Point-by-point disscusion

[Felicity]

In the interest of honest debate...:2wave: here are some facts from non-bias sources.....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1635748&dopt=Abstract
RESULTS: The procedure caused immediate cessation of fetal heart motion in 20 of 21 cases. There were no maternal complications. No fetuses were live-born. CONCLUSIONS: Direct fetal intracardiac potassium chloride injection effectively causes immediate fetal cardiac arrest. This approach may be adopted in cases of abortion by labor-induction methods at advanced gestations to ensure that the abortus is stillborn.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...orten).doc+potassium+injection+abortion&hl=en
However, in case in which the parents have elected abortion, the intent is to prevent the delivery of a live-born neonate. Some neonatologists believe that once any potentially viable neonate is separated from its mother, it is independent and thus requires resuscitation regardless of maternal intent. With the intention of preventing the attendant medical, ethical, and legal problems arising from the birth of live-born, anomalous foetuses, intracardiac potassium chloride injection is used to assure stillbirth in the setting of medical abortion late in pregnancy.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1892696,00.html
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which regulates methods of abortion, has also mounted its own investigation.
Its guidelines say that babies aborted after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered. In practice, few doctors are willing or able to perform the delicate procedure.
For the abortion of younger foetuses, labour is induced by drugs in the expectation that the infant will not survive the birth process. Guidelines say that doctors should ensure that the drugs they use prevent such babies being alive at birth.

http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/guidelinesdb/html/fulltext-guidelines/InducedAbortion-5.htm
5.6 Feticide prior to late abortions
The RCOG's previous guidance on termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality(95) emphasises that a legal abortion must not be allowed to result in a live birth. Theoretically, such an event could result in a doctor being accused of murder if a 'deliberate act' (i.e. legal abortion) were to be followed by a live birth and the subsequent death of the child because of immaturity. The same document included the guidance that for "terminations after 21 weeks, the method chosen should ensure that the fetus is born dead".
In 1998, 1702 abortions were performed on residents of England and Wales at 20 weeks and over under grounds 'C' or 'D'. The majority of these were undertaken within the specialist independent sector. When the method of abortion chosen is surgical (D&E) by a specialist practitioner, the nature of the procedure ensures that there is no risk of a live birth.
When medical abortion is chosen, then special steps are required to ensure that the fetus is dead at the time of abortion. An Appendix to the RCOG's 'Termination of Pregnancy for Fetal Abnormality' report(95) summarises the available methods. These are as follows.
• Intra-amniotic injection of hypertonic urea
Historically, mid-trimester abortion was accomplished by intra-amniotic injection of prostaglandin plus urea. The recommended concentration of urea at gestations of 20-24 weeks is 120g in 124mls of normal saline. Injection of urea can be combined with contemporary mifepristone/vaginal prostaglandin regimens but the solution is no longer a licensed medicine in the UK, there is no commercial supplier and it must be prepared within the local hospital pharmacy.
• Direct methods for stopping the fetal heart
These involve injection of suitable agents, including potassium chloride, into the fetal heart or cord vessels under ultrasound guidance by a specialist in fetal medicine.

 

[ngdawg]

You sound jealous!:lol:

Hell, no....I prefer a nice aquamarine set in a circle of diamonds
As for aprons, I find cooking in the nude keeps the stains off my silk blouses

 

[Felicity]

As for aprons, I find cooking in the nude keeps the stains off my silk blouses

I hope you're not cooking bacon!

 

[steen]

I have found it important to understand we all speak in opinion.....every single one of us. One persons fact is another persons lie.....and to take it as anything other than opinion is to blind ourselves to information. It may very well turn out to be disproved, but that does not mean it need be ignored at the onset. I may not agree with Felicity on this issue....in fact I find the stance she holds rather opposed to my own reality....but that does not mean I have to ignore her....or you steen....even though much of our opinions on this are like.

Debate requires a difference of opinion....otherwise it is conversation.

Deliberate misrepresentation, outright misrepresentation, outright falsehoods, these are all lies. When I have posted with felicity, she has lied. There is no reason for me to endure such scumbag behavior. There is no 'debate" when the other side lies as much as felicity did.

And no, it was not on the "onset" either, despite your alleging so.

 

[Felicity]

Deliberate misrepresentation, outright misrepresentation, outright falsehoods, these are all lies. When I have posted with felicity, she has lied. There is no reason for me to endure such scumbag behavior. There is no 'debate" when the other side lies as much as felicity did.

And no, it was not on the "onset" either, despite your alleging so.

Still waiting for steen to cite my lies....:roll:

 

[thatguymd]

This is the question usually given to those that are prochoice: If given an identical situation only you replace a person (as you define it) with the fetus, would it be okay to abort?

The question assumes that the answer will be no and therefore causes one to differentiate between a person and a fetus. From everything you've posted it appears that the answer for you would be - the fetus requires bodily resources whereas the person does not (and you might even take it a step further saying that the question itself is flawed because a person can never require another's bodily resources against their will).

Due to this answer I then trust that you would be against abortion once the fetus is viable. Because at that state, labor can be induced and the child can live without the bodily resources.

I use the term burden as a more general category that includes bodily resources. Since the use of bodily resources is the only differentiation for the above question, it then poses the question - what is special about bodily resources over any other resource (financial, time, etc.)? A forceful use of many other resources can cause similar problems even to the body itself. So what makes the forceful use of bodily resources a reason to terminate human life. Because if bodily resources are not special then there is no way to differentiate the person from the fetus in the original question.

 

[tecoyah]

This is the question usually given to those that are prochoice: If given an identical situation only you replace a person (as you define it) with the fetus, would it be okay to abort?

The question assumes that the answer will be no and therefore causes one to differentiate between a person and a fetus. From everything you've posted it appears that the answer for you would be - the fetus requires bodily resources whereas the person does not (and you might even take it a step further saying that the question itself is flawed because a person can never require another's bodily resources against their will).

Due to this answer I then trust that you would be against abortion once the fetus is viable. Because at that state, labor can be induced and the child can live without the bodily resources.

I use the term burden as a more general category that includes bodily resources. Since the use of bodily resources is the only differentiation for the above question, it then poses the question - what is special about bodily resources over any other resource (financial, time, etc.)? A forceful use of many other resources can cause similar problems even to the body itself. So what makes the forceful use of bodily resources a reason to terminate human life. Because if bodily resources are not special then there is no way to differentiate the person from the fetus in the original question.

For myself...this would be relatively accurate, and in this I am fortunate. At around the same time the brain makes the needed connections to meet the bare minimum requirements for what some term human sentience. The ability(unlikely at this stage, but plausible) to think as a human would. For me this is the aspect of Human that differenciates us from our animal cousins, our brain. I am not a Vegan and so would be somewhat hypocritical if I were to use the standard Pro-Life argument of not taking life.....many years ago I felt the need to find out for myself what made us what we are......I decided upon the brain as the primary reason we are not mere animals.
I may very well be rationalizing this issue in my own mind....but I think we all do so to an extent. I simply decided to use the scientific approach to this rationalization, rather than the Biblical one.

 

[doughgirl]

“At the time of birth, induction of labor or normal labor is the only way to do it anyway. It merely results in a lie birth. Don't forget that the vast majority of all abortions happen in 1st trimester”


True………which is sad because the heart is still beating and the heart is purposely stopped so that the living unborn child dies.

Felicity you are so right when you said this…”BTW...be very leery of Steen’s genteel presentation here. A quick view of his posts will reveal what he's really like ’


He has said that is for allowing a child to be killed up until delivery, because it isn’t a baby.

Steen you said, “Abortion is the termination of pregnancy. IF there is an abortion at term, it is by induction. If the fetus is viable, then the result generally is a live birth.”

Don’t you know what the procedure is in a partial birth abortion?
The viable unborn child is pulled down far enough alive………then terminated of in barbaric ways. PBA is currently legal in almost the entire United States. The baby is alive when the PBA procedure is performed... dead after its over. So much for citizenship and liberty.
The truth is there are places a woman can go and have this done. You can dispose of a full term baby while still in the womb.

"We have some experience with late terminations... about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years." Dr. Tiller

Source: http://www.dr-tiller.com/their-own-words.htm

From a speech given by George R. Tiller at the National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting on April 2-4, 1995 in New Orleans, LA

You can even hear him say this and many more.


Thatguymd……..Steen puts LIBERTY above life. The woman’s liberty takes precedence over the unborns childs right to live. The child doesn’t have the right to live……..unless the womans allows it that right.

Steen says, “I have NEVER actually heard of an abortion at 37-38 weeks, f.ex., and certainly not that any such abortions resulted in death or dismemberment of the fetus. The oldest I have ever personally knowledge off was at 27 weeks, because the woman was dying.”

Did you go to that website I posted above? Now what do you have to say about late term abortions? No places to go get it done?

Liberty is Liberty Steen. You have said that the fetus is not a child until born and that it has no rights until that time. So whether it happens regularly or not isn’t the issue. You are for a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy until the child naturally decides for himself to be born.

 

[ngdawg]

Tiller's quotes don't reflect the numbers shown elsewhere of ALL or any late-term abortions, and he may very well be a liar. As quoted previously, approx 600 late term abortions in this country have been performed according to latest statistics found, and are done only as a last alternative, either in cases of severe fetal abnormalities or the woman's risk of health. If what he is doing is in fact, the truth, he is an unethical practitioner at least and probably breaking the law as well. In other words, he's NOT something that should be used to reflect the rest of the medical community but rather should be seen as an uncaring outlaw.
Taking one lame horse and comparing it to perfectly good riders certainly wouldn't be a fair comparison-neither is this.

 

[thatguymd]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see why stats matter in an abortion debate. How does knowing the percentage of the time that something happens make it any more right or wrong? Not to mention that people always manage to find stats to back their own side even when they are on opposite sides. The abortion issue should be based solely on the reasons that it is right or wrong.

It appears that everyone here can at least agree that late term abortions shouldn't be allowed and that a women's life being threatened is an acceptable exception to allow abortion.

Tecoyah - it appears that your basis for whether you can agree with an abortion is based on the brain (and also the above mentioned exception). You then call this the scientific approach rather than the Biblical one. Is it that unscientific to use DNA as the basis? DNA tells us right away that we have a human. While some may simply refer to it as nothing more than a blueprint it is the only thing that can disinquish us as unique and everything else develops based on DNA. Basing a decision on any other stage of development appears to be a slippery slope. A nervous system starts developing 16-23 days, brain waves come in 6-8 weeks, and the brain is not fully developed until years after birth. And no one knows when sentience really comes into play. So if someone asks you if it is okay to have an abortion and you want to be certain whether it is right or not and the brain is your basis, how can you answer? Do you need to be prior to 16 days to be certain?

Steen - please make sure you see my previous post. I was debating whether or not to post this because I didn't want you to accidently skip the previous post as a point-by-point disscusion is meant to address each point. This post was mostly for Tecoyah.

 

[tecoyah]

Tecoyah - it appears that your basis for whether you can agree with an abortion is based on the brain (and also the above mentioned exception). You then call this the scientific approach rather than the Biblical one. Is it that unscientific to use DNA as the basis? DNA tells us right away that we have a human. While some may simply refer to it as nothing more than a blueprint it is the only thing that can disinquish us as unique and everything else develops based on DNA. Basing a decision on any other stage of development appears to be a slippery slope. A nervous system starts developing 16-23 days, brain waves come in 6-8 weeks, and the brain is not fully developed until years after birth. And no one knows when sentience really comes into play. So if someone asks you if it is okay to have an abortion and you want to be certain whether it is right or not and the brain is your basis, how can you answer? Do you need to be prior to 16 days to be certain?

I do not agree that abortion is acceptable....to me. Had you actually looked at any of the multiple threads in this vien of debate you would know that. I also mentioned my rationalizing the brainfunction as a means to support the freedom of choice. Just because I do not think abortion is the descision for me....does not mean I am conceited enough, nor intellegent enough to make this descision for someone else. My issue is not the "Good vs. Bad" aspect....that is a dead end , as you likely know already....no one will ever sway anyone else. My stance revolves around Forcing others to do as I please. I find the Idea of limiting these option....distasteful. Just as I would find aborting my own child....Fortunately, the laws favor freedom of choice in this regard, and THAT I support.

 

[tryreading]

I am new and wanted to get some opposing viewpoints on this topic. I myself am prolife. I haven't had too much of a chance to try to see how another side might address this issue because in person debates appear to get heated very quickly and everyone talks past each other. I am hoping maybe a message board gives people more of a chance to think and calmly respond (don't feel put on the spot right away). Hopefully, we can give each other something to consider and think on and respond a few days later.

Anyway, here is my prolife argument:

I start with the baseline assumption that everyone agrees that infantcide is wrong. From here I am mostly curious where the line is drawn for those that are pro-choice. When you work backwards, is it okay right after the child is born? While in the birth canal? While the mom is in labor? Right before labor starts? etc, etc.

Once the line is drawn, why is it drawn in that place? What is different right after that line is crossed? Also, keep in mind that however you answer will be compared to killing regular people (i.e. if you determine that you can't kill the baby once it can feel pain, it will be pointed out that anyone can be killed in a manner so that they won't feel pain).

Most arguments I hear against prolife are the extreme cases. Such as what about rape cases and when the mother's life is in danger?

In the case of rape, I think that it abortion should still not be an option (I would still want to live if I was the product of my mother being raped) and that adoption should be the option given. Also, any court cases involving rape would include awarding the mother to be all the costs of carrying the child.

In the case of the mother's life being in danger, this is the only time when abortion is an option. You are weighing one life against another and you don't have any choice. If I only had time to rescue one of two people from a burning building it doesn't mean I advocate people dieing in burning buildings.

So that's my complete argument for now. At least until I'm given something else to consider.

Why don't you discuss one point at a time? Posting multiple points like this decreases the attention applied to each one. Notice how the discussion gets skewed? You have a good idea here, and seem reasonable, if misinformed.

 

[thatguymd]

Then what would make something wrong enough to outlaw? Every law put into place is "anti-choice" - it sets up a punishment for something we are trying to discourage. Do you agree that things such as stealing, etc. should be outlawed? There still has to be a reason that you believe it is acceptable for others to abort. What is that reason?

 

[doughgirl]

DAWG

You are a fine example. It wouldn't matter what information was presented to you... you would think it was a lie. If you went to the website, you could hear this man himself talk about abortion. There are places in this country where they will abort late term babies, his is only one. For you to make excuses is absolutely ridiculous.

This is a real man, who has a real abortion clinic. He has testified for many pro-choice organizations around this country. HE IS REAL AND HE EXISTS.
If you want to hide your head in the sand and pretend he does not then fine. But to say this doesn't go on is an outright lie.

 

[tryreading]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see why stats matter in an abortion debate. How does knowing the percentage of the time that something happens make it any more right or wrong? Not to mention that people always manage to find stats to back their own side even when they are on opposite sides. The abortion issue should be based solely on the reasons that it is right or wrong.

Why not learn the actual facts from both sides about the issue? Sounds like you want to base your opinion on what you know now, and don't see any reason to become more informed.

You know, as far as you are concerned, that abortion is wrong. Probably that won't change. But choosing to be weak on the legality and data doesn't help the discussion.

Knowing the percentage of fetuses that are aborted late term is important. If it is a small number, relatively, and done the majority of the time for health reasons, you should know that.

 

[tryreading]

Then what would make something wrong enough to outlaw? Every law put into place is "anti-choice" - it sets up a punishment for something we are trying to discourage. Do you agree that things such as stealing, etc. should be outlawed? There still has to be a reason that you believe it is acceptable for others to abort. What is that reason?

It is acceptable because the pregnant woman has the right to control her own body.

 

[tecoyah]

Then what would make something wrong enough to outlaw? Every law put into place is "anti-choice" - it sets up a punishment for something we are trying to discourage. Do you agree that things such as stealing, etc. should be outlawed? There still has to be a reason that you believe it is acceptable for others to abort. What is that reason?

Excellent question....and I had to think on it for awhile. I suppose it comes down to the Pro-Life movement. To be honest, I find the fundamentalist mindset disturbing, and this is the "Face" of the movement, regardless of the actual supporters. I have watched (and participated) in debate with these people for some time and have seen such blind hatred that I wish to be no part of anything they say. I guess I am less Pro-Choice....and More Anti Pro-Life.

Basically.....its not the Idea...its the people.

 

[tryreading]

In the interest of honest debate...:2wave: here are some facts from non-bias sources.....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1635748&dopt=Abstract
RESULTS: The procedure caused immediate cessation of fetal heart motion in 20 of 21 cases. There were no maternal complications. No fetuses were live-born. CONCLUSIONS: Direct fetal intracardiac potassium chloride injection effectively causes immediate fetal cardiac arrest. This approach may be adopted in cases of abortion by labor-induction methods at advanced gestations to ensure that the abortus is stillborn.

Fetal intracardiac potassium chloride injection to avoid the hopeless resuscitation of an abnormal abortus: I. Clinical issues.

Above is the title of the paper you cited.

'...hopeless resuscitation of an abnormal abortus...' This indicates to me a last resort situation. Not common, done for an important reason. Definitely not a 'convenience' type of abortion. Its done in very few cases, right?

 

[doughgirl]

Thatguymd said, “The abortion issue should be based solely on the reasons that it is right or wrong.”

I agree totally. :smile: But it’s not that easy. It’s easy for someone with morals who has a sense of what is right and wrong but for others its not so cut and dry.

”It appears that everyone here can at least agree that late term abortions shouldn't be allowed and that a women's life being threatened is an acceptable exception to allow abortion.”

You are wrong. There are many here who think abortion at any time is fine. That the “Liberty” of the woman is more important than the right to”LIFE” of an unborn child. To them the woman has the right at any time to terminate.

You said something that is so true. “DNA tells us right away that we have a human. While some may simply refer to it as nothing more than a blueprint it is the only thing that can disinquish us as unique and everything else develops based on DNA. Basing a decision on any other stage of development appears to be a slippery slope.”


Tecoyah said, “Just because I do not think abortion is the descision for me....does not mean I am conceited enough, nor intellegent enough to make this descision for someone else. My issue is not the "Good vs. Bad" aspect....that is a dead end , as you likely know already....no one will ever sway anyone else. My stance revolves around Forcing others to do as I please. I find the Idea of limiting these option....distasteful. Just as I would find aborting my own child....Fortunately, the laws favor freedom of choice in this regard, and THAT I support.”

I do not believe that people can’t be swayed to change their opinion about abortion. I am an example of that because my opinion changed. I do not force anyone and neither does any other pro-lifer to change. You say you find the idea of limiting options distasteful. And the dismemberment of the unborn, what do you find that? Do you find it acceptable?You must because in you do nothing to try to stop it.

Obviously you’re a relativist. You believe that no fact is in all times and places true. And what is true for you, is not necessarily true for me. So while you think abortion is wrong for you, its right for someone else. So where are the facts… the truth in abortion? Doesn’t medical science and the knowledge it tells and teaches us make a difference? Should it? Because we pro-lifers present facts here backed up by the medical community and your side doesn’t get it. Is it all just opinion to the pro-choice side?
Because relativism implies that the pursuit of any truth is an excersize in futility and it clearly entails the obliteration of all knowledge, including scientific, moral and historical truth.

Question….Moral relativism maintains that there are no moral absolutes, no objective ethical right and wrong. Moral values are right for some but not for others. Would you agree that this about sums up the pro-choice side? ( Sleeping with the boss, adultery, stealing…..only is wrong if you think or feel it is wrong.)

 

[thatguymd]

tecoyah - I guess we've hit a stopping point. I can't say I agree with you but I now have a full understanding of your personal point of view. There isn't much I can say to make you like the people any more than you currently do. I don't think your decision should be based on that but I can definitely understand where you are coming from. People on both sides of every political debate (social issues in particular) can get a bit ugly. I can only hope that you see me as at least one small step above them. Thank you for your input.

tryreading - You tell me my original post was misinformed but didn't tell me why, you said it skewed the discussion but didn't show how, and told me that certain stats are important to know but didn't mention why. No matter how much or how little something happens, it is just as wrong. If we get crime rates to go down enough should we get rid of laws? As for your remaining post...please just respond to the question on my post on the top of page four.

 

[tecoyah]

Tecoyah said, “Just because I do not think abortion is the descision for me....does not mean I am conceited enough, nor intellegent enough to make this descision for someone else. My issue is not the "Good vs. Bad" aspect....that is a dead end , as you likely know already....no one will ever sway anyone else. My stance revolves around Forcing others to do as I please. I find the Idea of limiting these option....distasteful. Just as I would find aborting my own child....Fortunately, the laws favor freedom of choice in this regard, and THAT I support.”

I do not believe that people can’t be swayed to change their opinion about abortion. I am an example of that because my opinion changed. I do not force anyone and neither does any other pro-lifer to change. You say you find the idea of limiting options distasteful. And the dismemberment of the unborn, what do you find that? Do you find it acceptable?You must because in you do nothing to try to stop it.

Obviously you’re a relativist. You believe that no fact is in all times and places true. And what is true for you, is not necessarily true for me. So while you think abortion is wrong for you, its right for someone else. So where are the facts… the truth in abortion? Doesn’t medical science and the knowledge it tells and teaches us make a difference? Should it? Because we pro-lifers present facts here backed up by the medical community and your side doesn’t get it. Is it all just opinion to the pro-choice side?
Because relativism implies that the pursuit of any truth is an excersize in futility and it clearly entails the obliteration of all knowledge, including scientific, moral and historical truth.

Question….Moral relativism maintains that there are no moral absolutes, no objective ethical right and wrong. Moral values are right for some but not for others. Would you agree that this about sums up the pro-choice side? ( Sleeping with the boss, adultery, stealing…..only is wrong if you think or feel it is wrong.)

I have purposefully avoided interaction with you doughgirl. but this requires a response. You may wish to view me as a relativist....that is fine, though incorrect. Please do not attempt to define what I am....or I may be tempted to do so as well, this would not be pretty. I would not agree with your assumption, or definition of pro-choice, but that is simply my opinion. You seem to have a habit of taking what is typed and extrapolating your own thoughts into the text.....which makes communication with you less than appealing to me. Lets just leave it at that shall we.

 

[tryreading]

In the interest of honest debate...:2wave: here are some facts from non-bias sources.....
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...orten).doc+potassium+injection+abortion&hl=en
However, in case in which the parents have elected abortion, the intent is to prevent the delivery of a live-born neonate. Some neonatologists believe that once any potentially viable neonate is separated from its mother, it is independent and thus requires resuscitation regardless of maternal intent. With the intention of preventing the attendant medical, ethical, and legal problems arising from the birth of live-born, anomalous foetuses, intracardiac potassium chloride injection is used to assure stillbirth in the setting of medical abortion late in pregnancy.
[/COLOR]

From the above:

Termination of pregnancy when the unborn child has Spina Bifida and/or Hydrocephalus. An overview on international literature.
Dr. Carla Verpoorten

Due to rapidly growing developments in prenatal diagnosis, with which treatment methods do not as yet keep step, an initially welcome pregnancy may become unwanted if a severe, incurable disease or handicap is detected. It then depends on the moment of detection, which for several reasons may be not before the third trimester, whether or not, under the standing Abortion Act in the country concerned, an abortion is still allowed

(The bolded phrase by author of paper)

Not pretty or desirable, but at least there is a real medical reason for the abortion.

 

[ngdawg]

DAWG

You are a fine example. It wouldn't matter what information was presented to you... you would think it was a lie. If you went to the website, you could hear this man himself talk about abortion. There are places in this country where they will abort late term babies, his is only one. For you to make excuses is absolutely ridiculous.

This is a real man, who has a real abortion clinic. He has testified for many pro-choice organizations around this country. HE IS REAL AND HE EXISTS.
If you want to hide your head in the sand and pretend he does not then fine. But to say this doesn't go on is an outright lie.

I didn't say he DID lie nor did I say he didn't exist. What I said was, in checking FURTHER, the numbers dispute his own.
Which brings me to the crux of the matter: unlike you and many others, I take NOTHING at face value posted in these forums as they are completely biased to reflect the views of the poster. Now, that is not to say I don't do that entirely, but, when an anti-choice post or source is made, I go to what will oppose it. I have posted anti-choice sites and stats and pro-choice-whatever is in direct opposition of the quote. Don't put words where I did not-that's insulting to me and shows YOU don't follow through; in other words, you're wasting time. I fully expect one to look up information posted, but obviously, I hold myself to a higher standard. I take it ALL as BS until I see both sides.

 

[tryreading]

tryreading - You tell me my original post was misinformed but didn't tell me why, you said it skewed the discussion but didn't show how, and told me that certain stats are important to know but didn't mention why. No matter how much or how little something happens, it is just as wrong. If we get crime rates to go down enough should we get rid of laws? As for your remaining post...please just respond to the question on my post on the top of page four.

As far as misinformed, you discussed infanticide, for instance, which doesn't have anything to do with abortion.

I didn't say you skewed the discussion, but that the discussion gets skewed by talking multiple points. If it seemed derogatory, that wasn't my intention.

Data and legality and illegality are important to the issue, were critical to Roe v Wade. I shouldn't need to tell you why you should be well informed on the subject of the thread you started.

This thread has exploded, and I'm trying to read it all, so please ask your question again.

 

[steen]

This is the question usually given to those that are prochoice: If given an identical situation only you replace a person (as you define it) with the fetus, would it be okay to abort?

Yes. The status of the fetus is irrelevant. Since no person has the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will, it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a person or not. It doesn't matter whether the embryo is a person or not. It doesn't matter whether the zygote isa person or not.

A person STILL doesn't have the right to take another person's bodily resources against their will. The status of the mebryo or fetus is frankly utterly irrelevant.

The question assumes that the answer will be no and therefore causes one to differentiate between a person and a fetus.

presumption overruled. persons' can't use other persons' bodily resources against their will

From everything you've posted it appears that the answer for you would be - the fetus requires bodily resources whereas the person does not (and you might even take it a step further saying that the question itself is flawed because a person can never require another's bodily resources against their will).

I indeed toook it a step further. A person CERTAINLY can require bodily resources. A person bleeding to death or dying from kidney failure very much needs your bodily resources for survival. yet, you can not be forced to give them.

Due to this answer I then trust that you would be against abortion once the fetus is viable.

Nope. I would say that the fetus, if viable, should be delivered alive if possible. But abortions, certainly after voiability are aboiut medical decisions, not political ones. So at that point, after the woman has been pregnant for many months, the issue is the health of her and the fetus, as Roe vs Wade outlined.

Abortions after viability are not about "Oh, should I go and have an abortion today after my manicure?" Such implication is dishonets hyperbole.

Because at that state, labor can be induced and the child can live without the bodily resources.

And thus, that would be an appropriate method of terminating the pregnancy.

I use the term burden as a more general category that includes bodily resources.

And also a whole lot more that does NOT apply. You deliberately over-generalize and try to then extrapolate into overly general and non-applicable situations. Yes, I noticed that. I don't accept your argument. It is unrealistic andinvalid "slippery-slope" stuff.

Since the use of bodily resources is the only differentiation for the above question, it then poses the question - what is special about bodily resources over any other resource (financial, time, etc.)?

the difference is slavery.

A forceful use of many other resources can cause similar problems even to the body itself.

But is always avoidable, there is always a choice.

So what makes the forceful use of bodily resources a reason to terminate human life.

That it is illegal. Until you also have a law that allows the use of YOUR bodily resources againbst your will to save a life, you are saying that such an argument is valid. As long as you insist on being able to refuse to give your kidney to somebody dyingfrom kidney failure, you are supporting the prochoice argument regarding bodily resources. Until prolife becomes consistent in their argument, they seem merely as hypocrites who want to dump a burden of their unique moral schema onto the woman without any cost to themselves. We have had arguments about that in the past with accusations of misogyny, hypocricy, cowardness etc as descriptors. I hope you can see why?

Because if bodily resources are not special then there is no way to differentiate the person from the fetus in the original question.

Agreed. But then, bodily resources ARE special. You yourself feel they are special enough that you don't want to be forced to give YOUR bodily resources against your will. You don't want YOUR daughter to be forced to give blood against her will.

I do thank you for your post, though. very rarely does any abortion discussion reach this point.