If abortion had been illegal... [W:281]

[CRUE CAB]

Why exactly is it ok to have an abortion after rape?

Been explained a million times. Would you carry a child of rape to term?

 

[Lursa]

No, all you're doing to failing to acknowledge and justifying the hypocrisy that is present on your side, which I expected. I've said I will concede the rape/incest exceptions if that's what's required to ban all other abortions. If you can't understand why reducing 97 percent of abortions would be a good thing to me - well - I don't know what to tell you.

So it's ok to kill a few to save the rest?

 

[Lursa]

Been explained a million times. Would you carry a child of rape to term?

It is a choice....legally especially. So I doubt I would.

But it could also be illegal to do so...it is in Ireland. Women there have no (legal) choice.

Now answer my question: why is it acceptable to kill the fetus to protect the woman from emotional/mental distress? If it's a 'baby' as pro-life people claim...can you kill other 'babies' to protect the moher from emotional/mental distress?

 

[Lursa]

It's always amazed me that you all advance this seemingly very anti woman argument that women are incapable of loving or caring for, and will in fact be resentful and abuse an unplanned child.

Why is it surprising? Mothers do it for kids they plan too. And so do fathers. People can be real POSs.

 

[CRUE CAB]

It is a choice....legally especially. So I doubt I would.

But it could also be illegal to do so...it is in Ireland. Women there have no (legal) choice.

Now answer my question: why is it acceptable to kill the fetus to protect the woman from emotional/mental distress? If it's a 'baby' as pro-life people claim...can you kill other 'babies' to protect the moher from emotional/mental distress?

It is what it is.

 

[Lursa]

Because if a different law required insurers to cover maternity care, you'd be alll for it :roll:

It's my understanding that ACA does and I am completely against it.

 

[Lursa]

It is what it is.

So you cant support it rationally....just emotionally.

Then I would refrain from thinking someone else's emotions should be dismissed if they choose abortion.

 

[CRUE CAB]

So you cant support it rationally....just emotionally.

Then I would refrain from thinking someone else's emotions should be dismissed if they choose abortion.

Well we all have emotions.

 

[Removable Mind]

I've noticed there are a lot of my arguments and posts that you can't even address. Why is it only your preborn that has any value? Why are you "personally anti abortion" if you don't think there's anything wrong with it? Why do you deny abortion is a "killing"? How is it possible to have compassion for a prematurely born infant when only moments before you'd support the choice to destroy it?

What type of confession do you need, X?

How many murderous pro-choice need to fall to your feet, beg forgiveness for all their sins, which include having a blood lust for snuff out zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, ....all the way up to one second before a fully mature fetus could be born, but instead forced from the womb and have it's head crushed while it glazes up, crying and it blood and brains run down the drain of a cold stainless steel surgical table?

You have repeatedly made claims that aren't connected to reality. You try your damnest to create the most morose scenarios possible and then use that to shove down the mouths of other posters and when they finally gag and spit them back out...YOU POUNCE. You got'em X. In your mind they've finally made some heinous admission to something reconstructed in your mind that you want to hinge to a poster.

Once and for all, your late term arguments are absolutely not in sync with the real world. Your arguments are baseless baits that don't represent a single statistic related to abortion events.

When will you drop the slurs and sarcasm that are intended to look for some small crumb of exchange that catapults you into another WHY WOULD YOU SEE THAT LITTLE PREMATURE BABY VALUABLE WHEN YOU'D MURDER THE HELPLESS LITTLE THING SECONDS BEFORE BEGIN BORN.....you hater of helpless little babies.

Your post become more and more detached from what "pro-choice" objectives are. First and foremost that a woman's relationship with her medical providers are private and that includes any and all treatments "ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE LAW". To end the insane attempts by moral extremist, radicals and ignorant people in government and religion to intervene into their private lives, which includes the RIGHT TO MANAGE THEIR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH and ROLES.

Your argument that you want to make come true doesn't exist. If you believe it does...then start posting legitimate sources with legitimate statistics.

Oh, and nobody is trying to deny your right to believe abortion is murder, killing, or a terrorist act against any given stage of development prior to birth. Don't have an abortion. Don't have relationships with persons who don't believe as you do.

Condemning and damning women...isn't going to lead to a REAL, LONG-TERM SOLUTION.

 

[Scrabaholic]

That would require us to be equally as tolerant of others doing to their own children what you say you could never do to yours. See, by saying you'd never have an abortion you're acknowledging that there is, at least, some aspect of it that you don't think is right, yet as long as it's not your child you don't care what others do to theirs.

I would never own a gun, but that doesn't mean I think it's wrong to have one. I just have no desire to.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Been explained a million times. Would you carry a child of rape to term?

If I believed that the unborn had a right to life and should be protected, yes I would.

 

[Wessexman]

Why the the beginning relevant at all? The only question here is whether the fetus has significance and if so to what degree and why?

Well, when it is a person is relevant because, presumably, that is what determines its signifiance.

Casn you name a single instance in which a person that had no organs and could not sustain any of its own life functions was or is recognized?

This is fallacious. It doesn't strictly matter what people recognise. That is an appeal to popularity.

Always the same, what does the even mean?

Well, I would have thought it was obvious. It means the human being is the same person, has the same identity throughout their life. There are thinkers who claim we are not the same person from one moment to the next, and in fact pro-choice perspective on personhood may lead to that sort of puzzle. The pro-life position makes the claim we are always the same person, from conception to death at 100.

 

[Ontologuy]

LMAO, like I said, you aren't qualified. You obviously know very little about her.

False, from you, as always.

You're just posturing politically, hoping to win points for your abortion on demand side .. but you're denying the obvious, as I said.

 

[choiceone]

This, aside from giving a strangely sinister description of conception and pregnancy, is question begging. You assert a woman's rights without really supporting these assertions.

You would have to be more specific about the claim that what I said did not really support what I said. We have laws that prevent people from putting/keeping (parts of) their bodies inside of the bodies of other people who do not consciously consent to it. We have laws that prevent people from using other people's blood for transfusions and organs for transplant if the other people do not consciously consent to it. We have laws that prevent people from using their body parts or other objects to penetrate into the flesh of other people who do not consciously consent to it.

What else do you need to know?

 

[Wessexman]

You would have to be more specific about the claim that what I said did not really support what I said. We have laws that prevent people from putting/keeping (parts of) their bodies inside of the bodies of other people who do not consciously consent to it. We have laws that prevent people from using other people's blood for transfusions and organs for transplant if the other people do not consciously consent to it. We have laws that prevent people from using their body parts or other objects to penetrate into the flesh of other people who do not consciously consent to it.

What else do you need to know?

These cases are only partly the same. You'd need a sustained argument to make the case, not just noting vague similarities.

 

[choiceone]

You've been gone awhile and you may not have seen this. Just wait until you see the argument that the preborn is guilty of assault and rape.

A quick recap for Wessexman after reading your post.

1) If you don't have a right to use someone else's blood for a transfusion or organ for a donation against that person's will and without that person's consent, then the embryo/fetus doesn't have such a right.

2) The unborn, if deemed a person, would be engaged in physically and chemically aggressive penetration of a sex organ of a person - the uterus - and the actual bodily tissue of a person - the uterine wall - without the consent of that person, and in chemically causing the disablement of a person's immune system without the consent of that person.

It could not be found guilty of rape and assault in a court of law any more than any legally insane rapist could, but during the behavior, the woman could use deadly force to stop that behavior by an embryo person just as she could use deadly force to stop the rape behavior of a legally insane rapist, and the doctor could do so to help her just as a third party could do so to help her in the case of a legally insane rapist.

You can't argue that the woman invited the zygote/embryo into her body by consenting to sex with a man, because the man and the zygote/embryo would not be the same person. If a woman says yes to having sex with you, your adult son or daughter cannot say she implied yes to having sex with him or her, so how could you generalize that consent to the zygote/embryo as a separate person?

 

[choiceone]

No. I supported my assertion. I said it is was the most obvious place where a new being is formed. At conception the sperm and the egg fuse to create a new being (I assume it need not be belaboured that the sperm and the egg before fertilisation cannot be sensibly held to be the new being). How is birth a more obvious place? What happens at birth that a new being is formed? Surely with birth an already existing being simply is removed from its mother.

You need to read the section on current scientific views of when human life begins at http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf. It begins about halfway down the site, after the section on historical views. The current scientific views considered are the metabolic, genetic, embryological, neurological, and ecological, with at least two or three of the different neurological views considered.

You might want to note that the genetic and embryological views are actually different. Furthermore, among the views, the ecological is the only one which considers the fact that the embryo/fetus is biologically attached to the woman's body and can't live without that 24/7 constant attachment until the point of viability. The alternate ecological view of birth rather than viability is not explained in the link, but if you want me to explain its differences, let me know.

We all ought to know that, when a cell divides, there aren't two cells until the dividing process is completely over.

We all ought to know there is a difference in the way the law and science treat conjoined twins with two heads each of which can separately take in oxygen and nutrients and so support the continued life of the shared organism, on one hand, and a host twin and a parasitic twin completely contained within and biologically attached to the host twin. In the former case, we recognize two persons, and in the latter case, we recognize only one person and no one screams "Murderer" when doctors remove the living parasitic twin from the host twin's body and it dies as a result.

 

[choiceone]

Oh, I most certainly am.

She's clearly presenting survivor's guilt.

So it's thus either survivor's guilt or feigned survivor's guilt posturing for political agenda purposes.

If she's being honest, it's survivors guilt, obviously.

The qualifications to make that determination about a person in an ongoing conversation are: first, a sufficiently professional degree in psychology to practice as a clinical psychologist; and second, a sufficient amount of clinical interview time with the specific person to be sure that what is exhibited is guilt, and that would mean a face-to-face interview in which non-verbal behavior could also be assessed before making the claim.

The fact that you are willing to say she's presenting survivor's guilt without the latter suggests that you don't have the former qualification, as the ethics involved in clinical psychology address the fact that, by asserting in such a conversation that a person exhibits survival guilt, one is taking a chance on having a harmful impact psychologically on that person. You never even considered that.

That's because you don't care about ethics in psychology. You only care about the unborn, even at a stage where it is biologically impossible for them to even have a psyche.

 

[notquiteright]

laur, With total respect to your position on this, I have to say that my story is the exact opposite. I was born in July of 1974 with a massive birth defect and numerous complications of it. The birth defect was obvious relatively early in the pregnancy, and it was suggested to my parents, who were in their mid-to-late 20's at the time that maybe it would be better off if my mother "lost" this child. They were both relatively young and the chances of another pregnancy were pretty good.... one without all the potential financial, physical, and emotional complications that having a child with a full facial birthmark and possibly something called Sturge-Weber Syndrome would likely bring with it. My parents chose not to terminate that pregnancy. Today I am a college graduate, living on my own and working in a high technology field. This July I'll be getting married to a wonderful woman and we're hoping that one of these days we may be parents ourselves. Yes, I did defy the odds considering my physical and emotional issues growing up. The chances of me living the sort of life I do now were not good, especially in that day and age. My parents had faith that they could handle whatever came their way, and we did. That doesn't mean there aren't or weren't times when I don't wish I was "normal" like my two younger brothers are, but I've learned to deal with it over the last 40 years.

This is a big reason why I have trouble believing you and your supposed attitudes in life. This is an amazing story of a parent's love and devotion to a child NO ONE would have blamed them if they didn't bring it full term. I have to wonder just how in 1974 'they' could tell you had a profound birth defect early in the pregnancy but that is the least of my puzzlement.

For it is an amazing story of love and devotion.

For most of us it would be THE touchstone of our emotional faith, our anchor in bad times... no matter how bad life seems the love and devotion parents such as yours showed when faced with the news their first born would be so horribly deformed and emotionally challenged, that love and devotion would be that one glimmer of light in a bleak and barren world. No matter what else, even from them, the fact they TRIED and they WANTED you so bad they shook off all the very well meant advice and gave you life.

Now I must have mis-read some of your earlier posts because in them you say you don't believe in love, neither does your fiancee and you don't want to have kids.

So here we have a self proclaimed authoritarian, who doesn't believe in love and in his perfect world his life would have been ended before birth or very shortly thereafter as the gene pool can't be so fouled (we have spoken on this issue before) BUT his parents show a kind of love for their unborn son MANY of us would not have thought twice about not bringing into this world. A kind of love that I'd say most of us would NEVER renounce and NEVER claim love doesn't exist.

Still you did tell an amazing story of parental love and devotion to a child growing up with so many problems... not sure the total life story argues well against abortion, but it is an amazing story of parental love... eace

 

[Tigger]

This is a big reason why I have trouble believing you and your supposed attitudes in life. This is an amazing story of a parent's love and devotion to a child NO ONE would have blamed them if they didn't bring it full term. I have to wonder just how in 1974 'they' could tell you had a profound birth defect early in the pregnancy but that is the least of my puzzlement.

I was there at the time of the discussions, but I was in no position to be part of them. All I can pass on is what I've been told by my parents in terms of knowing ahead of time that there was a high probability of a serious birth defect. You would have to understand both sides of my family to know that there most definitely would have been MASSIVE reprecussions to my parents even suggesting a termination of the pregnancy. Even knowing what they supposedly did.

For most of us it would be THE touchstone of our emotional faith, our anchor in bad times... no matter how bad life seems the love and devotion parents such as yours showed when faced with the news their first born would be so horribly deformed and emotionally challenged, that love and devotion would be that one glimmer of light in a bleak and barren world. No matter what else, even from them, the fact they TRIED and they WANTED you so bad they shook off all the very well meant advice and gave you life.

I'm not "most of you", and I think that's well known. I was the kid who couldn't hide in the crowd even if he wanted to. I'm the one who could write a book entitled "101 Birthmark Insults - Volume 5". I'm the one whose name everyone remembers, even though my memory FOR names is horrific. I'm the one who was good enough to help all my female classmates with their homework, but never good enough to dance with at Homecoming. I'm the one who spent 4 months during 6th grade trying out a new style of makeup to cover birthmarks that made Tammy Faye Baker look natural. - Suffice it to say, it didn't work. I'm the one who got to deal with all the physical issues of the SWS AND the medications I took for it, while both my younger brothers quickly became bigger, stronger, faster, more popular, better looking, more successful, etc...

Yeah, I have had a wonderful life. Many days I truly wonder if we wouldn't have all been better off if somehow I had ended up not being born.

Now I must have mis-read some of your earlier posts because in them you say you don't believe in love, neither does your fiancee and you don't want to have kids.

You didn't mis-read anything. I have no patience for small children or anyone who can't/won't do as they're told.

So here we have a self proclaimed authoritarian, who doesn't believe in love and in his perfect world his life would have been ended before birth or very shortly thereafter as the gene pool can't be so fouled (we have spoken on this issue before) BUT his parents show a kind of love for their unborn son MANY of us would not have thought twice about not bringing into this world. A kind of love that I'd say most of us would NEVER renounce and NEVER claim love doesn't exist.

Again, I'm not "most of you".

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Well, when it is a person is relevant because, presumably, that is what determines its significance.

This is what the abortion debate is all about on how you define the word ''person.'' That word is often used as synonym for ''a human'' though some of society actually knows what the word means as there are dictionary definitions that say ''rational beings'' and such located as number 4 here Person | Define Person at Dictionary.com. Of course, it is to be noted dictionaries only record how words get used which I find no need to go into detail about.

Sorry to get science fiction on you it is to be noted that modern cartoons have allowed plenty of animals to be portrayed as persons (possibly one reason why PETA is a political force these days). One example of such is Bugs Bunny which he was very popular when I was younger. Here is a description of a cartoon in which Bugs is acknowledged as having Legal Rights. The Fair-Haired Hare - Looney Tunes Wiki

Some based the definition of ''person'' based around mental characteristics like autonomy, rationality, theory of mind, intelligence etc to make way for extraterrestrial entities we could meet while exploring the stars or when we're capable of building artificial intelligences on the complexity as shown in a science fiction show called ''Astro Boy(2003).''

Well, I would have thought it was obvious. It means the human being is the same person, has the same identity throughout their life. There are thinkers who claim we are not the same person from one moment to the next, and in fact pro-choice perspective on personhood may lead to that sort of puzzle. The pro-life position makes the claim we are always the same person, from conception to death at 100.

I'm assuming your using the word ''being'' as in existence correct? Because the word being attached to a word can also to mean person. That's why phrases like ''intelligent beings'' ''sapient beings'' ''autonomous beings'' and I even saw a show where there was a guy getting interviewed about area 51 where the interviewer said ''alien being'' as well so it's safe to assume the word ''being'' in usual conversation is getting used as a synonym for ''person.'' It would make sense right?

As for the personal identity thing, go to number 95 from this site. 60+ Anti-Abortion Arguments Refuted | Fight For Sense

 

[Wessexman]

This is what the abortion debate is all about on how you define the word ''person.'' That word is often used as synonym for ''a human'' though some of society actually knows what the word means as there are dictionary definitions that say ''rational beings'' and such located as number 4 here Person | Define Person at Dictionary.com. Of course, it is to be noted dictionaries only record how words get used which I find no need to go into detail about.

Sorry to get science fiction on you it is to be noted that modern cartoons have allowed plenty of animals to be portrayed as persons (possibly one reason why PETA is a political force these days). One of the "best" examples of such a portrayal is Bugs Bunny, who outwits just about everyone he encounters, whether human, or Wile E. Coyote. Here is a description of a cartoon in which Bugs is acknowledged as having Legal Rights. The Fair-Haired Hare - Looney Tunes Wiki

Some based the definition of ''person'' based around mental characteristics like autonomy, rationality, theory of mind, intelligence etc to make way for extraterrestrial entities we could meet while exploring the stars or when we're capable of building artificial intelligences on the complexity as shown in a science fiction show called ''Astro Boy(2003).''



I'm assuming your using the word ''being'' as in existence correct? Because the word being attached to a word can also to mean person. That's why phrases like ''intelligent beings'' ''sapient beings'' ''autonomous beings'' and I even saw a show where there was a guy getting interviewed about area 51 where the interviewer said ''alien being'' as well so it's safe to assume the word ''being'' in usual conversation is getting used as a synonym for ''person.'' It would make sense right?

As for the personal identity thing, go to number 95 from this site. 60+ Anti-Abortion Arguments Refuted | Fight For Sense

That argument helps to support my point. It makes a very dualistic differentiation between body and mind.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

That argument helps to support my point. It makes a very dualistic differentiation between body and mind.

The one listed on the site or the rest of what I said? I think Ignorance (who is FutureIncoming on this website who owns another website I linked you) does a good job of doing it, how about you?

 

[Wessexman]

The one listed on the site or the rest of what I said? I think Ignorance (who is FutureIncoming on this website who owns another website I linked you) does a good job of doing it, how about you?

Not really. He identifies the person with the mind, with consciousness. This not only seems overly dualistic, separating you definitively from your body, making you something like a science fiction host (also this seems to somewhat conflict with the pro-choice rhetoric about "my body"), but it leads to the puzzles I mentioned earlier, like whether you are a person when you are unconscious, in a coma, or even asleep.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Not really. He identifies the person with the mind, with consciousness. This not only seems overly dualistic, separating you definitively from your body, making you something like a science fiction host (also this seems to somewhat conflict with the pro-choice rhetoric about "my body"), but it leads to the puzzles I mentioned earlier, like whether you are a person when you are unconscious, in a coma, or even asleep.

You can ask him on the site more about it as I'm not really into the dualism much at all really.