YCRBYCHI
An Aids victim pleaded with Mother Theresa as she made her rounds in the hospice, to pray for a cure for Aids. Mother Theresa replied, "I have already prayed to God for healing for Aids, and God's answer to me was "the one I sent to you was aborted in his mother's womb"
Get Involved!!!
 |
Show your support at bloodmoneyfilm.com
Individuals and family members are often hurt emotionally following an abortion. If you, or someone you know, needs help, please contact Abortion Recovery InterNational (1-866-4-My-Recovery)
bit.ly/ourwar
(made a mess of previous post - dodgy internet connection! Lol)
ReplyDelete"37,000 babies a day are being aborted".
Repeated ad nauseum. Untrue though. Assuming the numbers are right, 37000 fetuses are aborted, not the same thing. I read an interesting article recently on rationallyspeaking dot org:
"Perhaps the most important matter for us to clear up is the difference between first and second-term abortions, and late-term abortions. We need to do this for two reasons. First, research shows that fetuses are unlikely to suffer pain until around 26 or 27 weeks (more here) into the pregnancy (also around the time of viability, though we should note even viable fetuses need tremendous care). Second, only 1.4 percent of all abortions in the United States annually, occur after 21 weeks. Yes, you read correctly: roughly 99 percent of all abortions in the U.S. take place before a fetus is equipped to suffer. In fact, 90 percent of all abortions in the U.S. occur in the first 13 weeks, nowhere near the controversial 26th or 27th weeks.
That bitch got off on suffering. Except when it was her own. Then she got flown to a private clinic in the US. Fuck her.
ReplyDeleteOranges,
ReplyDelete>>First, research shows that fetuses are unlikely to suffer pain until around 26 or 27 weeks (more here) into the pregnancy (also around the time of viability, though we should note even viable fetuses need tremendous care).
Unlikely? Not too sure there huh?
When is someone dead? After heart stops and brain activity ceases right?
Well, the heart starts beating 22 days after conception so abortions stops human hearts.
"I've Noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." Ronald Reagan
We pass from isn't to is, in just a moment, the moment of conception
Dan,
ReplyDelete"We pass from isn't to is, in just a moment, the moment of conception"
Hmm. Biologically, I dont believe thats true. Now I get the religious aspect, when conception occurs = life. But biologically, not true. What is life? The sperm is alive, the egg is alive. Any random piece of flesh you decide to lop off your own body is alive.
For a period after conception, religion aside, we are simply talking about cells. The potential, the possibility, if "god" doesnt abort him/herself, of eventually a new life being born.
You can believe conception is the cutoff point if you want Dan. Thsts cool. You just have no right to impose that on others who dont agree, dont hold your religious views. And thats why it's legal. As it should be. Here in UK the legal limit is 24 weeks, tying in with the current medical advice regarding suffering of the fetus.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteDidn't you once claim that the only way to pray was to give thanks?
So why is mother terisa asking for things when she prays?
How do you know that she is hearing the voice of God and not just hearing voices?
The only reason creationist are so anti abortion is because the most part of their population come from brain washed orphans. Orphans also make a good prey for the sexual preditors that are protected in the creationists faiths. This also why creationists are anti contreption.
Oh there is a cure for AIDS "sexual activity with minors" was given as a cure by prechers in Africa.
Oh what about heroin fetuses? Should they have to become heroin babies for a couple of hours/days before dieing in pain?
In related news:
ReplyDeleteThe number of abortions here in Finland have been declining for the fifth successive year, especially among youth. Proof positive that integrated sex ed is of Satan.
This is exactly the kind of 'progress' that we need the burgeoning Finnish creationist front to oppose!
Look, all the information that is required for a baby is ready and available at conception. All the DNA code and switches are there available to the body. That personality and uniqueness is there at conception.
ReplyDeleteSomeday you will see that as I do today. Hopefully it will be soon
@Antzilla
ReplyDeleteWho in the world told you that prayer is only for giving thanks?
Not the Bible. In fact, when Jesus gave us the ideal model for prayer, in the middle of it he asked "give us this day our daily bread."
-Cullen Webb
Nation Pains
"First, research shows that fetuses are unlikely to suffer pain until around 26 or 27 weeks (more here) into the pregnancy (also around the time of viability, though we should note even viable fetuses need tremendous care)."
ReplyDeleteUh-huh, right. The pein response is a mere illusion. I understand that the same thing used to be said about slaves -- that they didn't really feel pain. Of course, this is nonsense.
So tell us Oranges. Did the research determine that there was no aversion responses to stimuli that might be considered painful until 27 weeks along? Or did they pick some physical structure that developed around that time and say that was necessary to feel pain.
As I'm sure you know pvblivs, I have no idea what the research determined. I am not involved in it, nor have I personally read it.
ReplyDeleteI quoted what I found to be "an interesting article" on rationallyspeaking dot org. I think thats what I said...
My point was firstly the video talks about 37000 babies. Not true, fetuses are not babies until born. In no way can an early stage fetus in particular be called a baby. Thats an emotional tool.
Secondly there is a reason we (both in UK and US) have time limits on abortion. I highlighted the article to make the point to Dan that conception is not a baby. Do I agree with the limit as currently set? I've no reason to argue with it, I'm no expert.
Like in every areas of science and medicine for which you I or Dan have no expert knowledge, I must as a layman defer to the experts.
After how many weeks should abortions be stopped? I dont know, but it surely cannot be after the point of conception as Dan suggests. At that point there is no "baby", there is no pain, there is nothing beyond human cells. Because of pain and suffering (rather than religious so-called "morals") I agree with there being a limit, based on the current best scientific research.
Will that research change? Why not. I'm cool with that.
Slaves pvblivs? I think you're comparing apples and .... bullshit there mate.
Incidentally, am I pro-abortion?
ReplyDeleteNo. Much better if noone ever had to have an abortion. But I'll be damned (pun intended) if I'm going to impose my views on a woman about her own body, and certainly not for dogmatic religious reasons.
Oranges, you're talking nonsense mate. Human development begins immediately after conception. In other words, life begins immediately after conception.
ReplyDeleteWhen separate, sperms and eggs are merely cells but when they merge, a human being starts to develop and you don't have the right to end that person's development. Plus you are actually saying it's okay to kill a fetus because it is "unlikely to feel pain". What nonsense. Even if that's the case, it's still wrong. Is it okay for me to kill someone by... perhaps lethal injection because he is unlikely to feel pain? no? oh.
And I see Antzilla is still as ignorant as ever. Painting all creationists with the same brush. Keep it up mate.
ReplyDeleteCullen,
ReplyDelete>>Who in the world told you that prayer is only for giving thanks?
Um, guilty. That may have been my fault. I completely forgot the context but, I was making the point that we need to give thanks instead of whining about things we need. In light of the "thy will be done" we are to be thankful for all that God has done for us. We need to thank him for the air we breath even. We even need to thank God for putting us through the tribulations and persecutions, since it glorifies Him.
The real desires for our lives, the things we really want, to lay hold of Christ's willingness to help us, will only be accomplished through prayer and fasting.
Matthew 17:20-21 "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
We need to be more thankful for God providing for us that "daily bread", was the point I believe.
Stewie,
ReplyDelete"In other words, life begins immediately after conception."
Life? The sperm and egg already were alive, as much as the single cell which results. Single cell. Dont try and tell me that is a person - it isnt.
It has the potential to be a person. But theres a long way to go before that, and I am not going to tell a woman what to do with her body at that point.
Once the fetus grows to a more complex stage? Thats when medical ethics are relevant. Religious ethics are always irrelevant, because we arent all part of any one narrow religion.
As for killing another person because they wont be in pain - its fatuous and irrelevant, because the fetus is not yet a person. Its not a valid comparison. As I say, when the fetus develops to a later stage, it is much more complicated, but after conception? No.
Oranges,
ReplyDelete>> Do I agree with the limit as currently set? I've no reason to argue with it, I'm no expert.
You are disturbing to me to say the least. You need a spine and fight for what is right not what some "authority" says. Man up dude.
You do remember the "Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment" don't you?
Its time to change that worldview of yours, before its too late.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"You are disturbing to me to say the least. You need a spine and fight for what is right not what some "authority" says. Man up dude."
Oh, I know what I think and what I think is right and wrong, without needing authority to dictate. Not sure about those who's opinions are based on religious dogma, pots and kettles really.
I know what I think - I do not believe in any gods or the supernatural. I do not hold the newly formed single cell at conception as sacred the way religions do. At that point it is like any human cells - no different. It has the potential, if allowed to continue. But it is part of the womans body, noone elses.
Only once the fetus develops to a degree where it can suffer and feel pain do I have a problem with abortion, and our laws (UK and US) reflect the same view. Again, lets be clear - I would prefer noone ever had an abortion. But I wont impose on a woman based on that.
I do accept authority though - scientific authority on matters of facts, such as the best estimate for when pain and suffering occur. I am not arrogant enough to think I know better than the experts. But I only defer to them in terms of facts and science, not my morals or subjective opinions.
Abortion is one of those issues which will always be contentious, because it involves human life, conflicting values, and because there are no places lines can be drawn. Even conception typically takes about an hour from first contact between egg and sperm until the sperm is engulfed. Trying to draw lines for perception of pain or brainwaves is likewise fuzzy. Thus, no matter what your position on what is permissible, there is no way to draw a hard and fast line that cleanly separates two different states.
ReplyDeleteLife's a bitch: sometimes hard decisions must be made, no matter what you believe.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"You need a spine and fight for what is right not what some 'authority' says."
I don't think you are in any position to say that. When have you ever fought for what you thought to be right without deferring to your "authority" (the biblical god)?
Oranges:
"Slaves pvblivs? I think you're comparing apples and..."
No, I am comparing excuses with excuses. I am saying that it looks like the declaration of "not feeling any pain" is made out of convenience, rather than as a conclusion of expertise. But I do think your very next word is an appropriate description of the "interesting article" you quoted.
"My point was firstly the video talks about 37000 babies. Not true, fetuses are not babies until born. In no way can an early stage fetus in particular be called a baby. Thats an emotional tool."
Well, it's an emotional tool if the users of the term don't really believe it. If they do, it's only a difference in perspective. Some people think the clinical-sounding term "fetus" is used specificly to hide the implications of the action. I think it just reflects a difference in perspective.
"Much better if noone ever had to have an abortion."
It is my understanding that most abortions are out of desire rather than necessity. Someone who has to have an abortion is not making a decision.
"...if I'm going to impose my views on a woman about her own body..."
Look, if she wants to chop off one of her own hands, or her foot, I will make no argument against it. Incidentally, the "war on drugs" (which seems to be largely supported by both major political parties) indicates that the government does impose its own views about what people can do with their own body. Additionally, the "fetus" is not her own body. I find it plausible that some people might think of the "fetus" as like a parasite. But even a parasite is s separate body. I do not believe anyone thinks the "fetus" is actually part of the woman's own body.
Dan + Cullen,
ReplyDelete1. You both claim to be Christians, so can you pray to your god and ask for things? Yes/No?
2. If one of you says yes (cullen?) and the other no(dan?) is one of you not a "real" christian?
Dan,
A woman I know has five childern and suffers from a mental illness and is taking medication. She fell pregnant, the medication she was on is no good for pregnancy, so she stopped taking it. Once not on medication her mental illness worsend. She became irrational and somtimes violent. It bacame obvious that another child could not be supported and the woman and her family were breaking down.
Shouldn't she be able to chose?
What about rape victims should they be forced to have the baby? (oh thats right they have to marry their rapist according to the bible"
What about drug addicts should they have babies?
What about people with AIDS should they have babies?
Stewie,
what is it you believe again?
Not an Christian, just believe in somthing/anything?
pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteI think the pain and suffering argument is important, albeit I cant say how accurate the current thinking is in terms of when the cutoff point should be. If its 20 weeks, I cant argue with that, if its 12 weeks, I cant argue with that either. I dont know the science personally.
But as I say the pain and suffering argument is important, for me. Because if the fetus is unable to suffer and is not in fact a person yet, I simply dont feel it is sacred and must be protected at all costs, against the womans choice.
To quote biologist PZ Myers:
"This is a point absolutely and solidly established in biology. The embryo is not the adult. It does not contain the full information present in the newborn -- that will be generated progressively, by interactions with the environment and by complex internal negotiations within an increasingly complex embryo. Pretending that 46 chromosomes in a cell is sufficient to define a person is the most absurd kind of extreme biological reductionism.
The fertilized oocyte is a human cell, but it is not a human being.
Way too many people think that is a sacrilegious idea — we have to cherish every single scrap of human tissue, especially the bits that have the potential to go on and develop into a child.
No, we don't. We don't have to revere every block of rough marble because another Michaelangelo could come along and sculpt it into something as wonderful as his David; we don't have to treasure every scrap of canvas because the next Picasso is going to use it for a masterpiece. The value isn't in the raw materials, but in the pattern, the skill, the art put into it. Similarly, those cells are simply the raw clay that the process and time will sculpt into something that is worth love and care.
Which is more important, the pigments or the painting? Even worse, do you think the pigments are the painting?"
pharyngula
Dan:
ReplyDeleteLook, all the information that is required for a baby is ready and available at conception. All the DNA code and switches are there available to the body. That personality and uniqueness is there at conception.
How in hell is that possible, Dan? At conception there is no nervous system. No brain with which to have any "personality" with! There's nothing to feel pain or even to transmit pain even.
Good grief. I'm sick of you religous hypocrites pretending to be "pro-life", yet none of you has any problem with the babies & pregnant women killed by your god in your own holy book.
Ask how many pregnancies end in miscarriages, Dan. Why does your god do that to them? If you religious people were really "pro-life", you'd be protesting outside the churches, the abode of "The Great Abortionist".
"Pro-life" my ass! Stop lying.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>"Pro-life" my ass! Stop lying.
Pro-life is just some inaccurate term. (To live is Christ, to die is gain)
I am certainly for capitol punishment for pedophiles or rapists so I am pro-death for those types.
I guess the proper term would be that I am Pro-babies or pro-protecting of the innocent.
Oranges:
ReplyDeleteBarring an instance of rape, I am inclined to extend the same amount of choice to the mother as to the father. (Note: I do not consider acting to save one's own life to be a "choice.") Well, what is the level of choice extended to the man? I understand it's normally "he made his choice when he decided to have sex." That is also why I have to make an exception for rape. If she didn't decide to have sex, she is in a situation over which she had no control.
I must note at this point that some supporters of abortion rights have suggested that while they would give the woman all of the decision power, they would also give her all the financial responsibility afterwards. That is, at least a consistent position; but it's a minority.
An embryo is, indeed, not an adult. Neither is a five-year-old child. However, we don't say that a parent can kill a five-year-old child on the axiom of "it's a choice." I will stipulate that the life of the mother comes before the life of the child in importance. But the issue of abortion rights addresses the question of when the well-being of the developing child supersedes the right of the mother to act on her whims. For comparison, we consider a person more important than a dog; but we don't allow people to torture dogs for their amusement. The well-being of the dogs is more important than "choice."
"I am certainly for capitol punishment for pedophiles or rapists..."
ReplyDeleteYou want to send them to Washington? That may have been a typo; but, with you, it's hard to tell. But I still have a problem with the idea. A pedophile is defined as a person who has certain urges, even if he suppresses them and doesn't act on them. Needless to say, I oppose criminalizing thought, any thought, no matter how repugnant.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that and yes I did mean capital not capitol. Huge difference of one letter. :7)
I enjoy what you have said so far about abortions. I wish I could enunciate as well as you about such a subject.
Thoughts alone I would find hard to punish. Acts though, like downloading kid porn, or what Chris Hansen has exposed, is offensive and deserves punishment.
I always views pedophilia as an act but in light of what you said, and some looking up, I stand corrected. My education has increased.
I agree only an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being could make such a radical call such as punishment for a thought. Man is not equipped with such tools, so they cannot. Shame though, a lot less suffering of little children would be accomplished if we could impose some "minority report". There again, like the movie points out, man is evil.
pvblivs,
ReplyDelete"An embryo is, indeed, not an adult. Neither is a five-year-old child. However, we don't say that a parent can kill a five-year-old child on the axiom of "it's a choice.""
No, an embryo is not an adult. But I wasnt talking about adults being special, albeit PZ Myers used the word adult in that piece I quoted. It wasnt what he meant either.
I certainly wasnt claiming there was a grade of importance from newborn baby to child to adult. What I said was: "Because if the fetus is unable to suffer and is not in fact a person yet"
My point is this - I view the newborn baby the same as the 5 year old, both have the same rights - the same rights as an adult.
But the single cell embryo immediately after conception? Or the 1 week old embryo? No. At this point we are talking about human cells, not a human being. No different than any other cells in the human body which you I or the government have no right to interfere with.
Once those cells develop to the point where they cease to be simply cells, but become a human fetus which can feel pain and suffer .... then I draw the line.
When is that line? I have no idea. So I defer.
But you cannot convince me the simple embryo in the early stages is somehow sacred and must be saved against the womans will at all costs. I understand that view from those with convictions born of religious dogma, but I will admit I cant understand it from you.
But its a perfectly reasonable position to hold, I have no problem with it. I just dont agree it should be imposed on others, and luckily US and UK law rightly dont.
Orange,
ReplyDeleteMy flaking skin or hair has human cells but an embryo, again, has all the information needed to create a very individual person that will be unlike any other person in the universe. Do you not see value in that? They are each, unique individuals.
>>"Because if the fetus is unable to suffer and is not in fact a person yet"
So we are able to set quadriplegics on fire, punch, stab, with no ramifications? Just as long as they don't "suffer" is the only qualification?
>>No different than any other cells in the human body which you I or the government have no right to interfere with.
Can those other "cells" produce a unique individual human? Then apples and oranges. That must be the reason behind that name. I get it now, you compare two different things as the same, all the time.
"My point is this - I view the newborn baby the same as the 5 year old, both have the same rights - the same rights as an adult."
ReplyDeleteStrictly speaking, they don't have the same rights as an adult. They are not allowed to drink, drive, vote, or enter legal agreements -- things adults take for granted. Rights are granted on a sliding scale. And here, we are talking about the right not to be killed on the basis of someone else's whim.
"What I said was: 'Because if the fetus is unable to suffer and is not in fact a person yet'"
And for my counterclaim, I used a dog, which is not a person at all. The right not to be killed on someone's whim is one we extend rather broadly.
"But the single cell embryo immediately after conception? Or the 1 week old embryo? No. At this point we are talking about human cells, not a human being. No different than any other cells in the human body which you I or the government have no right to interfere with."
I would rather mistakenly assume that there is something worth protecting and protect it than mistakenly assume that there is nothing worth protecting and fail to protect that which should be protected. However, my position does not advocate interfering with cells in the human body. Indeed, I would (if able to to work my will) be prohibiting such interference. An abortion is an act of interference, and a fatal one at that. It is a biological fact that those cells are no longer the mother's. By extention of your argument of "no right to interfere," the mother no longer has the right to interfere based on "she feels like it."
On the basis of declared general principles, most supporters of abortion should oppose it and most opponents shouldn't care. Clearly, the topic is considered a special case. But people try to make arguments to look like they are applying the same principles they apply to other things. As a result, the arguments fail miserably. In response to "her own body" I pointed out that I make no objection to people who want to chop off a hand or a foot (clearly their own body.) But I have little doubt that government would get involved. No, I think that if supporters of abortion really thought it was the mother's own body, they would oppose it. I am unswayed by the argument more because I think it insincere than anything else. I suppose that there are some that actually believe it. But the belief should be able to do anything they want with their own bodies is just not widely held. And there is the question of whether it even is her own body on which she is acting. I conclude that abortion affects the body of another.
Of course, there is something else. Perhaps the primary reason why people can't argue persuasviely (or even coherently) for their position on abortion is because most people don't know why they hold the position that they do and are simply looking for something that sounds good.
Oranges,
ReplyDeleteHuman development goes through different stages. You say that an embryo is just another cell in a woman's body. That statement is false, an embryo is a human going through an early development process.
A fetus is a developing human being, so is a new born baby, and a ten year old child, and an 18 year old. Human development doesn't stop until well into adulthood. When a woman has an abortion or kills a new born or a ten year old, she is prematurely ending that person's development. She does not have the right to do that.
pvblivs,
ReplyDelete"Strictly speaking, they don't have the same rights as an adult. They are not allowed to drink, drive, vote, or enter legal agreements"
And you know full well I'm not talking about individual rights, I am referring to the fact that an embryo in early development is not regarded as yet a distinct human being, with the rights (in the broadest sense) that any distinct human being does, from newborn babies to the old and infirm. The point at which those rights are applied is variable based on current scientific opinion. It would be foolish in the extreme to confer those same rights to the newly conceived embryo.
"By extention of your argument of "no right to interfere," the mother no longer has the right to interfere based on "she feels like it.""
You're just making crap up. The reasons abortion are legal up to a certain point are many, but partly because it is the womans right to have control of her own body and its functions. As you are with yours. The government does not want to interfere in peoples choices over their bodies. Our society has decided that where a woman wants an abortion, in particular early on, it is her right to have one - her right to make that choice. I'm fine with that. Why not? We arent talking about a dog, as you keep mentioning, which can feel pain and suffer. We are talking about an embryo which cannot. That the government doesnt want people to lop their own extremities off is simply due to the obvious mental problems such a person must have. But if you fancy snipping of your big toe today, feel free, you wont get changed with murder for killing your toe. At the point when you killed your toe, it was "just" human tissue. In early pregnancy, all emotional hysterics aside, so is the embryo.
"But the belief should be able to do anything they want with their own bodies is just not widely held. And there is the question of whether it even is her own body on which she is acting. I conclude that abortion affects the body of another."
The body of another .... what? Human? In early pregnancy? No. Cells which could, perhaps, eventually become a human. Like sperm or an egg. Also, of course it is her own body. Once the embryo has developed, then the question is valid. Early on, no. Hence the law.
"Of course, there is something else. Perhaps the primary reason why people can't argue persuasviely (or even coherently) for their position on abortion is because most people don't know why they hold the position that they do and are simply looking for something that sounds good."
What pious self-important crap. Because you disagree with my opinion does not mean I have not argued coherently. Your opinion is not the definitive answer. Live with it.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"My flaking skin or hair has human cells but an embryo, again, has all the information needed to create a very individual person that will be unlike any other person in the universe. Do you not see value in that? They are each, unique individuals."
Value, of course. In time. But initially the embryo is not an individual person. The sperm and egg also have the information needed to eventually lead to a new individual, but we rightly do not afford every sperm or egg the rights attributed to newborn babies, or even the fetus in late development.
"So we are able to set quadriplegics on fire, punch, stab, with no ramifications? Just as long as they don't "suffer" is the only qualification?"
Dont be ridiculous. You are talking here about a distinct human being affored all the rights and care every other person has. But you want to afford an embryo that same level of care, a collection of cells (at that point) which is no more able to feel or suffer than your appendix. In time .... yes. Hence the law.
"Can those other "cells" produce a unique individual human? Then apples and oranges. That must be the reason behind that name. I get it now, you compare two different things as the same, all the time."
Potential. The embryo has the potential to become more than just cells. When that happens, brilliant, and at that point abortion should not be allowed.
Actually, your skin or hair does have the all the information about you because it does have your DNA, albeit those cells are already dead.
ReplyDeleteLet's take it a step further, say we grabbed some adult stem cells from you, these are much like embryo cells. They have the necessary information to create life, specifically you. Is killing those cells a bad thing?
How about a trip down absurd logical conclusions?. Should we charge women who have miscarriages naturally with involuntary manslaughter, since according to you they did kill someone?
"And for my counterclaim, I used a dog, which is not a person at all. The right not to be killed on someone's whim is one we extend rather broadly."
Ahh but neither do we afford it the full rights a human has (dogs don't vote). Plus we can kill dogs, euthanasia is commonly practiced for sick ones or ones in shelters.
But back to the fundamental disconnect: Is an embryo a separate person/thing?
The science would seem to say no, because it can't survive apart from its mother, the same way your big toe can't survive apart from you. Thus neither deserves the rights we give to humans or other living animals (also note not all animals get this, bugs, mice, snakes, all these can be killed with little to no justification by us).
Could it eventually survive on it's own? Sure, maybe. And that's important, just because it's a fetus doesn't guarantee it will actually develop correctly. All manner of things can and do go wrong, which will lead to a miscarriage. If just that probability of becoming a person is good enough, doesn't each sperm also have a probability of being a human (albeit a much more remote possibility)?
Barring an instance of rape, I am inclined to extend the same amount of choice to the mother as to the father.
To address this, I disagree. The operation isn't happening to the father is the issue. I don't get to force you to undergo a operation, except unless you're incapacitated and it's in your best interest (e.g. medically necessary).
Now you may argue that he has a stake in the issue. But it's only financial at best (since there's no laws requiring him to actually otherwise take care of the child). By that logic, shouldn't everyone get to vote whether every baby should be aborted or not? Because, after all, as a taxpayer, I too have a financial stake that child. To a lesser extent than the father or mother sure, so that's why I only get a vote along with all other taxpayers with a financial stake in that baby.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteReynold,
>>"Pro-life" my ass! Stop lying.
Pro-life is just some inaccurate term. (To live is Christ, to die is gain)
I am certainly for capitol punishment for pedophiles or rapists so I am pro-death for those types.
I guess the proper term would be that I am Pro- babies or pro-protecting of the innocent.
No, Dan. You're making it worse. Your god himself had killed pregnant women and babies in the OT, and continues to do so to this day through miscarriages.
You love and worship this being. You are NOT "pro-babies" or "pro-protecting of the innocent".
At best you are until your god says otherwise. Then it's fuck them, time to die.
As I said earlier, don't lie to me.
By the way, didn't we talk about something like this before?
csdx,
ReplyDeleteNow you are showing your true colors (maybe orange)
>>Let's take it a step further, say we grabbed some adult stem cells from you, these are much like embryo cells. They have the necessary information to create life, specifically you. Is killing those cells a bad thing?
Dude, think it through a bit. What would it take to create life? Would you need a stripped down egg to insert that information? Yes. So can the hair develop naturally into a human? Nope. Embryos can. So your abserd postulation is pointless.
>>How about a trip down absurd logical conclusions?
Yours? Oh, I can't wait.
>>Should we charge women who have miscarriages naturally with involuntary manslaughter, since according to you they did kill someone?
I don't know yet. Did she get high on crack or have her friend punch her belly to get rid of that human? I see you said "miscarriages naturally" but hopefully you will see my point that a natural reaction to intense "trauma" is miscarriages of the baby. Abortions are mere forced miscarriages. (eg. traumatizing the body to the point of release) Then she should be charged with murder in the first degree.
>>Ahh but neither do we afford it (a dog) the full rights a human has (dogs don't vote).
Can a 5 year old vote? A 5 year old can express their desires, and so can dogs.
>>The science would seem to say no, because it can't survive apart from its mother, the same way your big toe can't survive apart from you.
BZZZT, Modern medicine has made Roe vs. Wade irrelevant as an excuse to abort babies. Babies can, and do, survive outside the womb. The age of viability is 24-26 weeks gestation. So now what is your excuse? Mom being in danger? Of the very few cases documented, that is no longer a problem. So how do you explain the millions being performed now?
>>Could it eventually survive on it's own? Sure, maybe. And that's important, just because it's a fetus doesn't guarantee it will actually develop correctly.
That subjective statement of "develop correctly" is the key point here. You do understand there are prenatal tests performed. They do it by inserting needles into the placenta. We never had these tests performed, ever, but they are offered to woman to make decisions to abort in case the child has down's syndrome. The "develop correctly" statement is very subjective as to what is "desired" by the woman. Some feel that blond hair and blue eyes are babies that are "developed correctly", is that wrong? My brother has cerebral palsy, he was not "developed correctly", should he have been aborted because of that?
>>If just that probability of becoming a person is good enough, doesn't each sperm also have a probability of being a human (albeit a much more remote possibility)?
Straw man yet again? It is not the "probability of becoming a person" that is an issue. The embryo is a human already and will develop into a larger human in time.
Biologically, human life begins at conception, right when the egg gets fertilized. The fertilized egg has all the information in the genes that makes a human being, even blood type. All the information that makes you, you. For the rest of your life, no new genetic information is ever added, so human life begins at conception.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>By the way, didn't we talk about something like this before?
Thanks for being completely intellectually dishonest. You have no room to judge others. I erased our conversation since you decided to use a tactic called "contextomy" or "quote mining"
The last comment has my stance.
Now you are showing your true colors (maybe orange)
ReplyDeletePfft, it's yellow. Actually pink, everyone's pink on the inside.
So fine, lets take a step back, obviously we're coming from different paradigms already. Ignore abortion and 23 weeks or whatever, let's start with the fundamental contention: is a fertilized egg a human?
Now my contention is no, because it isn't an independent organism, and does not exhibit the qualia we associate with the human experience (e.g. that which makes us a human and not a dog, or a bacteria).
So it seems to me you consider a fertilized egg a human because:
1: It has all the information (DNA) that makes up a human
2: It will develop into a baby and full human
If these are micharacterized or there are others, let me know. In the meantime:
Biologically, human life begins at conception, right when the egg gets fertilized. The fertilized egg has all the information in the genes that makes a human being, even blood type.
But by that argument so does every other piece of you, every cell in your body has your complete DNA, thus by that metric every last cell of you must count the same. And you can no more kill them than kill a fertilized egg.
Also I think there are counterexamples to that claim. Firstly, there are things called epigenes, which cause certain genes to turn on or off depending on environmental factors, so new information is added. Also DNA transcription errors happen as your cells divide (which is why we get old and die) so your DNA does change throughout your life, new information can be added that way (e.g. different molecules, or even extra ones are added to the sequence).
Now about the second piece: I'd like to feel out the range a bit more first:
Say I fertilized an egg in a petri dish, to you, I've made a human. I see it as beginning reactions that will lead to a zygote then fetus then human. But now say the egg/sperm was damaged such when they combined it would only develop to 8 cells then stop. Was that ever a human, is it still one? Does it need to be able to become a baby to count? E.g. when I was mentioning 'develop correctly' I actually meant fertilized eggs that would never be viable (say to even the 23 week mark). Are those ok to kill?
But let me put up my thoughts for you to dissect. I see an important aspect of humanity as the capacity for thought. To me if someone's brain dead, they're gone and what's left is just a collection of organs. Similarly without ever having had such activity, I would not consider something to truly be an alive human. Now to be fair I haven't read actual scientific papers detailing this, but have read secondary sources claiming that this activity starts around 20 weeks and is sustained by 22 weeks generally. So I'd peg it somewhere within that time period.
Dan
ReplyDeleteAssuming you are 37 years old, you are now in your 157th trimester.
I don't think it's too late to abort you!
Hee hee!
Froggie
Oranges:
ReplyDelete"And you know full well I'm not talking about individual rights, I am referring to the fact that an embryo in early development is not regarded as yet a distinct human being, with the rights (in the broadest sense) that any distinct human being does, from newborn babies to the old and infirm."
Actually, no, I don't. You seem to be trying to make what you are saying rather elusive. When you say "the rights of an adult" or "the same rights as an adult" I think of all the individual rights so implied. Now, there is a good chance that you mean the singular right not to be killed on a whim. But that right is extended to non-humans -- well, some non-humans. If you openly state that that is what you are talking about the whole "and is not in fact a person yet" becomes irrelevant.
"The reasons abortion are legal up to a certain point are many, but partly because it is the womans right to have control of her own body and its functions."
The reasons may indeed be many. But that one is a false excuse. It is false on two points. 1> Abortion is an action on another body. 2> No such general right is recognized. Indeed, the "war on drugs," which I have brought up before, is an emphatic declaration that there is no such right.
"The government does not want to interfere in peoples choices over their bodies."
That is rather manifestly false. Drug laws, seatbelt laws, helmet laws (and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head) are entirely about government interference in people's choices over their bodies. Whether you think those laws are good or bad, the government does, in fact, interfere with what people may do with their own bodies. Now, maybe you think the government should hold the principle you described. There is nothing wrong with advocacy to change laws. But as it stands, the government does not hold to such a principle.
"Why not? We arent talking about a dog, as you keep mentioning, which can feel pain and suffer. We are talking about an embryo which cannot."
Well, you allege the embryo cannot suffer. It's not really established. We have people who supported abortion declaring an inability to feel pain -- and performing what looks to me like interesting mental gymnastics to support it. Bluntly put, it looks like they are going backwards from their desired conclusion.
"That the government doesnt want people to lop their own extremities off is simply due to the obvious mental problems such a person must have."
Whatever the motivation it demonstrates the falsity of the claim that the government does not want to interfere with people's choices over their own bodies. And you are indicating that you knew the claim was false when you made it.
"Because you disagree with my opinion does not mean I have not argued coherently."
No, it doesn't. But the fact that you claimed general principles that you do not apply in general does. The fact that you base your argument (in part) on "the government does not want to interfere in peoples choices over their bodies," when you know that it does, makes your argument incoherent. Incidentally, I don't think that only abortion supporters make incoherent arguments.
"How about a trip down absurd logical conclusions?. Should we charge women who have miscarriages naturally with involuntary manslaughter, since according to you they did kill someone?"
ReplyDeleteIf someone is driving a car, the steering unexpectedly disgages, and the car starts accellerating out of control defying all attempt to slow or stop it, and in this condition the car runs over several people, killing them, should we charge the driver with involuntary manslaughter? What you are describing is a situation completely beyond someone's control. I do not advocate throwing people in jail for events over which they have no control.
"Ahh but neither do we afford it the full rights a human has (dogs don't vote). Plus we can kill dogs, euthanasia is commonly practiced for sick ones or ones in shelters."
No, we don't afford dogs with the full rights of humans. We do afford them with certain limited rights which I believe should also be extended to the "fetus." The claim of "not a person yet" has no bearing. Now, while we can kill dogs in certain circumstances, a mere whim or "choice" is not sufficient to do so legally.
"But back to the fundamental disconnect: Is an embryo a separate person/thing?"
The embryo is a separate entity. An embryo is parasitic and completely dependent upon a host for survival. But the fact that in vitro fertilizations can be implanted in surrogate mothers shows that, while the developing life form needs a host, it does not require a particular host. Therefore, we have a separate life form.
"Could it eventually survive on it's own? Sure, maybe. And that's important, just because it's a fetus doesn't guarantee it will actually develop correctly. All manner of things can and do go wrong, which will lead to a miscarriage."
All manner of things can and do go wrong leading to children dying before reaching adulthood. It's just as easy to say "not yet a person." Indeed, one might argue that "personhood" is conferred or denied based on whether the individual making the determination wishes to prohibit or permit killing. Any argument based on personhood is going to run up against a disputed premise. This is why I don't bother trying to convince anyone that the "fetus" is a person. I believe it. But the point will be disputed.
"To address this, I disagree. The operation isn't happening to the father is the issue."
But the argument is generally framed as reproductive rights. And the motive for an abortion is often financial. Furthermore, the operation is happening to the "fetus," who gets killed. Funny how the one most impacted does not get a choice.
"But let me put up my thoughts for you to dissect. I see an important aspect of humanity as the capacity for thought. To me if someone's brain dead, they're gone and what's left is just a collection of organs. Similarly without ever having had such activity, I would not consider something to truly be an alive human. Now to be fair I haven't read actual scientific papers detailing this, but have read secondary sources claiming that this activity starts around 20 weeks and is sustained by 22 weeks generally. So I'd peg it somewhere within that time period."
ReplyDeleteAccording to www.pregnancy.org: "Day 40: Brain waves can be detected and recorded." Now, I am inclined to agree with brain waves as a reasonable marking point. (Particularly because, with the existing legal definition of end-of-life, it isn't contrived to support anyone's pre-determined outcome.)
pvblivs,
ReplyDelete(part1)
You seem to be trying to make what you are saying rather elusive. When you say "the rights of an adult" or "the same rights as an adult" I think of all the individual rights so implied. Now, there is a good chance that you mean the singular right not to be killed on a whim. But that right is extended to non-humans -- well, some non-humans. If you openly state that that is what you are talking about the whole "and is not in fact a person yet" becomes irrelevant."
For some reason you are pretending my argument is elusive. It's quite plain. You mention the right not be killed on a whim - we do kill some species on a whim, we value some more than others, often irrationally. All of that is irrelevant. You DO know what I'm saying, you are just enjoying being contrary I suspect. I am saying that in general we value humans on a completely different level from other species. And my personal gauge of when we as a species are afforded such special consideration is once a fetus develops to a certain level. Your obfuscation about individual/general rights are irrelevant to the point I am making.
"The reasons may indeed be many. But that one is a false excuse. It is false on two points. 1> Abortion is an action on another body. 2> No such general right is recognized. Indeed, the "war on drugs," which I have brought up before, is an emphatic declaration that there is no such right."
Again, you are trying to obscure my obvious and general point. Of course we have a "general right" to control of our own bodies, and being able to cite specific examples where society has decided otherwise is a great diversionary tactic, but irrelevant. You know full well that governments avoid interference with people and their bodily functions as much as possible, but for peoples own good and the good of society government decides everything cannot be allowed. In the case of abortion, until the fetus has developed to a certain level, it IS her body as far as I am concerned. Abortion is not an action on another body until the embryo develops to a certain stage - for me a stage at which the embryo has developed enough to BE another person, brain, nervous system etc. Quite obviously this is subjective.
(part2)
ReplyDelete"Well, you allege the embryo cannot suffer. It's not really established. We have people who supported abortion declaring an inability to feel pain -- and performing what looks to me like interesting mental gymnastics to support it. Bluntly put, it looks like they are going backwards from their desired conclusion."
Again, misrepresentation and obfuscation. Of course the early embryo cannot suffer, no more than your appendix can suffer, or any collection of cells without its own nervous system or brain to interpret the signals. An early embryo doesnt even have the pathways to transmit the signals, it will suffer to the same extent as a single sperm. The question is not about whether abortion can create suffering for a fetus - of course it can - the question is at what point does abortion cause suffering. If we were to restrict abortion to the earliest stages, there could be no pain, no suffering. I get the impression you object to abortion even at that point, on principle because the fetus even exists. Fine. Same as the religious view. But I dont, and neither does the law, so the decision has to be based on the point at which the fetus can suffer, for me.
"Whatever the motivation it demonstrates the falsity of the claim that the government does not want to interfere with people's choices over their own bodies. And you are indicating that you knew the claim was false when you made it."
Nonsense. In general governments dont want to interfere with peoples bodily functions. That there are exceptions only proves the rule. Another example - western democracies are "free" and value "freedom". By your logic, if that were true there would be no laws, no restrictions, nothing to prevent absolute freedom. Patently, thats idiotic, and an idiotic argument.
"Incidentally, I don't think that only abortion supporters make incoherent arguments."
What you seem to be looking for is simplistic arguments, to look at situations without allowing for the complexity that exists in real life. Black and white. Oddly like a creationist.
It's perfectly reasonable for us to have different opinions, but to try and misrepresent my opinions as somehow incoherent and inconsistent is surprisingly petty.
Yeah, like when it comes to quote minining, Dan you creationists have any right to get judgemental!
ReplyDeleteAs for you: You're the guy who kept accusing me of wanting to turn Jews over to the nazis when I had really said that I'd just lie to the Nazis to throw them off the trail.
Remember how bloody hard I had to work to show you that, when it was under your bloody nose the whole damned time?
Now you pretend to care about intellectual dishonesty?
Let me try to explain things to you.
I linked to that because I want to know why you switched from the "biblical view" of this to a biological view. without any biblical justification.
(I'm ignoring for now the fact that: Every cell in the human body has "all the information", and that even though the fertilized ovum has all the "information" it still does not have any nerves or ogans to transmit or to percieve pain.)
You are, after all, the one who said that you can't argue with the bible, yet all of a sudden, you are.
Maybe I should have asked outright why you switched views at the time I linked to your previous reply.
Oranges:
ReplyDelete"For some reason you are pretending my argument is elusive."
No pretense. You talked about "the rights of adults," I showed that the protection of which I speak does not require the full rights of adults, and you essentially said "you know that's not what I meant." What's quite plain is that you don't want to be pinned down.
"I am saying that in general we value humans on a completely different level from other species."
And that is not particularly relevant to the subject of abortion because protection from whimsy killing does not require close to the same value that we place on people.
"And my personal gauge of when we as a species are afforded such special consideration is once a fetus develops to a certain level."
Why didn't you say that to begin with, instead of "not yet a person" and "the rights of adults"? My assessment is that you mean to confuse the issue by preventing any part of your argument (other than the conclusion that you support abortion rights) from being pinned down.
"You know full well that governments avoid interference with people and their bodily functions as much as possible, but for peoples own good and the good of society government decides everything cannot be allowed."
I know the reverse to be true. "For your own good" is an all-purpose excuse. Any time a government (or any type of authority) wishes to interfere in behavior it can whip out "for your own good" and make no further explanations. In order for a general principle of freedom to be meaningful, authorities cannot interfere with "for your own good." In short, in a free society, it is not the government's place to protect people from their own stupidity.
"Of course the early embryo cannot suffer,..."
There is no "of course" about it. There is nothing self-evident and it is a point in dispute. In order to know for sure that something does not suffer, one would have to be psychic. Does a flower suffer when it is picked? I cannot reliably say that it does not. And neither can you. I have no specific knowledge that it does. But that just means that any such suffering is beyond the scope of my knowledge.
"By your logic, if that were true there would be no laws, no restrictions, nothing to prevent absolute freedom."
Incorrect. Laws have a legitimate place to protect people (and other beings, though this is to a lesser extent) from the harmful or malicious acts of others. Laws that prevent people from abusing others are quite valid. Laws to prevent people from doing things "for their own good" reek of a "nanny state" and are the antithesis of freedom.
"It's perfectly reasonable for us to have different opinions, but to try and misrepresent my opinions as somehow incoherent and inconsistent is surprisingly petty."
ReplyDeleteExcept that I didn't misrepresent you. The incoherency and inconsistency is real. Stating that governments don't interfere with people's private actions that have no effect on anyone else sounds real nice. I even agree that it should be a general principle. It's just not true.
"What you seem to be looking for is simplistic arguments, to look at situations without allowing for the complexity that exists in real life. Black and white."
Well, "no interference with abortion" is a rather black-and-white position. In order to address the complexities, one would have to approve or deny abortions on a case-by-case basis. It would also be prudent to assign an advocate to represent the interests of the "fetus." After all, someone seeking an abortion is probably not concerned with the interests of the "fetus." I don't see you arguing for a case-by-case determination. So your claim that I am ignoring complexity seems a bit dishonest. You are not arguing for when there are extenuating circumstances. If you were, then I would have to deal with when those circumstances apply. No, you are advocating a unilateral decision to be made by the mother for whatever motives (be they noble or base) she may have. To address an issue as complex denies such a unilateral decision. "Black and white" may indeed be like a creationist, as you say, but it is your position.
If one thinks that a fertilized egg is a human right at birth, here's something to consider.
ReplyDeletepvblivs,
ReplyDeleteimpressive quote-mining skills. Takes a particularly dishonest man to rewrite the meaning of words knowingly in the way you have.
Enjoy.
Oranges:
ReplyDelete"impressive quote-mining skills. Takes a particularly dishonest man to rewrite the meaning of words knowingly in the way you have."
That's funny. I was thinking of how you were dishonest. I have neither quote-mined nor rewritten the meaning of any words. So tell me, does one have to be dishonest to support abortion rights? Or is it just your style? After all, you have accused me falsely. If, at some point, you want to start being honest about it, you just let me know. But here's a hint. If you really believed that I quote-mined you, you would have given examples and showed where you thought the context indeicated a different meaning than I suggested. But you can't do that. Because there is nothing that can even be mistaken for a quote-mine.
But then I have no motive to quote-mine you and you know it. I can hardly convince you of something by deliberate misrepresentation of your position. I could hardly do it for the Dan's benefit. As nearly as I can tell, he ignores the content of arguments and only determines whether he agrees with the conclusion. So I have absolutely no reason to present your words as anything other than the way I interpret them. On the other hand, you do have a potential motive for flinging the false accusation. You may wish for people to dismiss what I say, sight unseen.
There is no need for you to respond to this. I present this so that may know that I see your accusations for what they are, and so that others may also see them for what they are. I will also say this. While I cannot know for sure, I suspect that your defense of abortion rights has previously only been tried on those who already agreed with you or on those who do not examine the content of arguments. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the phrase "you know what I meant" is most often used by those who don't want any dissent and who make unclear statements so they can claim any criticism criticizes a misrepresentation. If someone presents my argument as something other than what I meant, my first impulse is to think that there was a sincere misinterpretation rather than a deliberate misrepresentation. But the meaning of your argument (except, of course, for the conclusion) has been elusive. And, at this point, I think that was deliberate.
Sorry pvblivs, I don't want to play your semantic games, reducing any general argument to the individual exceptions which, lets face it, can be found for every logical point of view.
ReplyDeleteJust go back and read my original posts again. You'll find your responses were petty and an attempt to distract and obscure.
Oranges:
ReplyDeleteJust go back and read my original posts again. You'll find your responses were petty and an attempt to distract and obscure.
No, your posts are the ones I find as attempts to distract and obscure. After all, what is "oddly like a creationist" but an attempt to distract?
Exceptions to general principles can only be found when the principle is stated overbroadly. Granted, this happens a lot. But when the entity that supposedly respects a general principle can make exceptions to it pretty much at will, it is no general principle. Alternately, one could have desired principles in order of importance. But in this case "government can dictate what you do with your life when it thinks it knows better than you" would seem to be taking pecedence over "government does not interfere with how you run your own life." Priority is given to the negation of the very principle you want me to assume. And I'm not even claiming that it is "in the mother's interest" not to have an abortion. (I understand that some people make that claim; but I cannot support it.) I am basing my position on the protection of another (the "fetus.")
You also make claims of "of course, the early embryo cannot suffer." But we are not always capable of detecting suffering when it occurs. So there is nothing self-evident about the claim that an embryo doesn't suffer.
And what's really rich is how you take the position of unilateral discretion for the mother (disregarding any consideration for the "fetus") and then turn around and say I'm being simplistic. Well, I haven't claimed that there aren't circumstances that can justify an abortion. Indeed, I think there are circumstances that can so justify. What I have said is that a whim (which is the standard you seem to propose) is not sufficient justification.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>If one thinks that a fertilized egg is a human right at birth, here's something to consider.
I don't know if you knew this or not but a egg that we eat in the morning is an "unfertilized" egg. The yellow part is the "food" for the embryo, if it were to be fertilized. Also, the silk and seed are not aware of themselves, they are not consistent with human or animal life. So the link makes no sense what so ever.
Unless you are claiming that the vegetables that we eat are being harmed and should not be "killed," then you have made no point here.
pvblivs,
ReplyDelete"After all, what is "oddly like a creationist" but an attempt to distract?"
No, simply noting how the tone of your arguments mirrored the ones used by creationists, ironically against you in the past I'm sure. You know the sort of thing, in response to "the scientific consensus is X" the creationist will point to obscure Y. Frustrating, distracting, but irrelevant.
"Exceptions to general principles can only be found when the principle is stated overbroadly."
See? That might be your view, it isnt mine.
"You also make claims of "of course, the early embryo cannot suffer." But we are not always capable of detecting suffering when it occurs. So there is nothing self-evident about the claim that an embryo doesn't suffer.""
A good example - are you saying a majority of biologists or doctors believe single cells or early embryos can suffer? Or are you just being contrary for the hell of it? Of course the early embryo cannot suffer, in any reasonable definition of suffering. (I await your dissection of what constitutes reasonable definition, lol).
You appear to have the perfectly reasonable opinion that at the moment of conception there is a new life which should not be aborted "on a whim" (your phrase, not mine) - I dont claim abortions should be available "on a whim", if the early embryo is wanted great, if not I am not minded to insist someone should keep it. Once the embryo grows, guided by the science which dictates the law, a cutoff point should be drawn. Different points of view, thats all.
"And what's really rich is how you take the position of unilateral discretion for the mother (disregarding any consideration for the "fetus") and then turn around and say I'm being simplistic. Well, I haven't claimed that there aren't circumstances that can justify an abortion. Indeed, I think there are circumstances that can so justify. What I have said is that a whim (which is the standard you seem to propose) is not sufficient justification."
Well, again referring you YOUR phrase "on a whim", it's not a standard I propose or believe in. You are attributing an apparent lax moral attitude to me, one which only exists in your head. I havent been arguing for a moral free-for-all, I just dont think I or others are qualified to tell a woman what to do with her body when the fetus has not yet developed to a stage where it is viable or able to suffer. That also appears to be the legal position in many countries. I dont even agree the father should be left out of the decision, albeit I'm not sure there should be legal requirement for his input at the early stage.
Just for clarity, knowing women who have had (in some cases multiple) abortions, none were "on a whim". They were devastating decisions in their lives, which today, years later, they believe were correct although they have regrets. I am sure there are many who think they made the wrong decision.
>>Just for clarity, knowing women who have had (in some cases multiple) abortions, none were "on a whim". They were devastating decisions in their lives, which today, years later, they believe were correct although they have regrets. I am sure there are many who think they made the wrong decision.
ReplyDeleteIndividuals and family members are often hurt emotionally following an abortion. If you, or someone you know, needs help, please contact Abortion Recovery InterNational (1-866-4-My-Recovery)
While some may not like the phrase "on a whim" used to describe a standard, it does fit. Now, individually, people may go through a long deliberative process. But there is no requirement for it. If someone can take a given action and needs no further justification than he decided to do it, then it is an action one can take on a whim. For example, I can pour myself a glass of milk on a whim. Since the decision is mine, and mine alone, to make, I can make it on any basis, including on a whim.
ReplyDeleteIf one really thinks that abortion is entirely about the woman's body, why be concerned over the perception of a "lax moral attitude"? Morality only comes into play when other beings are affected. Neither do I think that government has any business prohibiting someone's actions on the basis that he might regret it later.
I find the "her own body" claim to be incoherent because the people who advance it don't believe the general principle. (Oh, there may be some; but it's been outside my experience.) Attempts to have arbitrary parts of one's anatomy removed (absent a medical reason) would be denied. I sincerely doubt that one could just plop down the money and have one's appendix removed because after (maybe) thinking about it one decided that one just didn't want an appendix. The very concept of doing that would likely horrify many supporters of abortion.
"[A]re you saying a majority of biologists or doctors believe single cells or early embryos can suffer?"
That was a red herring. I said that suffering may be able to occur in such a way that we cannot detect it. The ability to suffer cannot conclusively be ruled out in anything. Personally, I don't think that a majority of doctors or biologists even care whether individual cells can suffer. I don't think they would have any idea what to look for. And I don't think they would bother if they did have a means to test. But let's suppose that somehow there was a method to test against all possible types of suffering and that it was somehow determined conclusively that individual cells don't suffer. That still wouldn't merit the "of course." Because it is not something that is self-evident. The perceptions (or lack of same) of individual cells are so far removed from our ordinary experience that "of course" cannot properly be applied to any of it.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteReynold,
>>If one thinks that a fertilized egg is a human right at birth, here's something to consider.
I don't know if you knew this or not but a egg that we eat in the morning is an "unfertilized" egg.
Only if they're store-bought eggs and not from a local farmer, in which case the egg likely is fertilized because of the roosters that they usually have around. Once in the fridge, the chicken embryo will not develop.
The yellow part is the "food" for the embryo, if it were to be fertilized. Also, the silk and seed are not aware of themselves, they are not consistent with human or animal life. So the link makes no sense what so ever.
A human zygote does not have self-awareness either.
You miss the point of the seed: Just because it's got all the material to be a tree does not mean that it's a real "tree" yet. None of the processes of "life" that a tree does are happening yet.
pvblivs,
ReplyDeletelol. Seriously, I can't compete with someone whose argument involves theorising/inventing abilities for individual cells to feel pain.
It's pointless.
A significant number of human pregnancies, about 20% (?), ends in a 'spontaneous miscarriage'. In other words, nature aborts the baby. So Francisco Ayala, biologist and ordained priest, has a question for creationists about the imperfections of the human reproductive system:
ReplyDelete“If god explicitly designed the human reproductive system, is god the biggest abortionist of them all
Ant,
ReplyDeleteFrom someone that believes that nature created everything, as all atheists, you sure want to intervene in nature a great deal. Why are Atheists for abortions if they believe nature, evolution, will work things out for the better? Inconsistent much?
Miscarriages are happening because it is such a difficult process to create life. Everything must be in place and all happen at the right time. That does not ALWAYS happen. An analogy to mirror what you are in a sense saying is since everyone will die anyway God is murdering everyone. But the truth is that in reference to abortions, you are saying, since everyone will die anyway we might as well just kill everyone? Does that even make sense to you? It is certainly not called man made miscarriages by any stretch of the imagination.
Once again you are completely and utterly illogical.
so this is absolutes right? black and white? thou shalt not kill (unless you count the countless killed in the name of god) that aside though
ReplyDeletehypothetically a small 9 yo child who was raped by a family member or other person (some children start menstruating at 6!!)now her body is absolutely NOT physically ready for a baby nor is she fully capable of raising or even legally allowed to make decisions for said potential life not to mention her body will be absolutly ripped apart from the parasite/fetus!!!
you would reccomend she not have an abortion? what if god forbid that experience were to happen to you? (I in absolutly no way wish this upon you or anyone for that matter) two words compassion and empathy
Rebel,
ReplyDelete>>you would reccomend she not have an abortion?
Yes, I would recommend that she have that baby because if nature says she is ready then she is. Who are you to determine that she isn't ready? Do you know more then what nature determines? I would be right there to support her in every way. Even to raise the child, for her, so she could have a childhood herself. Sad hypothetical though. Thou shalt not murder, but If I caught that man raping that little girl I would probably get mid evil on him and peel his skin off. I know of a preacher that was the result of a rape. His mom sure could have aborted him but he has been such a blessing in my own life. Thank God for the result of that rape.
are you serious? what tells me her body is not ready? umm simple biology you might want to take a lesson
ReplyDeleteyes sometimes a girls menstuation may come earlier than some but just because her menstuation cycle has started does not in any way make her body physically ready to become pregnant her bones and overall body is still growing even teen pregnancy has alot of health risks with it
to put a childs body through that much additional stress to an already changing/growing body is just asking for trouble not to mention the horrific emotional scars if you want to be there for that child you better bloody be ready to pay for a shit load of therapy and thats even if I leave out the sheer confusion and emotional distress of trying to carry a child to full term for a child
the very very rare cases medically speaking is basically a very early rapid pruberty in small children that may cause them to become pregnant through sexual abuse but that doesn't mean that if a small child is pregnant that they automatically have that medical condition
I shall reiterate just because a girl has her menstrual cycle does NOT mean that she is physically ready to have a baby she has a while to go before her body is fully mature and emotionally mature to handle pregnancy
unless a medical condition that I stated before rapidly speeds up this process but these cases are extremely rare!(also I would and im sure you would too prefer that the child absolutely does not go throught that experience for a long time)