Why I am pro choice, AND "pro life".

[MamboDervish]

"Are you asserting that abortions are lucrative, as compared to other pursuits in medicine, surgery or healthcare in general? That argument is so easily parried, I won't bother."

The Texas legislation just guaranteed that abortions are going to be very lucrative...there at least.

 

[dockside]

That was the point. There is no standard until you provide one.

What we can say is that if a birthed child is sentient, then so is an unborn child with the same fetal development.


We are not talking about the law. We are talking science.


See above.

If you get down to it, we can't define life or death.

There's one HUGE difference. An unborn child is not breathing on its own. It's mother is breathing and, as a result the unborn child is getting oxygen only through the mother. I strongly support Roe v Wade. Once the child is able to live and breathe on its own, it is a sentient being once it leaves the uterous and the mother's body. Until then, it is not a sentient being. It may be once born, if developed enough. If it cannot survive outside the uterus, it is not the same as a birthed child. That's the difference.

 

[MamboDervish]

Not regarding personhood.

Absolutely regarding person hood. As far as person hood goes, nobody exists before they're born.

Why?

It's bullshit because the fact that the fetus is on an umbilical cord is RELEVANT! The fact that the baby is breathing air on its own is RELEVANT. A lot more than the baby's location has changed - it's total dependence on the life of the mother has changed.

And the biggest bullshit of all is conflating aborting a fetus with killing a baby. It's hard to bring more bullshit than that to this argument.

 

[aociswundumho]

Absolutely regarding person hood. As far as person hood goes, nobody exists before they're born.

It's bullshit because the fact that the fetus is on an umbilical cord is RELEVANT! The fact that the baby is breathing air on its own is RELEVANT. A lot more than the baby's location has changed - it's total dependence on the life of the mother has changed.

So you support abortion right up to the point where the baby is breathing air, correct?

 

[MamboDervish]

Why are we supposed to understand this apparently trivial distinction? If one is sentient, so is the other.

Nope.

A difference would be nice. This is a distinction where there appears to be no difference.

There's plenty. But apparently you refuse to accept the differences.

For what reason? Logically and scientifically, it makes no sense.

?? Total dependence on an umbilical cord is no different scientifically from having been born? Breathing air is no different than not breathing air?? REALLY !!??

I won't be conferring with you on any scientific matters.

You appear to be making a religious distinction. I have not heard this for religious reasons before.

It is not "religious". It is simply so.

Don't tell a biologist that unless you enjoy being laughed at.

Not nearly as much as they'll laugh at you for claiming there's no difference between breathing and not breathing, or life dependent on an umbilical cord vs. being born.

Your whole argument is that an arbitrary distinction is total.

There's nothing whatsoever arbitrary about those distinctions. They are significant physical and biological realities! You just arbitrarily choose to reject them because you don't want to recognize any difference between an unborn fetus and a born infant. Sorry. They're not the same, no matter how much you want them to be.

The law does this sort of thing, but not science and usually not real life.

Indeed, the law certainly does. And with good reason. There is no animating or self directing will, in a fetus. Those are only functions present in a body after being born. Attached to the mother by umbilicus, the fetus has no individual identity.

Identity comes through birth.

 

[MamboDervish]

So you support abortion right up to the point where the baby is breathing air, correct?

 

[aociswundumho]

Not answering the question means you don't believe personhood begins at birth.

 

[vegas giants]

That was the point. There is no standard until you provide one.

What we can say is that if a birthed child is sentient, then so is an unborn child with the same fetal development.


We are not talking about the law. We are talking science.


See above.

If you get down to it, we can't define life or death.

The standard is viability

 

[Jay59]

Nope. There's plenty. But apparently you refuse to accept the differences.

The difference between a child the hour before his/her birth and an hour after has zero to do with sentience. Legalities are what they are, but we are not speaking of legal definitions

Total dependence on an umbilical cord is no different scientifically from having been born? Breathing air is no different than not breathing air?? REALLY !!??

To brain development, none at all.

I won't be conferring with you on any scientific matters.

Good. You show no talent for it.

It is not "religious". It is simply so.

Another religious sort of answer.

Not nearly as much as they'll laugh at you for claiming there's no difference between breathing and not breathing, or life dependent on an umbilical cord vs. being born.

They would because they would point to the oxygenated blood and say no difference.

There's nothing whatsoever arbitrary about those distinctions. They are significant physical and biological realities!

None that you have brought forward.

You just arbitrarily choose to reject them because you don't want to recognize any difference between an unborn fetus and a born infant.

You are being overly general. I reject the distinction with regard to sentience.

Sorry. They're not the same, no matter how much you want them to be.

If there is a difference, it's not because of which set of lungs is providing oxygen. If you can find another relevant difference, please do.

Indeed, the law certainly does. And with good reason. There is no animating or self directing will, in a fetus. Those are only functions present in a body after being born. Attached to the mother by umbilicus, the fetus has no individual identity.

We are not talking law. Those distinctions are acknowledged to be arbitrary.

Identity comes through birth.

You would have to define exactly what you mean by identity.

If you mean identity distinct from the mother, sure. If you mean to what makes a person uniquely that person, no way.

 

[soylentgreen]

I demand you get the vaccine for the common flu every year then, on top of all the boosters you're going to need for corona.

afterall, you refusing is you swinging your fist into other people's noses.

I have no problem with that. I do get a flu shot every year and another for covid would not be a concern.

And no, it is not up to you or anyone to make such a demand. It should be up to the individual to practice being responsible.

 

[soylentgreen]

Then that should also apply to people who are exhaling carbon dioxide.

Really!! Why? swinging your fist or deciding to buy into the nonsense scare tactics of the anti-vac people is making a choice. Breathing however is a requirement for being alive.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I have no problem with that. I do get a flu shot every year and another for covid would not be a concern.

one of these guys lol

Where you one of those kids who had to hold hands with your mother when you got your vax?

And no, it is not up to you or anyone to make such a demand. It should be up to the individual to practice being responsible.

also you:

Try to understand the meme that your right to swing your fist ends at the point of contact with another nose. Your anti vac stance is you swinging your fist into other peoples noses.

is it my individual right, or not? pick one. I don't want to be a collectivist, but if this lefty revolution happens and I have to, I can play the collectivist game much better them. I'll be bankrupting their own system with my demands.

 

[Athanasius68]

A friend made the following argument, and I'm copying and pasting it, here:

Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes 'human life' - that's a philosophical question.

No-- its a scientific question.
And the scientific consensus is that zygote is its own organism, its own life.

Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow math for a child with severe aplastic anemia, no other person on earth is a child with severe aplastic anemia, no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body without your consent.

Yes-- because the law respects, or should respect, your life.

It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, of if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else -- the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die, if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased, or how many lives they would save. That's the law.

Yep

Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life -- it must be offered voluntarily. By all means. profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the life is morally just, and refusing it is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees.

Purpose of a uterus is not save a life but rather to grow one.

 

[soylentgreen]

one of these guys lol

Where you one of those kids who had to hold hands with your mother when you got your vax?


also you:

is it my right, or not? pick one.

No, it is not your right. It is your choice to buy into really stupid propaganda to make you scared where no fear should be.

 

[DarkWizard12]

No, it is not your right. It is your choice to buy into really stupid propaganda to make you scared where no fear should be.

Then it's not your right to go without any vaccines that the collective demands of you.

So if I start demanding that EVERYONE take EVERY vaccine there is known to mankind, every year, well........hm. I guess it's going to be a REAL inconveniance for everyone, isn't it? But oh well.

 

[MamboDervish]

The difference between a child the hour before his/her birth and an hour after has zero to do with sentience. Legalities are what they are, but we are not speaking of legal definitions

? What is this based on? Tell me the last thing you remember thinking in the womb. Tell me the last thing you remember doing in the womb. Tell me the last choice you made in the womb. Tell me the last thing you learned in the womb.
Don't bother - it was obviously nothing. As in NO - THING !

To brain development, none at all.

To consciousness development, everything.
To the development of will, everything.
To personality, everything!

Good. You show no talent for it.
Another religious sort of answer.

Another wishful denial-of-the-distinctions sort of answer.

They would because they would point to the oxygenated blood and say no difference.

Don't be so certain. They might point to the EEG and say plenty of difference.

None that you have brought forward.

They are by their very definition. You just remain in denial of them.

You are being overly general. I reject the distinction with regard to sentience.

There is no evidence of consciousness, no expressions of purpose, no evidence of choices being made, no evidence of intention, . . . . . there is no evidence of will !
No one is home. The fetus is uninhabited.

If there is a difference, it's not because of which set of lungs is providing oxygen.

What makes you think you know that? Just another desperate form of denial.

If you can find another relevant difference, please do.

Translation: "I don't like the relevant differences you've already pointed out."

We are not talking law. Those distinctions are acknowledged to be arbitrary.

That doesn't mean they aren't fitting.

You would have to define exactly what you mean by identity.

See above.

If you mean identity distinct from the mother, sure.

Then on this we agree.

If you mean to what makes a person uniquely that person, no way.

There is no "person" yet in the womb. What makes a person uniquely that person - as in "having a self-directed animating force" - has no existence until it is born.

"YOU" haven't arrived until you are born. Sorry.

 

[MamboDervish]

Not answering the question means you don't believe personhood begins at birth.

Try again.

 

[soylentgreen]

Then it's not your right to go without any vaccines that the collective demands of you.

So if I start demanding that EVERYONE take EVERY vaccine there is known to mankind, every year, well........hm. I guess it's going to be a REAL inconveniance for everyone, isn't it? But oh well.

It is not about rights. It is about making good choices and you are not making a good choice when all you have is a propaganda of fear to back you.

It is also not about being forced to do something. But I can see you come from texas where apparently the people strongly believe the government has the right to force their morality on everyone. No wonder you cannot get your head around the difference between making a good choice and a right.

 

[DarkWizard12]

It is not abut rights. It is about making good choices and you are not making a good choice when all you have is a propaganda of fear to back you.

It is also not about being forced to do something. But I can see you come from texas where apparently the people strongly believe the government has the right to force their morality on everyone. No wonder you cannot get your head around the difference between making a good choice and a right.

A right means I can make a good or bad choice without government interfering.

I have a right to eat molded bread. It's not a good idea to eat molded bread, but I have the right to, if i want, without the government forcing me otherwise.

so I'll ask you again, is it, or is it not, my right? Would you allow the government to force me to take a vaccine?

 

[Jay59]

? What is this based on? Tell me the last thing you remember thinking in the womb. Tell me the last thing you remember doing in the womb. Tell me the last choice you made in the womb. Tell me the last thing you learned in the womb. Don't bother - it was obviously nothing. As in NO - THING !

To consciousness development, everything. To the development of will, everything. To personality, everything! Another wishful denial-of-the-distinctions sort of answer. Don't be so certain. They might point to the EEG and say plenty of difference. They are by their very definition. You just remain in denial of them. There is no evidence of consciousness, no expressions of purpose, no evidence of choices being made, no evidence of intention, . . . . . there is no evidence of will ! No one is home. The fetus is uninhabited. What makes you think you know that? Just another desperate form of denial.

Translation: "I don't like the relevant differences you've already pointed out." That doesn't mean they aren't fitting. See above. Then on this we agree.There is no "person" yet in the womb. What makes a person uniquely that person - as in "having a self-directed animating force" - has no existence until it is born. "YOU" haven't arrived until you are born. Sorry.

This is just a rant, repeating the same unsupported claims.

Since you mention EEG, you realize that brain function exists prenatal, right? They have EEG to prove it. It does not have no existence until birth.

Remember from the womb? Seriously? What do you remember from your second birthday?

 

[jnug]

My view of it is that the entire abortion argument is simply more evidence that we have gone bat shit crazy....loony tunes and have far to much money and time on our hands for our own good.

The last statistics I saw on this topic were from 2017. The abortion rate was 13.5 abortions per 1,000 pregnancies or 1.3%. That is all in! So that means that abortion of pregnancies due to rape or incest, fetal viability, all of it is in that 1.3%. If I were the in the anti-choice crowd I would declare victory and call it a day, find some other pursuit for my time. But NOOOOO....now we have the utter diabolical insanity of the new Texas law which I hope if not addressed in the courts simply crashes the entire Civil Tort apparatus of Texas of its own weight. Hopefully it will occur the next time they can't even keep their electrical grid functioning. That should be a fun week. Then again since any kook that can buy a gun legally can walk around strapped in that state and they are codifying vigilanteism maybe they have stumbled onto the ultimate solution to any problem they confront. "My dry cleaning is not ready yet? Here let me rack a round in my automatic."

The crowd of anti-choice whack jobs will soon be on to arguing for "fetal personhood" of all things.

In the meantime we stand idly by as the temperate climate of North America, a key natural element and major contributor to the security of what has allowed this country to achieve so much is allowed to simply be tossed down a rathole by our unwillingness to deal with or even acknowledge in any real sense human impact on Climate Change. The Western US is on fire now half the year, the Eastern US and the Gulf now faces ever more severe weather phenomenon in the form of more forceful hurricanes, more tornados and so many floods that soon enough people living in Ohio will be able to claim beachfront property as that is where our new coastline will be. As for the farm belt, they will endure an endless series of drought and deluge which guess what....WON'T WORK for them. But who cares if we can no longer feed ourselves.No time or interest in that. We just all jump on a Bezo's rocket ship to New Earth, wherever that is going to be. Ah-huh!!!!

Add to that having stumbled obliviously into being the richest country on the planet yet having the worst pandemic record on the planet and you now get some idea for how absurd and lacking in common sense we have become.

We have gone entirely round the bend, bat shit crazy, loony tunes.

 

[OscarLevant]

So did I. With Roe, no state can ban abortion. Without Roe, it's up to the states. So many states it will still be legal, there's no need to go to another country.

Was that the case before R v W?

 

[OscarLevant]

Hmmm. This sounds familiar. :lol:
Maybe this does too.
Except, in the case of marrow donation, the potential donor was a disinterested party who did nothing to generate the correct marrow. Baring incest or rape the woman was a willing participant in the creation of the zygote/fetus, which I suggest modifies the body autonomy argument.

It doesn't. How the woman got pregnant is irrelevant. If a woman wants an abortion, then she did not intend on getting pregnant. Even if she did, she could change her mind. In either case, it doesn't affect the right which R v W grants, whether the pregnancy was intended or not.

 

[code1211]

This is not true. Where the is profit there are profiteers.

Also, the accusation of eugenics has never been refuted.


This is the opposite. Their motivation is in the name.


This is a lot of sophistry, but what is the point? One still advocates killing a sentient being.


Do you have an answer to this one?


Many have, myself included. With vaccination, there is the added complication of adult guardians making decisions for children.

With respect, there are many who are employed to gain profit and a few of these are involved in the abortion industry.

Throughout my little career, I held many jobs that paid a salary. Most people do.

Report: Planned Parenthood HQ average exec salary $389,514

Salaries of CEOs at Planned Parenthood affiliates have skyrocketed to an average of $237,999, and hit $389,514 in the group's headquarters, according to a

www.washingtonexaminer.com

<snip>
In the report on CEO pay, the group found that all 56 CEOs in the system make over 100,000 a year, one-tenth of Planned Parenthood's boss Cecile Richards, who made $957,952, said the report.
<snip>

 

[OscarLevant]

No-- its a scientific question.
And the scientific consensus is that zygote is its own organism, its own life.



Yes-- because the law respects, or should respect, your life.



Yep


Purpose of a uterus is not save a life but rather to grow one.

It's an organism, but whether it's a 'person' that's reserved for philosophical arguments.

There is a distinction between 'human life' and an alive organism. Many things are alive but they are not 'persons'. That is a philosophical debate.
A uterus has a function, but not a purpose, which is to say a 'purpose' is a value judgement. "Purpose' is a debate for philosophy, such as the purpose of life. It's the thing as querying the meaning of life. Science cannot tell us the answer to the purpose or meaning of life. Science is not concerned with the purpose of meaning of life, only the function of things, organisms, organs, molecules, etc.