Abortion: How Conservatives and Liberals got it wrong

[minnie616]

Yes, I read it did you? It states that between 60%-90% of those who receive a positive test abort. How is that not discrimination based on disability?

That number was estimated but the newer article states the number was lower, knowing what we know now.

The old Amniocentesis tests for Down syndrome used to cause a pretty high number of miscarriages.

Now they have better testing that does cause miscarriage from testing but still many of the severely affected Down syndrome fetuses still do miscarry.

 

[minnie616]

Ok, so what? You are just providing additional invalid reasons to try to support why it's ok to discriminate against someone based on disability. Imagine if I said only 15% of people make it to age 85, so therefore its ok to indiscriminately kill anyone over 85. That's basically what you just did.

No, I am saying those women chose not to abort.

Pro choice allows choice.

The First Amendment and Religious Liberty support pro choice.

 

[minnie616]

Im going to warn you here.

Some of my fellow pro choicers here want to deny that the unborn aren't humans all together. In another thread I linked statements from embryogists and the best they can do is declare it an "opinion". Then the liking of comments that's confuses parts with the full human etc. It makes me sad that most of them have been posting in this sub forum for years. Demanding links from me stating the obvious damn it.

We all know a human embryo/fetus is human.

We all know if it survives long enough and if the woman survives the pregnancy , most fetuses are born ( if they are not stillborn.)

I gave birth to 4 children and had 2 miscarriage yet you think I do not know a human embryo/ fetus is human ?

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

We all know a human embryo/fetus is human.

Ah good welling to admit the unborn are humans both the adjective AND the noun. Now don't confuse parts with the whole human ok? I'm not welling to sit here and keep posting scientific links or textbook pages to pro choicers all day who haven't bothered to do there homework. I'm going to bed I'll be back tomorrow and see what comments are actually worth replying back to.

 

[minnie616]

Ah good welling to admit the unborn are humans both the adjective AND the noun. ...

Sorry you do not understand what I stated.
I said a human fetus was human not a human ( noun ).

No unborn is a legal human being ( noun ) in the USA.


Here is the full US code:

U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the=]United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

And just to be clear ...

Part C of US Code >title 1 refers to a born alive infant.

The requirements of this Section shall not be construed to prevent an infant’s parent(s) or guardian(s) from refusing to give consent to medical treatment or surgical care which is not medically necessary or reasonable, including care or treatment which either:

(1) Is not necessary to save the life of the infant;
(2) Has a potential risk to the infant’s life or health that outweighs the potential benefit to the infant of the treatment or care; or
(3) Is treatment that will do no more than temporarily prolong the act of dying when death is imminent.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

1. Sorry you do understand English.
I said a human fetus was human not a human ( noun ).

2. No unborn is a legal human being ( noun ) in the USA.

1. Sorry you don't understand what words mean still. That black part your telling me the fetus is a human. If the fetus isn't a human then what is it then? where you're located does not determine what you are.

2. If the science shows the unborn are indeed humans then a law stating they aren't humans would be incorrect. Just like if the law was changed to state minnie only "only male humans are humans" would be incorrect as well. You guys are really wanting to hang onto a weak thread by clinging onto the law all the ****ing damn time. You have much more better arguments you could be making but if you want to put yourself into a corner that easily then, there is nothing more to say to you

 

[JayDubya]

I gave birth to 4 children and had 2 miscarriage yet you think I do not know a human embryo/ fetus is human ?

Whether that story is true or not is immaterial - anyone can say anything.

What does matter is the words you say and the arguments you make.

And on that basis, no, you do not know that a Homo sapiens is a human being from the beginning of their lifespan - fertilization - until death, natural or otherwise.

 

[minnie616]

1. Sorry you don't understand what words mean still. That black part your telling me the fetus is a human. If the fetus isn't a human then what is it then? where you're located does not determine what you are.

2. If the science shows the unborn are indeed humans then a law stating they aren't humans would be incorrect. Just like if the law was changed to state minnie only "only male humans are humans" would be incorrect as well. You guys are really wanting to hang onto a weak thread by clinging onto the law all the ****ing damn time. You have much more better arguments you could be making but if you want to put yourself into a corner that easily then, there is nothing more to say to you

Too funny !:lol:

You seem not to understand legalese at all.

Tell me ...Do you still really think that corporations are people?

 

[Bazzgazzer]

That number was estimated but the newer article states the number was lower, knowing what we know now.

The old Amniocentesis tests for Down syndrome used to cause a pretty high number of miscarriages.

Now they have better testing that does cause miscarriage from testing but still many of the severely affected Down syndrome fetuses still do miscarry.

Now you are just talking in circles. It says knowing what we know now, the lowest estimate is 60%. In other words a majority.

 

[Bazzgazzer]

No, I am saying those women chose not to abort.

Pro choice allows choice.

The First Amendment and Religious Liberty support pro choice.

Pro-choice allows legal discrimination. Pro choice is pro discrimination. I get this is a hard pill to swallow. No one wants be labeled discriminatory, but thems the breaks

 

[minnie616]

Pro-choice allows legal discrimination. Pro choice is pro discrimination. ...

Guess, you are wrong about that.
Pro choice allows religious liberty.
Pro choice does discriminate against color, race, or religion...the choice to continue a pregnancy or not ( no matter what her reason ) is up to each individual women ( within the parameters of Roe v Wade )

The First amendment makes clear that public policy is not to be based on faith alone – in a religiously diverse, pluralistic society, favoring any one religious worldview is wrong and inherently biased. Good policy is policy that allows for all people – regardless of their religious identity – to follow their own faith and conscience when directing the course of their life. When it comes to matters of reproductive health, RCRC believes that real religious liberty protects the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family, and her own faith. Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual.

Religious Liberty | Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice

 

[minnie616]

Now you are just talking in circles. It says knowing what we know now, the lowest estimate is 60%. In other words a majority.

That "study" where they came up with those stats was written in 1999.
If the numbers are not flawed....

Then please tell me why the number of babies with Down syndrome increased by 30 percent between 1979 and 2003?

Between 1979 and 2003, the number of babies born with Down syndrome increased by about 30%.

Data and Statistics | Down Syndrom | Birth Defects | NCBDDD | CDC

 

[minnie616]

Guess, you are wrong about that.
Pro choice allows religious liberty.
Pro choice does discriminate against color, race, or religion...

Should read does NOT discriminate .... My dyslexia is showing again ....sorry about that.

 

[Dragonfly]

Should read does NOT discriminate .... My dyslexia is showing again ....sorry about that.

Look, anyone with even a quarter of a damn brain understands that giving all people, more CHOICES, is the absolute opposite of discrimination.

As I stated earlier, bazzgazzer is trying hard to pass off twisted logic, but failing completely.

 

[JayDubya]

Look, anyone with even a quarter of a damn brain understands that giving all people, more CHOICES, is the absolute opposite of discrimination.

As I stated earlier, bazzgazzer is trying hard to pass off twisted logic, but failing completely.

So you're suggesting other folks have reduced brain power while you are saying that denying personhood from some human beings such that they are the owned property of others who can kill them on a whim is somehow NOT discrimination?

One literally could not ask for a better example of discrimination. :doh

 

[minnie616]

So you're suggesting other folks have reduced brain power while you are saying that denying personhood from some human beings such that they are the owned property of others ...

Personhood/right to privacy/religious liberty has nothing to do with owned property.

:doh

 

[JayDubya]

Personhood/right to privacy/religious liberty has nothing to do with owned property.

:doh

Please don't insult anyone's intelligence by pretending pro-aborts don't, in large numbers, pretend that the kid in the womb is simply part of the mother's body or theirs to do with as they see fit and it's none of anyone else's business accordingly.

I've lost count of how many of you on this very board have made those claims.


The problem with those arguments, of course, is that human beings can never be property; and this is why I rightfully compare you pro-aborts to the supporters of slavery. You aren't even so much two sides of the same coin; more like the same side of the same coin.

 

[Removable Mind]

Pure semantics that still ignores why your argument fails from the start.

Uh huh...and yet you've offered nothing that supports anything you've posted. More pro-life rhetoric without substance.

The Constitution isn't semantics. You can't provide any arguments that show any reason to grant personhood for the yet to born.

You got nothing!

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Uh huh...and yet you've offered nothing that supports anything you've posted. More pro-life rhetoric without substance.

The Constitution isn't semantics. You can't provide any arguments that show any reason to grant personhood for the yet to born.

You got nothing!

He hasnt presented any personhood arguments for the unborn yet. Even if he were to show that "abortion is discrimination" he would still have to make arguments for the other part.

 

[Henrin]

Look, anyone with even a quarter of a damn brain understands that giving all people, more CHOICES, is the absolute opposite of discrimination.

As I stated earlier, bazzgazzer is trying hard to pass off twisted logic, but failing completely.

If I say people can kill one group of human beings for any reason they see fit, but only in cases of self defense are other groups permissible to kill then there is no doubt I'm discriminating against a group of human beings. It also just so happens that I'm allowing more choice.

 

[Henrin]

Too funny !:lol:

You seem not to understand legalese at all.

Tell me ...Do you still really think that corporations are people?

What a goofy comment. You're involved in a scientific discussion, so trying to use law to win is illogical and stupid.

 

[calamity]

In politics as with life, most issues and events aren't simply black and white. Unfortunately for abortion, this has become the case. Liberals in general support no restrictions on abortion and wish for abortion to be legal up until 36 weeks of pregnancy. This is ridiculous position and at this point in the pregnancy, the issue of abortion switches from one of privacy and personal freedom, to one of immorality. Mainstream conservatives on the other hand are equally as radical when it comes to abortion as well. Conservatives have now reached a point where abortion should remain illegal under all circumstances, even instances of rape, incest, and if having a child is a danger to the mothers health. By polarizing this issue, both political ideologies have prevented a happy medium from being achieved when it comes to abortion.

When regarding abortion, it should be legal on request up until 16 weeks of pregnancy. 95% of abortions happen within the first 16 weeks so this wouldn't really effect abortion rights all that much. This law would reduce the immorality of abortion by prohibiting third trimester and a good deal of second trimester abortions when the baby is more developed. At the same time, a 16 week cut off would not infringe on the individual liberty and freedom for women to get an abortion if they wanted too. This compromise and centrist view on abortion should be a middle ground that both conservatives and liberals should strive for.

I'm OK with the 12-week limit myself, with exceptions for health and well-being of the mother, of course.

 

[minnie616]

...

2. If the science shows the unborn are indeed humans then a law stating they aren't humans would be incorrect...

But scientists disagree when human life begins.

Here are a few of many scientific views about when human life begins:

Some Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins

Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of four of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins.

Metabolic View:

The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life.

Embryological View:

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

Neurological view:

Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

Ecological / Technological view:

Read more:


http://franklincollege.edu/science_courses/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf

 

[Removable Mind]

If I say people can kill one group of human beings for any reason they see fit, but only in cases of self defense are other groups permissible to kill then there is no doubt I'm discriminating against a group of human beings. It also just so happens that I'm allowing more choice.

What is the legal definition for "human being"?

In the U.S. all "human beings" that aren't sanctioned to kill other "human beings" are subject to significant legal problems. The unjust killing of "human beings" by authorities that are sanctioned to kill others will also be subject to legal problems.

But you know this.

 

[Lursa]

Yes, I read it did you? It states that between 60%-90% of those who receive a positive test abort. How is that not discrimination based on disability?

It's an individual decision, discrimination only applies the the govt, employers, businesses, etc.

It does not apply to individual persons. Just like for a minority, if a person doesnt want to allow a Asian person into their home, they dont have to do so, that is not discrimination.

If a woman or couple chooses not to have a Down Syndrome child, which is also pretty unadoptable, who is the govt or strangers to tell them that they must? Dont you think she or they know themselves and the circumstances of their lives better?