Abortion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A sperm and an ovum are shed by the parents. They are not persons.

But they are alive. If they aren't, conception doesn't happen.

The miracle of conception is the genetic contribution of the parents, the new birth, the soul.

"The soul"? Your personal religious beliefs aren't justification for laws that affect everyone.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It is...but I'll accept your conceding defeat.

Saying that a fetus is not a human being because it doesn't have certain brain functions is as arbitrary as saying 40 year-old Oak Tree is not really an Oak Tree because it hasn't started producing any Oaks.

No, that would be like saying a woman who hasn't "popped out a unit" (since you're apparently dead-set on 300 year old mentalities of property) isn't really a human because she hasn't fulfilled her reproductive responsibility.

Stating that a fetus is not a human being is like saying that a germinating acorn isn't an oak tree. Because it's not.

the desire to make up an artificial cut-off point for a human life is fueled by the desire strip it of rights and allow mothers to have abortions.

It has no rights to begin with. Determining stages in the human developmental process (and don't get ahead of yourself; that is not recognizing zygotes and embryo as human persons or beings, but related to humanity) is fueled by the scientific urge to know things. The desire to extend person-hood, on the other hand, is fueled by the desire to strip women the right and ownership of their own bodies based on draconian beliefs. I can assure you that barring inane interference from "religious right," the determining line of a human being will not waver past or before it's set position of 24 weeks, because that is when brain activity and physical development truly begin. Everything before then is groundwork.

the unborn child's right to life supersedes the mother's right to bodily autonomy.

No, it does not. The "right to life" does not exist anywhere; either in court or nature. If you want life, you have to fight for it like the rest of us, or be lucky enough to be given it and supported by others. A zygote and embryo continue to exist purely at the leisure (and expense) of the mother.

 

[Cobol]

Are people dumb?

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

Abortion isn't murder because of the concept of person hood.

The use of the term "murder" requires that a person has been killed. A fetus is not a person or even an entity; it's just a collection of cells in a woman's body. If she wants to remove this part of her body before it develops further into a separate entity, that's her choice.

 

[Thanda]

The desire to extend person-hood, on the other hand, is fueled by the desire to strip women the right and ownership of their own bodies based on draconian beliefs.

The fetus is not her body - how hard is that for you to understand? And no, women don't just get the fetus taken out of their bodies - they get it killed while in their bodies. Again you're using the same 300 year-old arguments used to abuse women and children - "The house is mine. They are in the house. They are mine. I can do anything I want with them."

And you are quite right, no one has any right (except maybe to think what they wish) but what society chooses to extend to them. And in most cases those rights have to be fought for because there are always people who would like to keep the rights of others as few as possible. Likewise therefore there are group fighting for the rights of unborn children - and there are those like you and the selfish women of the world who fight against it

I can assure you that barring inane interference from "religious right," the determining line of a human being will not waver past or before it's set position of 24 weeks, because that is when brain activity and physical development truly begin

.If physical development only "truly" begins at 24 weeks - what kind of development was taking place in the 24 weeks prior? Spiritual development?

Also at 24 weeks what actually happens there - do they receive personhood? Do they, according your standards, suddenly have a right to life? Does their right to life suddenly supersede the mothers right to bodily autonomy? Are they now living no longer at the "leisure" of the mother? What is the practical impact (other than they law permitting or not abortion) of the change that occurs at 24 weeks.

These aren't rhetorical questions - I really want to know.

No, it does not. The "right to life" does not exist anywhere; either in court or nature. If you want life, you have to fight for it like the rest of us, or be lucky enough to be given it and supported by others. A zygote and embryo continue to exist purely at the leisure (and expense) of the mother.

Then neither does the right to bodily autonomy - you have to fight for it.

 

[Thanda]

Individuals.

In that case see here.

And it is clear that society's norms have a lot to do with not more women going that route. Texas received a huge backlash - mainly from abortion proponents I would imagine - when it introduced a law requiring fetuses to be buried. But if the law stands I think it will come as a huge relief to women who have always felt they wanted a more solemn way to say goodbye to the baby they lost.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The fetus is not her body

Yet it does take and incredible toll on her body, and is there with her non-persistent permission. How hard is that to understand?

no, women don't just get the fetus taken out of their bodies - they get it killed while in their bodies.

Prior to 24 weeks, the embryo is in a stage that is - more or less - the same as someone who is dead. They are not "alive" in the sentient case. So no, they are not "killed" - how hard is that to understand?

Likewise therefore there are group fighting for the rights of unborn children - and there are those like you and the selfish women of the world who fight against it

How noble of you, and how villainous of those that oppose you. Yet it could be very easily spun to read that there are groups fighting to impose their beliefs over the rights of the mother for a being that they will not support past birth - and there are those who fight to retain those rights of the mother.

You call it selfish, but that's what it boils down to. The fight to preserve that right of choice for women, and to have access to safe procedures with which to receive such procedures if they so choose. Pro-choice people are just that; pro-choice. It's how someone like me can be pro-choice, and anti-abortion. People like you, on the other hand, are anti-choice, as well as anti-abortion. You don't want women to have any choice in the matter, you just want them to adhere to your beliefs regarding the matter--and damned be the science of it all. That is the truly sick thing in all this.

If physical development only "truly" begins at 24 weeks - what kind of development was taking place in the 24 weeks prior?

You literally cut out the answer to this, in that very same sentence.

Also at 24 weeks what actually happens there - do they receive personhood?

Yes, and I really wish you anti-choice people would stop calling it "my standards". That's a dishonest argument; they are the scientific facts of development. After 24 weeks, it is considered an unborn infant - no longer a fetus - and is considered a human being. Not only is this the point in which organs both interior and exterior begin to form and brain activity begins, but this is also the point that the infant can survive outside the womb - albeit in a sterile environment until their immune system fully kicks in.

These are things which have been discussed at numerous times in this thread. You are either ignoring what is posted (and with your stunt on the last quote, I'm inclined to suspect this,) or are too lazy or disinterested in the facts to learn about it yourself.

And yes, this is the legal and scientific point in which the infant's "right to life" supersedes choice of the mother. At 24 weeks, consent has long been given. However abortion is still a viable option should the birthing process - or the pregnancy itself - endangers the life of the mother. So it's not entirely "hands off".

Then neither does the right to bodily autonomy - you have to fight for it.

You didn't cut this one out, you just flat-out ignored it. As I said "If you want life, you have to fight for it like the rest of us, or be lucky enough to be given it and supported by others." And what do you think all the opposition to your religious "rights" is about?

 

[Curious George]

In that case see here.

And it is clear that society's norms have a lot to do with not more women going that route. Texas received a huge backlash - mainly from abortion proponents I would imagine - when it introduced a law requiring fetuses to be buried. But if the law stands I think it will come as a huge relief to women who have always felt they wanted a more solemn way to say goodbye to the baby they lost.

And I applaud the people who choose this route if they are going to make such assertions of equality. But I here more toilets flushing than verses of "oh, Danny boy." One less internal consistency is good. But we could have gotten here much quicker if you would have just stated from the outset, "hey, George you're right many of the pro life movement are internally inconsistent in their ideology. But some are consistent."

 

[Thanda]

And I applaud the people who choose this route if they are going to make such assertions of equality. But I here more toilets flushing than verses of "oh, Danny boy." One less internal consistency is good. But we could have gotten here much quicker if you would have just stated from the outset, "hey, George you're right many of the pro life movement are internally inconsistent in their ideology. But some are consistent."

My aim in showing you the link wasn't to prove that some pro-lifers are "internally consistent" - it was to show that the demand is there from mothers to formally morn their miscarriages and it only needs a society that is more accepting of the idea.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But they are alive. If they aren't, conception doesn't happen.


"The soul"? Your personal religious beliefs aren't justification for laws that affect everyone.

Of course they are living things. Are they people or a potential person, not until they meet.

In America, religious beliefs are the main justification for all law. The Creator endowed person with rights . . .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course they are living things. Are they people or a potential person, not until they meet.

What are your criteria for personhood? Why should we assume that a fertilized egg meets them?

In America, religious beliefs are the main justification for all law. The Creator endowed person with rights . . .

You realize that the Declaration of Independence isn't a law, don't you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What are your criteria for personhood? Why should we assume that a fertilized egg meets them?


You realize that the Declaration of Independence isn't a law, don't you?

Your questions are moot:

1. If you don't know that a person, starting as a fertilized egg, is a new genetic mix of sperm and ovum, we shouldn't talk about this subject.

2. If you don't know that the bridge to all American rights, the bridge between pre-July 4 and the Constitution is the Dec, we shouldn't talk about that subject either, but I'll help you:

". . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " which means that EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL LAW MUST BE WEIGHED IN THE LIGHT OF RELIGION FOR ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.

Hope that helps.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your questions are moot:

1. If you don't know that a person, starting as a fertilized egg, is a new genetic mix of sperm and ovum, we shouldn't talk about this subject.

So you base personhood on genetics? Step me through how you do that.

Do you think that we weren't able to determine personhood before the advent if genetics as a science?

2. If you don't know that the bridge to all American rights, the bridge between pre-July 4 and the Constitution is the Dec, we shouldn't talk about that subject either, but I'll help you:

". . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " which means that EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL LAW MUST BE WEIGHED IN THE LIGHT OF RELIGION FOR ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.

Hope that helps.

The First Amendment prohibits the US government from using religion as a basis of law.

 

[McBell]

Then neither does the right to bodily autonomy - you have to fight for it.

And women are fighting the pro-life groups for just that....

 

[Thanda]

And women are fighting the pro-life groups for just that....

Some women - other women are fighting the pro-choice movement - let's not pretend they are all singing from one hymn book

 

[McBell]

Some women - other women are fighting the pro-choice movement - let's not pretend they are all singing from one hymn book

One wonders why you would think I meant every single woman when I did not say every single woman....

 

[Thanda]

One wonders why you would think I meant every single woman when I did not say every single woman....

Your deliberate omission of any qualifying identifier such as "some" was a deliberate attempt to pretend it was Thanda, and the rest of the pro-lifers, against women. The fact is there are men fighting for abortion rights and there are women fighting for the rights of unborn children. It is not men against women. It is those wish to give women more rights against those who wish to ensure the rights of unborn children are protected.

 

[McBell]

Your deliberate omission of any qualifying identifier such as "some" was a deliberate attempt to pretend it was Thanda, and the rest of the pro-lifers, against women. The fact is there are men fighting for abortion rights and there are women fighting for the rights of unborn children. It is not men against women. It is those wish to give women more rights against those who wish to ensure the rights of unborn children are protected.

Does anyone else actually need to be in this thread?
I mean, if you are just going to dictate to every one what they think feel and believe, why do we even need to be present?

Give women "more" rights?
What "new" rights are you going to dictate to me that I believe they are receiving?

 

[idav]

Let's define personhood.

The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality

Now let's define parasite.

an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense

Now which does a fetus relate more to?

Your welcome.

 

[Thanda]

Does anyone else actually need to be in this thread?
I mean, if you are just going to dictate to every one what they think feel and believe, why do we even need to be present?

Give women "more" rights?
What "new" rights are you going to dictate to me that I believe they are receiving?

The right to kill unborn children.

 

[leibowde84]

No, it is not merely... The fetus is usually killed while in the mothers womb and then removed. Thus what the woman actually does (or consents to be done) is kill the fetus.

But we may extend this. From time to time we have cases here where a woman places her new born baby in a dustbin. Often the woman has not actually killed the baby. She has merely done something she knows and believes is likely to result in the baby's death (sometimes it doesn't). However, even if we recognized, the mother's right to not support the child's survival after death we would still expect her to relinquish her guardianship in a safe manner. That is, we would expect her to give the child to someone who would take care of it.

Likewise then, even if the pro-life community were to concede that a mother aught not to be forced to carry a child in her uterus, they would likely still argue that she should only be able to extricate the child from her body when it was safe, from the child's perspective, to do so.

This is a straw man. Once the baby is viable outside the womb, bodily autonomy is no longer in question. The issue pertains to situations where the mother is forced to carry the child to viability against her will.