Abortion battle looming?

Abortions should be legal not just up to the moment of birth but for at least nine months after. Why stop liberals from killing their young?
 
Originally Posted by Onceler
Nah - neither side, on the extreme, sees the issue in terms of being as complex as it is. It is not a simple issue.

I don't wade into these debates that much anymore, and when I do, I always see why that is. It usually isn't long before someone is trotting out the "baby killer" rhetoric...
Click to expand...

How is it complex? And what is taking place during an abortion?
 
I'm against abortion, but making it illegal is not an efficient way to prevent it!
 
Ice Dancer said:
How is it complex? And what is taking place during an abortion?
Click to expand...

An abortion terminates a pregnancy, and prevents a fetus from developing into a fully realized human being.

And, btw, you never produced your scientific evidence that an egg is in fact a chicken.

It's complex because there are 2 distinct rights going on with any pregnancy - the right of the fetus to develop, and the right of the mother to exert control over her own body. It's complex because issues like sentience, development, viability and "personhood" - which all have vague intepretation & arbitrary "starting points" - are integral to the discussion.

Anyone who states that it's a simple issue, or lacking in complexity, takes an immediate credibility hit, imo. It just shows that they view the issue only as black & white, and haven't devoted the thought to it that it deserves.
 
Onceler said:
An abortion terminates a pregnancy, and prevents a fetus from developing into a fully realized human being.

And, btw, you never produced your scientific evidence that an egg is in fact a chicken.

It's complex because there are 2 distinct rights going on with any pregnancy - the right of the fetus to develop, and the right of the mother to exert control over her own body. It's complex because issues like sentience, development, viability and "personhood" - which all have vague intepretation & arbitrary "starting points" - are integral to the discussion.

Anyone who states that it's a simple issue, or lacking in complexity, takes an immediate credibility hit, imo. It just shows that they view the issue only as black & white, and haven't devoted the thought to it that it deserves.
Click to expand...

So is the "fetus" "alive" before it is aborted and is it fully human? Does abortion "kill" the fetus?

A "fertalized" egg is a chicken in its embryonic state...fact.

A persons "sentience" has no bearing on their right to life. Take a mentally handicapped born person for instance. The fact of the matter is the defining of these "arbitrary" distinctions have been promulgated for one reason and one reason only...and that is to grant a woman a right to kill an unborn fully human fetus for her personal convenience and to create the idea of complexity. The right to protection of life is stripped from the unborn for convenience in 97% of abortions. The abortion issue is emotionally charged and unwanted pregnancy certainly creates difficulties. But the moral distinctions of what happens during an abortion are not complex. It is nakedly black and white. Human beings at their earliest stage of developement are killed for convenience sake. Their Constitutional right to life is conveniently ignored by a convoluted interpretation of "privacy"...
 
Ice Dancer said:
So is the "fetus" "alive" before it is aborted and is it fully human? Does abortion "kill" the fetus?

A "fertalized" egg is a chicken in its embryonic state...fact.

A persons "sentience" has no bearing on their right to life. Take a mentally handicapped born person for instance. The fact of the matter is the defining of these "arbitrary" distinctions have been promulgated for one reason and one reason only...and that is to grant a woman a right to kill an unborn fully human fetus for her personal convenience and to create the idea of complexity. The right to protection of life is stripped from the unborn for convenience in 97% of abortions. The abortion issue is emotionally charged and unwanted pregnancy certainly creates difficulties. But the moral distinctions of what happens during an abortion are not complex. It is nakedly black and white. Human beings at their earliest stage of developement are killed for convenience sake. Their Constitutional right to life is conveniently ignored by a convoluted interpretation of "privacy"...
Click to expand...

Strawmen & generalizations. You're an intellectual lightweight on this topic.

A fertilized egg is NOT a chicken. Just an FYI on that.

The word "convenience" is thrown around too much in the abortion debate. It creates the impression that the vast majority of abortions are little more than birth control for young pregnant women who don't give it a 2nd thought. That is just not the case for many, many abortions.

Sentience is important; the point at which you reach self-awareness, measurable brain function, viability...these are all important considerations to the discussion.
 
Onceler said:
An abortion terminates a pregnancy, and prevents a fetus from developing into a fully realized human being.
Click to expand...

Define a fully realized human being.

Also... once defined, are you suggesting anyone who does not meet that definition is fair game to kill?

And, btw, you never produced your scientific evidence that an egg is in fact a chicken.
Click to expand...

An egg is not a chicken genetically, unless it is a fertilized egg. If unfertilized, it is no different than a human egg cell.

It's complex because there are 2 distinct rights going on with any pregnancy - the right of the fetus to develop, and the right of the mother to exert control over her own body. It's complex because issues like sentience, development, viability and "personhood" - which all have vague intepretation & arbitrary "starting points" - are integral to the discussion.
Click to expand...

They are only integral if you believe that the right to life is not the most important basic right we possess.

An abortion ends a human life.

Anyone who states that it's a simple issue, or lacking in complexity, takes an immediate credibility hit, imo. It just shows that they view the issue only as black & white, and haven't devoted the thought to it that it deserves.
Click to expand...

Anyone who tries to come up with arbitrary reasons to dehumanize the child lacks all credibility.
 
Onceler said:
A fertilized egg is NOT a chicken. Just an FYI on that.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. While it may not be fully developed, genetically it is a chicken.

The word "convenience" is thrown around too much in the abortion debate. It creates the impression that the vast majority of abortions are little more than birth control for young pregnant women who don't give it a 2nd thought. That is just not the case for many, many abortions.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of abortions ARE done for convenience. It doesn't mean that no thought went into it. But it doesn't change the fact that the majority are done for convenience sake.

Sentience is important; the point at which you reach self-awareness, measurable brain function, viability...these are all important considerations to the discussion.
Click to expand...

It is important to YOU. It is an arbitrary line that you wish to use to dehumanize the child.

Tell me.... over the last 100 years (or 20 or 10 etc...) has our ability to define when a child 'becomes' sentient improved or stayed the same?
 
Superfreak said:
You are incorrect. While it may not be fully developed, genetically it is a chicken.



The vast majority of abortions ARE done for convenience. It doesn't mean that no thought went into it. But it doesn't change the fact that the majority are done for convenience sake.



It is important to YOU. It is an arbitrary line that you wish to use to dehumanize the child.

Tell me.... over the last 100 years (or 20 or 10 etc...) has our ability to define when a child 'becomes' sentient improved or stayed the same?
Click to expand...

It's improved - but that doesn't really change the fact that technology TODAY gives us many of the facts that are integral to the discussion.

And they are integral to the discussion; they're not merely important to me. I know you have reasoned it out for yourself & concluded that 2 cells are as worth protecting as a late-term fetus, newborn or growing child. To me, that isn't rational or practical, at all.

Why shouldn't awareness or brain activity be integral to the discussion? I honestly think the people who protest the use of frozen embryos to further research are incredibly off-base; it makes no sense to me at all. I can look at a microscopic clump of cells, with no brain development & certainly no brain activity, and have no problem saying that a woman's right to choose trumps a zygote's right to continue developing.

What you're arguing is that there is something magical that happens at conception, which borders on religion & has no business in legislation. Is a "unique" blueprint created at that point? Yes, but at that point it is only a blueprint.

The argument gets even dicier when you start talking about cloning, as I'm sure you're aware.
 
Onceler said:
Strawmen & generalizations. You're an intellectual lightweight on this topic.

A fertilized egg is NOT a chicken. Just an FYI on that.

The word "convenience" is thrown around too much in the abortion debate. It creates the impression that the vast majority of abortions are little more than birth control for young pregnant women who don't give it a 2nd thought. That is just not the case for many, many abortions.

Sentience is important; the point at which you reach self-awareness, measurable brain function, viability...these are all important considerations to the discussion.
Click to expand...

A fertalized "chicken" egg is in fact scientifically a chicken. It is not a duck or a robin.

The word convenience is used to describe why 97% of women seek abortions...it may be a term that is disagreeable as it lays bare the unpleasant reality of motive. The left attempt to use personal circumstances to induce an emotional blurring of this fact...but no matter the personal story it still boils down to convenience. Yes there are personal stories that sound and are sympathetic- it does not change or diminsh the convenience factor. Convenience is being chosen over the life of the unborn child.

Sentience is a useful tool by the left when discussing the unborn. That again does not offer itself to a reasonable position to kill a fully human albeit not fully developed human being. Numerous born persons are not sentient-with the likelyhood of never being so-the unborn are not in that category as their sentience is developmental and if allowed to live will go on to become fully sentient.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
oh, i'll go back and read the thread

thanks

did you explain why in this thread you feel ok at drawing an arbitrary line?
Click to expand...

By its very nature, the line would have to be arbitrary. But I do think there is an arbitrary line that can be drawn that is reasonable to most people, that takes into account issues like sentience & brain function, among other considerations, and that can represent a fair and practical compromise.
 
Originally Posted by Onceler
Strawmen & generalizations. You're an intellectual lightweight on this topic.

A fertilized egg is NOT a chicken. Just an FYI on that.

The word "convenience" is thrown around too much in the abortion debate. It creates the impression that the vast majority of abortions are little more than birth control for young pregnant women who don't give it a 2nd thought. That is just not the case for many, many abortions.

Sentience is important; the point at which you reach self-awareness, measurable brain function, viability...these are all important considerations to the discussion.
Click to expand...

A fertalized "chicken" egg is in fact scientifically a chicken. It is not a duck or a robin.

The word convenience is used to describe why 97% of women seek abortions...it may be a term that is disagreeable as it lays bare the unpleasant reality of motive. The left attempt to use personal circumstances to induce an emotional blurring of this fact...but no matter the personal story it still boils down to convenience. Yes there are personal stories that sound and are sympathetic- it does not change or diminsh the convenience factor. Convenience is being chosen over the life of the unborn child.

Sentience is a useful tool by the left when discussing the unborn. That again does not offer itself to a reasonable position to kill a fully human albeit not fully developed human being. Numerous born persons are not sentient-with the likelyhood of never being so-the unborn are not in that category as their sentience is developmental and if allowed to live will go on to become fully sentient.

Abortion "kills" a human life.
Abortion is not complex.

It is the decision to kill a human being in its earliest stages of developement.
 
Onceler said:
It's improved - but that doesn't really change the fact that technology TODAY gives us many of the facts that are integral to the discussion.
Click to expand...

As tech has improved, the 'viability' of the child has gone to earlier and earlier ages. As tech has improved, we have seen that previous assumptions of 'sentience' were wrong.

And they are integral to the discussion; they're not merely important to me. I know you have reasoned it out for yourself & concluded that 2 cells are as worth protecting as a late-term fetus, newborn or growing child. To me, that isn't rational or practical, at all.
Click to expand...

Ah, the next evolutionary step in the dehumanization process of the left.

Call the child 'two cells' or 'a clump of cells'

Never mind that the complete genetic coding of a unique human life is present.

Never mind that those 'two cells' could be the next MLK, Einstein etc...

Just keep dehumanizing at all costs.

Why shouldn't awareness or brain activity be integral to the discussion?
Click to expand...

I am not saying it can't be part of the discussion. But it has nothing to do with your attempts to dehumanize the child so that you can feel better allowing it to be killed.

I honestly think the people who protest the use of frozen embryos to further research are incredibly off-base; it makes no sense to me at all. I can look at a microscopic clump of cells, with no brain development & certainly no brain activity, and have no problem saying that a woman's right to choose trumps a zygote's right to continue developing.
Click to expand...

Wow... how did we jump to frozen embryos?

Ah... yes, there it is.... the grand old 'clump of cells' argument. Which is that? Dehumanization technique four or is it five? and now also calling it a zygote.... just can't admit it is a human child can you?

What you're arguing is that there is something magical that happens at conception, which borders on religion & has no business in legislation. Is a "unique" blueprint created at that point? Yes, but at that point it is only a blueprint.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.... no moron... it is those who attempt to proclaim the 'fetus' or 'zygote' as 'subhuman' that believe in some magical occurring at a future date where the 'fetus' suddenly turns human.

It is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that it is a unique human life. FACT.

Not opinion. FACT. It is alive. It is human. Period.

The argument gets even dicier when you start talking about cloning, as I'm sure you're aware.
Click to expand...

WTF????

Are you just tossing out any and all failed arguments of the left in the hopes that one sticks?
 
Onceler said:
By its very nature, the line would have to be arbitrary. But I do think there is an arbitrary line that can be drawn that is reasonable to most people, that takes into account issues like sentience & brain function, among other considerations, and that can represent a fair and practical compromise.
Click to expand...

i don't think it has to be an arbritrary line. there is no denying that the zygote, or any state of the fetus, is made up of human dna and but for an a normal birth, would in fact be a human being. imo, if anyone draws a line anywhere before full term, eg, the birth, they are truly playing "god", because at any time before birth, it is still in the fetus stage. as such, if you say the fetus at this state has "rights" or is "human", you cannot arbitrarily go back and proclaim at some magical juncture that it is not yet human.

i understand your concerns about juggling the rights and our understanding of humanity and i share them as well, but it seems contradictory to proclaim at X months or X days that this is now a human being when the entire time it is still in the same process, that of fetus, until birth. be it one day or 240 days.....

just my thoughts at the moment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top