Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

Wait a second...schraf: And then you: That stands in stark contrast to your statement to me that all life must be given a chance to live. How is this line of where life can be removed from a woman's body shifting? What criteria?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Nice post, and I'm sure RAZD will like it too.Now here is my issue. In making this case that "cessation" is essentially no different than "lack of", I am still not sure that is applicable to fetal life.I mean I totally understand that what has been shown is that under common usage we would not consider it a "person". The problem lies in the fact that the "lack of" is only temporary.If you were knocked down to just CPN functions, lets say for the purpose of an operation, most people would probably NOT be happy with doctors being able to simply stop the operation because at that point you are no longer a "person". The fact is, given time (the rest of the operation), you would be back to being a person.A fetus "lacks" the characteristics because at that stage of development it is not supposed to (imagine consciousness developing FIRST). Yet is is continually changing to a point it can have those characteristics.Okay so not person, but certainly not the same as dead, and not the same as someone knocked into a permanent CPN state.A fetus is SIMILAR, but not the SAME. And the ethics may be different, or viewed differently.I will add that people who believe in souls and things like that may very well be happy with a CPN life.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please point out what you feel was my saying that the definition of life is NOT based on personal religious/philosophical beliefs.

---

"Your specific metaphysical position"

quote:

---

Why do you feel that the rights of cells should outweigh the rights of a fully grown host organism?

​

And if you really feel this way, are you carefully keeping all of your sperm so that each one will become the life that it can be?

---

What rights of a woman are being violated in have a child she helped create?I'm saying when a woman is pregnant and will bear a child if she doesn't have an abortion.

quote:

---

I see, so in your imagination pregnancies work like this: A women discovers she is pregnant and at the same time whether it will turn out to be life threatening?

​

Perhaps you should read more about pregnancies and how they actually work. When a woman first find out she is pregnant there may be no clues whatsoever that something bad is going to happen. It is a RISK to continue with the pregnancy.

---

Yes there is a risk and if it is a severe life or death situation she should be able to have an abortion. Doctors will know at some point during the pregnancy if there are potentially any severe risks in having the child.

quote:

---

I've never heard this before. What does it mean?

---

cream means cash rules everything around me. It's all about money in this country.

quote:

---

Or are you feeling that it has some "other" destiny? That it is the same as a full grown human and should be allowed to become a human?

​

If so, then what other than religion allows you to believe those cells have some "full human" quality? That they should be "given a chance"?

---

Because I was given a chance.

quote:

---

Mmmmm. Yes, you seem to be confused all over the place. Let's just end it with the realization I was not saying ethics is necessarily based on religion.

---

You feel that my position on this issue is because of religion, if ethics need religion that you have refuted your beliefs is what I said after you asserted why I carry this position. I'm not confused, really I don't know why you said something that I already knew you said and that I said to you.

---

-porcelain

Are you saying your metaphysical position is NOT based on your religious beliefs? The right to choose her own reproductive destiny. Children may very well be viewed as the extension of one's own life. I have already explained this to you. You should have the ability to decide whether conditions are right for reproducing yourself or not.But again, we are also talking about her right to life. Wow, you just don't get it do you? You can't magically know in advance that there will be a problem or how bad it will be. What might seem no big deal may be huge later.Sometimes LATER may be too late. They will "know at some point"? You've never heard of a woman dying in childbirth to the surprise of doctors?Some complications only occur DURING delivery.You have a very fantasy oriented vision of what being pregnant and giving birth is actually like. What does that have to do with only being proChoice or proLife? Are you saying that in the womb you were conscious of some deliberation going on and were glad the kept you? Or that you were born and years later look back and are glad you were born?Gee it's too bad you can't be a girl that's pregnant and not wanting to have a child, so that you can understand what it's like to want to be given a chance to determine your own reproductive destiny.Maybe once given that, you'd be appreciative of what they want. You are confused. Your position is based in large part upon a SPECIFIC METAPHYSIC which is driven by a religious belief. In addition YOU also have an ethic which I believe is driven by YOUR religious beliefs.None of this contradicts my position, nor does it suggest that ethics MUST BE driven by religion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I never told any woman to do anything with their body. That is the point. Everyone must decide for themselves what's right and wrong.

---

Sure you did, in message #299 of this thread:

quote:

---

If a law was passed like the one I alluded to with the exceptions, it could be easy. The pregnant woman applies for an abortion, "the cells" are tested for DNA of the family member, if it is validated then she can have an abortion.

​

In the case of rape, (which I'm not even sure there should be an abortion) she lists the people she has had sex with within the time period she got pregnant, they validate that claim. they check "the cells" for those people's DNA then the parent/guardian(s) validates if she has been raped and she's able to get an abortion. This can definitely be abused. However there is a less chance of abortion abuse, pregnant women that were responsible for their own pregnancy.

​

With incest this can be foolproof, with rape it can never be, relying on word of mouth more, and one could abuse it.

---

What is all of this that you propose if it isn't telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies, and seriously invading her privacy?

quote:

---

An awakening of the mind.

---

...which was a result of what facts or thought processes?

quote:

---

No I don't, You've asked me this same question on this thread.

​

Don't be ridiculous.

---

But if most fertilized eggs really are "babies of the future", then why wouldn't you want to save them? What makes those "babies of the future" undeserving of life, according to you?

quote:

---

Not exactly. That's not what the full title of pro-choice entails.

---

Oh?Why don't you enlighten me, then?What does the "full title" of pro-choice entail?

quote:

---

Most likely when it's close to being born.

---

How close to being born?

quote:

---

What is all of this that you propose if it isn't telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies, and seriously invading her privacy?

---

It seems to me that all of these "future babies" never get to experience life because of future mothers having abortions. It doesn't seem right to me. But I guess you can't stop it. Especially if the man involved won't except his responsibility either.
I guess it's true seeing those stickers and pins that say "sex education saves lives".This message has been edited by CHRIS PORTEUS jr, 09-12-2004 01:54 PM

---

-porcelain

quote:

---

But if most fertilized eggs really are "babies of the future", then why wouldn't you want to save them? What makes those "babies of the future" undeserving of life, according to you?

---

Not every fertilized egg becomes a human. When does a woman become pregnant?

quote:

---

What does the "full title" of pro-choice entail?

---

Abortions for all circumstances. At many stages of the pregnancy.

quote:

---

How close to being born?

---

Probably when you could identify it as being human.

---

-porcelain

They are not "future babies"... unless you have some magic way of telling which fertilized eggs will be "future babies", as opposed to being "future menstrual fluid", "future self-aborted fetuses", "future still born", and "future massively deformed being".You need to get your head out of this fantasy world of "future babies" inside equally person-like "women", where every problem is known by doctors from the beginning, or in time to do anything. And that every child "given a chance" was better off for having had that chance, when it was known they'd be entering a life of adverse poverty and no home life.I'll tell you what though, guaranteed everyone is a "future corpse". So maybe this is just maximizing that teleology?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Are you saying your metaphysical position is NOT based on your religious beliefs?

---

No, I'm not saying that.

quote:

---

Children may very well be viewed as the extension of one's own life........You should have the ability to decide whether conditions are right for reproducing yourself or not.

---

Subjective,opinion cannot be substantiated. A child is ones own self not the mother in another body.

quote:

---

Wow, you just don't get it do you? You can't magically know in advance that there will be a problem or how bad it will be. What might seem no big deal may be huge later.

​

Sometimes LATER may be too late. They will "know at some point"? You've never heard of a woman dying in childbirth to the surprise of doctors?

​

Some complications only occur DURING delivery.

---

This is true.

quote:

---

What does that have to do with only being proChoice or proLife?

---

The fact that there is no other option, that only the rich can run for president etc...

quote:

---

Are you saying that in the womb you were conscious of some deliberation going on and were glad the kept you? Or that you were born and years later look back and are glad you were born?

---

Yeah I'm glad to be here, I wasn't aborted.

quote:

---

Gee it's too bad you can't be a girl that's pregnant and not wanting to have a child, so that you can understand what it's like to want to be given a chance to determine your own reproductive destiny.

​

Maybe once given that, you'd be appreciative of what they want.

---

Yeah, I'd have a better understanding, but what about the baby of the future that wasn't given a chance to prosper or even exist?

quote:

---

In addition YOU also have an ethic which I believe is driven by YOUR religious beliefs.

---

lol "nice ad hominem"This message has been edited by CHRIS PORTEUS jr, 09-12-2004 02:11 PM

---

-porcelain

quote:

---

They are not "future babies"... unless you have some magic way of telling which fertilized eggs will be "future babies", as opposed to being "future menstrual fluid", "future self-aborted fetuses", "future still born", and "future massively deformed being".

---

Why would a women get an abortion if it isn't going to be a baby of the future?

---

-porcelain

Because it's a pregnancy of the present.

1) These two sentences contradict. At least as much as your assertion that a fetus is a child, and that a child is its own self and NOT part of its mother's life.2) I think you misunderstood what I said. I was not saying the fetus is the mother in a new body. I was saying that children can be viewed as a form of natural reincarnation, or extension of the parent's life. It is not a direct extension but a FORM of extension. If so, then there is a good reason to care what condition the child would be born into. That was an either/or question. Only if you were conscious of some decision as a fetus to keep you can you have some reason to project some desire or disappointment regarding an actual choice made to other fetuses. But we know that didn't happen, right? There was no baby of the future. There wasn't before she had an abortion and there wasn't afterward. Those are the facts.I love how you talked about subjective opinion earlier, and yet continue to feel confident asserting that fetuses are "babies of the future." Yes, lol. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!The statement: "In addition YOU also have an ethic which I believe is driven by YOUR religious beliefs.", is NOT an ad hominem attack. It isn't even a criticism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Crash already got this one, but I will add because it may very well be "her cause of death of the future"... and before you repeat that you are for abortion in the case of life threatening circumstances, I will repeat that a complication near or during childbirth is generally too late for that remedy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Not every fertilized egg becomes a human.

---

That is true.However, every fertilized egg is a "baby of the future", according to you, isn't it?If it isn't, why not?

quote:

---

When does a woman become pregnant?

---

Some would say when her egg becomes fertilized is the moment she becomes pregnant, which would be before implantation.Others would say that pregnancy occurs once implantation happens.Why does that matter?

quote:

---

Abortions for all circumstances. At many stages of the pregnancy.

---

Well, yeah. That's what "choice" means, no?Why do you think that is somehow shady or something?

quote:

---

Probably when you could identify it as being human.

---

When would that be in gestation, probably?