Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

[SirJosephPorter]

Sir Joe, science uses a great many tools to figure things out. Using reasoning is a biggie and the process of elimination is part of the reasoning.
As I said, if you take a human sperm donor, a human egg donor, let them do their thing, the egg donor becomes pregnant, what the result would be is definitely not a mushroom, tree, or a cup of tea. The result would be an undeveloped human being after about the 40th day.

I agree Anna, it would be an undeveloped human being. That is a big advance anyway, now you have stopped referring to fetus as a human being (or did you ever do that? I don’t remember).

So I have no problem conceding that it is a potential or undeveloped human being. Now, an undeveloped human being obviously cannot have the same rights as a human being. That is why I draw the line at fetal viability. At the viability stage, it stops being an undeveloped human being, it can survive outside mother’s womb.

 

[AnnaG]

You know? I think it's ludicrous to say that there's a zygote. Then it becomes an embryo. Then it becomes a fetus. And finally it becomes a human being.
It simply makes most sense to call it a human being in various stages of development.
One second there's a mass of tissue and then POOF - it's a human? Give me a break.
Either the zygote/embryo/fetus is a developing human in those stages, or it isn't. There is no such thing as a "maybe human" in this issue.

 

[AnnaG]

When the dust from logic and good sense have clouded beyond all reason, there is always the ridiculous to confuse an opponent to abandonment. In that way, the battle is deemed as won by he who can never be wrong.

lmao That's very poetical and very funny, Mr. Wolf. Thank you. lol

 

[AnnaG]

I agree Anna, it would be an undeveloped human being. That is a big advance anyway, now you have stopped referring to fetus as a human being (or did you ever do that? I don’t remember).

So I have no problem conceding that it is a potential or undeveloped human being. Now, an undeveloped human being obviously cannot have the same rights as a human being. That is why I draw the line at fetal viability. At the viability stage, it stops being an undeveloped human being, it can survive outside mother’s womb.

Fine, be nitpicking then. You want me to keep typing out the entire concept? You really want me to type out "undeveloped human being in the fetal stage" (or "embryonic stage" or whatever) constantly? Sorry, I won't do that because it is unnecessary. We are speaking in general of human beings, not mushrooms, elephants, ducks, trees, ants, etc. So when we speak of a mother we are speaking of a human mother. We speak of a womb, it's a human womb. And so on.

 

[AnnaG]

Here's one I haven't heard. Humans are animals. The various stages of development have different names like zygote and fetus. The terms alone do not specify species. But until that entity reaches a stage of being fully functional on its own it is a animal fetus with no particular species designation.

Quite right.

I think the main problem here is that we still think that because we are human that we are somehow more important than any other species. It is all still based on the false belief that we were created in the image of god. We are just intellectual animals. It is our self importance that causes us to think this debate is even important. Surely, when religion is taken out of the argument, it becomes nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

Good point. I guess I've been taking that concept for granted so long, I think it's occurred to everyone. lol

 

[AnnaG]

You bet Cliff, probably the most intellectual of all animals BUT when it comes to wisdom (a more important yard stick) we're not even close to the top.

Well, I'd have to see research on that, but it certainly does seem that way, yes.

 

[gerryh]

. Surely, when religion is taken out of the argument, it becomes nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

Then quit bringing religion to the table.

 

[Cliffy]

Then quit bringing religion to the table.

So you agree that the whole thread is just an intellectual exercise? If so, why get upset when people don't agree with your intellectual perspective?

 

[AnnaG]

Anyway, the topic is about women and abortion.

 

[gerryh]

So you agree that the whole thread is just an intellectual exercise? If so, why get upset when people don't agree with your intellectual perspective?

Oh, I don't know...... maybe because when it comes to the murder of children I can't see how anyone can be "detached".

 

[lone wolf]

Who has the right to determine that with which they alone must live? Abortion may not be right according to my own morals and values. Do I have the right to impose them on someone else? The fact remains ... it is someone else's body. She has to live with the consequences. She has to live with the complications. She has to live with her decision.

Try to shave off me balls and it will concern me....

 

[AnnaG]

Moustache? Beard? o.0

 

[Cliffy]

Oh, I don't know...... maybe because when it comes to the murder of children I can't see how anyone can be "detached".

It may have something to do with being aware that millions of children starve to death each year, or having personally witnessed as much carnage as a Vietnam vet, or having almost died seven times, or watching the planet, our life support system, being degraded to the point that it is questionable whether humanity and many other species can survive humanity's own stupidity, or a dozen other reasons. All things considered I think people are just to self important to take seriously.

 

[AnnaG]

Well, for me, I don't care how many people have died or for whatever reason, I refuse to let numbers trivialise unnecessary deaths.

 

[gerryh]

It may have something to do with being aware that millions of children starve to death each year, or having personally witnessed as much carnage as a Vietnam vet, or having almost died seven times, or watching the planet, our life support system, being degraded to the point that it is questionable whether humanity and many other species can survive humanity's own stupidity, or a dozen other reasons. All things considered I think people are just to self important to take seriously.

Well, for me, I don't care how many people have died or for whatever reason, I refuse to let numbers trivialise unnecessary deaths.

I now understand how you don't find the deaths of aborted babies as being a big deal. Considering the number of innocents, including children, were targeted by the americans in vietnam, what's a few more by abortion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Fine, be nitpicking then. You want me to keep typing out the entire concept? You really want me to type out "undeveloped human being in the fetal stage" (or "embryonic stage" or whatever) constantly?

Just saying ‘fetus’ is fine, Anna. Most people understand that fetus is not a human being (it may be an undeveloped or potential human being, but not an actual one).

We are speaking in general of human beings, not mushrooms, elephants, ducks, trees, ants, etc. So when we speak of a mother we are speaking of a human mother.

Well yes, but when you say that fetus is a human being, that causes all sorts of augment. Just say ’fetus’ and there is no problem.

 

[gerryh]

Just saying ‘fetus’ is fine, Anna. Most people understand that fetus is not a human being (it may be an undeveloped or potential human being, but not an actual one).


Well yes, but when you say that fetus is a human being, that causes all sorts of augment. Just say ’fetus’ and there is no problem.

This is what the supporters of the murder of these baby's would prefer. This way they are just "things".

 

[Tonington]

That is not what the argument is about, Tonington. If it is established beyond any doubt that fetus is human being from conception, I doubt whether more than 1 or 2% of the people would support the right to abortion.

We've been around this dance before. It is without question a human being. Genetics do not lie.

The issue is far from settled, we don’t know when human life begins.

I know, many people are quite confused. It's obvious to me, and most people I know that study biology, that once the egg and sperm join, and the concomitant complex biochemical dance begins, that a new life is now formed. If it's a human egg and sperm, then it's a human being.

But if killing fetus from conception is scientifically proved to be the same as killing one week old baby, I cannot think of anyone who would support the right to ‘kill’ the baby in the womb.

That's why so many people say they would only be for it if it were medically necessary. The end result is the same, whether it's a fetus, or a one week old baby.

But we don’t know when human life begins, we don’t even know how precisely to define human life (remember the Terri Schivo controversy? There was difference of opinion as to whether she was legally alive or dead). All the uncertainties involved with the issue gives room for differing opinions on the subject.

I'll make it easy for you. Start with a living human that was just born last week. Then go backwards in days and keep asking the same question. Is this entity alive? There are simple criteria to assess this. Heart beat, brain function, cell division. When you get to a point where not one of these three criteria are present in the affirmative, then you have found out where human life begins.

Anywho, this is a red herring. It's nearly an example of Loki's wager to the dwarfs. In this world, there are many things which do not progress into categories so neatly and distinctly. Saying a second trimester fetus is not alive is stupid, because it obviously is. The mother's body has undergone extreme changes to accommodate the needs of her developing child.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

We've been around this dance before. It is without question a human being. Genetics do not lie.

That is very much a bone of contention, Tonington. Genetics tell us nothing. Just because it has human genes does not make it a human being. A dead body, or a severed arm of a person also has human genes, but that does not make them human.

It's obvious to me, and most people I know that study biology,

It may be obvious to you, but not to most people who have studied biology. If it was that obvious, biologists would be overwhelmingly opposed to abortion, they would have an organization Biologists for Life or something like that. But biologists are no more prolife than anybody else, if anything, they may be less prolife.

If it's a human egg and sperm, then it's a human being.

Again, that is your opinion.

That's why so many people say they would only be for it if it were medically necessary.

I don’t know who are these ‘so many people’, but in Canada, a majority is opposed to putting any restrictions on abortion. Even the attempts to put anti-abortion policy in Conservative Party platform was rejected, 55 to 45. Any politician who tried to dig up the settled issue of abortion will pay a heavy political price in Ontario and Quebec. I don’t think most people support only medically necessary abortions.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'll make it easy for you. Start with a living human that was just born last week. Then go backwards in days and keep asking the same question. Is this entity alive? There are simple criteria to assess this. Heart beat, brain function, cell division. When you get to a point where not one of these three criteria are present in the affirmative, then you have found out where human life begins.

That is your definition of human life, Tonington, and not necessarily the correct one (I don’t think there is a ‘correct’ definition). There are those who say that it is human life from conception. Heart beat, brain function, cell divisions by themselves do not define human life.