Does abortion kill people?

[FISHX]

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bl04cbryant.htm

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa022003a.htm

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa032303a.htm

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa012004a.htm

But a few where it is stated that they died because of complications from abortion.

These women were people and they died through abortion therefore abortion does kill people.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I do not dispute the fact that women die in child birth but that wasn,t the question at hand. the question was does abortion kill people and as provided in the previous link yes it does that was and still is my point.

Very well, I accept your point. Nevertheless, if abortions lead to fewer deaths of persons than does birthing, then it doesn't make sense to oppose abortion on the simple basis that some deaths occur. You could use that same basis to oppose births, after all!

I did some looking and found some data.
http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf

 

[FallingPianos]

Well the same could be said about women dying in childbirth...they could have other factors that made delivery harder.

true. however, I was responding to the statement "Yes we can termination kills people all the time just open your eyes and take a look." to say that abortion kills people "all the time" is a huge exaggeration, especially when the examples provided do not explain the cause of death.

I am be interested in finding some more detailed information on the topic though... here is a start: Get "In the Know": Safety of Abortion

Luckily today most women will not die from labor and delivery or abortion. At least modern medicine has given us that!:mrgreen:

no disagrement there.

 

[BodiSatva]

Originally Posted by talloulou
Luckily today most women will not die from labor and delivery or abortion. At least modern medicine has given us that!

But some do face this risk, as I have previously pointed out. To this fact, I have yet to hear a response from any...other than our disagreement regarding whether you do in fact think that abortion to save a mother prior to 10 weeks is justifiable...thus making you "sometimes" Pro-Choice, a very perplexing situation indeed.

Regardless, most woman do not die, and that is a great thing.

 

[talloulou]

But some do face this risk, as I have previously pointed out. To this fact, I have yet to hear a response from any...other than our disagreement regarding whether you do in fact think that abortion to save a mother prior to 10 weeks is justifiable...thus making you "sometimes" Pro-Choice, a very perplexing situation indeed.

Regardless, most woman do not die, and that is a great thing.

Yes and some women die from complications after abortions too.

And if you're gonna speak for me get it right. If we are talking about saving a mothers life I think those abortions are justified even after 10 wks.

And please quit calling me prochoice.....putting me in the same catagory as jfuh is just too much.

If you wanna label me do it in the basement where you don't have to be so passive aggressive and then I can waste my time going off on you....thanks.

 

[BodiSatva]

HAha so now it is passive aggressive? So you admit that I was correct? TO bad that you are not brave enough to admit that freely here.

Talloulou -
"And if you're gonna speak for me get it right. "

"If we are talking about saving a mothers life I think those abortions are justified even after 10 wks."

BodiSatva -
"you do in fact think that abortion to save a mother prior to 10 weeks is justifiable"

Did you actually just say that I needed to get it right? Seriously? Stop joking around lest you become a joke.

Talloulou - "please quit calling me prochoice

Calling you Pro-Choice is EXACTLY the same as you calling me Pro-Death. Can't you take your own hypocrisy? Why not? Are you actually being sincere? Why would you not grant me the same consideration when I asked you to not call me something that I was not? There is only one way to not being labeled a hypocrite...do you have the ability to discern the correct course of action?

Why would you voluntarily waste your time on me? That is as conflicting as your Pro-Choice statements...

Ta-Ta :2wave: :2wave: :2wave: :lol:

 

[talloulou]

HAha so now it is passive aggressive?

I see you're still confused on the concept of passive agressive?

Did you actually just say that I needed to get it right? Seriously? Stop joking around lest you become a joke.

You stated I supported abortion prior to ten weeks when the mothers life was in danger. I corrected you by stating that I think abortion is okay even after 10 weeks when the mothers life is in danger. Subtle but important difference so I felt the need to clarify.

 

[jimmyjack]

I'm actually not aware of any precise legal definition. Corporations were-- erroneously-- made into persons by a decision of the Supreme Court.

Beyond that, the legal definition in place appears to be specifically limited to born human beings-- after having been expanded to include Blacks, Asians, and Native Americans. (Women were always considered people, just people with fewer rights.) There are grey areas in States that allow a murderer to be charged with two counts if his victim was pregnant-- but even then fetuses have very little legal protection.

Yours isn't the only movement seeking to expand the definition of "person", by the way. GRASP is trying to include several species of Great Ape, and various animal "rights" activists are trying to include animals that are far less worthy of the distinction. Several transhumanist organizations are convinced that human-equivalent Artificial Intelligences-- once created-- should be granted personhood.

This is an issue I have a great interest in seeing resolved, because defining personhood as applying solely to members of our species (and some organizations :roll leaves a very good chance that within three or four generations it will not apply to all of our descendants. We might ban the technology here, but do you think China will? Do you think a ban can be enforced in Africa or Southeast Asia-- especially in the face of pressure from Big Pharma and Monsanto?

It's time for our society to stop trying to base its ethics on "common sense" assumptions-- which noone can seem to agree upon-- and start trying to resolve issues like this with logical reasoning.

So if the best you can do is to say a person exists at birth, at what definitive point is a person born?

 

[afr0byte]

So if the best you can do is to say a person exists at birth, at what definitive point is a person born?

Obviously when the fetus leaves the womb.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So if the best you can do is to say a person exists at birth, at what definitive point is a person born?

When it's legally recognized by the signing of the birth certificate.

 

[goligoth]

When it's legally recognized by the signing of the birth certificate.

so, for you, even after the fetus has been born it still isn't a baby? It has to wait for the doctor to sign off on it?

 

[jimmyjack]

When it's legally recognized by the signing of the birth certificate.

So what are illegal immigrants in America, if they are not people?

 

[talloulou]

So if the best you can do is to say a person exists at birth, at what definitive point is a person born?

When it's legally recognized by the signing of the birth certificate.

Great so you are going to let the when, where, and how a human becomes a "person" be based on paperwork and bureaucracy? Sounds dangerous to me. Why not just let the government barcode our feet? What if I choose to birth my babies at home so the government doesn't know about them. Then are they never "persons?"

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

so, for you, even after the fetus has been born it still isn't a baby? It has to wait for the doctor to sign off on it?

It doesn't have to be the doctor. It just has to be a responsible adult-- any responsible adult-- willing to raise the child. This is an exception to my normal aversion to allowing single parents or unmarried couples to adopt, as most "adoptable" children are already in the custody of the State or another agency.

And I'm willing to grant some kind of automatic licensing, similar to the concept of the "common law marriage", wherein caring for an unadopted child for a certain time period counts as claiming custody-- at least temporarily, on behalf of the State. This is mainly to prevent the problem talloulou mentions-- having a child in secret in order to avoid being held legally responsible.

So what are illegal immigrants in America, if they are not people?

Just another flavor of bushmeat. The difference is, there is a valid security reason for the State to prohibit the killing of illegal aliens; lynch mobs very rarely take the time to ask for Green Cards. Any tolerance of vigilante activity will create a situation in which American citizens or legal aliens-- who are guests in our house-- would be endangered.

And, of course, the fact that illegal aliens are still capable of functioning as members of the community-- with all of the protections and obligations thereof-- with or without official governmental recognition.

Great so you are going to let the when, where, and how a human becomes a "person" be based on paperwork and bureaucracy?

You're doing the same thing; we just don't agree on the process or the qualifications. I just do not place as much ethical significance upon the biological distinction between "human" and "not human" as you do; it is the traits that human beings posess that are significant, not the state of being human.

Why not just let the government barcode our feet?

Because there's no practical reason to do so. Besides, we don't generally mark people for identification purposes; that is how we identify property.

I do not regard human beings as property, regardless of whether or not they are people. Human beings in certain stages of biological development-- when they're still capable of being frozen intact-- can be treated similarly to property in some respects, but are still not actual property.

What if I choose to birth my babies at home so the government doesn't know about them. Then are they never "persons?"

I'm tempted to say "no" just to irritate you. :2razz:

No, it's this line of argumentation-- which you're the only person to mention it-- that forced me to accept the idea of "implied birth certificates". I still see no reason why they must be automatically granted.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by jimmyjack
So if the best you can do is to say a person exists at birth, at what definitive point is a person born?

When it's legally recognized by the signing of the birth certificate.

So then, you deny the existence of the countless millions of those who are or were born in places where the luxury of a birth certificate does not exist.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[jimmyjack]

Just another flavor of bushmeat. The difference is, there is a valid security reason for the State to prohibit the killing of illegal aliens; lynch mobs very rarely take the time to ask for Green Cards. Any tolerance of vigilante activity will create a situation in which American citizens or legal aliens-- who are guests in our house-- would be endangered.

And, of course, the fact that illegal aliens are still capable of functioning as members of the community-- with all of the protections and obligations thereof-- with or without official governmental recognition.

That’s interesting, but, what are illegal immigrants in America, if they are not people?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So then, you deny the existence of the countless millions of those who are or were born in places where the luxury of a birth certificate does not exist.

I have addressed this in my reply to Talloulou.

That’s interesting, but, what are illegal immigrants in America, if they are not people?

Bushmeat. I tire of repeating myself.

 

[jimmyjack]

Bushmeat. I tire of repeating myself.

You believe illegal immigrants in America are:

Bushmeat?