my beef with the Liberal position.

[kerussll]

Ending life before it has a chance to be a burden is oversimplification.

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Captain Adverse]

So not really surviving independently? I don't know about you, but I don't consider not dying immediately surviving.

Forgive me, I am somewhat tired but...are you being intentionally obtuse to try to get some emotional response? Making a fallacious statement that has little or no connection to my responses will only make me think you are simply trolling. That's not conducive to continuing debate.

My "presumption" is that she should because we are talking about a human being in the sense that this thing that doesn't deserve your consideration will grow up into a human being. This logic that a human fetus isn't a human because it hasn't fully developed doesn't make sense to me. The fact is you are taking life away from what will be a human being. You can cite as many differences between fetuses and further developed humans as much as you please. It does not change that where there was going to be life, a totally unique person, there isn't because in the beginning stages of his/her life there was a decision made that they were not worthy of consideration. It's decided for them that they would rather have no chance at life because it would be difficult.

Well let me try to clarify it. Are the cells that make up my big toe human cells? They are funtional, they contain human DNA, and it is theoretically possible to clone an entirely functional human out of them if we ever attain that level of technology. Does that make them "human life?"

How about the cells that grow as cancers inside cancer patient's bodies? They are living things made out of human DNA, albeit destroying a fully functional human in their desperation for unthinking life and growth. Yet we casually destroy them in order to preserve a functional human life. I know you'll argue that you already accept abortion if it means saving the mother's life, but you fail to recognize you've made a judgement call on relative value.

Abortion during the first 20 weeks is alloweable under both those ideas. First, the zygote/fetus at that stage is merely a potential human life. You give it more credit than big toe cells because currently the expectation is that if left alone it will usually develop into a human. Still, it is only a potential like those big toe cells until it reaches a stage where it actually IS a functioning human being. Acknowledge the difference between "potential" and "actual" and you can understand allowing abortion during this first stage of development.

Then, as with the cancer cells that must be excised to save a person's life, a judgement call is required. Who better to make it than the person who you would require to carry to term in an wanted birth? Especially she is dealing with nothing more than a group of cells experiencing unthinking life and growth?

 

[sbrettt]

"Cells." There's your answer right there. The choice is whether to let those "cells develop" or not to let them "develop" before it becomes a viable human being. Do you ever consider the woman who is a developed viable human being and has a "whole life ahead of her"? After all, it is her body that you want to impose your emotional feelings for cells upon.

You and I are made entirely of cells that originate from that very same group of cells that I have "emotional feelings for". Those cells are the beginning of an individuals life, and that individual doesn't get a chance at life because someone else's will is being imposed on him or her when she/he is most vulnerable.

 

[Captain Adverse]

See the post above that one for details.

Thanks. Very informative. However, the first article rom 1985 argues a case for fetal brain activity at eight weeks but opines that it is not simply automatic but must also be conscious due to the authors views about brain development. I would ask, has the medical community at large accepted this as fact, or is this merely an interesting but minor scientific view resulting from the authors belief as to cause and effect?

The second article seems to deal with possible pain treatment issues during fetal development, not "conscious awareness" issues. It is also an interesting article but only tangentally to the issue at hand. Then again I am no physician. So I also ask if there is any medical unanimity of acceptance regarding the establishment of conscious awareness in a fetus as defined at eight weeks?

 

[Captain Adverse]

You think comparing cancer cells to cells at the start of human life is an argument?

Okay, I am beginning to come to the conclusion you are trolling. You isolate segments of a whole and make them an issue while disregarding their use in the original argument. I feel either you are insulting my intelligence, or somehow want me to begin insulting yours. :naughty

I'm not going to repeat the argument made. Once again I must ask you to step back and read for comprehension. Otherwise I will find no reason to continue engaging in any discussion with you. :shrug:

 

[Captain Adverse]

This is a 20 week fetus. At 19.9 weeks, this wasn't a clump of cells.



No rational person can look at a 12-19 week fetus and call it a lump of cells.

Call me irratonal then. :shrug:

Sorry, I stand by Roe v. Wade, and will continue to do so until the Medical community instructs me otherwise. eace

 

[sbrettt]

Forgive me, I am somewhat tired but...are you being intentionally obtuse to try to get some emotional response? Making a fallacious statement that has little or no connection to my responses will only make me think you are simply trolling. That's not conducive to continuing debate.

No. I simply don't consider being able to survive without life support survival.

Well let me try to clarify it. Are the cells that make up my big toe human cells? They are funtional, they contain human DNA, and it is theoretically possible to clone an entirely functional human out of them if we ever attain that level of technology. Does that make them "human life?"

Clones are not a natural form of life, and are you saying if I cut off your big toe you wouldn't notice?

How about the cells that grow as cancers inside cancer patient's bodies? They are living things made out of human DNA, albeit destroying a fully functional human in their desperation for unthinking life and growth. Yet we casually destroy them in order to preserve a functional human life. I know you'll argue that you already accept abortion if it means saving the mother's life, but you fail to recognize you've made a judgement call on relative value.

Cancer cells do not develop into an individual. Saying they have to same value as stem cells is silly.

Abortion during the first 20 weeks is alloweable under both those ideas. First, the zygote/fetus at that stage is merely a potential human life. You give it more credit than big toe cells because currently the expectation is that if left alone it will usually develop into a human. Still, it is only a potential like those big toe cells until it reaches a stage where it actually IS a functioning human being. Acknowledge the difference between "potential" and "actual" and you can understand allowing abortion during this first stage of development.

If it has potential to be an individual I say let it try.

Then, as with the cancer cells that must be excised to save a person's life, a judgement call is required. Who better to make it than the person who you would require to carry to term in an wanted birth? Especially she is dealing with nothing more than a group of cells experiencing unthinking life and growth?

The unwanted individual is as valuable as a wanted individual in my book.

 

[sbrettt]

Call me irratonal then. :shrug:

Sorry, I stand by Roe v. Wade, and will continue to do so until the Medical community instructs me otherwise. eace

Calling that a group of cells is a lazy description.

 

[sbrettt]

Okay, I am beginning to come to the conclusion you are trolling. You isolate segments of a whole and make them an issue while disregarding their use in the original argument. I feel either you are insulting my intelligence, or somehow want me to begin insulting yours. :naughty

I'm not going to repeat the argument made. Once again I must ask you to step back and read for comprehension. Otherwise I will find no reason to continue engaging in any discussion with you. :shrug:

I was going after this idea that cancerous cells have the same value as stem cells. I'm sorry you take that as an attack on your intelligence. I didn't mean it that way.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Calling that a group of cells is a lazy description.

Mimicking the style of another member is a sign of a lazy mind. This "lazy mind" is evident in your prior post quoted below.

No. I simply don't consider being able to survive without life support survival.

Clones are not a natural form of life, and are you saying if I cut off your big toe you wouldn't notice?

Cancer cells do not develop into an individual. Saying they have to same value as stem cells is silly.

If it has potential to be an individual I say let it try.

The unwanted individual is as valuable as a wanted individual in my book.

1. I never made the point in the first sentence.

2. "Natural" is relative when it comes to "clones" and considerations of life. If they are living, breathing, thinking, fully funtional people then they are as deserving of the title "human" as any man born of woman based on your own arguments. Hmm, belly buttons might be an issue, but are they really necessary in this case?? LOL

3. Mere opinion, and you are entitled to it. Not an argument preventing a woman from having choice in an abortion though.

4. Again, another personal opinion. Meanwhile the law still allows a woman to have an abortion, and this has been clearly defined as a Constitutional right in Roe v. Wade.

Now, since I consider your ability to read for comprehension and respond with sound argument less than personally satisfactory...I will exit the debate. Thank you for your input.

 

[sbrettt]

Mimicking the style of another member is a sign of a lazy mind. This "lazy mind" is evident in your prior post quoted below.

Taking issue with another members descriptions is not "mimicking their style".

1. I never made the point in the first sentence.

Here's where you did. "By survive "independently" I merely meant physically outside of the womb without drastic medical measures "independently." Not grow up and live and make a life etc. "independently."

2. "Natural" is relative when it comes to "clones" and considerations of life. If they are living, breathing, thinking, fully funtional people then they are as deserving of the title "human" as any man born of woman based on your own arguments. Hmm, belly buttons might be an issue, but are they really necessary in this case?? LOL

The process of cloning is not natural.

3. Mere opinion, and you are entitled to it. Not an argument preventing a woman from having choice in an abortion though.

Saying cancer cells don't develop into human beings is not opinion.

4. Again, another personal opinion. Meanwhile the law still allows a woman to have an abortion, and this has been clearly defined as a Constitutional right in Roe v. Wade.

I disagree with many laws.

Now, since I consider your ability to read for comprehension and respond with sound argument less than personally satisfactory...I will exit the debate. Thank you for your input.

Classic cop out, and thank you for your input. :]

 

[molten_dragon]

For instance, how can you say everyone has a right to choice on the subject while also saying the human being aborted has no right to choice? I understand the fetus can't make decisions yet, but is the inability to make decisions enough to lose that right?

Yes, being unable to make decisions is enough to lose the right to make decisions. It happens all the time when people are declared legally incompetent. And a fetus at 12 weeks is far less able to make decisions than someone born mentally handicapped or a person with advanced Alzheimer's.

Why do the financial details of the parent(s) matter when adoption exists?

Because just carrying a baby to term can cost several thousand dollars. An abortion is like $500.

It's disturbing to me that the left is happy to strip away an unborn humans life, potential for greatness, and influences on other people that could better their lives simply because the mother and or father can't afford it?

Yes, but there's also the potential that unborn human could worsen people's lives instead. And that potential is higher if that kid grows up in poverty.

 

[Moot]

You and I are made entirely of cells that originate from that very same group of cells that I have "emotional feelings for". Those cells are the beginning of an individuals life, and that individual doesn't get a chance at life because someone else's will is being imposed on him or her when she/he is most vulnerable.

Preventing a life from developing is the point of having an abortion.

The fetus is not a person, it can't breath, it doesn't think and it does not care if it lives or dies because it does not even know that it exists. Everything you think and feel for and about the fetus is all coming from you projecting your emotions onto an abstract thought of what the fetus might be or should be. Your feelings have nothing to do with the fetus floating around in bodily fluids inside of a real live breathing thinking feeling woman.....a person....a person who is capable of making rational decisions of what is best for her and the fetus inside her. The only person who needs to care about the outcome of the developing fetus is the person whose body the fetus happens to reside in, the mother...not you...not strangers living six hundred miles away...not some anonymous person on the internet....and certainly not the pro-life hypocrits carrying around giant posters of mangled still born babies and miscarriages meant to arouse your emotional feelings for a fetus you know nothing about and have no personal vested interest in.

 

[sbrettt]

Yes, being unable to make decisions is enough to lose the right to make decisions. It happens all the time when people are declared legally incompetent. And a fetus at 12 weeks is far less able to make decisions than someone born mentally handicapped or a person with advanced Alzheimer's.

The difference that pops at me there is those examples had a chance to develop to be legally incompetent instead of just being legally incompetent because they're young.

Because just carrying a baby to term can cost several thousand dollars. An abortion is like $500.

I consider life more important than money.

Yes, but there's also the potential that unborn human could worsen people's lives instead. And that potential is higher if that kid grows up in poverty.

None the less, the potential for a good person is there.

 

[sbrettt]

Preventing a life from developing is the point of having an abortion.

Which is essentially cutting an individual's life short in my opinion.

The fetus is not a person, it can't breath, it doesn't think and it does not care if it lives or dies because it does not even know that it exists. Everything you think and feel for and about the fetus is all coming from you projecting your emotions onto an abstract thought of what the fetus might be or should be. Your feelings have nothing to do with the fetus floating around in bodily fluids inside of a real live breathing thinking feeling woman.....a person....a person who is capable of making rational decisions of what is best for her and the fetus inside her. The only person who needs to care about the outcome of the developing fetus is the person whose body the fetus happens to reside in, the mother...not you...not strangers living six hundred miles away...not some anonymous person on the internet....and certainly not the pro-life hypocrits carrying around giant posters of mangled still born babies and miscarriages meant to arouse your emotional feelings for a fetus you know nothing about and have no personal vested interest in.

I consider the person that could have been. The fact is at one time all humans were a clump of organic material, and I believe that all people were worth just as much when they were that lump of cells as they're worth now. Please, don't attach me to ideas that I do not actually have.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Disclaimer, I support abortion in instances where the mothers physical health is at stake.
I find the Democratic parties position on abortion to be both oversimplified, and self contradicting. For instance, how can you say everyone has a right to choice on the subject while also saying the human being aborted has no right to choice? I understand the fetus can't make decisions yet, but is the inability to make decisions enough to lose that right? Why do the financial details of the parent(s) matter when adoption exists? It's disturbing to me that the left is happy to strip away an unborn humans life, potential for greatness, and influences on other people that could better their lives simply because the mother and or father can't afford it? I feel like I'll catch a lot of flak for this sentence, but is it not inherently selfish to deny an unborn human being life because you can't afford? In my opinion living is better than having your entire life taken away just because you don't have a voice yet. I'm sincerely sincerely sorry if I come off as insensitive to anyone on this forum.

Because the thing or person (it doesn't matter which it is -- call it whatever you want) that is infringing on someone else loses their rights automatically.

That is true in every other situation. It is true even if the assailant was forced at threat of death to attack you. It is true even if the assailant is mentally retarded. It is true even if the assailant is a parasitic twin leeching off their sibling through no fault of their own.

Give me one good reason why abortion should be the exception.

A ZEF attacks the woman's immune system, causes her to be ill for months, sucks nutrients straight from her bones, puts her at risk of hundreds of medical problems, many of which include risk of death, causes her tremendous pain upon its departure, and leaves life-long scars.

That is no small action. It is almost incomprehensibility invasive. Far more invasive than your average violent crime, where we would have no compunction about supporting a defensive shooter, even if the assailant was incompetent to understand their actions, or coerced into doing them.

Because at the end of the day, it makes no difference why someone is having their rights and sovereignty robbed of them. All that matters is that they are, and they have an absolute right to end that affront on their basic dignity and well-being.

What is disturbing is that so many people believe women stop being human beings and become inanimate incubators the moment they become pregnant.

 

[sbrettt]

Because the thing or person (it doesn't matter which it is -- call it whatever you want) that is infringing on someone else loses their rights automatically.

That is true in every other situation. It is true even if the assailant was forced at threat of death to attack you. It is true even if the assailant is mentally retarded. It is true even if the assailant is a parasitic twin leeching off their sibling through no fault of their own.

Give me one good reason why abortion should be the exception.

A ZEF attacks the woman's immune system, causes her to be ill for months, sucks nutrients straight from her bones, puts her at risk of hundreds of medical problems, many of which include risk of death, causes her tremendous pain upon its departure, and leaves life-long scars.

That is no small action. It is almost incomprehensibility invasive. Far more invasive than your average violent crime, where we would have no compunction about supporting a defensive shooter, even if the assailant was incompetent to understand their actions, or coerced into doing them.

Because at the end of the day, it makes no difference why someone is having their rights and sovereignty robbed of them. All that matters is that they are, and they have an absolute right to end that affront on their basic dignity and well-being.

What is disturbing is that so many people believe women stop being human beings and become inanimate incubators the moment they become pregnant.

Everyone should have a chance at life, even if they never knew they had that chance. You were once a fetus, and in my opinion had you been aborted that abortion isn't just killing a group of cells. It's killing the person that you are now before you had chance to be who you are. That's how I look at it.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Everyone should have a chance at life, even if they never knew they had that chance. You were once a fetus, and in my opinion had you been aborted that abortion isn't just killing a group of cells. It's killing the person that you are now before you had chance to be who you are. That's how I look at it.

No, obviously not. See the rest of my post. Obviously, we don't think people who impose themselves on the rights of others should have a chance at life, even when the reason they're doing it isn't their fault.

It makes no difference. The person being impinged upon is the one with rights, period.

Unless it's a woman with a ZEF in her. Then, apparently, she's no longer a person with rights to you.

I don't give a crap whether I'd been aborted. That ZEF had no right to be there. I had no right to a life. And It's not as if I'd ever know the difference. Who cares?

 

[sbrettt]

No, obviously not. See the rest of my post. Obviously, we don't think people who impose themselves on the rights of others should have a chance at life, even when the reason they're doing it isn't their fault.

The rest of your post doesn't decisively negate my opinion, and how is an unborn human imposing his/her rights on anyone?

It makes no difference. The person being impinged upon is the one with rights, period.

I think both parties should have rights.

Unless it's a woman with a ZEF in her. Then, apparently, she's no longer a person with rights to you.

Assigning ideas to people does nothing to advance the discussion.

I don't give a crap whether I'd been aborted. That ZEF had no right to be there. I had no right to a life. And It's not as if I'd ever know the difference. Who cares?

Well, I think there's a lot people out there who would be a little unhappy if they never existed. It doesn't matter to me that you wouldn't have known the difference. You deserved a chance regardless.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

1. The rest of your post doesn't decisively negate my opinion, and how is an unborn human imposing his/her rights on anyone?
2. I think both parties should have rights.

3. Assigning ideas to people does nothing to advance the discussion.

4. Well, I think there's a lot people out there who would be a little unhappy if they never existed. It doesn't matter to me that you wouldn't have known the difference. You deserved a chance regardless.

1. I explained this. Do you not think sickness, depletion, pain, scars, and risk of death is an imposition?

2. BS. How do "both" have rights when you advocate stripping her of the right to her own body?

3. That is what your position is at its simplest. The fact that you don't like is irrelevant. If you don't like it, change your position.

4. Why? Why do I "deserve" carte blanche to use and damage someone else's body?

And here's a question for you. If ZEF's have such a "right" to exist, presumably because they don't consent to being prevented from doing so, what about their right to NOT exist?

They never consented to living. And lots of people wind up wishing they had never existed. Some even fix the problem by killing themselves.

If women have no right to deny a ZEF existence, why do they have a right to force an existence that may or may not be wanted?

 

[sbrettt]

1. I explained this. Do you not think sickness, depletion, pain, scars, and risk of death is an imposition?

If it's life threatening I'm all for it.

2. BS. How do "both" have rights when you advocate stripping her of the right to her own body?

It flies in the face of my moral compass to say one person has a right to decide if another person gets to live.

3. That is what your position is at its simplest. The fact that you don't like is irrelevant. If you don't like it, change your position.

You can put whatever label you want on it. It doesn't change what my views actually are.

4. Why? Why do I "deserve" carte blanche to use and damage someone else's body?

You deserve life.

And here's a question for you. If ZEF's have such a "right" to exist, presumably because they don't consent to being prevented from doing so, what about their right to NOT exist?

They never consented to living. And lots of people wind up wishing they had never existed. Some even fix the problem by killing themselves.

If women have no right to deny a ZEF existence, why do they have a right to force an existence that may or may not be wanted?

There's a difference between choosing death, and having it chosen for you.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

If it's life threatening I'm all for it.
It flies in the face of my moral compass to say one person has a right to decide if another person gets to live.

Oh, I see. So should people not be allowed to defend themselves if someone simply wants to cut off a finger?

You can put whatever label you want on it. It doesn't change what views actually are.

That IS what they actually are. Your view reduces women.

You deserve life.

Sure, I do now that I'm not leeching off of and depleting another person. I sure as hell didn't then. I deserved whatever my mother saw fit to give me. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's a difference between choosing death, and having it chosen for you.

Yes. And there's a difference between choosing life, and having it chosen for you, isn't there.

I also notice you have failed to address my initial point that a woman would have a right to defend her integrity in every other situation, yet you think she should be stripped of it in this one specific case, even though it is no different.

 

[molten_dragon]

The difference that pops at me there is those examples had a chance to develop to be legally incompetent instead of just being legally incompetent because they're young.

Aren't all young people basically legally incompetent? Children aren't allowed to make legal decisions, adults make decisions for them.

I consider life more important than money.

Which is fine, but that wasn't the argument you were making. You said not being able to afford a child isn't an excuse to abort because you can avoid the financial commitment by putting it up for adoption. I was pointing out that that isn't true, since simply giving birth can cost a couple thousand dollars, assuming you have health insurance, and that the birth is without complications.

None the less, the potential for a good person is there.

As is the potential for a bad person, which means that really isn't a very good reason not to abort either.

 

[sbrettt]

Oh, I see. So should people not be allowed to defend themselves if someone simply wants to cut off a finger?

The fetus did not put itself in that position. Even the deranged psycho killer who doesn't know her/his actions are wrong still puts him/herself in that position.

That IS what they actually are. Your view reduces women.

Your view reduces the value of human life.

Sure, I do now that I'm not leeching off of and depleting another person. I sure as hell didn't then. I deserved whatever my mother saw fit to give me. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm glad my mother saw it fit to allow me to experience life.

Yes. And there's a difference between choosing life, and having it chosen for you, isn't there.

The first and most likely only agreement. Still it's always nice to have one.

I also notice you have failed to address my initial point that a woman would have a right to defend her integrity in every other situation, yet you think she should be stripped of it in this one specific case, even though it is no different.

Thank you for pointing that out. I addressed it in the beginning of this post.

 

[minnie616]

There was around 1.2 million abortions in 2011. I believe less than 5% were because the mother had health concerns.....

Actually the numbers of abortions have been declining due to better more effective long term birth control.
The CDC reported just under 800,000 abortions in 2009.

All pregnancies carry a risk.
During my first pregnancy I had such extreme morning sickness that my kidneys were damaged and I became so anemic my doctor was afraid I would bleed to death during delivery . He had everything ready in the delivery room for a complete blood transfusion for me. I did not know if I would be alive to see my baby.

My DDs seemingly normal pregnancy took a horrible turn a couple weeks before her due date that almost cost her ,her life. She developed HELLP syndrome and had to have an emergency c section.
Luckily she was not one the 300 women in the USA who die every year from it but she was one the 75,000 near misses.
She and my grandson still have lasting health issues from the HELLP syndrome.

Some people just don't understand that a seemingly normal pregnancy can take a horrible turn and the next time it might be their loved one whose life is at risk.

When its a wanted pregnancy , the women are willing to take the risk, but I will not support making an unwilling woman take the risk to continue a pregnancy if she would rather choose an abortion within the parameters of Supreme Courts decision.