Why Save the Fetus? [W:478]

[choiceone]

Show me someone who has died from a hair cut or nail clipping. Dentists have the same requirements as a doctor's office.

I never suggested otherwise. A doctor's office does not meet the standards for an ambulatory surgical center.
And dentists perform surgery in their offices. I've had dental surgery. There can be complications. I've had some of those complications.

None of my complications was serious enough to end up going to the ER, but if there had been such serious complications that I had to go there, I would have gone there and my dentist would not have had admitting privileges there and the doctors at the hospital would have taken care of me just fine without that dentist.

The same thing would be true if one had minor surgery in a doctor's office. That doctor wouldn't need to have admitting privileges. The Texas law only requires this for abortion.

 

[choiceone]

Sorry, you are right. You jumped into a conversation I was having with with choiceone in order to defend choiceone's comparison of abortion to getting your nails cut and I didn't recognize the switch.

I did not compae abortion to getting your nails cut. That was all you. My purpose in mentioning the cutting of nails was to counter your claim that, if abortion were not a form of surgery, one could not claim that the embryo was part of the woman's body. The fact is that it is possible to remove hair, part of a nail, a boil, a wart, or a tooth from a person's body without that removed entity being considered not part of a person's body. That was the only point I was making by bringing up hair and nails.

That said, there are also things that are not part of one's body that can be removed without surgery. For example, it is possible for a woman's tampon to get lost inside her, and a doctor can fish it out without performing surgery.

 

[Monserrat]

The article you linked says:



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/0619-1st-gazza.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

I know. I read it. I don't disagree with it, I said the type of brain activity was very primitive when it first starts at 6 weeks but it's still there.

 

[Monserrat]

NP. I am pretty familiar with the biology involved. It is at the foundation of my position.

I wasn't talking about you specifically but in general.

 

[Monserrat]

Those on the pro-abortion side cannot tolerate the knowledge of what it is that is being “aborted”. To acknowledge what it is that is being “aborted” destroys their entire position, and reveals the act which they defend for what it truly is—a cowardly act of violent homicide against the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.

Pro-Choice. I think that's part of the problem too, it's easier to kill something if you completely dehumanize it first. Making the choice to abort a fetus shouldn't be easy and convincing people that the fetus is just a parasite or nothing more than a useless human organ is dishonest.

 

[minnie616]

Pro-Choice. I think that's part of the problem too, it's easier to kill something if you completely dehumanize it first. Making the choice to abort a fetus shouldn't be easy and convincing people that the fetus is just a parasite or nothing more than a useless human organ is dishonest.

There is no need to dehumanize a fetus nor is a need to justify abortion.

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy.

Most abortions are natural abortion , but some are induced.

The Supreme Court ruled that induced abortions are legal within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

One can either respect the Supreme Courts decision, the woman's right to privacy and her religious liberty or one can choose not respect her right to privacy and her religious liberty.

 

[Monserrat]

There is no need to dehumanize a fetus nor is a need to justify abortion.

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy.

Most abortions are natural abortion , but some are induced.

The Supreme Court ruled that induced abortions are legal within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

One can either respect the Supreme Courts decision, the woman's right to privacy and her religious liberty or one can choose not respect her right to privacy and her religious liberty.

Abortion ends a pregnancy and as a result kills a developing human being. You only stated half the truth why leave out the other?

I'm not sure why some of you keep throwing out the decision in Roe V. Wade. I would think anyone debating here would be at least semi-familiar with it.

You should know by now that most pro-lifers aren't trying to deny a woman her right to privacy or her religious liberty, they typically just care about protecting human life.

There is a need to dehumanize a fetus, its typically much more difficult to kill a human if you first try to detract from it's humanity that's one reason I believe that pro-choicers often try to distort the truth or leave out crucial pieces like you did when you mentioned that abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. In any case it's much easier to kill a parasite or a leech then it is to kill a human.

 

[minnie616]

...There is a need to dehumanize a fetus, its typically much more difficult to kill a human if you first try to detract from it's humanity that's one reason I believe that pro-choicers often try to distort the truth or leave out crucial pieces like you did when you mentioned that abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. In any case it's much easier to kill a parasite or a leech then it is to kill a human.

Abortion is the ending of a pregnacy.

Do you really think that women who have given birth think that a fetus is not human ?

Do you really think they could be duped into thinking a fetus is just a blob?
Most women who have given birth have seen ultrasounds . They know if they continued
the pregnancy in most cases ( barring miscarriage or still birth )
they would give birth to a baby,


And yet over 60 percent of the women who have abortions have at least one born child.

They have an abortion because for whatever reason they do not wish to give birth to another child at that particular time.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Pro-Choice. I think that's part of the problem too, it's easier to kill something if you completely dehumanize it first. Making the choice to abort a fetus shouldn't be easy and convincing people that the fetus is just a parasite or nothing more than a useless human organ is dishonest.

Like FutureIncoming and I have said many times before. It would be really nice some time to pro lifers to take the time to study up on the issue because, even if something is not human at all or dehumanized it can still be considered a person with the right to life.

Have you never seen “Star Trek” or “Star Wars” or “Alien Nation” or “V” or ''Independence Day''? A great many human persons are fully aware that the universe is a very big place with more stars in it than grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth so, the very existence of nonhuman persons is not an utter impossibility. It's sad to see that 40 years into the abortion debate in your country, most pro lifer's are not welling to think beyond the species membership still and could careless about the long term consequences of there hasty decision making as most of you want humanity to be stupidly prejudiced once when we explore the stars more and could careless about it.

I can't wait for it friendly ET's land on ground someone shots and kills one and humans say it was ok and ET's go back on ship and blow apart the USA.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Abortion ends a pregnancy and as a result kills a developing human being. You only stated half the truth why leave out the other?.

Are you using the word being as in existence or person? Over and over again one side of the Debate “loads” statements with “human being”, while the other side seldom tries to point out the detrimental assumption.” Pro choicers should NEVER let you get away with calling an unborn human a “human being” unless your also willing to call it a “fetus being”, and call rabbits “rabbit beings”, and so on. It is the INCONSISTENT usage of “being” which proves that you KNOW the word is actually normally used as a synonym for “person” in the phrase “human being” which means you are claiming an unborn human is a person ONLY because you CALL it that.

While words like ''rational being'' ''autonomous being'' sapient being'' do get used sometime in conversation because some are open up to the idea of non humans being persons as well. Look to Astro Boy or My Life as a Teenage Robot for examples

 

[Monserrat]

Like FutureIncoming and I have said many times before. It would be really nice some time to pro lifers to take the time to study up on the issue because, even if something is not human at all or dehumanized it can still be considered a person with the right to life.

Have you never seen “Star Trek” or “Star Wars” or “Alien Nation” or “V” or ''Independence Day''? A great many human persons are fully aware that the universe is a very big place with more stars in it than grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth so, the very existence of nonhuman persons is not an utter impossibility. It's sad to see that 40 years into the abortion debate in your country, most pro lifer's are not welling to think beyond the species membership still and could careless about the long term consequences of there hasty decision making as most of you want humanity to be stupidly prejudiced once when we explore the stars more and could careless about it.

I can't wait for it friendly ET's land on ground someone shots and kills one and humans say it was ok and ET's go back on ship and blow apart the USA.

This topic has absolutely nothing to do with non-human entities and their potential status in the future if they were real and not fictitious. If you want to talk about the potential status of other beings than that's something for another thread, that's probably why people don't discuss it regarding the abortion debate because it has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

 

[Monserrat]

Are you using the word being as in existence or person? Over and over again one side of the Debate “loads” statements with “human being”, while the other side seldom tries to point out the detrimental assumption.” Pro choicers should NEVER let you get away with calling an unborn human a “human being” unless your also willing to call it a “fetus being”, and call rabbits “rabbit beings”, and so on. It is the INCONSISTENT usage of “being” which proves that you KNOW the word is actually normally used as a synonym for “person” in the phrase “human being” which means you are claiming an unborn human is a person ONLY because you CALL it that.

While words like ''rational being'' ''autonomous being'' sapient being'' do get used sometime in conversation because some are open up to the idea of non humans being persons as well. Look to Astro Boy or My Life as a Teenage Robot for examples

The fetus is human and it is a being meaning it exists and is a living creature. Pro-choicers aren't letting me get away with anything, I'm stating a fact it's a human being, that's what it is, it's not another type of being since it's species is human. I've noticed a lot of Pro-choicers have issue with calling things as they are which I don't understand, their argument is solid enough you don't need to detract from it by trying to distort the truth.

 

[minnie616]

...

You should know by now that most pro-lifers aren't trying to deny a woman her right to privacy or her religious liberty, they typically just care about protecting human life....

If reproductive choices including access to legal abortions within the parameters of Roe vs Wade are denied than yes our right to privacy and our religious liberty are taken away.

Since pro life people care about protecting human life pro life people should be helping pro choice people make birth control much more accessible to all men and women including the poor.

The fewer unwanted pregnancies there are the fewer abortions there will be.

 

[Monserrat]

If reproductive choices including access to legal abortions within the parameters of Roe vs Wade are denied than yes our right to privacy and our religious liberty are taken away.

Since pro life people care about protecting human life pro life people should be helping pro choice people make birth control much more accessible to all men and women including the poor.

The fewer unwanted pregnancies there are the fewer abortions there will be.

We're not really discussing reproductive choices in general, just the one regarding abortion and at least from what I've seen the concern pro-life has in this issue has nothing to do with rights to privacy or religious liberty just over what they typically see as a basic human right to life.

I don't disagree with the last two statements you made, decreasing unwanted pregnancies would be a step in the right direction in decreasing the amount of abortions that happen.

 

[minnie616]

We're not really discussing reproductive choices in general, just the one regarding abortion and at least from what I've seen the concern pro-life has in this issue has nothing to do with rights to privacy or religious liberty just over what they typically see as a basic human right to life.

I don't disagree with the last two statements you made, decreasing unwanted pregnancies would be a step in the right direction in decreasing the amount of abortions that happen.

And that is what my church and more than 40 other pro choice denominations and religious groups in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice are trying to accomplish.

Try to reduce abortions by making birth control more accessible.

We feel reproductive choices including access to birth control including legal abortion are a part of our religious liberty.

 

[Monserrat]

And that is what my church and more than 40 other pro choice denominations and religious groups in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice are trying to accomplish.

Try to reduce abortions by making birth control more accessible.

We feel reproductive choices including access to birth control including legal abortion are a part of our religious liberty.

I'm going to have to disagree with throwing religion into the mix, what does a legally procured abortion have to do with religious liberty?

Making birth control more accessible would be one step, sex-ed would be another, providing incentives to carry the baby to term would be another, I think a big step is in just changing societal perceptions but there are lots of ways to tackle this issue and most in my opinion would be much more beneficial and effective then through trying to make abortion illegal.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

This topic has absolutely nothing to do with non-human entities and their potential status in the future if they were real and not fictitious. If you want to talk about the potential status of other beings than that's something for another thread, that's probably why people don't discuss it regarding the abortion debate because it has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

If you been keeping up with the debate, you would know All of them are within the context of personhood so they can indeed be brought into the debate like with artificial intelligences and even human made biological life as well so don't attempt to weasel your way out of this like most abortion opponents do. They all fall within the same department and you ignoring that fact doesn't change it one whit. Pro lifer's like yourself think you can get away with the person=human equation and you attempt to narrow down the possibilities so that pro choicers can't expose the flaw in that way of thinking pro lifer's like yourself often do. Can't even believe this is still going on and it's what now? 2014?

Read #100 60+ Anti-Abortion Arguments Refuted | Fight For Sense

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

The fetus is human and it is a being meaning it exists and is a living creature. Pro-choicers aren't letting me get away with anything, I'm stating a fact it's a human being, that's what it is, it's not another type of being since it's species is human. I've noticed a lot of Pro-choicers have issue with calling things as they are which I don't understand, their argument is solid enough you don't need to detract from it by trying to distort the truth.

There is no distorting the truth if your using it as in existence fine if as in person that is something you need to prove. You shouldn't have no problem with saying rabbit being or frog being in normal conversation then if your using the word being as in existence or will you stop being intellectual dishonest with me and know we actually use the word being as in person when attached to another word?

You only need to call it a human not without the being part in it if stating it's species membership since that is all it is needed.

 

[minnie616]

I'm going to have to disagree with throwing religion into the mix, what does a legally procured abortion have to do with religious liberty?

Making birth control more accessible would be one step, sex-ed would be another, providing incentives to carry the baby to term would be another, I think a big step is in just changing societal perceptions but there are lots of ways to tackle this issue and most in my opinion would be much more beneficial and effective then through trying to make abortion illegal.

The Religious Coalition for reproductive goes beyond the bitter abortion debate helping women have access to reproductive choices.

Some of our member clergy helped women seeking safe ( for the woman ) abortions even before Roe vs Wade .

Our church has worked hard to make birth control more accessible including plan B and no co pay prescription birth control.

We provide sex education and adoption services.

We believe women desire to be good mothers and should have reproductive choices including access to legal abortions .

We believe that those reproductive choices are a part of our religious liberty.

 

[minnie616]

I'm going to have to disagree with throwing religion into the mix, what does a legally procured abortion have to do with religious liberty?

Making birth control more accessible would be one step, sex-ed would be another, providing incentives to carry the baby to term would be another, I think a big step is in just changing societal perceptions but there are lots of ways to tackle this issue and most in my opinion would be much more beneficial and effective then through trying to make abortion illegal.

From the RCRC website:

PUBLIC POLICY

As an organization committed to actualizing reproductive justice, RCRC is expanding beyond the bitter abortion debate to seek solutions to pressing national problems such as disparities in access to reproductive health services, unintended pregnancy, the spread of HIV/AIDS and STIs in already marginalized communities, inadequate health care, and severe attacks on privacy and the moral agency of women. We support access to comprehensive sexuality education, family planning and contraception, affordable child care and health care, and adoption services as well as safe, legal, abortion services, regardless of income or any other unique circumstance. We work for public policies that ensure the medical, economic, and educational resources necessary for healthy families and communities that are equipped to nurture children in peace and love.

Our policy work is broken down into three areas:

Access to Abortion Care

Access to Contraception

Access to Sexuality Education

 

[minnie616]

I'm going to have to disagree with throwing religion into the mix, what does a legally procured abortion have to do with religious liberty?

....

Yes , a legally procured abortion is a part of our religious liberty.

From the RCRC website:

ACCESS TO ABORTION CARE

At RCRC, we believe the decision to become a parent or become a parent again, when and under what circumstances are deeply personal decisions best left to a woman to discern for herself, in consultation with her family, her faith and others she might bring into the conversation. Becoming a parent – becoming a good parent – is an aspiration for many; likewise, abortion is irrevocably intertwined with one’s ability and desire to parent.

In 1973, Roe V. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case, ruled that a woman’s reproductive decisions are a matter of personal privacy, protected by the constitution. This decision was built upon a series of earlier cases that affirmed non-procreative sexual relations to be equally valid and sacred expressions of human sexuality. Subsequently, if sex serves purposes beyond reproduction, then a woman has the legal right to both prevent and interrupt a pregnancy. In addition to supporting a woman’s right to control her own body, this decision affirmed the separation of religion and state. There is no religious consensus on when life begins and, as such, codifying one ideological viewpoint into public law undermines the validity and religious freedom of others.

With reverence for each woman’s autonomy and agency – and with a profound desire to safeguard the religious liberty of each American – RCRC agrees that it is not the place of government to force any one particular reproductive health decision upon any woman. “That which is believed to be a morally responsible decision in one situation may not be in another” (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 1991). Instead, we are all better served when the government supports the reproductive health decisions of its citizens instead of limiting them.

 

[Monserrat]

Yes , a legally procured abortion is a part of our religious liberty.

From the RCRC website:

I still disagree. Religious liberty deals with the freedom to practice, observe and worship as you see fit, legalizing abortion and vice versus does not impact your ability to practice observe and worship as you see fit within a typical Christian paradigm. It sounds like they're just throwing out words to try to validate something from a theological basis when there really is nothing there in the first place.

 

[choiceone]

Abortion ends a pregnancy and as a result kills a developing human being. You only stated half the truth why leave out the other?

I'm not sure why some of you keep throwing out the decision in Roe V. Wade. I would think anyone debating here would be at least semi-familiar with it.

You should know by now that most pro-lifers aren't trying to deny a woman her right to privacy or her religious liberty, they typically just care about protecting human life.

There is a need to dehumanize a fetus, its typically much more difficult to kill a human if you first try to detract from it's humanity that's one reason I believe that pro-choicers often try to distort the truth or leave out crucial pieces like you did when you mentioned that abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. In any case it's much easier to kill a parasite or a leech then it is to kill a human.

A human embryo or fetus is developing into a human being, but it is not a developing human being, because, to be the latter, you already have to be a human being, and a human embryo or fetus isn't. If it were, it would not need to be biologically connected to and inside a woman's body.

I think it's disingenuous even to claim that abortion kills an embryo or pre-viable fetus. Anything that needs to be biologically connected to and inside the body of a member of its species does not have a life of its own. If you have a life of your own, it should be possible to extend that life in a scientific lab in a container other than such a body.

Though scientists aren't legally allowed to grow human embryos that way longer than 14 days, we know that human embryos can't be grown that way longer than 16-20 days even with the most powerful scientifically developed oxygen-rich nutrient known. That's because all other placental mammalian embryos they have tried to grow that way die after they reach the point of a doubling of the maximal pre-implantation life span of the particular species involved.

What is interesting is that, though a human organ removed for transplant can be kept alive for hours, an embryo dies immediately when the placenta/embryo unit is biological disconnected from the woman's body. This does not differ for spontaneous and induced abortion.

Show me an example of even one human being recognized as such which depends for life upon biological connection to another human being recognized as such in the same way.

Even conjoined twins do not present such an example. When each twin is recognized as a human being, it is because a body has two heads each of which can take in oxygen and nutrients from sources commonly available to both, so that if one died, the other could still live.

The only conjoined twin example comparable to woman and embryo is that of host and parasitic twins where the parasitic twin is completely inside and biologically attached to the host twin and lives there in the manner of a tumor.

No one considers removal of the parasitic twin to be killing of a human being, even though it is alive inside the host twin and dies immediately upon removal. Nonetheless, it is human, has human DNA, could even have unique human DNA, is living, and has its own form.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I still disagree. Religious liberty deals with the freedom to practice, observe and worship as you see fit, legalizing abortion and vice versus does not impact your ability to practice observe and worship as you see fit within a typical Christian paradigm. It sounds like they're just throwing out words to try to validate something from a theological basis when there really is nothing there in the first place.

Maybe some people's religious beliefs preclude them from giving birth to a child they cannot or will not take proper care of .....

 

[Monserrat]

Maybe some people's religious beliefs preclude them from giving birth to a child they cannot or will not take proper care of .....

Can you think of one religion that holds those beliefs as part of their religious tenet and not just as a social ideal that the members just happen to share?