I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

[NatMorton]

Science has determined that that a fetus does not have a functional brainwaves until about 26 weeks gestation.

Define "functional."

 

[NatMorton]

That's very rude and it demonstrates either a desire to avoid actual reasoned discussion or real cognitive dissonance.

It means that, implied by much of your posting, including 'brain activity development,' that you would work towards standards making abortion illegal by the time that those catastrophic defects were detectable.

Someone here to debate honestly would actually address that...provide their justification or otherwise.

You don't know my position on abortion, and it's rather foolish of you to try and guess it.

 

[Lursa]

Nope. It is the question on abortion. When is someone human enough to gain rights? Most everything else is noise.

Who says? Source it. I gave you reasons why it's not and you didnt refute them. Not even an attempt, all you posted was 'na huh.'

And who says some form of brain activity makes someone human enough? At most levels of fetal development, it's less than other species.

 

[Lursa]

Define "functional."

 

[Lursa]

You don't know my position on abortion, and it's rather foolish of you to try and guess it.

Yeah I do and if you dispute that, present yours. You wont because then you'd have more trouble moving the goal posts in your arguments all the time. That makes your posts cowardly....as if you are afraid to commit to your own perspective.

 

[Lursa]

There's much grey area in this debate, but there is one thing that's an absolute certainty: you're in no position to define my credibility.

Sure I can...you have very little and provide few sources. Not only that, you ignore valid sources and when you run into brick walls you cant get around to deny them, you move the goal posts again or just dont answer.

 

[watsup]

You don't know my position on abortion, and it's rather foolish of you to try and guess it.

What a totally ridiculous statement. We are in a thread about abortion started by YOU, and yet you won’t reveal your own “position in abortion”. If that’s the game that you want to play, then it is perfectly reasonable that we discern it from your inputs. Now please quit whining.

 

[minnie616]

Define "functional."

,Lursa , must be a mind reader as she a.ready predicted you would ask.

He'll come back with "what's functional?" and demand the invention of convenient standards that occur much earlier.

Define "functional."

Ok .

My answer is from the book , The Ethnical Brain.


Synaptic activity , which underlies all brain functions does not start until about 26 to 28 gestation.

That’s why even though a premature infant may survive birth at 23 weeks gestation it will need technology help with its breathing until about week 32 gestation when the Synaptic activity will help the infant breath without aid.

 

[NatMorton]

What a totally ridiculous statement. We are in a thread about abortion started by YOU, and yet you won’t reveal your own “position in abortion”. If that’s the game that you want to play, then it is perfectly reasonable that we discern it from your inputs. Now please quit whining.

The OP is about Roe as a decision and those who defend it, not a specific policy position on abortion.

Have you really been lost through all 1800+ messages in this thread?

Wow.

 

[NatMorton]

,Lursa , must be a mind reader as she a.ready predicted you would ask.


Ok .

My answer is from the book , The Ethnical Brain.


Synaptic activity , which underlies all brain functions does not start until about 26 to 28 gestation.

That’s why even though a premature infant may survive birth at 23 weeks gestation it will need technology help with its breathing until about week 32 gestation when the Synaptic activity will help the infant breath without aid.

Do you mean "ethical?"

 

[Lursa]

Do you mean "ethical?"

She does and she's also posted that she's dyslexic. I'd bet you've seen that.

And now we've seen you divert into "the weeds," the irrelevant, to avoid directly responding to her post.

 

[watsup]

The OP is about Roe as a decision and those who defend it, not a specific policy position on abortion.

Have you really been lost through all 1800+ messages in this thread?

Wow.

As it so happens, a distinction without a difference. It is totally ridiculous to, for whatever reason, hide your position on abortion in a thread ABOUT ABORTION. Please pay better attention. Doesn’t make any difference—we can figure it out no matter how hard you try to hide it.

 

[Gordy327]

Define "functional."

I see you didn't bother looking up the citation I posted.

 

[The Baron]

Absolutely wrong. Every individual woman that would be affected would make whatever moral decision she wants...that's "choice."

You've missed the point and the point is that you're a hypocrite. You rage that "people with personal or corrupted morality cant force it on others" (speaking of pro-lifers) and yet you would not hesitate the rest of the world to live by your own wicked standards.

It's hypocrisy.

Explain specifically what would be forced on you?

Forced on me? Nothing. Forced on the most innocent still in the womb? Their murder.

Never denied it.

Again, at least we agree it's killing.

Drop the self-righteous crap...you have yet to explain why it's acceptable to kill it earlier in the womb but not later. Or do you believe in banning abortion from fertilization?

I'm not sure I understand your question--"banning abortion from fertilization"?
Ask your question differently.

Cool. And that applies to women as well. The RvW case was based on states denying women the safer medical procedure; abortion is much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth.

Not for the child.

As required by the Constitution, the govt is obligated to protect women's rights including our lives.

It is obligated to protect the lives of everyone...including the most vulnerable among us.

SCOTUS found no reason to deny women the safer procedure and also in the same decision, were very clear that the unborn had no rights recognized under the Constitution and thus the govt had no obligation to protect it. The govt, under the 5th, cannot protect pregnant women from dying , and thus cannot force us to take the greater risk with our lives.

And yet it was SCOTUS that appears poised to overturn RvW.

Thanks...the 5th is a good one...
Are you still going to deny? If so, based on what legitimate sources besides your religion or your feelings?

I won't deny it. I will state that it is wrong.

Perhaps this, too, will have to be re-examined now that RvW is poised to be overturned.

 

[Lursa]

You've missed the point and the point is that you're a hypocrite. You rage that "people with personal or corrupted morality cant force it on others" (speaking of pro-lifers) and yet you would not hesitate the rest of the world to live by your own wicked standards.

It's hypocrisy.

No it's not. I am against forcing personal morality on others...and when I support CHOICE for women that means every individual chooses for herself and NO ONE has my morality forced on them. I wrote that before...how much simpler do you need it written? Or are you just too dishonest to admit I'm right...that 'choice' forces no one's morality on anyone else.

Forced on me? Nothing.

Exactly...that's the point made above that you pretend you dont understand. So...it's not hypocrisy and it's not forced on anyone. Thanks.

Forced on the most innocent still in the womb? Their murder.

It's not murder...dont lie...and morally, the woman has the decision to end that life...because she and much of society value her life and her responsibiities to others and her contrabutions to society and her right to self-determination more than that of the unborn.

So...she chooses. Not you.

Again, at least we agree it's killing.

Once again, you repeat yourself. And once again, you cannot show where I ever denied it. You are typing just to try to keep afloat in this conversation.

I'm not sure I understand your question--"banning abortion from fertilization"?
Ask your question differently.

From conception. The sperm fertilizing the egg and attachment. It's a grammar-school level question.

Not for the child.

It is obligated to protect the lives of everyone...including the most vulnerable among us.

No, the Const doesnt say any such thing. You are wrong and 'na huh' isnt an argument.

And yet it was SCOTUS that appears poised to overturn RvW.

Do you think that means the unborn have any rights? Not federally. And it means states can still maintain women's right to have an abortion and many will.

I won't deny it. I will state that it is wrong.

I think your position is immoral and you havent provided any basis to challenge my view.

Perhaps this, too, will have to be re-examined now that RvW is poised to be overturned.

Maybe it will be re-examined, but not likely changed, but your desire to see women subjugated back to 2nd class citizens is neither American nor moral IMO. So good luck with that.

 

[The Baron]

No it's not. I am against forcing personal morality on others...and when I support CHOICE for women that means every individual chooses for herself and NO ONE has my morality forced on them. I wrote that before...how much simpler do you need it written? Or are you just too dishonest to admit I'm right...that 'choice' forces no one's morality on anyone else.

You are intentionally forgetting the child.

Exactly...that's the point made above that you pretend you dont understand. So...it's not hypocrisy and it's not forced on anyone. Thanks.

Except the child.

It's not murder...dont lie...

You've already agreed that abortion is "killing".

And since the fetus is human...it's murder.

...and morally, the woman has the decision to end that life...

No she does not. It's not her life that she's "choosing" to end.

...because she and much of society value her life....

And much of society also values the life of the child.

...and her responsibiities to others....

Why not consider her responsibilities of her child?

It's nothing but immature selfishness.

....and her contrabutions to society....

Her contributions (and that's how you spell it) do not negate her responsibilities to her child.

...and her right to self-determination more than that of the unborn.

That is your opinion. It is hardly a moral standard but, then again, murder never is.

N
So...she chooses. Not you.

Once again, you repeat yourself. And once again, you cannot show where I ever denied it. You are typing just to try to keep afloat in this conversation.

I'm simply reminding you that you have stipulated that abortion is "killing" which is your simple admission that the child is alive in the womb.

From conception. The sperm fertilizing the egg and attachment. It's a grammar-school level question.

If it's a "grammar-school level question" then you think you could have articulated the question better.

And here I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you are talking about preventing conception (condom, "the pill", etc.), I do not--nor do I know anyone--who argues against conception (our Catholic friends not included). I've no problem with conception as it is not killing anything but only preventing conception.

I've no problem with contraception.

No, the Const doesnt say any such thing. You are wrong and 'na huh' isnt an argument.

Strawman. That was never my argument.

Do you think that means the unborn have any rights? Not federally. And it means states can still maintain women's right to have an abortion and many will.

It also means that states can recognize a child's right to life...just like the rest of us enjoy.

I think your position is immoral and you havent provided any basis to challenge my view.

That is because you simply lack the intelligence to consider any view other than your own.

Maybe it will be re-examined, but not likely changed...

Not substantially, no. I don't think abortion "rights" overall will be changed greatly.

...but your desire to see women subjugated back to 2nd class citizens is neither American nor moral IMO. So good luck with that.

Asking women (and men) to accept responsibility for their actions is neither un-American nor subjugation.

It's simply being an adult.

Have a nice day.

 

[Gordy327]

You are intentionally forgetting the child.

Except the child.

You've already agreed that abortion is "killing".

And since the fetus is human...it's murder.

No she does not. It's not her life that she's "choosing" to end.

And much of society also values the life of the child.

Why not consider her responsibilities of her child?

It's nothing but immature selfishness.

Her contributions (and that's how you spell it) do not negate her responsibilities to her child.

That is your opinion. It is hardly a moral standard but, then again, murder never is.




I'm simply reminding you that you have stipulated that abortion is "killing" which is your simple admission that the child is alive in the womb.

If it's a "grammar-school level question" then you think you could have articulated the question better.

And here I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you are talking about preventing conception (condom, "the pill", etc.), I do not--nor do I know anyone--who argues against conception (our Catholic friends not included). I've no problem with conception as it is not killing anything but only preventing conception.

I've no problem with contraception.

Strawman. That was never my argument.

It also means that states can recognize a child's right to life...just like the rest of us enjoy.

That is because you simply lack the intelligence to consider any view other than your own.

Not substantially, no. I don't think abortion "rights" overall will be changed greatly.

Asking women (and men) to accept responsibility for their actions is neither un-American nor subjugation.

It's simply being an adult.

Have a nice day.

What child? There is no child in an abortion. Abortion is taking responsibility and is an option for a woman to choose regardless of the reason.

 

[Lursa]

You are intentionally forgetting the child.

No I'm not. There is no child. You imagining one inside women you dont even know is disturbing and irrelevant. However if you remove a woman's choice, it's clear that you would be forcing YOUR morality on women that dont believe the same. That's immoral.

Except the child.

Repeating yourself and 'na huh' are not argument. Please address my statement directly...otherwise you emotional pleas fail. They arent debate, they're your feelings.

You've already agreed that abortion is "killing".

And since the fetus is human...it's murder.

Repeating yourself and 'na huh' are not argument. Please address my statement directly...otherwise you emotional pleas fail. They arent debate, they're your feelings.

No she does not. It's not her life that she's "choosing" to end.

And much of society also values the life of the child.

Repeating yourself and 'na huh' are not argument. Please address my statement directly...otherwise you emotional pleas fail. They arent debate, they're your feelings.

Why not consider her responsibilities of her child?

Because only she knows the circumstances in her life and what and to whom her other responsibilities are. That's why it's her choice. Get it?

Who are you, or strangers, or the govt to decide that you know better? Will you pay the consequences she or those others will? Why do you value all them less than the unborn?

It's nothing but immature selfishness.

Her contributions (and that's how you spell it) do not negate her responsibilities to her child.

Repeating yourself and 'na huh' are not argument. Please address my statement directly...otherwise you emotional pleas fail. They arent debate, they're your feelings.

That is your opinion. It is hardly a moral standard but, then again, murder never is.

Lying isnt much of a display of morality either and you continue to call abortion murder. Again you spread hypocrisy.

I'm simply reminding you that you have stipulated that abortion is "killing" which is your simple admission that the child is alive in the womb.

Yes, so what? What authority says that the unborn have a right to life?

If it's a "grammar-school level question" then you think you could have articulated the question better.

Or, you would not have pretended to not understand it to get out of answering it. Which you continue to do.

 

[The Baron]

What child? There is no child in an abortion. Abortion is taking responsibility and is an option for a woman to choose regardless of the reason.

This is not an even remotely intelligent question.

 

[Lursa]

Strawman. That was never my argument.

It also means that states can recognize a child's right to life...just like the rest of us enjoy.

It can, but it cannot do so where the protection of that right violates women's Constitutional rights...because the unborn have no rights recognized at the federal level. Please google the Supremacy Clause, you seem to be unfamiliar with it.

That is because you simply lack the intelligence to consider any view other than your own.

You have no argument so resort to personal attacks?

Not substantially, no. I don't think abortion "rights" overall will be changed greatly.

I'm hoping it will. The states will try some of the stuff you are mentioning. And the court challenges to those things will further clarify women's rights and protections. Unless Congress invents rights for the unborn, but that is not in the Const so it would indeed be a activist invention.

Asking women (and men) to accept responsibility for their actions is neither un-American nor subjugation.

Of course it is. It's a use of force and removal of consent. RvW was about protecting a woman's right to a safer medical procedure. And you believe you or strangers have the right to demand she take the risker path of pregnancy/childbirth against her will.

That is immoral.

RvW is 'the govt' recognizing that women are entitled to that protection under the Constitution. And again, the unborn have no such protections and if the states 'invent' that...they wont supersede our COnst. protections. Supremacy Clause.

It's simply being an adult.

No, using force on strangers based on your feelings or personal beliefs...which are immoral in their eyes...is not adult. It's bullying and antiAmerican

 

[Gordy327]

This is not an even remotely intelligent question.

Is there a child in an abortion? No! That's simple fact. Perhaps you should try to formulate an intelligent reply rather than an ignorant and/or emotional one.

 

[The Baron]

Is there a child in an abortion? No! That's simple fact. Perhaps you should try to formulate an intelligent reply rather than an ignorant and/or emotional one.

What is being aborted is, in fact, a living human child.

Undeveloped?

Yes.

But still alive and and in possession of human DNA which is the very thing that prevents it from being anything else.

 

[Gordy327]

What is being aborted is, in fact, a living human child.

Undeveloped?

Yes.

But still alive and and in possession of human DNA which is the very thing that prevents it from being anything else.

Wrong. It's not a child until it's born. What's being aborted I'd just an embryo/fetus. Simple fact. Look it up.

 

[Lursa]

What is being aborted is, in fact, a living human child.

Undeveloped?

Yes.

But still alive and and in possession of human DNA which is the very thing that prevents it from being anything else.

What authority says that that unborn human has a right to life?

 

[minnie616]

This is not an even remotely intelligent question.

You are mistaken. In fact before viability the embryo or previable fetus c should not even be referred as a living being.

Actually , it is questionable to refer to an embryo or pre viable fetus as a living being since the embryo or pre viable fetus is not capable of sustaining it’s life without the woman and her body's systems.

Yes, it has human DNA but it is not legally a human nor a human being until born.

From:
…………..

The embryo is not even a “potential” living being in so far as a “potential being” is defined as something capable of passing from this potential state to the state of being that thing in actuality, and only thanks to internal factors.
A blank sheet of paper is not a potential drawing, in so far as in order to pass from the state of blank sheet to the state of drawing it requires an external factor, namely the draughtsman.
As opposed to this, an acorn is a potential oak, for the soil in which it is planted only plays a nutritional role and it passes from the state of acorn to that of oak by virtue of internal factors only.

The same is often considered to hold for the embryo. But in fact, it doesn’t. The latest scientific research – the full range of which has still not been fully appreciated – shows the mother’s indispensable role.

Some of the growth factors that have been identified no doubt come from the embryo itself; but others come from the mother and are sufficiently important to be indispensable to the embryo’s growth: if put in a purely nutritious environment, the embryo will multiply self-identically or in a disorderly way. It is not correct to say of the embryo that it grows: it is grown by the mother.

It is not a potential living being;

the mother is the potential mother of a living being.

Read more:

The Embryo Is Not a Potential Living Being - L'Humanite in English