ever carried a non-human fetus. The question isn't whether or not it's a human fetus vs. a non-human fetus but a living thing vs a non-living thing.

 

As I say below, you have no way of deciding whether there is life in the fetus or not. Neither do I. However, I do believe that most of what I referred to in my argument was when a fetus had brain-wave activity and a heartbeat.

Right, compliments of your clearly biased, non-cited pro-life resource. We can dance around this as long as you'd like but is seems pretty clear to me that something without vital signs shouldn't be considered alive. If you'd like to punch holes in that reasoning, then I'd be more than happy to listen to whatever you have to say.

 

?

 

I would think that someone's life would be very important....

Agreed. So what if we're dealing with a situation where Life A is an unborn fetus and Life B is a full grown mother whose health/life is endangered by complications with the pregancy? I tend to favor the Life B.

 

Why yes, I suppose you could call it that. Way to try and discredit my source before I even show it.

Or maybe I just know you better than you think I do.

 

Of course, it could just be that someone who had this information would agree with the Pro-Life side of things after seeing it....

 

Clicky[/url

 

Not my only source, but many of the info I used is presented there as well, so its a good summary.

Sorry, but it's hard for me to take this source seriously. Since you stated you have other sources, please send them along so that I can see what they have to say. I'm perfectly willing to consider that your points are valid, but propaganda, rhetoric, and hand-waving just aren't going to do it for me.

 

First of all, I was never trying to say that a fetus without brain activity or a heartbeat should be considered a person. Secondly, remember that I wrote this for something else, and so some points I touch on may not quite be relevant to the topic at hand.

Well then I'm confused as to why you presumed that you were going to lay a smack down and then proceeded to offer points not related to the discussion.

 

The good news is that we seem to agree that an embryo or a fetus without brain activity or a heartbeat should not be considered "a person". Setting aside for a moment the fact that you and I have differing sources for when exactly this is, does this mean that you would be ok with abortions that take place up to 49 days? Why or why not?

 

Thirdly, you have no scientific evidence that a fetus does not have life at that moment, and I have no scientific evidence that it does. I would think such a scientifically minded person as yourself would realize that, and that you cannot hope to prove something like that. So, you have no rational argument that it shouldn't be considered a person, either.

I've stated it before and I'll state it again: we consider things without a heart beat or brain activity to be "not alive". Doesn't matter to me if the organism in question is a developing embryo, a twenty-something construction worker that had a really bad OTJ accident, or an elderly person who expired peacefully in their sleep after a full life. Not alive is not alive.

 

Thanks for the little jab, but I believe I fully provided an argument.

Possibly, but not the one you said you were going to provide (the one about why an embryo or a still-developing fetus should be considered "a person").

 

You say this as if every pregnant woman in "later trimesters" is likely to drop dead from the baby.

Were you going to answer the question, or were you hoping that I wouldn't notice that you were trying to change the subject so that you wouldn't have to? I'll address your point (again) after you've addressed mine.

 

I believe that I was clear that my argument was why abortion was wrong; not about the reasons for it.

Well then why did you include that remark? Can I safely assume that this means that you are not prepared to stand behind the argument that this is the only reason that women have abortions?

 

"...and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess..."

 

I'll be ignoring that part of your post, then...

You're free to do whatever you'd like, however I'll point out once more that there's a difference between a generalization ("all women have abortions because they don't want to be a mommy"), and an assumption ("it stands to reason that since women that don't want to be mommies would get the abortion in the first trimester, that most second trimester abortions occur for some other reason")

 

Thanks for your response.

You too. Take care.

 

oops...have to throw my 2 cents in on this one:

 

You seemed to think that the Left were just great people while the Right was a bunch of dirty hypocrites...

This is the same "Right" that wants to be permitted to tell everyone how to live and gets really upset when the people they want to lord over say "no thanks". I'm sure that liberal politicians make mistakes too and maybe even at the same rate/magnitude as conservatives. What they aren't burdened with though, is the larger-than-life hypocrisy that the Right seems to be unable to break away from.

[Totenkopf]

This is the same "Right" that wants to be permitted to tell everyone how to live and gets really upset when the people they want to lord over say "no thanks". I'm sure that liberal politicians make mistakes too and maybe even at the same rate/magnitude as conservatives. What they aren't burdened with though, is the larger-than-life hypocrisy that the Right seems to be unable to break away from.

 

Wow, talk about one's capacity for self delusion. Your precious lefty hypocrites are always telling the rest of us to how to live, while they go off to do as they please. They are no less burdened by arrogance than the righties you fear so rabidly. Still, I'm not surprised you think this way.

[RobQel-Droma]

Generalization? I don't believe I generalized at all. I think I was quite explicit that I was making an assumption about 2nd trimester abortions.

 

Ah. So, what if I said I was making an assumption about mother's reasons for abortions as well, and not a generalization at all....? Or are you simply disputing the fact that you made a remark about the frequency of 2nd trimester abortions with no source?

 

I'm just wondering about the hypocrisy behind your statements....

 

Funny. I predicted that it would be a pro-life web site and you delivered. Did you have a legitimate source (you know, the kind that cite their work, etc) that I can look at?

 

That's right, I remember this too. Any website that takes a specific stand on something (that you disagree with) you automatically ignore as not being reliable.

 

I'm very sorry about that.

 

But I'll humor you.... (just a thought, what would you consider reliable? I'm sure that you would give me a Pro-Choice website in a heartbeat....)

 

http://www.brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsyfetaldev.html

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

 

Just a bit about fetal development. Hope you consider these sources trustworthy enough....

 

I am not aware of any human women that have ever carried a non-human fetus. The question isn't whether or not it's a human fetus vs. a non-human fetus but a living thing vs a non-living thing.

 

Funny, I don't recall you using the word "living". I think I responded to you using the word "people" in association with "human". And I believe that I addressed the "living" problem in my argument, and in later responses.

 

Right, compliments of your clearly biased, non-cited pro-life resource.

 

Nice spin.

 

And yet, you wanted me, I believe, in our earlier tangle over Iraq, to go watch "No End in Sight".... I'm sure there was no bias by the producer there....

 

Seriously, if you want to keep thinking that somehow my sources are biased simply because of their side (i.e. Pro-Life), I don't see anything else to say. Obviously you find no such fault with your sources (whatever there may be) simply because of what stance they take on issues.

 

Next time we debate, I guess, I will ignore all sources you provide if they happen to state that they support the stance you might be taking at the time.

 

And just a thought.... how about you go and verify the material, instead of just sitting there and calling it unreliable? Of course, I guess it would make it easier to wiggle out of answering to evidence presented by such a source because you can simply call it biased, and therefore, have no obligation to reply.... but certainly you wouldn't do something like that.

 

We can dance around this as long as you'd like but is seems pretty clear to me that something without vital signs shouldn't be considered alive. If you'd like to punch holes in that reasoning, then I'd be more than happy to listen to whatever you have to say.

 

I concede your point. I still don't see how that changes to what I've said about brain activity and heartbeats appearing in "day 49"....

 

Agreed. So what if we're dealing with a situation where Life A is an unborn fetus and Life B is a full grown mother whose health/life is endangered by complications with the pregancy? I tend to favor the Life B.

 

That would certainly be a difficult choice, and I see your point.

 

But I didn't know that we were dealing with examples such as these that have these other factors in with them. As I recall, the discussion was simply about abortion, not about abortion in exceptional cases.

 

Sorry, but it's hard for me to take this source seriously. Since you stated you have other sources, please send them along so that I can see what they have to say.

 

Done.

 

I'm perfectly willing to consider that your points are valid, but propaganda, rhetoric, and hand-waving just aren't going to do it for me.

 

*choke*

 

Erm..... "rhetoric, and hand-waving"?

 

You didn't actually check the site out, did you?

 

Well then I'm confused as to why you presumed that you were going to lay a smack down and then proceeded to offer points not related to the discussion.

 

I don't know how many times I've said this, but you don't seem to get it.

 

"This was intended as a response against quite a few arguments used by Pro-Choice people, so it might not all be relevant."

 

"...this was something I wrote some time ago..."

 

This is the last time I will offer any explanation on this topic. I wrote this argument some time ago (so I basically copied and pasted it into my post here), and, at the time, I was arguing against some varied reasons given for why abortion was fine.

 

So.... rather than going through and trying to trim out all irrelevance, I simply presented it mostly as I had originally written it. I hope this clears up your confusion...

 

The good news is that we seem to agree that an embryo or a fetus without brain activity or a heartbeat should not be considered "a person". Setting aside for a moment the fact that you and I have differing sources for when exactly this is, does this mean that you would be ok with abortions that take place up to 49 days? Why or why not?

 

It depends on a variety of factors, so I can't really say "yes" or "no" definitively. Not trying to back out of answering (there would be no point). I guess that I would suppose that, if there was danger to the mother, then that would be a good reason for abortion at that time. However, no one really knows at which point life begins, so, otherwise, without such a factor.... I wouldn't consider it my decision to abort a baby.

 

I've stated it before and I'll state it again: we consider things without a heart beat or brain activity to be "not alive". Doesn't matter to me if the organism in question is a developing embryo, a twenty-something construction worker that had a really bad OTJ accident, or an elderly person who expired peacefully in their sleep after a full life. Not alive is not alive.

 

Everything you say here I agree with.

 

Possibly, but not the one you said you were going to provide (the one about why an embryo or a still-developing fetus should be considered "a person").

 

Did you happen to read any of my argument, or just dismiss it off-hand?

 

Were you going to answer the question, or were you hoping that I wouldn't notice that you were trying to change the subject so that you wouldn't have to? I'll address your point (again) after you've addressed mine.

 

You're one to talk , but I was not sidestepping the question. I find it difficult to answer your question when I am backed into a corner: if I say "no", I could have no feelings for the poor mother who could die, and if I say "yes", well, why am I not pro-Choice?

 

If the mother is in danger of losing her life, and there is no other way, then that might be what you would have to do. As I said, however, you asked the question as if all child-bearing women's lives were endangered by carrying a baby.

 

Well then why did you include that remark? Can I safely assume that this means that you are not prepared to stand behind the argument that this is the only reason that women have abortions?

 

Er, no.... I realize that there are always different reasons for abortions... but, although I don't know exact statistics, I would guess that most abortions are "convenience" abortions (or at least abortions that were not "mother in danger", or whatever other reasons could be used).

 

You're free to do whatever you'd like, however I'll point out once more that there's a difference between a generalization ("all women have abortions because they don't want to be a mommy"), and an assumption ("it stands to reason that since women that don't want to be mommies would get the abortion in the first trimester, that most second trimester abortions occur for some other reason")

 

Sure, that sounds reasonable.

 

Except for the fact that I never said "all women have abortions because they don't want to be a mommy". I believe I merely made a comment about a common reason for abortion.

 

This is the same "Right" that wants to be permitted to tell everyone how to live and gets really upset when the people they want to lord over say "no thanks". I'm sure that liberal politicians make mistakes too and maybe even at the same rate/magnitude as conservatives. What they aren't burdened with though, is the larger-than-life hypocrisy that the Right seems to be unable to break away from.

 

The Right aren't the only ones who are hypocrites in some of their beliefs, my friend. Again, I never said that the Right wasn't hypocritical in some beliefs, just that the Left was about equal in that respect.

 

Thanks again, and goodnight. (wow, my replies to you keep getting longer and longer... this is what I hate about debating )

 

Pain was the only part of your argument that I considered to have any scientific basics. If the fetus could feel pain (not involuntary muscle response) that would give merit to brain function and would no longer require me to force my religious beliefs down someone else throats to say early term abortions should be illegal.

 

1. A fetus can feel pain....

2. What was unscientific about my post? Do you dispute anything that I said?

 

A fetus is not human for the same reason a corpse is no longer human, lack of brain function.

 

"...by day 43, the unborn entity has a heart that is beating and brain wave activity we can measure on an electroencephalogram..."

 

We should not kill children, I would not even kill a fetus because of my beliefs. However, a fetus is not a child. Like I said early when we can grow the fetus outside the woman womb to full term then I would be all for outlawing all abortions. Until then I feel I would be forcing my religious beliefs and morals down someone’s throat by outlawing it.

 

Which is why I posted my argument as for why abortion is killing a fetus can be considered murder.

 

You didn't seem to like it, though, for reasons that you did not explain...

 

Second, I will state it again not all unwanted children are adopted now. In what shape will these unwanted children from unwanted pregnancy be in? How are we going to stop their mothers from drinking, smoking, doing drugs and doing all the other prenatal care? Are we going to hire baby police to monitor them? How are we going to force these parents to give the child up for adoption and not either abuse it or kill it after it is born?

 

And I will state again, I'm not sure how this hypothetical case gives anyone the right to decide if a fetus lives or dies.

 

And the fact is, we can't do anything you talked about, so... I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Never said the left was any different other than they are not running every election on “family values.” That is where the term hypocrites come from in my mind.

 

As I told Achilles, the Left can be pretty hypocritical too.

 

There are bad people and good people on both sides. Someone can be of a Religious mind on either side. Some people can be on the Right because of their religious beliefs and some can be on the Left because of their religious beliefs.

 

Which is what I have been trying to say.

 

One thing I would like to ask, how did Bill Clinton’s lie affect the country? Did one person die because of that lie?

 

How did "the same politician preaching “family values” that leaft his wife while she is undergoing cancer treatments for his mistress" affect the country? Did one person die because of that?

 

How did this unknown character who "talks about “family values” yet invest in a porn movie" affect the country? Did one person die because of that hypocrisy?

 

I’ve lied and I have lied about having sex. I actually thought that is what a gentleman did.

 

A gentleman has an affair and then lies about it under oath?

 

Thanks for your response as well.

[mimartin]

1. A fetus can feel pain....

[/Quote]A fetus cannot feel pain until it has brain activity.

 

You are saying it has brain activity at 43 days. I am not saying I agree with that because the only place I’ve been unable to find that short a time period is Anti-Choice websites.

 

The second source you listed above said that brain waves are detectable at the beginning of the second trimester 13 to 16 weeks. That would be 91 days at the earliest. Doctors cannot even agree when brain wave activity starts. So is it 43 days or twice that at 91 days?

 

You didn't seem to like it, though, for reasons that you did not explain...[/Quote] I had no feelings whatsoever about it. I didn’t like it, but I also did not dislike it. I just stated my opinion and the law of today that it is not murder.

 

And I will state again, I'm not sure how this hypothetical case gives anyone the right to decide if a fetus lives or dies.[/Quote] LOL Hypothetical case. It is in the woman’s body. You are forcing her to carry it to term and that is hypothetical. She has the power to abort the fetus no matter the law or our opinion. There were abortions in this country before Roe vs. Wade you know and there will continue to be them even if it is ever overturned. Oh and there are ways to cause a miscarriage just as there are ways to help prevent one. You ever held a baby in your arms after the mother was stupid enough to take diet pills during her pregnancy. I have.

How did "the same politician preaching “family values” that leaft his wife while she is undergoing cancer treatments for his mistress" affect the country? Did one person die because of that? [/Quote]It didn’t. I was talking about another Republican President (that I voted for once, but it did cure me from voting that way again for the rest of my life) who lied to the American people and did cost American lives.

 

A gentleman has an affair and then lies about it under oath?[/Quote]A gentleman does not have an affair.

 

That said, yes, I would lie even under oath, because it is nobodies business about my sex life.

[Totenkopf]

That said, yes, I would lie even under oath, because it is nobodies business about my sex life.

 

Why lie, just cop the 5th. That way they can't hang you on perjury. Not that I'm accusing you of anything (b/c I'm NOT in this case), but I'd be willing to bet that NAMBLA has the same attitude. Also, I was under the impression that not bragging about such a relationship to others was the gentlemanly thing to do.

[Achilles]

Ah. So, what if I said I was making an assumption about mother's reasons for abortions as well, and not a generalization at all....? Or are you simply disputing the fact that you made a remark about the frequency of 2nd trimester abortions with no source?

Here, let's see if this helps. "Generalizing" is when someone makes a statement which may or may not apply to a sample but applies it to the population. For instance, when you made this generalization about welfare recipients in post 14:

 

"That's primarily because me (and others) don't believe in giving lazy people money so they don't have to work."

 

Or when you made this generalization about women that have abortions:

 

"Life is precious, and it shouldn't be sacrificed just because someone doesn't want to have to deal with a new baby."

 

Let's compare that to what I said:

 

"I'm no expert and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess, but I imagine that 2nd trimester abortions rarely have anything to do with 'I decided that I don't want to be pregnant anymore'."

 

Hopefully, you can see the difference.

 

To your point, no doubt at all in my mind that a significant (dare I venture to say "majority") of abortions that take place in the first trimester are in response to an unplanned pregnancy. I won't dispute that at all. What I won't do is haphazardly posit that all abortions are done for this reason as you have. It's probably safe for you to assume that this is the case, but unwise for you to generalize all women that have abortions in this manner.

 

I'm just wondering about the hypocrisy behind your statements....

Feel free to point out any hypocritical statements that you can find. I'm always happy to be educated by my peers.

 

That's right, I remember this too. Any website that takes a specific stand on something (that you disagree with) you automatically ignore as not being reliable.

Any website that makes statements that aren't backed up with sources are considered to be unreliable. After more than a decade in the higher education system, I have this funny thing about not accepting things that appear to be made up.

 

I'm very sorry about that.

Apology accepted.

 

But I'll humor you.... (just a thought, what would you consider reliable? I'm sure that you would give me a Pro-Choice website in a heartbeat....)

That's an interesting assumption to make. It saddens me to hear that you think I'm that stupid, but you are entitled to your opinion. If nothing else, I appreciate the honesty.

 

http://www.brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

"In fact, as early as the 9th week of gestation the fetus is able to spontaneously move the extremities, head, and trunk (de Vries, Visser, & Prechtl, 1985). It has also been suggested that the near term fetus may be endowed with some degree of cognitive capability (e.g., Hepper & Shahidullah, 1994; Kisilevsky, Fearson & Muir, 1998)."

 

The first statement is only cursorily related to the second one. Patients that are considered "brain dead" have also been known to exhibit spontaneous movement in their extremities. Furthermore you'll notice that the second sentence is very, very conditional ("suggested", "may", "some"). This is a step in the right direction, but it's hardly definitive. Not that it should be dismissed outright, but neither should it be accepted either. I'd recommend placing that in the "hmmm, isn't that interesting" column.

 

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsyfetaldev.html

Big step backwards. The first source was well cited. This is not.

 

If you go to the link he provided, I think you'll find a handful of interesting differences. I'll point out one of them here:

 

Your Source: "In Week 3 we see the formation of the heart, the beginning development of the brain and spinal cord, and the beginning of the gastrointestinal tract."

 

His Source: "The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop, The gastrointestinal tract begins to develop"

 

Your source says the heart develops in week three. The National Institute of Health says the heart begins to develop by week three. Big difference. This could be a simply editorial mistake in his haste to get this site published for his students, it could be that he's biased and has an agenda, or it may be that his site was hax0red by l33t pro-life cyber terrorists. Either way, the source has bad info.

 

PS: NIH says, "Week 20: Fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope". For those of you watching at home, the 20th week is approximately 2/3 of the way through the 2nd trimester.

 

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php

Interestingly, this site seems to have different numbers altogether.

 

"Week Five: First heartbeats begin - If you have an early ultrasound you may not be able to recognize this tiny being as a baby, but there is no mistaking what it feels like seeing your child's heartbeat on that screen. That rhythmic beat is echoed in your own heart."

 

Aw, shucks. Clearly this kind of dewy-eyed talk is the hallmark of any academia-class research source. It says that you can hear the heartbeat in week 13. Your previous source said week 3. So is it week 3, week 5, or week 13? While you're figuring that out, I'm going to stick with the NIH numbers.

 

PS: While this site is not explicitly pro-life, it is biased. Note the banner at the top of the page showing the two women comparing baby-bumps, making it clear that this is site for pregnant women. Also, the soppy sentimental language that I pointed out earlier (and is present throughout) makes it pretty clear that they are not making any attempt to objectively share information.

 

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Ha! This is the site that your 2nd source referenced (and then promptly made up his own info anyway). As I've already pointed out, this site offers week 20 for a heartbeat. Did you even read these sites before posting them? I can't imagine that you would have missed this. Perhaps you thought I wouldn't click on them?

 

In summary, of the 5 sources that you've now provided, only one of them supports your earlier argument. As I have already pointed out, even that support is shaky at best. As always though, if you have other sites that you'd like for me to read, just provide the links and I'll be happy to take a look.

 

Just a bit about fetal development. Hope you consider these sources trustworthy enough....

Yes, two of them were quite good. Unfortunately, neither one really supported your argument.

 

Funny, I don't recall you using the word "living". I think I responded to you using the word "people" in association with "human". And I believe that I addressed the "living" problem in my argument, and in later responses.

You just quoted me using the word "living". What is your point?

 

Nice spin.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

 

And yet, you wanted me, I believe, in our earlier tangle over Iraq, to go watch "No End in Sight".... I'm sure there was no bias by the producer there....

Have you seen it? Didn't I offer to pay for movie tickets for you and your parents so that you could actually, I don't know, see it before you determined it was bunk? Who's open-minded now?

 

FWIW, I actually read your sites before I determine whether or not they are biased.

 

Seriously, if you want to keep thinking that somehow my sources are biased simply because of their side (i.e. Pro-Life), I don't see anything else to say. Obviously you find no such fault with your sources (whatever there may be) simply because of what stance they take on issues.

Biased = having a side, so yes, if your source is taking a side, I will consider it biased.

 

Next time we debate, I guess, I will ignore all sources you provide if they happen to state that they support the stance you might be taking at the time.

You're free to do whatever you'd like, but this doesn't sound like a grown-up exchange of ideas and information any more. You apparently feel more comfortable assigning labels to me because I'm not taken in by invented "facts" and figures than you do objectively examining your own arguments before you make them. Not much I can do about that.

 

And just a thought.... how about you go and verify the material, instead of just sitting there and calling it unreliable?

Apparently, you've been assuming all this time that I don't. Heh.

 

Tell me, how am I supposed to determine if something is unreliable without first looking at it. Sounds impossible to me.

 

Of course, I guess it would make it easier to wiggle out of answering to evidence presented by such a source because you can simply call it biased, and therefore, have no obligation to reply.... but certainly you wouldn't do something like that.

Here's how it works:

 

You make an argument.

I ask for supporting evidence (you can always avoid this step by providing it in step 1, fyi).

You provide a source that is unreliable (see post 39)

I point out that it is unreliable and ask for another one

Repeat steps 3 and 4 until you actually provide a reliable source that supports your argument or until one of us gives up and abandons the thread.

 

If you don't provide a reliable source, that isn't my fault. Pointing out that your source is unreliable is not "wiggling". But if you would like to present a counter-argument for why your sources should be considered reliable, I'm more than willing to hear you out. Perhaps we can start with your last post where two of your links were essentially the same material and all of them had differing time lines for fetal heart development.

 

I concede your point. I still don't see how that changes to what I've said about brain activity and heartbeats appearing in "day 49"....

Well since "vital signs" include heartbeat and brain activity, I assumed that it would be obvious. My apologies for using terms that you are not familiar with.

 

That would certainly be a difficult choice, and I see your point.

 

But I didn't know that we were dealing with examples such as these that have these other factors in with them. As I recall, the discussion was simply about abortion, not about abortion in exceptional cases.

I appreciate you being willing to consider other points on this one.

 

Just to clarify, anti-abortionist want to make all abortions illegal. They don't care about circumstances such as health, life or death, pregnancy as a result of rape, etc. Abortion = bad = illegal. No more questions.

 

pro-abortionists point out that there will always be circumstances in which abortion might not only be ok, but necessary. Therefore it should not be illegal. Furthermore, they resent the idea that the government should be able to determine whether or not a woman should be pregnant.

 

Any of the reasonable demands that anti-abortionist could ask for (3rd trimester abortions only legal if approved by a physician and related to mother's health, etc) have already been in place for years. In other words, anti-abortionist don't care about "exceptional cases". They see abortion as a black or white issue. I'm merely pointing out that it is not.

 

*choke*

 

Erm..... "rhetoric, and hand-waving"?

 

You didn't actually check the site out, did you?

The comment wasn't directed at your source alone

 

And yes, I did look at the site. It made a lot of assertions that were not supported by evidence and made arguments that it arbitrarily decided were "sound" without providing any explanation for why a reasonable person should agree with them.

 

I don't know how many times I've said this, but you don't seem to get it.

<snip>

I'm confused because you said you were going to do something, then you didn't do it, and now you appear to be saying that you never said you were going to do it even though we have it in print that you did.

 

Me: I think this argument would get a lot more support if someone could offer a rational argument for why fetuses should be considered "beings".

You: (quoting the comment above) You asked for it.

 

You've yet to provide this argument. You've admitted that the argument that you did provide was for why you think abortion is wrong. Hopefully this helps to explain why I'm still waiting for this "You asked for it" argument born from the heavens and carried down to LucasForums on the wings of angels that you implied that I was going to get to read. If you don't intend on providing it, please let me know so that I can begin the grieving process. Thanks.

 

It depends on a variety of factors, so I can't really say "yes" or "no" definitively. Not trying to back out of answering (there would be no point). I guess that I would suppose that, if there was danger to the mother, then that would be a good reason for abortion at that time. However, no one really knows at which point life begins, so, otherwise, without such a factor.... I wouldn't consider it my decision to abort a baby.

Well said. You realize that this is not what "pro-life" people believe, right? They absolutely want it to be 100% their decision - and they don't care about health issues. Which side do you want to be on?

 

Everything you say here I agree with.

Ok. Then we seem to agree that a fetus attains personhood when it has a heartbeat and brain activity. There is still some dispute over whether this is 49 days (your argument) or 20 weeks (my source). Therefore it isn't "murder" to abort a fetus before this threshold is met. Furthermore, I'm willing to wager that we would also both wholeheartedly agree that abortions should only take place after this threshold if there is a very good reason to do so.

 

Did you happen to read any of my argument, or just dismiss it off-hand?

Considering that I painstakingly responded to each of your points (just like I do every other post I reply to), I don't see how you can even ask that.

 

You're one to talk , but I was not sidestepping the question. I find it difficult to answer your question when I am backed into a corner: if I say "no", I could have no feelings for the poor mother who could die, and if I say "yes", well, why am I not pro-Choice?

Sorry to hear that logical conclusions cause you stress. You're right though, you did paint yourself into one heck of a corner. I don't think pushing the dialog any further is going to accomplish much of anything, so I'll leave the last word to you. Please do take some time to consider the implications of what you just said here.

 

If the mother is in danger of losing her life, and there is no other way, then that might be what you would have to do. As I said, however, you asked the question as if all child-bearing women's lives were endangered by carrying a baby.

Not quite. We were specifically discussing late-term abortions. As I have already pointed out, most states have laws making late term abortion illegal unless there is a health risk to the mother. Therefore, yes, for the specific type of abortion we were discussing, a woman's health is in danger. Now you've answered my question and I believe I've addressed your point.

 

Er, no.... I realize that there are always different reasons for abortions... but, although I don't know exact statistics, I would guess that most abortions are "convenience" abortions (or at least abortions that were not "mother in danger", or whatever other reasons could be used).

Right, but considering that 86% of abortions take place before 13 weeks (well before the 20 week threshold generally accepted), I don't see why that's a big deal. If the fetus has vital signs at 20 weeks but is aborted before that, why all the drama?

 

Sure, that sounds reasonable.

 

Except for the fact that I never said "all women have abortions because they don't want to be a mommy". I believe I merely made a comment about a common reason for abortion.

I have no doubt that this is probably how you wanted your comment come across.

 

The Right aren't the only ones who are hypocrites in some of their beliefs, my friend. Again, I never said that the Right wasn't hypocritical in some beliefs, just that the Left was about equal in that respect.

We're all hypocrites to some extent. I do think that Ted Haggart telling thousands of people that homosexuality is wrong only to later be "outted" by a male prostitute is probably a little higher on the hypocrisy scale than lying about cheating on your wife. FWIW, I consider cheating on a spouse to be significantly more immoral than being gay (i.e. not a moral issue at all), but this isn't about moral vs. immoral, it's about hypocrisy.

 

Thanks again, and goodnight. (wow, my replies to you keep getting longer and longer... this is what I hate about debating )

Last word is your's, sir. Thank you for the discussion

[RobQel-Droma]

You are saying it has brain activity at 43 days. I am not saying I agree with that because the only place I’ve been unable to find that short a time period is Anti-Choice websites.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you are doubtful of my info because you can't find any other sources to back up my claims, then please look below (as it seems Achilles expressed concerns over my listed sources as well).

 

The second source you listed above said that brain waves are detectable at the beginning of the second trimester 13 to 16 weeks. That would be 91 days at the earliest. Doctors cannot even agree when brain wave activity starts. So is it 43 days or twice that at 91 days?

 

I realize that there is some inconsistency, but I have seen several reliable sources that list brain-wave activity being present normally around 40-43 days. I did a little research on this, and, as far as I can tell, it is the earliest that brain functions start. Of course, if you are of the mind as Achilles, then most of the sites you wouldn't think reliable because they have Pro-Life affiliations.... so, pretty much leaves me with no choice.

 

However....

 

http://www.carenetsomd.org/Abortion.php

 

Probably the most non-"biased" site I could find; its just a pregnancy center that simply gives information for those wanting to know about abortion. It lists a time between 35-42 days when the brain starts to function and control movement.

 

I had no feelings whatsoever about it. I didn’t like it, but I also did not dislike it. I just stated my opinion and the law of today that it is not murder.

 

I made the comment because you merely singled out one portion of my argument and seemed to ignore all the rest (or simply not address it).

 

LOL Hypothetical case. It is in the woman’s body. You are forcing her to carry it to term and that is hypothetical.

 

 

"In what shape will these unwanted children from unwanted pregnancy be in? How are we going to stop their mothers from drinking, smoking, doing drugs and doing all the other prenatal care? Are we going to hire baby police to monitor them? How are we going to force these parents to give the child up for adoption and not either abuse it or kill it after it is born?"

 

Sorry, but I think you changed your argument slightly.... I believe, in your post I put in quotations above, you listed several exceptions/factors that are not generally present (drugs, drinking, smoking, abuse). All making up, as I called it, a hypothetical abortion situation. But in your reply to me, you seemed to cut away all the extra details and simply whittle it down to "a women bearing a child". I'm kinda confused right now....

 

She has the power to abort the fetus no matter the law or our opinion. There were abortions in this country before Roe vs. Wade you know and there will continue to be them even if it is ever overturned. Oh and there are ways to cause a miscarriage just as there are ways to help prevent one. You ever held a baby in your arms after the mother was stupid enough to take diet pills during her pregnancy. I have.

 

Er, all true.... but I have no idea what your point is.

 

It didn’t. I was talking about another Republican President (that I voted for once, but it did cure me from voting that way again for the rest of my life) who lied to the American people and did cost American lives.

 

Ah, well.... that is another discussion entirely, so I won't get into that.

 

A gentleman does not have an affair.

 

That said, yes, I would lie even under oath, because it is nobodies business about my sex life.

 

Well, I'm not sure much more I can say after that. That's your view, and you're certainly welcome to do that, although I don't recommend lying under oath to anyone about anything.

 

Anyways, thanks for your reply. I think I'm going to follow Achilles and allow you the last word if you wish.

 

Here, let's see if this helps. "Generalizing" is when someone makes a statement which may or may not apply to a sample but applies it to the population. For instance, <snip>

 

Hopefully, you can see the difference.

 

Based on your definitions of "generalization" and "assumption", I could easily change my statement to "I think mostly welfare is abused by lazy people who don't want to work", and my changed statement would be somehow O.K. with you. I'm not sure of the difference. Either way I make a comment about the abuse of welfare....

 

And, how, in your mind, is a generalization any better than an assumption? You seem to take one as being fine, and the other as not. Both are primarily guess, and I don't see how you can find no fault with your sourceless assumption and yet call me out for "generalizing" with my minor "generalization" (in this case, it could just as well be assumption) that welfare is abused by lazy people.

 

To your point, no doubt at all in my mind that a significant (dare I venture to say "majority") of abortions that take place in the first trimester are in response to an unplanned pregnancy. I won't dispute that at all. What I won't do is haphazardly posit that all abortions are done for this reason as you have. It's probably safe for you to assume that this is the case, but unwise for you to generalize all women that have abortions in this manner.

 

Again, splitting hairs. I really don't get how generalizing something is any different than assuming something. Perhaps in the way it is said? I dunno. But either way (I say this again), it is making a baseless guess about something. I would even go farther and say that a generalization is simply applying something (such as the reason for abortion) that does in fact have basis in facts to a larger group without actually knowing; an assumption would be simply deciding on a "fact" without any basis in reality at all, with no knowledge of whether it is right or not.

 

Looking at it this way, I'm not sure how it is ok to make an "assumption", but not to make a "generalization". As I said before, maybe you are talking about the way it is said (such as directly stating that you have no basis for a claim you might make), but then, if you don't, why even state that claim in the first place?

 

Any website that makes statements that aren't backed up with sources are considered to be unreliable. After more than a decade in the higher education system, I have this funny thing about not accepting things that appear to be made up.

 

Well, I guess you'll just have to educate me with this "higher education" that you have so I'm not so darn naive.

 

First of all, I don't know how my site appeared "made up". Secondly, have no idea how bias somehow automatically discredits a source. Thirdly, I have provided another source in my reply to mimartin with information backing up my original argument.

 

That's an interesting assumption to make. It saddens me to hear that you think I'm that stupid, but you are entitled to your opinion. If nothing else, I appreciate the honesty.

 

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a remark on your intelligence. But I would assume that you, if you thought the source was reliable (in your definition of reliable), you would provide it without caring that it was a Pro-Choice website.

 

And at least it wasn't a generalization.

 

The first statement is only cursorily related to the second one. Patients that are considered "brain dead" have also been known to exhibit spontaneous movement in their extremities. Furthermore you'll notice that the second sentence is very, very conditional ("suggested", "may", "some"). This is a step in the right direction, but it's hardly definitive. Not that it should be dismissed outright, but neither should it be accepted either. I'd recommend placing that in the "hmmm, isn't that interesting" column.

 

However you want to look at it. However, a brain-dead patient can still be considered alive, no?

 

Also, if you scroll down, it mentions that by week 10, a fetus will already began taking short instinctive "breaths" and have periods of heightened brain and heart activity.

 

Your source says the heart develops in week three. The National Institute of Health says the heart begins to develop by week three. Big difference. This could be a simply editorial mistake in his haste to get this site published for his students, it could be that he's biased and has an agenda, or it may be that his site was hax0red by l33t pro-life cyber terrorists. Either way, the source has bad info.

 

What?

 

"It develops in week three." "It begins to develop by week three."

 

And from this, you suggest that perhaps the source is biased and has an agenda, and is possibly lying?

 

Er.... let me see. If "it develops in week three", it makes no mention at what time it started. If it "begins to develop by week three", it could just as well develop in week three. In other words, by means either at that time or before, and so that means that the heart could develop any time before week 3. Not too hard to see it developed in week 3. You find interesting ways to try and discredit my sources, don't you?

 

PS: NIH says, "Week 20: Fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope". For those of you watching at home, the 20th week is approximately 2/3 of the way through the 2nd trimester.

 

Ok... it makes no mention that there isn't a heartbeat before than, merely that, by week 20, it can be heard by an instrument such as a stethoscope....

 

Aw, shucks. Clearly this kind of dewy-eyed talk is the hallmark of any academia-class research source. It says that you can hear the heartbeat in week 13. Your previous source said week 3.

 

Er, no. It said that the heart develops in week 3. Never mentioned heartbeats.

 

So is it week 3, week 5, or week 13? While you're figuring that out, I'm going to stick with the NIH numbers.

 

Note that these only stated when you can hear the heartbeat, presumable talking to pregnant mothers. Not when the heart started beating....

 

And lets compare the numbers, shall we?

 

NIH: Heart starts to develop by week 3.

My Source: Heart develops in week 3.

 

Seems pretty close. As far as the brain:

 

Source 1 (listed above): Brain-wave activity recorded in days 35-42.

Source 2 (my original source): Brain-wave activity able to be recorded by day 43

Source 3 (the one you considered to be the most reliable): Fetus brain/spinal cord developed by week 7, which would mean around day 42.

 

PS: While this site is not explicitly pro-life, it is biased. Note the banner at the top of the page showing the two women comparing baby-bumps, making it clear that this is site for pregnant women. Also, the soppy sentimental language that I pointed out earlier (and is present throughout) makes it pretty clear that they are not making any attempt to objectively share information.

 

Yes, since we are talking about abortion and fetuses, it would doubtless be for pregnant women....

 

As always though, if you have other sites that you'd like for me to read, just provide the links and I'll be happy to take a look.

 

http://www.carenetsomd.org/Abortion.php

 

You just quoted me using the word "living". What is your point?

 

My point is that, first, you told me that the argument was not whether it was human, but if it was a person. Then, when I respond with "I usually consider a 'human' to be a 'person'", you changed your terminology to "living". And, as I said, I believe quite a bit of my argument was about whether a fetus was alive or not.

 

Have you seen it? Didn't I offer to pay for movie tickets for you and your parents so that you could actually, I don't know, see it before you determined it was bunk? Who's open-minded now?

 

Well, now, that's quite an assumption to make - that I determined it was bunk before I even saw it.

 

Oh, and.... talking about open-mindedness.... "I'd be more than happy to take a look at any source you'd like to provide that shows this. I'm betting it'll be a Pro-Life website."

 

"Who's open-minded now?"

 

FWIW, I actually read your sites before I determine whether or not they are biased.

 

"Biased = having a side, so yes, if your source is taking a side, I will consider it biased."

 

"I'm betting it'll be a Pro-Life website."

 

Pro-Life = having a side, having a side = biased....

 

You're free to do whatever you'd like, but this doesn't sound like a grown-up exchange of ideas and information any more. You apparently feel more comfortable assigning labels to me because I'm not taken in by invented "facts" and figures than you do objectively examining your own arguments before you make them. Not much I can do about that.

 

So why exactly do you label my sources as being biased before you even see them?

 

Tell me, how am I supposed to determine if something is unreliable without first looking at it. Sounds impossible to me.

 

It sure does.

 

If you don't provide a reliable source, that isn't my fault. Pointing out that your source is unreliable is not "wiggling".

 

And I can't do anything about you refusing to find those sources reliable, simply because they are "biased." Of course, I could have thrown in a lot more, but most were Pro-Life websites, so you wouldn't accept them anyways...

 

Well since "vital signs" include heartbeat and brain activity, I assumed that it would be obvious. My apologies for using terms that you are not familiar with.

 

 

Just to clarify, anti-abortionist want to make all abortions illegal. They don't care about circumstances such as health, life or death, pregnancy as a result of rape, etc. Abortion = bad = illegal. No more questions.

 

<snip>

 

"Am I to be inexplicably burdened with the beliefs of....?"

 

And yes, I did look at the site. It made a lot of assertions that were not supported by evidence and made arguments that it arbitrarily decided were "sound" without providing any explanation for why a reasonable person should agree with them.

 

Sounded pretty "sound" to me. Especially after checking quite a few other sites that had the same exact information (many with Pro-Life leanings, of course).

 

Although, as I said, it could just be that anyone in possession of this knowledge would agree with the Pro-Life side of things.... meh, I dunno.

 

I'm confused because you said you were going to do something, then you didn't do it, and now you appear to be saying that you never said you were going to do it even though we have it in print that you did.

 

I did, you just didn't seem to accept it...

 

I think this argument would get a lot more support if someone could offer a rational argument for why fetuses should be considered "beings".

 

I don't know what to say, Achilles. I gave you quite a large argument as to why fetuses shouldn't be considered any different from any other human beings.

 

Hopefully this helps to explain why I'm still waiting for this "You asked for it" argument born from the heavens and carried down to LucasForums on the wings of angels that you implied that I was going to get to read. If you don't intend on providing it, please let me know so that I can begin the grieving process. Thanks.

 

I really think I hate you... but I'm not sure...

 

Well said. You realize that this is not what "pro-life" people believe, right? They absolutely want it to be 100% their decision - and they don't care about health issues. Which side do you want to be on?

 

Thankfully, everything is not in black and white, and so, I take more of a middle ground in the issue.

 

Uh-oh! You just made a generalization there!

 

There is still some dispute over whether this is 49 days (your argument) or 20 weeks (my source). Therefore it isn't "murder" to abort a fetus before this threshold is met.

 

I believe the quote you provided merely mentioned that the heartbeat could be heard by a stethoscope by week 20....

 

Furthermore, I'm willing to wager that we would also both wholeheartedly agree that abortions should only take place after this threshold if there is a very good reason to do so.

 

I certainly do.

 

Sorry to hear that logical conclusions cause you stress. You're right though, you did paint yourself into one heck of a corner.

 

"I" painted? I believe you were the one that set up this big hypothetical case in which usual reasoning wouldn't apply, and I said as much... I believe I answered to it, however, so you have that. But still, that is, as I said, a hypothetical case with several extra factors that are not in a normal abortion case that I refer to.

 

Right, but considering that 86% of abortions take place before 13 weeks (well before the 20 week threshold generally accepted), I don't see why that's a big deal. If the fetus has vital signs at 20 weeks but is aborted before that, why all the drama?

 

Because, for one, I believe you yourself stated that those figures are an "assumption", and also, I have laid out an argument for a fetus being alive as early as 43 days, give or take.

 

I have no doubt that this is probably how you wanted your comment come across.

 

And I have no doubt that you seemed to take my comment wrong.

 

FWIW, I consider cheating on a spouse to be significantly more immoral than being gay (i.e. not a moral issue at all), but this isn't about moral vs. immoral, it's about hypocrisy.

 

I think we came up against this in another thread, so I won't really comment. As we decided in that topic, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether homosexuality is a moral issue or not.

 

Last word is your's, sir. Thank you for the discussion

 

You too. Take care.

[DeadYorick]

I personally believe that people should be able to do whatever they want. Since Abortion ties into Stem Cell research which could benefit humanity I guess I have to support it.

[Rogue Nine]

Please keep the discussion civil here, folks. You've all done an admirable job so far, but we could do without some of the snippy-ness and veiled insults. We are here to discuss opinions, not make other people think the way we think or 'win' arguments, so please, leave all that crap at the door.

[Pho3nix]

Again?

 

As I've stated before, I believe that abortion is a human right. Women should be able to decide what to do with their bodies. There's nothing more to it.

[SilentScope001]

Well, erm.

 

Would you Pro-Choicers be okay with the destruction of all the unborn eggs of endangered sea turtles? As an fetus cannot think, it has no rights, meaning that any fetus can be destroyed without any moral qualms, in much the same way that anyone can kill a fly. Not just the mother has the right to destroy the feuts, but also any other person. But, since the endangered sea turtle has no concept of property rights, and therefore does not 'own' the eggs in question, we should have the right to destroy those eggs, for a good cause, of course. Help the local economy. Help us hungry folks. Help those sea turtles. (If not, then why?)

 

Population control too may be useful. If the state has control over the unborn fetuses, it could choose to terminate them, helping immensly overpopulation problems.

 

Just thinking of ways to use the Pro-Choicers philosphy for something other than causing a pointless culture war. Let's find common ground.

 

Pro-Lifers:

Let us assume that we have to support abortion, and nothing can be done. Is there some sort of ritual that we can appeal to, in order to erase the sins that we are comitting?

 

Let say, I want to get rid of a fetus. And I don't want to give it up for adoption, I'd rather just kill it. Instead of trying to stop it, is there some sort of modern day 'blood money' system by which I give money, and in return, I get clemency for the abortion?

 

I go to a Church, and I donate $5/week to some African child to save a life. Since I am saving a life, I can then use that debt to kill a life. Would that be 'morally acceptable'? Or is it just trying to find legal loopholes which will make God quite angry?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Let us assume that we have to support abortion, and nothing can be done. Is there some sort of ritual that we can appeal to, in order to erase the sins that we are comitting?

Slaughter a chicken on top of a mountain.

[mimartin]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.[/Quote] Your not sure, yet you admit that there are inconsistency in when brain activity is present?

I realize that there is some inconsistency, but I have seen several reliable sources that list brain-wave activity being present normally around 40-43 days. [/Quote]So which reliable resource is correct is what I was asking. I actually did a little research too. The information I received leads me to believe that even doctors cannot agree when brain function begins.

 

http://www.carenetsomd.org/Abortion.php[/Quote] Can’t tell anything about this site as the fail to tell list their sources at all.

 

I made the comment because you merely singled out one portion of my argument and seemed to ignore all the rest (or simply not address it).[/Quote] I did not ignore the rest at all, I read it, but I only commented on the part that I thought had any relevance to me. I wrote why in my last post.

 

 

Sorry, but I think you changed your argument slightly....[/Quote] I’ve changed nothing. I care about children. If we suddenly banned all abortions I would like to know what is going to happen to these children. All I can get out of you is “Adoption.” Which I agreed with you is a noble endeavor. However, you have yet to tell me what happens to the children that are not adopted or that are not given up to adoption.

 

Er, all true.... but I have no idea what your point is.[/Quote] Point is you want to protect a fetus, but it does not seem like you want to protect the child. You really believe that if we ended abortion that everything will workout great without any type of plan. Mothers that did not want the child will suddenly love and cherish that little bundle of joy.

 

I don't recommend lying under oath to anyone about anything. [/Quote]I wouldn’t unless they ask me something that is completely irrelevant to anything, such as my sex life. The problem with taking the 5th is everyone actomaticlly assumes that it is true then. You may as well just answer the irrelevant question as to take the 5th.

[Totenkopf]

Problem is, being asked the question is going to make many people think you're guilty anyway. Besides, if you lie (like Bill and even Gary Hart, though not in a court of law), you're almost garunteed that it will come back to bite you in the arse.

[Web Rider]

Secondly, what makes a fetus any less human? Is there any scientifically proven difference? Well, there are a few - four to be exact. Would you like to know what they are?

 

1. Environment

2. Development

3. Level of dependency

4. Size

 

Those are the only verifiable differences. Let's take them one at a time.

I take issue with not that these are listed, but...oh just read what's below.

 

Environment:

 

Yes, there is a difference between a fetus and a child. One is inside the womb, and one is outside in the world. But why would location make any difference? Does the fetus magically "become human" as it makes it's way outside of the mother? Not that I know of. So, obviously, the location has nothing to do with being more human.

Environment makes a different because it determines the level of expose one has to risks. A newborn is exposed to a significantly higher number of risks than in the womb. Germs(heh, almost wrote Germans), for example, are much more easily contracted outside the womb. Bad air, bad water, ect...while these things ARE translated through the mother, the are filtered to some extent, not necessarily a high extent, but even a mother smoking while pregnant and smoking in front of her child are two definitively different things, and have entirely different effects.

This ties into dependency later on. So you have to take this into account when you read the dependency and vice versa.

 

Development:

 

True, a fetus is less developed than anyone else. And an infant is less-developed than a child. A child is less-developed than an adult. So what? Do we judge how human someone is by how developed they are? By that logic, a retarded child is almost sub-human compared to an adult. (come to think about it, wouldn't that mean it would be ok to kill a retarded child?)

 

Some maintain that a fetus is not actually developed into a living organism, but how can you prove that? Although the unborn's humanity, as I have said, has nothing to do with it's level of development, it's rapid growth does point to its status as a complete, self-sustaining organism. In fact, prenatal development progresses so fast that by day 43, an unborn has a heart that is beating and brain wave activity we can measure on an electroencephalogram. Did any of you Pro-Choice people know that...

Children do no receive the same rights as "adults", that is, anyone over 18. Why? because we judge them to be less intelligent, less mature, less physically capable, in some instances, less sane, and of course, less deserving. Rights they have are extended to them through their parents and other adults. It is quite true to say that if 18+ers wanted to deprive those under 18 of all rights, they could. And it would be legal.

 

Furthermore, ECGs can measure even the faintest electrial impulses. If you stop for a moment and think about how faint the electrical impulses are that are sent in the brain compared to say, those sent in a computer, you are essentially saying that "if it's got brainwaves, it's human". An obviously, since cats have brainwaves, but do not have all our rights, that is not the way the system works.

 

You must also understand the context in which these impulses are sent. These aren't sentient thoughts, they are much like when you plug an electrical tester into a socket, they are saying the parts are plugged in and growing. Which isn't a spectacularly human feat since the human featus looks much like almost every other mamillian featus....and some fish. Nor is a beating heart a spectacularly grand feat. If this determines humanity, do people with fake hearts become non-people? No, so obviously, since brainwaves dont even determine humanity, we cannot say that brainwaves or a beating heart determine humanity.

 

Level of dependency:

 

Again, fairly obvious. Would a teenager be less human because he/she is dependent on someone? Or would someone with a terminal disease that is fully dependent on medical equipment and/or medication to stay alive be less human?

People dependant on machines later in life established their humanity by being born. hence, incomparable. While in the womb, the fetus is subject to all the whims of the mother, any running she does, smoking, drinking. There is no option to "let me out and die". They aren't dependant to say, as they are simply without a choice. What right does a mother have to not give their fetus a choice? Logically we should chain mothers down as soon as they're pregnant. Of course that could cause stress and that's bad. Dependancy is different at this point because there's no options.

 

Size:

 

I hope I don't have to explain this very much. Is Shaquel O'Neal any more human than the midget next door?

Throughout history, small people have generally been considered "less" than big people.

 

So, that pretty much brings me to the end of my argument. To talk about the last point, I will say this: women who abort had the choice to have sex with whoever it was, they had the choie to take the risk that the intercourse would produce a child, they had the choice to not use some kind of birth control....

Well, you're welcome to tell that to the president and his buddies who sponsor abstinence only education. As much as I dislike abortion, I would prefer to see more emphasis on brith control, unforunatelly, the religious nuts who've already gotten "life" defined as conception, quickly step in to argue that we have no right to prevent that seed from being plowed into that field. In short, I feel at this point it's a matter of we can't even let "them" get a foot in the door.

 

And you want them to have the choice to commit murder? I'm not forcing my beliefs down someone's throat, since last time I checked, murder was a crime. So why should they have that choice? Please... there's this thing called adoption. If you are unable to take care of the child, then put it up for adoption. Seems a win-win for everyone, and people don't have to murder because a new baby inconveniences them.

I would tell you to go out, get raped, and become pregnant, but you are obviously a guy, so, it is difficult to understand that perspective. I agree that I would like to see LESS abortion. But I can't in good conscience outright ban it. My ex got pregnant from a rape. She ended up having a miscarriage from all the stress it added to her...yes...that can happen, read some studies, stress can do horrid things to the body. In any case, pregnancy is not a simple matter of "oh, I've got a baby in me, 9 months here I come!"

 

That's pretty much all I have to say. Life is precious, and it shouldn't be sacrificed just because someone doesn't want to have to deal with a new baby."

Life is sacrificed for a variety of worse reasons every moment. I'm sure some child in Uganda was murdered in the time it took me to write this(10 miniutes or so). Why are we so obsessed with the unborn, with the living are being slaughtered around the globe? Instead of adding to the population, maybe we should save the one that's already here.

[Darth InSidious]

Wow, talk about one's capacity for self delusion. Your precious lefty hypocrites are always telling the rest of us to how to live, while they go off to do as they please. They are no less burdened by arrogance than the righties you fear so rabidly. Still, I'm not surprised you think this way.

Achilles...left-wing...

 

Something in the combination of these two does not fit...

[Totenkopf]

Anything specific in mind? One doesn't have to be an extremist to prefer those closer to their side than not.