Page 33 of 55 FirstFirst ...
23
31
32
33
34
35
43
... LastLast
  1. #641
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    "viable human life" well now that you add a significant restriction. That's a little different than "not a human."
    No they are in essence the same thing, is this where you need to get educated on what "Viable" means?

    The point is there is already an agreed upon standard by which abortions are legal, and that is supported by the majority.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  2. #642
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    Which part is not human, I'm confused? Isn't ever single cell of an embryo that of a human?
    Then the same can be said for a sperm cell.

    Time to ban masturbation.

  3. #643
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You're deliberately blurring the line between "composed of human tissue" and "actually a human being", because it's convenient for your argument to pretend that a fetus being made of human tissue makes it "a human being", even though that standard would also mean that a blood sample is "a human being", and thus is ridiculous.
    Can a blood sample survive outside the womb? Yea that's not really even in the same universe.

  4. #644
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    Can a blood sample survive outside the womb? Yea that's not really even in the same universe.
    Simple solution. Have all abortions simply be an inducement of labor. If the fetus survives outside the womb, then it has its right to life. If not, it still had its shot.

  5. #645
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    Can a blood sample survive outside the womb? Yea that's not really even in the same universe.
    No and neither does a 20 week old fetus.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  6. #646
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    Can a blood sample survive outside the womb? Yea that's not really even in the same universe.
    Yes, for a time. They don't inject dead blood cells when you get a transfusion, y'know.

    Also, the vast majority of abortions (~90% or so) take place in the first trimester, and that aborted fetus has about as much long-term survival potential as the blood sample at that stage.

    So sure seems like it's the exact same universe; you're inventing "standards" that apply to things that obviously are not people.


  7. #647
    Quote Originally Posted by Wvvtayy View Post
    My response to that argument: what if I wish that they did?
    The answer is "I would be none the wiser so why does it matter!"

  8. #648
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    The Reality Says (Practice)
    Generally, in the US, abortion is an option from very early pregnancy (somewhere between 4-6 weeks, depending on where you go) until about 24 weeks. Abortions are available later than 24 weeks only in rare cases for medical reasons. However, the earliest and latest into your pregnancy you can get an abortion depends on the laws in your state and what doctor, clinic, or Planned Parenthood health center you go to. In certain areas, it can be hard to find a health care provider who will do an abortion after the 12th week of pregnancy.

    https://www.plannedparenthood.org/le...et-an-abortion

    The Science Says.
    Results
    Extreme prematurity of 22 to 25 weeks' gestation is associated with an overall high mortality of ≥50%. High rates (17% to 59%) of severe neurodevelopmental disabilities occur among survivors on short-term follow-up. The rates of surviving unimpaired or minimally impaired are 6% to 20% for live-born infants at ≤25 weeks' gestation and <5% for infants born at 22 and 23 weeks' gestation. Long-term adverse outcomes after extreme prematurity include intellectual disability (5% to 36%), cerebral palsy (9% to 18%), blindness (0.7% to 9%), and deafness (2% to 4%). Milder degrees of disability involving cognition, behavior, and learning are increasingly recognized among older preterm children, teens, and young adults.

    Conclusions
    Infants who are born at ≤25 weeks' gestation, especially those born at 22 and 23 weeks' gestation, have a very low likelihood of surviving little or no impairment. Nearly half of surviving extremely premature infants have significant neurodevelopmental disabilities on short- and long-term follow-up. Instituting early intervention programs, providing family support, and establishing special educational school programs can pay high dividends and lead to brighter futures and, hence, help improve neurodevelopmental outcome of preterm infants.

    https://www.pedneur.com/article/S088...658-4/fulltext
    Last edited by Doctor Amadeus; 2019-05-31 at 04:28 AM.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  9. #649
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    The Reality Says (Practice)

    The Science Says.
    Again, that provides an argument that past ~22 weeks, if an abortion is ethically valid, it should be via inducing birth or otherwise removing the fetus intact. Not that abortions should be banned at that point.


  10. #650
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Again, that provides an argument that past ~22 weeks, if an abortion is ethically valid, it should be via inducing birth or otherwise removing the fetus intact. Not that abortions should be banned at that point.
    I know I am NOT arguing otherwise. My point in posting it is because of the truly unaware, and which is that No there is no rush, or standard abortion that happens anywhere near where life is generally viable or successful, and that any kind of abortion after 25 weeks are already in exceedingly rarer cases than that.

    The point over all is the argument about abortion and what is is should be clear both the science and the actual practice.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  11. #651
    My mother has and does volunteer at Planned Parenthood. If she wanted an abortion, she would have gotten one. I don't have to lie awake at night wondering if my parents wanted me or not.
    Banned from Twitter by Elon, so now I'm your problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brexitexit View Post
    I am the total opposite of a cuck.

  12. #652
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    In other words, evidence of an assault.

    Not the fact that there was a miscarriage.

    Maybe you'll be able to figure out where you're going wrong, here?
    I really don't see what you're trying to get at here, are you suggesting that if a fetus was a person every miscarriage would be investigated as a case of homicide? Most deaths aren't treated as homicides either. What is your point?
    That the difficulty of policing a woman's pregnancy is evidence that an unborn child isn't regarded as a person?
    Yes, assault is a very clear indication that a miscarriage should be investigated as a homicide but its not the only case of miscarriages being homicides, I provided a link earlier that had information on women being charged for murder due to substance abuse causing miscarriage.
    Also, "the fact that there was a miscarriage" does get investigated when women allow their newborns to die to exposure.
    My position always was, and remains, that a fetus is not considered to be a person, under the law. That it can be treated as a person for some homicide and assault law is irrelevant; those laws could not exist if the fetus were otherwise considered a person in the first place. They'd be superfluous. Their existence contradicts your claim.
    Because no other superfluous laws exist, and laws are universal.
    Edit: And we seem to be losing the thread. This all started to try and defend the idea that people call abortion "murder" and that the fetus is a human being from conception. Those remain false statements, and nothing about fetal homicide laws (which aren't remotely universal to begin with) changes any of that.
    It's enough of a human being that we decided killing one is murder, and murder is the unlawful killing of a person.
    That the fetus is "a human being from conception" is simply the contra argument to "a fetus is never considered a person"
    Your legal definition of personhood is archaic uses centuries old common law "born alive", science has advanced much since then.
    Clearly there is some point between conception and delivery where an egg->embryo->fetus becomes a person regardless of if they're legally considered to be so, and it doesn't occur when passing through the vagina.

    So here's the question: This month a mother was killed and her baby carved from her womb
    Clearly that baby became a person the moment he was ripped from the womb by your standards, but answer this: If the mother was not killed and went on the carry the baby until she delivered, why should that fetus be any less of a person prior to delivery?

  13. #653
    It's kind of a stupid argument because it relies on an impossible reaction to something that can't happen. But it does demonstrate the value and responsibility of making that choice. I don't think it's ever an argument to say that someone might not want to live. Most people by far prefer to live and if you don't want to live you always have the option to make that decision for yourself and end it once you are alive.

  14. #654
    Elemental Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,389
    Quote Originally Posted by -Nurot View Post
    Well to be fair, I'm sure many on that side do follow the rank and file of thinking they're following the morale high-road due to their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, there is a portion who are being disingenuous, including but not limited to the legislatures.

    Anti-abortionist Scott DesJarlais, for example, who encouraged his mistress to have an abortion.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sc...ais-abortions/

    The Ohio legislatures who heard testimony from rape and incest victims, but refused to provide exceptions in the bill.

    To those who purposefully excluded IVF embryos in the bills.

    You can't begin to claim any of them are acting in good faith. At some point common sense should kick in where draconian laws aren't being passed simply in the name of the generic term pro-life. in fact the phrase itself is disingenuous because that would imply the opposite side is anti-life.

    So no while average Jane/Joe doesn't actually want to control women, they still want to set guidelines based on their religion as a standard for all women.

    But there's that portion who;

    Ask their mistress to get an abortion.

    Rape a woman, but still expect to have parental rights including seeing the child to term.

    Don't want their taxpayer money to go towards healthcare, including access to contraceptives.

    Those who only see embryos as babies if they're inside a woman.

    At some point it's less about basing laws on religion and more about politics/getting your way at the expense of others/ power. Pick your poison. If it was truly religious reasons then in America both sides can agree to disagree. If you are against abortions, then just don't have one. It should be treated like any other religious issue. So the pro-lifers in question are either advocating for a Christian version of Sharia Law to impose their views on others or they fall into the other camp where they care about anything, but life in reality. Can't say either stance is really a convincing argument.
    Don't get me wrong. I am not in any way, shape or form trying to condone or excuse their viewpoint. I think that it's utterly abhorrent. It's more about understanding it.

    One of the biggest problems in the abortion debate is that the two sides simply cannot see eye-to-eye because they don't (or won't) try to understand the other's viewpoint.

    Shooting down a conservative by telling them they are simply misogynist pigs (even if it's completely true) is unconstructive. They'll just dismiss your accusation by explaining how they don't hate women - with whatever twisted logic they have conjured up in their little minds in order to resolve their cognitive dissonance. Attacking their faith is also extremely counter-productive and serves simply to strengthen their resolve.

    The simple fact of the matter is that you are unlikely to succeed in changing the views of most pro-lifers with regards to religion and consequently abortion. But the problem isn't actually with their views on religion or abortion at all. It's with their views with regards to respecting the rights of other people to hold different religious views than themselves.

    Fundamentally the pro-life argument is based in religion. The real crime here is that you have a group of religious fundamentalists trying to impose their religious views on others. And while certain religious views are, and should be universal, and thus be implemented in law (eg murder is illegal) there does need to be a distinction made between those religious views which should be considered universal, and those which are subjective
    Last edited by Raelbo; 2019-05-31 at 07:33 AM.

  15. #655
    Life begins at conception....




    Or does it?

  16. #656
    Stood in the Fire Bildur's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Denmark but now Canada
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by Wvvtayy View Post
    My response to that argument: what if I wish that they did?
    Ok let me get this right. Someone who is against abortions is a "Pro-lifer"? So that makes someone like myself who is for abortions a ... "Pro-death"?? I smell a rigged game/loaded gun when I see one lol

    (oh yes to answer the OP - what a silly argument)

  17. #657
    Elemental Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,389
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeBogina View Post
    Why is the life of the baby/fetus only matters in some situations and not others? For instance, if a person were to give someone a miscarriage, that can be considered murder(which it should be) but then if that mother were to just go and get an abortion, all of a sudden that baby/fetus life doesn't matter and it's no longer murder.
    Because when you break it down, the difference between a foetus and a baby is simply the mother's will to allow the pregnancy to proceed to term. A foetus cannot become a baby on its own. It requires assistance from the mother. If a pregnant woman has declared that she is unwilling to proceed with the pregnancy, then that foetus has no real claim that it would have become a baby. But once a pregnant mother has made a choice that she is willing to give the foetus what it needs, then the claim becomes legitimate.

    Imagine this scenario: Someone needs a new kidney. They will die if they don't get one. It just so happens that you have been identified as a compatible donor. If you don't give them your kidney, they will die. Does that make you a murderer if you choose not to donate?

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeBogina View Post
    I'm fine with people getting abortions, but they shouldn't deny the fact that they're paying someone to murder an unborn "person".
    Except that if you afford a foetus the status of "person" then surely they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as other people, including the right to life. Your position is therefore untenable. Either the foetus is a "person", in which case abortion = murder = a crime, or the foetus is not a "person" and abortion is acceptable.

    edit: The exception of course is as I said above: once the mother commits to having the baby, then a foetus can, and should be considered a person, even if it would not otherwise.
    Last edited by Raelbo; 2019-05-31 at 07:41 AM.

  18. #658
    An argument you rarely see get mentioned is that abortion is good for population control. Controversial, but true nonetheless.

  19. #659
    Elemental Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,389
    Quote Originally Posted by InTheEnd View Post
    An argument you rarely see get mentioned is that abortion is good for population control. Controversial, but true nonetheless.
    I don't think it's true at all. There are far more effective means of controlling population growth. Abortion should generally be regarded as a final resort, not as the go-to mechanism for contraception.

  20. #660
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurrora View Post

    It's enough of a human being that we decided killing one is murder, and murder is the unlawful killing of a person.
    That the fetus is "a human being from conception" is simply the contra argument to "a fetus is never considered a person"
    Your legal definition of personhood is archaic uses centuries old common law "born alive", science has advanced much since then.
    Clearly there is some point between conception and delivery where an egg->embryo->fetus becomes a person regardless of if they're legally considered to be so, and it doesn't occur when passing through the vagina.
    And we also decided the Blacks were not humans to deserve rights, then only partially human. Same for women, and now people in the LGBTQ community. Times change. People change. The anti abortion laws are not about saving lives one bit. If they were they would be coupled with Pre and post natal care laws for all who were pregnant to ensure mothers to be got the proper care and knowledge to carry and raise the child. Bills that provide for those in need with housing vouchers for the homeless, health insurance, food stamps, cash assistance and everything else poorer people of this nation need to raise and care for a child, which is why the vast majority of abortions happen. Most importantly, laws that provide for proper sex education and birth control including condoms. Because all the data shows places that provide proper sex ed and access to birth controls, abortion rates go way down.

    But this is the reality:


    The GOP and DiNOs in LA, don't care about women or their rights. They want to control them. They don't want women to be able to have access to birth control, but do you remember how quickly they passed laws to make Viagra a covered medicine. I mean, if they can't get boners, how are they going to impregnate their women and tell them they have to keep it?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo View Post
    I don't think it's true at all. There are far more effective means of controlling population growth. Abortion should generally be regarded as a final resort, not as the go-to mechanism for contraception.
    And guess what? It typically is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •