Real simple:

[jallman]

....this is where I play one of my vavoret cards.....



Things like this:


Source.

PC arguments are all about changing the name and misrepresenting the fetus to be something less than it is out of some mistaken notion that da-man is out to control you.

…just a sign of the times….

Grossly misrepresented. I am no expert on fetal development or its particular nomenclature, but I am pretty sure that definition clarification has something to do with the division from 4 to 8 cells. I will have to look into this a little more though, but I seem to remember a professor talking about that at one time.

Heh, both PL and PC avoid facts...good thing I'm neither

I'm just so sick of the hype that when someone tosses in something...oh I don't know...an implication that any regulation of abortion will lead women to use wire hangers (elbow, elbow), I'll just say something like how I'll be happy to volunteer my time to hand out wire hangers to all women who want them, but I charge for 911 calls.

The implication was actually an example and you would do well to learn that lest you find yourself eating foot. History shows that when abortion is denied to women, "back alley and coat hanger" (notice the concession of using the quotes just to avoid your proclivity for conveniently defaulting to the "technical" when it will obfuscate a point) abortions will be the alternative and that women will seek them out...and women will die for it.

If HB1293 goes through I'll donate a few cases of wire hangers to the local PP...oh wait...here in the land of moral superiority all PP clinics got cast out and replaced with tax-free Indian casinos....well I'll just have to hand them out at the local high school next time they pass out condoms.

I am not even sure how to respond to this monstrous statement. It really is more about punishing a woman for having sex than it is about saving a baby with you people, isn't it? So much for the PL camp being the compassionate camp. :doh

Her body, her choice, right? Who am I to tell her she shouldn't stuff a hanger in her ****.

...it's like a piercing...only not.....

I guess it must be a blessing to be able to laugh at your own jokes...

 

[1069]

I am not even sure how to respond to this monstrous statement. It really is more about punishing a woman for having sex than it is about saving a baby with you people, isn't it?

There's never been a doubt in my mind.
Ever since I first learned of this monstrous movement, that much has been obvious to me.
It's about hatred of women, and fear of women gaining equity, power, and status in this society.
And that applies to prolifers whether they are male or female.

Their true motive has always been obvious to me, but at this point it's inconceivable that it wouldn't be obvious to everyone. It's blatant.
What other motive could there be for a proposed abortion ban with a rape exception, other than to punish women for engaging in consensual sex with loss of human rights, specifically the right to bodily sovereignty?

I think they're in for a large and unpleasant surprise, though, if they think the American public is onboard for any such thing.

 

[talloulou]

I don't hate women. I hate the idea of abortion as I think it is a misguided choice. I'm not interested in punishing anyone for having sex. I just don't view the "unborn" as "punishment."

 

[FutureIncoming]

such PC arguments rely heavily on the strictest of medical definitions.

Hmmmm... I was consulting with "cell biologists". It is remotely possible that they and the medical professions are using different definitions for "organism" (because each specialty in Science does indeed have a specialized vocabulary), but I tend to doubt it.

The glory in our argument is that the PC biological argument itself proves PC in error when it comes to determining what a legal "person" is, as the definitions line right up in a clear, logical way...

FALSE. Because of the equivocation you have used to pretend that "organism" equals "person". ESPECIALLY FALSE since a "person" does not have to be a member of a species; it can be an Artificial Intelligence, for example.

..and the best part of it that I see is that it took me no effort to see and toss this little road block in your way.

Silly, it seldom takes effort to mis-use the language.

Only now by trying to change the word used can you yourself see anyway out. You're trying to dodge the bullet, which tells me that something other than biological facts drives your view on the matter, which is fine, but that truth now forever divorces you from any claim that you hold the view that you do based only on scientific fact, and that you have some other bias in play.

AGAIN FALSE. Biological nomenclature clearly does not allow the word "organism" to be applied to the average cell that helps to make up an overall multicellular organism, yet that cell is nevertheless both biological and alive, just like the overall organism. Dare you deny that??? Therefore I have no choice but to seek an alternate word or phrase, to encompass both categories of living thing, if I want to discuss them "en masse" as similar things --and since you seem to be saying that lots of pro-choicers want to lump together as similar, many different types of living things, it would logically behoove them, also, to seek an alternative to "organism". By the way, you may recall that on many occasions I have compared unborn humans to other organism-equivalents such as mosquitoes, flies, rats, parasites, and so on --and none of that is affected by what we are now talking about here.

Having a bias is a poison to the mind of a PCer's world view, because they so slam PL for having such things that to now be found to have the same things in themselves as they so persecuted in others is for every hateful word PC has ever spoken to now apply to themselves, which is hypocrisy at it's finest.

Which does not apply to me, and which does apply to you, who have been proven to be a hypocrite, at the very least until you reply to the last parts of Msg #444.

Me personally, biology doesn't form my view on the matter at all, so no biology argument could ever sway me, so it doesn't matter what new words you want to use.

Since you are a proven hypocrite, that does not surprise me at all.

I'm just happy to see the PC argument fall on it's face. It's personally very satisfying to see a thing which I have endured so much flame for not signing onto just fail. It is truly a joy to see that you and others can not answer the challenge over "organism".

So? Besides your wanting to equivocate, why do you need to use that word in particular, instead of a more generic phrase, such as "living thing"? If you cannot answer this, then your challenge, phrased to include "organism", becomes irrelevant!

 

[FutureIncoming]

For me the fact that the embryo is an organism proves that it is A human (noun) and even if you don't feel that those particular humans have a right to life you should at the very least respect that they are in fact different than other pieces of flesh such as a colon or an appendix.

Heh, I forgot to ask those cell biologists about taking such a piece of flesh and causing it to regenerate into a whole true organism. If the cells have the ability, then why are they denied the label? (Probably because it is only potential, and not actualized, of course.) In my case, though, it doesn't really matter, since the word "animal" is the key to my position. Animal cells, animal flesh, animal organism, big deal. None of them is a PERSON. Persons are minds, not bodies. And if you disagree (this is for you, too, Jerry!), then let me see your answer to Question #3 in Msg #296!

I don't mind arguing the rights/wrongs of abortion but I do take great offense at the dehumanizing aspects used by many prochoicers as well as the great strives they take in order to make it appear as if an embryo or fetus is no different from say a "severed wrist." Clinically, scientifically, biologically, and technically embryos are different and the assertion that they are the same as any other clump of flesh is an intellectual fallacy and distorts as well as muddles the debate ...

You are partly right and partly wrong, there. You are correct in that an organism is in a class by itself; the definition says so! But you are wrong in that this particular organism is UNDEVELOPED; for most of a pregnancy it cannot properly be compared to even a newborn baby. Remember that it takes six months before the brain connects to the spine, so how can the fetus feel pain if the pain signals can't reach the brain? Therefore, during the first two trimesters, how is slicing up a fetus any different from slicing up a hand after it has been severed?

... {{debate}} on whether or not it should be okay to take the life of a human in utero.

It is because of the preceding (among other reasons) that I recommend that any abortions, if they are to be done, be done as early in a pregnancy as possible. In the last trimester, well, the fetus is still exhibiting survival behavior indistinguishable from that of a parasite. It is still a killable animal, not a person. But because its nervous system is largely functional at a basic level (and pain signals are certainly basic), then if abortion is to be done in this time period, it should be done in as quick and painless way as can be managed, exactly as we try to do for any other well-developed animal that we kill.

 

[talloulou]

3. "We almost have the technology to cut someone's head off and keep both pieces alive for years. If this happens to some normal adult human person, and the parts are widely separated, then do you think that the 'person' will thereafter be associated with the head, because of the very capable brain, or with the mere animal body? --and based on the answer to that, should brain-dead humans on life-support be called persons, and why should any humans having no more than animal-class brains be called persons?"

Since this technology and all that it entails is futuristic it's rather impossible to fathom now what might happen in such situations.

I assume a headless body is much like a car without an engine unless some computerized head replaces the organic one. I can't imagine why we'd keep a headless person alive unless we were keeping the parts warm for use by someone else. If the headless body is given some sort of software that operates in an artificial intellegence manner than I suppose it would be conceivable to fight for the "personhood" of such a being.

Now as for the head part obviously if the head is alive and can be given another body or a mechanical body and if the head maintains "awareness" and brain function than I can certainly see the arguments continuing personhood for that being as well.

However I don't see how any of this relates in anyway to an embryo as that is an organism that when aborted has it's development arrested and life terminated. It is quite reasonable to argue that a being on life support who will never be capable of much of a life and has no brain waves should be terminated. This is quite different from an embryo, an organism that only lacks sufficient brain capabilities because it is young and has not yet fully developed but if unmolested will more likely than not have brain capabilities comparable to healthy able bodied persons. A terminally ill person on life support with no brain capability is not comparable to a new developing fetal human. One is easily dismissed as life without merit while the other just needs time to grow.

 

[Jerry]

Grossly misrepresented. I am no expert on fetal development or its particular nomenclature, but I am pretty sure that definition clarification has something to do with the division from 4 to 8 cells. I will have to look into this a little more though, but I seem to remember a professor talking about that at one time.

Okay, it disagrees with you and so you don't like it.
Nothing new.

The implication was actually an example and you would do well to learn that lest you find yourself eating foot. History shows that when abortion is denied to women, "back alley and coat hanger" (notice the concession of using the quotes just to avoid your proclivity for conveniently defaulting to the "technical" when it will obfuscate a point) abortions will be the alternative and that women will seek them out...and women will die for it.

The wire hanger argument bears no merit as those are caused always and only by PC women, so the problem lays with them.

I am not even sure how to respond to this monstrous statement. It really is more about punishing a woman for having sex than it is about saving a baby with you people, isn't it? So much for the PL camp being the compassionate camp.

The PL camp? I wouldn't know, I'm not PL.

I wouldn't be taking a hanger to anyone's body, so I'm not the one who will be taking blame for the wire hangers.

If a woman injures of kills herself because she used a wire hanger to abort her own child when there was no medical reason to do so nor legal excuse to receive an abortion legally, she got what she knowingly gave herself.

...and yeah, I come from the breed of person who was like my driver's ed teacher in high school: Having become tired of oh-poor-me stories from teenagers trying, but failing, to kill themselves on his shift as an emt, he maid it a point to tell every student in his class that if their going to try to slit their wrists to remember "it's down the road, not across the street". If your going to kill yourself, do it right, succeed and die so I don't have to hear your crap.

I'm just so sick of the hype I don't care about being perceived as compassionate or not, I need to let go my dry, morbid sense of hummer just so my head doesn't explode.

 

[OKgrannie]

....

Source.

PC arguments are all about changing the name and misrepresenting the fetus to be something less than it is out of some mistaken notion that da-man is out to control you.

It seems PL is fairly proficient at that as well...


Emergency Contraception ("Morning After Pill"): birth control or abortifacient?

"The historical record shows that there has been a consensus among physicians for many decades that pregnancy begins at implantation."

"The Fundamentalist Christian organization, Family Research Council (FRC), accuses what they call the "Contraception and abortion industries" of deliberately confounding "the events of female fertility for self-serving reasons. For example, they attempt to redefine the beginning of pregnancy: They claim that pregnancy starts upon implantation of the embryonic human being, rather than when the new life is created at fertilization." 2 The historical record shows that there has been a consensus among physicians for many decades that pregnancy begins at implantation. It is only religious conservatives, and then only recently, who have redefined it as occurring at conception. "

 

[Jerry]

It seems PL is fairly proficient at that as well...

Ah so you have now accepted the premise that PC is trying to change the vocabulary and now only seek to show that PL is just as evil as PC is.

Fine, no contest.

 

[OKgrannie]

This paper is from 1970, but the attitude is commonly 2007.

Is Pregnancy Really Normal?


It would appear, however, that a more basic reason for this ambivalence is that most physicians accept, implicitly or explicitly, the widely shared teleological definition of a female as essentially a reproductive machine. One physician has suggested that woman be defined as "a uterus surrounded by a supporting organism and a directing personality." Adherence to this perspective clearly tends to inhibit critical examination of the corollary assumption that human pregnancy is not only a "normal" but is an especially desirable event from the viewpoint of woman's physiological, psychological and social functioning, and that failure (or, worse, refusal) to become or remain pregnant is, therefore, pathological. In this context, it is not surprising that even the major textbooks of obstetrics pay little or no attention to how a woman feels when she is pregnant, how she feels after an abortion, whether she regarded her pregnancy as normal or desirable.

 

[OKgrannie]

Ah so you have now accepted the premise that PC is trying to change the vocabulary and now only seek to show that PL is just as evil as PC is.

Fine, no contest.

I accept that everyone uses semantics to further his point of view, the point here is that it is PRO-LIFE that is attempting to change the definition of pregnancy...and then accuses pro-choice of doing it.

 

[FutureIncoming]

{{Quoting:}}

This decades old controversy revolves around the definition of a single word: conception.

Up until the mid sixties, the question of the beginning of pregnancy wasn't a subject of serious debate. It was well accepted, based upon sound science, that, that conception occurred at fertilization (that is, the union of sperm and egg).

It was also accepted that anything which prevented implantation in fact caused an abortion, as recognized by the US Government and described in a 1963 public health service leaflet:

"All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote [newly created human] at any time between the instant of fertilization [union of sperm and egg] and the completion of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion" [1]

This acknowledgement posed a problem for the family planning movement which was moving away from "pure" contraceptives and more towards drugs which also caused early abortions by preventing implantation of a newly created human being. The only way to make these drugs legally and morally acceptable to the general public was to change the definition of conception.

This is where the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) stepped in. In 1965 the ACOG issued a medical bulletin which "officially" changed the definition of conception from union of sperm and egg to implantation: "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum [egg].” [2]

Suddenly, under this new definition, drugs which were recognized as abortifacients now only prevented pregnancy – and could now be called contraceptives.

Duh, if they are talking about redefining "conception", why are they calling it a redefining of "pregnancy"???

I think I've mentioned elsewhere that different specialties use different specialized vocabularies. Heh, has anyone here recently looked up the industrial definition of "impregnation" (#3 at this link)? Or, in same vocabulary, #3 at this link for "abort"?
It seems to me that that 1963 "strict" government definition of abortion is closely related to the industrial version. That is, fertilization starts a process, and abortion ends it. For consistency, therefore, and heh, heh, heh, "pregnancy" should be defined as beginning when the initial empty space in the womb has been filled up, and it must start expanding to accommodate further growth of the fetus. That's normally a month or more after fertilization, I think.... And as for "conception" (#2b at this link), again striving for consistency, ROTFLMAO, that doesn't happen at all, until a couple decides they want a baby! No matter how many pregnancies happen first!

OK, that was fun, and actually I got sidetracked from the real beef I have with that "redefining pregnancy" quote. SEE, they accept this: "zygote [newly created human]" from the Goverment leaflet, and then they say: "newly created human being". Tsk, tsk! I believe the appropriate quote is:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Hypocrites!

 

[talloulou]

This paper is from 1970, but the attitude is commonly 2007.

Is Pregnancy Really Normal?


It would appear, however, that a more basic reason for this ambivalence is that most physicians accept, implicitly or explicitly, the widely shared teleological definition of a female as essentially a reproductive machine.

There are two ways to read that. The first way would be believing that the majority of doctors in the 70's viewed women as ONLY reproductive machines. Clearly that's total rot and nonsense. However females are naturally reproductive machines in that they are the ones that house and carry all offspring until said offspring is developed enough to be born. You can take that fact and make little of it or much of it but what you can't do is deny it.

As for the rest of that article I don't know what the hell to make of it. Is something that bleeds for a week and doesn't die normal? I've been doing that every month for years and years. Obviously since I spend 3 weeks not bleeding and one week bleeding the bleeding is very abnormal. It also comes with many symptoms including bloating, blood, irritability, back aches, headaches, and less tolerance for crap posts. Yet doctors assure me that my monthly cycle is quite normal!

Is that because they widely hold the view that women are essentially bleeding machines? :rofl

 

[OKgrannie]

Obviously since I spend 3 weeks not bleeding and one week bleeding the bleeding is very abnormal. It also comes with many symptoms including bloating, blood, irritability, back aches, headaches, and less tolerance for crap posts. Yet doctors assure me that my monthly cycle is quite normal.

You have my sympathy and maybe this will cheer you up...it won't last forever, and then you get hot flashes.

 

[FutureIncoming]

You need to know that Fii denies the Right to Life even in the face of the DoI, the Constitution, the 14th. and all the body of case law supporting it; so even if you did prove that a ZEF was a "person" to Fii, it wouldn't make any difference.

YOU NEED TO GET IT RIGHT, Jerry. I do not deny that Right to Life exists as a legal fiction. I merely deny that it is any part of the Natural World, because there is no evidence in favor of such an assertion. Not one iota of evidence exists in favor of the assertion that there is something Natural about "Right to Life". Humans living on Mt. Saint Helens didn't have any "right to life", as far as Nature was concerned, and that's just one of uncounted examples. Furthermore, I recognize that the legal-fiction Right-to-Life only applies to persons and not to animals, so if you could prove that a ZBEF was a person, then I would accept the logical consequences. So far, however, you have no such proof; every argument presented so far depends on inadequate data (Ignorance) and/or invalid data (Lies) and/or Bad Logic and/or Prejudice and/or Hypocrisy. Which is why the arguments all fail to be valid.

 

[talloulou]

You have my sympathy and maybe this will cheer you up...it won't last forever, and then you get hot flashes.

I wasn't really trying to get your sympathy. I was being funny. Though I do believe my assertion that menstruating is abnormal is about as credible as the idea that pregnancy is abnormal. I felt I matched the hysterical level that the article you posted rose to point for point. No? ''

It at least made you laugh though, right?

You can't seriously believe Drs. today or in the 70's viewed women as breeding machines only working properly when pregnant? That's positively too ridiculous.

 

[FutureIncoming]

It is fun but the prochoice argument hardly really falls on its face because it's not as if any women having abortions actually believe they are carrying something other than a developing human in their womb. They all know that terminating the life of a fetus is morally different (notice I'm saying morally different and not right or worng) than say having surgery to remove a gallbladder.

On the other hand, it is not morally different from swatting a mosquito, or having a tapeworm removed, or seeking treatment for malaria.
Furthermore, if you accept this:

an organism {{is}} an individual at the species level ... the basic unit on which natural selection operates to drive ... species evolution

You might ask yourself "How does Natural Selection operate on a fetus?" Even in a primitive social structure, such as the Era in which everyone was Feral, the fetus is in an environment very isolated from ordinary Natural Selection, surrounded by barriers of womb, protecting mother, other helping women, and guardian men, in that order. (Naughty joke: So this is why men seek to return as near to a womb as possible!)

Anyway, sneaky question: If the fetus isn't being operated upon by Natural Selection, then in what way does it fully qualify as an "organism"? See why I used that word UNDEVELOPED in another Message?

 

[FutureIncoming]

I don't hate women. I hate the idea of abortion as I think it is a misguided choice. I'm not interested in punishing anyone for having sex. I just don't view the "unborn" as "punishment."

Nevertheless, by working to force unwanted pregnancies to be carried to term, you are indeed working to make unborn humans into a punishment. As a simple example, I hear that most pregnant women, toward the end, suffer backaches and constant trips to the bathroom (reduced bladder size). If such things were deliberately inflicted upon some prisoner, would not they be called "punishments"?

 

[OKgrannie]

You can't seriously believe Drs. today or in the 70's viewed women as breeding machines only working properly when pregnant? That's positively too ridiculous.

I do believe that many believe that a woman's main purpose in life is reproducing. That's pretty close.

 

[1069]

I do believe that many believe that a woman's main purpose in life is reproducing. That's pretty close.

There are several primary functions ascribed to females by society; maternity and motherhood is one of them. Sexuality is another.
Oddly, both tradition and common wisdom dictate that the two functions are to be kept separate (madonna/whore complex, anyone?).

Traditionally, both our culture and most others do not condone women who desire other roles than these, or other roles in addition to these.

Men, on the other hand, can be anything, on the basis of personal merit.
Their sex is not believed to preclude them from performing any function they wish, in this society... except, of course, that of motherhood; but the role of a modern-day father is identical in most respects. The only difference is that men are thought to be capable of being parents, even single parents or primary custodians... and still being a whole hell of a lot more. Unlike women, who are expected to fill a life with childrearing responsibilities that are, in the end, 90% drudgery and menial tasks that any child, chimpanzee, or mentally disabled person could adequately perform.

Women can be mothers and still be more.
In the end, women who are more- who do not derive their sole sense of purpose in life from their children or identify themselves solely in relation to their husbands and children- often make better mothers, in my humble and admittedly biased opinion.

 

[FutureIncoming]

3. "We almost have the technology to cut someone's head off and keep both pieces alive for years. If this happens to some normal adult human person, and the parts are widely separated, then do you think that the 'person' will thereafter be associated with the head, because of the very capable brain, or with the mere animal body? --and based on the answer to that, should brain-dead humans on life-support be called persons, and why should any humans having no more than animal-class brains be called persons?"

Since this technology and all that it entails is futuristic it's rather impossible to fathom now what might happen in such situations.

Nonsense. Heads separated from bodies, and interactions that followed (not always as described in the quote from #296), have existed in science fiction scenarios since "Frankenstein". It is widely accepted that the "person" is associated with the head -- and more precisely, the brain (see original Star Trek episode, "The Gamesters of Triskelion"). About the only story I know, where the body seems to have some part of the overall personality, is a children's fantasy, not science fiction, "Ozma of Oz" (search for "There is no ruler", and have fun reading what follows it).

I assume a headless body is much like a car without an engine unless some computerized head replaces the organic one.

Just to keep the body alive, the task is much simpler than that. Besides obvious sealing issues, the carotid artery needs to be connected to the jugular vein. The throat needs to be "intubed" to ensure easy air flow (filtered air, of course), with some sort of valve to keep food and water from going down the wrong pipe. And nervous-system signals need to be transmitted to heart and lungs, and probably some other organs, like the stomach. Here's a slightly less drastic thing that has actually happened.

I can't imagine why we'd keep a headless person alive unless we were keeping the parts warm for use by someone else. If the headless body is given some sort of software that operates in an artificial intellegence manner than I suppose it would be conceivable to fight for the "personhood" of such a being.

Agreed, but that is not what the question in #296 was about. It was only about "where is the person?", when head is separated widely from body.

Now as for the head part obviously if the head is alive and can be given another body or a mechanical body and if the head maintains "awareness" and brain function than I can certainly see the arguments continuing personhood for that being as well.

Technically, keeping the head alive is much harder than keeping the body alive. Oxygenated blood has to be provided. Lots of it; about 25% of the normal blood supply leaving the heart goes straight to the mere 3-pound brain. And this blood needs to contain lots of organic fuel, too; the brain is constantly using that oxygenated blood to burn various sugars to have the energy to do its work. Also, if moist air is hissingly pumped into the cut esophagus, it will exit through the mouth/nose, and an awake brain will still have control over mouth and tongue muscles in the head--the decapitated person will be probably able to talk in a weak whisper. Talking could be vastly improved with foresight, making the slice through the neck below the larynx. This will leave no doubt in any other person's mind, as to where the person is!

However I don't see how any of this relates in anyway to an embryo as that is an organism that when aborted has it's development arrested and life terminated. It is quite reasonable to argue that a being on life support who will never be capable of much of a life and has no brain waves should be terminated.

Certainly there is not at this time any significant rationale for keeping the mindless body alive, as you already wrote above.

This is quite different from an embryo, an organism that only lacks sufficient brain capabilities because it is young and has not yet fully developed

Please do not confuse the actual with the potential. The whole point is that if the fetus is up-until-some-moment mindless ("lacking a person-class mind"), then it cannot possibly until-that-moment be a person. All it is, is a body. Period. (Now do you see why I have constructed this scenario?) And it is a well-measured fact that the fetus possesses at most, even at birth, only an animal-class mind.

but if unmolested will more likely than not have brain capabilities comparable to healthy able bodied persons.

This is true, but not inherently necessary --especially in an overpopulated world. And so that's why they can be aborted when unwanted.

A terminally ill person on life support with no brain capability is not comparable to a new developing fetal human. One is easily dismissed as life without merit while the other just needs time to grow.

So you are saying that the first has no potential, while the second has some potential. But you are not saying why that potential MUST be fulfilled. And until you or other pro-lifers can explain why that potential MUST be fulfilled, you have no reason to say that the unwanted unborn MUST instead be wanted. Simple.

 

[talloulou]

Please do not confuse the actual with the potential. The whole point is that if the fetus is up-until-some-moment mindless ("lacking a person-class mind"), then it cannot possibly until-that-moment be a person. All it is, is a body. Period. (Now do you see why I have constructed this scenario?) And it is a well-measured fact that the fetus possesses at most, even at birth, only an animal-class mind.

As you've admitted before even born babies are lacking a person class mind yet their lives are given value and protection anyway. And there is no magic moment when a relatively new human suddenly morphs into a being wtih a "person class mind." The process is gradual and continuous and not every human is expected to go through developmental stages at "given" moments so much as we have designated norms from such a time to such a time. In any event I think the unborn human, lacking a personhood mind, should be given the same protection as the born human baby lacking a personhood mind.

It would be odd to consider birth a "magical moment" as human babies are born at different gestational ages and it makes absolutely no rational or logical sense to give a 30 week old baby born early "protection" while allowing an older one who is yet unborn to be aborted. Since birth isn't a "magical moment" and more just another stage as varied as many others.

As far as your concern over the population I can only tell you that we have a variety of methods of "birth control" but abortion isn't one of them. Abortion does not prevent an implantation it is just a means of terminating a human. In my opinion ALL HUMANS that are without major defect should be afforded the right to life as soon as their presence is known. The same "pass" that is given to the newborn should be given to the unborn especially since modern technology has given us 3D and even 4D pictures of the life in the womb we now know far too much to contine pretending we aren't taking human lives with each and every abortion. We don't kill the homeless to solve population problems and there is no other group of humans I can imagine anyone advocating we do away with in order to solve the population problem.

There is no good reason not to afford the unborn that we can see and document quite adequately now the same protections as the newborn. And as far as the my body my choice goes that's just a bunch of rot. Unless a woman was raped the new human life she carries is a life she herself helped create. The government isn't responsible for doing that to her and can't be blamed for taking her resources against her will when in fact her body is using it's resources to nourish the new human that her body helped created.

There is "NO ONE" taking anything from her at all. And if she were to claim that there was a "SOMEONE" that took her resources against her will then she would be basically asking the government to hold the new human in her womb accountable for an act commited against her. Thus by her own admission the new human in her womb becomes a "PERSON."

Women claim that it isn't fair that they loose their body parts!:roll: Well there is nothing else that compares with pregnancy really and women are the ones who get pregnant so there is nothing to be done about "fair." But to compare it to someone stealing your kidney or any other ridiculous analogy is absurd.


The life she carries in her womb is her responsibility since she is the only one who can care for it until a later date.

This is true, but not inherently necessary --especially in an overpopulated world. And so that's why they can be aborted when unwanted.

They are human lives. We don't go around deciding which humans are valuable and which ones aren't only to kill the non-valuables for the sake of population woes. When we do maybe I'll consider this argument.

So you are saying that the first has no potential, while the second has some potential. But you are not saying why that potential MUST be fulfilled. And until you or other pro-lifers can explain why that potential MUST be fulfilled, you have no reason to say that the unwanted unborn MUST instead be wanted. Simple.

I have not said the unwanted must be wanted. I have said that we don't take human lives without justification. The termination of human life without any just cause is not acceptable at any other time in the developmental stages a human goes through and I see no good reason why that shouldn't be the case while they reside in utero. Birth is not a magic moment and rare is the woman who actually gives birth on her due date. We use to be in the dark about the developmental stages and activities in the womb. We no longer are and it's time we stop allowing all this killing.

I can not give you any good reason why the homeless should be allowed to live and really I can't give sufficient reasons of why it would be wrong to end the life of any number of humans out there but I do know as a general rule we respect the lives of humans and all humans are "persons" except the unborn and there's not a genuinely good reason for that. There is nothing about the unborn that makes them less worthy of protection than any other human.

 

[talloulou]

In the end, women who are more- who do not derive their sole sense of purpose in life from their children or identify themselves solely in relation to their husbands and children- often make better mothers, in my humble and admittedly biased opinion.

You are so full of $hit and this comment is so ridiculous especially in this particular forum. However let me add my own trash comment:

Women who value all their children, those who did not abort some and keep some depending on their will at the moment, but instead valued all their children as they came and accepted responsibility for all their children are, in my humble and admittedly biased opinion, better mothers than those biatches who think the only children that are valuable are the ones they freaking arbitrarily decided to value.

 

[FutureIncoming]

One physician has suggested that woman be defined as "a uterus surrounded by a supporting organism and a directing personality."

This reminds me of a joke:
"Boat": A hole in the water, surrounded by wood, into which one pours money.
And together they inspire a worse joke:
"Woman": A hole in the air, surrounded by flesh, into which one pours money.
A much worse joke (ducking, running for cover)...

 

[FutureIncoming]

As you've admitted before even born babies are lacking a person class mind yet their lives are given value and protection anyway.

It is simply a tradition of our current culture. Did you see this?

would you now admit that newborns are in fact people?

Scientifically, they cannot qualify. Legally, they do. So? I happen to think that laws should embody Scientific Fact whereever practical, and be modified where they don't, so that they do. Do you think that laws should ignore Scientific Fact? Do you think that existing laws that already ignore Scientific Fact should be modified to ignore it even more?

And, if a newborn is a person then by what stretch of the imagination can that same newborn not still be a person 5 minutes before birth?

Simple. Before birth the survival mode of a human is parasitic; it takes what it wants from the host, regardless of any inclinations of the host. After birth, a human isn't parasitic. Everything it receives in order to survive can be a voluntary gift. The Law may require such gifts, due to ignoring Scientific Fact and classifying the human as a person worthy of such gifts --but keep in mind that other Law allows the newborn to be put up for adoption, should the parents not want to provide those gifts. There is no equivalent to adoption for an unborn parasitic human, so any Law that prohibits abortion is basically forcing someone to be a host to a parasite. Shall we write a Law to force you to host malaria, should you happen to contract that parasite? What makes one parasite more important than another? Prejudice? We just spent most of the last century fighting prejudice, especially in the Law!

In other words, our current tradition is Scientifically faulty.

And there is no magic moment when a relatively new human suddenly morphs into a being wtih a "person class mind." The process is gradual and continuous and not every human is expected to go through developmental stages at "given" moments so much as we have designated norms from such a time to such a time. In any event I think the unborn human, lacking a personhood mind, should be given the same protection as the born human baby lacking a personhood mind.

Yes, I know you want "existing laws that already ignore Scientific Fact should be modified to ignore it even more". And instead, I want the existing laws to more realistically recognize and accept Scientific Fact, even it it means taking person status away from undeserving newborns. But I don't insist on this particular change, while for you, the parasitism issue is an additional Scientific Fact that you want to be ignored. So what you might think of as being a simple extension of existing Law isn't really so simple! Heh, imagine all the horror stories that would have to be rewritten, because vampirism becomes allowed, when human parisitism is legalized!

It would be odd to consider birth a "magical moment" as human babies are born at different gestational ages and it makes absolutely no rational or logical sense to give a 30 week old baby born early "protection" while allowing an older one who is yet unborn to be aborted. Since birth isn't a "magical moment" and more just another stage as varied as many others.

SOMEWHAT FALSE. Birth may not be magical, but it is definitely a moment in which an unborn human ceases to live parasitically. It is quite a significant moment, therefore!