|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4707 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Problem with Legalized Abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Juggs, you haven't taken the time to carefully read my last post. There are several errors in your reply.
Now you are saying that the difference is between undifferntiated (sic) cells versus differentiated ones. No, I am not.
Then you would think that a fetus after its 12th week of gestation is a human being... Yet, you don't. I have said nothing about a 12 week old fetus.
You are acting as if they are mating goats with humans. That isn't close to what they are doing. You didn't read that list too closely. Take another look.
What? Absolutely not! When a new human begins, i.e., a child, is through the process of fertilization. A sperm is not a child. An ovum is not child. A somatic cell is not a child. Any undifferentiated cell in the body is not a child. I know. So what? DNA is DNA is DNA is DNA. How does that effect the argument? Your argument has been that the conceptus has the POTENTIAL to become a human therefore it is a human. Furthermore, you have chosen the presence of DNA as the hallmark of that POTENTIAL. Each of your somatic cells has a full complement of DNA and has the POTENTIAL to become a zygote. That's a fact. You are the one drawing the line at DNA, not me.
For the sake of your own posterity, I want you to tell me when someone is allowed to be called a human, fitted with all the inalienable rights vested to a human. When an integrated neural pathway is present, at week 8.
When the process of fertilization begins, that is the nano-second that a new life begins. Its really, really very simple. You need to crack open a biology textbook. Syngamy, the fusion of both haploid genomes into one diploid genome, takes place at hour 20.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Your argument has been that the conceptus has the POTENTIAL to become a human therefore it is a human. Furthermore, you have chosen the presence of DNA as the hallmark of that POTENTIAL. I have never said they are tantamount to new life, unless they converge and begin the fertilization process. Conceptus = egg + sperm, Juggs. You seriously need to open a biology textbook sometime.
I have said that you are making a reductionist argument, stating that you are "the sum of [our] genetic parts." Yes you are! Then what does the sum of our genetic parts mean to you? For the SECOND & THIRD time, Juggs, that is only 1/2 of my argument. Human = genetic input + APPROPRIATE BIOCHEMICAL PATHWAYS. Twit.
I have never said they are tantamount to new life, unless they converge and begin the fertilization process. If not DNA, what is it specifically that defines this "new life" when egg and sperm meet?
Try not to forget that the most technologically advanced nation in the world during the time of World War II, Nazi Germany, perpetuated one of the most horrific crimes against humanity ever known. Can a creo discuss ANYTHING without dropping a Nazi bomb?
What? So then aborting them would constitute murder, right? Not any more than pulling the plug on Schiavo = murder. Abortion after 8 weeks depends on the medical condition of the mother and the fetus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Oh. But Ringo.
Linear has already gone there.
Message 50 writes:
Telling me how much more restrictive the mother's life would be if it is classified as a child really does little to change the idea that it is one. A mother and father lead a more restrictive life after a child is born, yet that is not used as an argument to devalue the life of that child. Why should it work just because the location of said child has changed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Well, Juggs, I was going to save this for later, but since you have chosen to ignore my last post, here goes nuthin'.
From my last reply to you, Message 125.
I have never said they are tantamount to new life, unless they converge and begin the fertilization process. If not DNA, what is it specifically that defines this "new life" when egg and sperm meet? I am going to hazard A WILD GUESS and say (Juggs persona) "Why, molbiogirl, isn't it obvious? That's when jeebus infuses the conceptus with a soul." (/Juggs persona) You gotcherself four problems there, chum. 1. Does jeebus infuse an SCNT ovum with a soul the minute the foreign nucleus is injected? Does jeebus rely on a diploid genome to decide whether a cell is worthy of a soul? 2. The same question could be asked of a skin cell that is "turned on" ... does jeebus rely on the state of biomolecular switches to decide whether a cell is worthy of a soul? 3. What does jeebus do when, at week 3, the conceptus splits into identical twins? Does jeebus split the soul in half? 4. Contrary to your assertion in Message 100 ...
Message 100 writes: That's funny because when Dr. Moreau isn't tinkering with DNA, the natural pathways naturally form a human being -- never, ever, ever, a chimera, or anything else that you want to use in order to dehumanize a human. ... chimera ARE naturally formed in the womb when twin embryos fuse. What does jeebus do with that extra soul? A final question about jeebus and his soul infusion habits. Since you contend that the soul is infused the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, why does jeebus take back -- almost immediately -- 30-60% of his creations? After all, most of these spontaneous abortions appear to be normal periods to the woman. She is unaware of the conceptus or its failure to implant. Why does jeebus infuse a conceptus with a soul, when -- since he's omniscient -- he knows he's going to take it right back in 2 weeks (with the woman none the wiser)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
It looks like the anti-abortionists are trying to get person rights for the developing fetuses and have been trying to do so for quite some time. They're just taking it in steps. And, as Ringo has already pointed out, they could skip the fetal homicide laws by legislating conception-personhood laws. If personhood is granted the moment the sperm hits the egg, all applicable laws (including murder) would apply thereafter. Two birds with one stone. However, they are not lobbying for conception-personhood laws. Why is that, do you suppose? I would argue that it isn't because they disagree with the idea that personhood is defined as the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. Nor is it likely that they feel it imprudent to introduce messy legal questions. Nor is it likely that they consider it politically impracticable. So what could the reason be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Maybe you are questioning the motivation of the anti-slavery legislators prior to that date. There is no question. From Lincoln's Dred Scott speech:
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races. But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once”a thousand times agreed. A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as all immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. http://www.afroamhistory.about.com/...lincoln_dred_scott.htm In one of his famous 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln says, "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause] ” that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes." Page not found – The Harbus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Aw, yeah. Ringo's the s***.
Ringo writes: I've seen protests outside abortion clinics where woman are called sluts and murderers. I haven't seen protests outside legislatures demanding full human rights for the fetus. Did I miss the news that day? And I've seen you say that treating a fetus like a person is the silliest thing you've ever heard Message 120. I think Message 120 deserves to be quoted, Ringo.
Ringo writes: If anti-abortionists were honest, they'd be pushing for birth certificates to be replaced by conception certificates - and for death certificates to be issued for every miscarriage and failed implantation. They'd be pushing for a "proper Christian burial" for all of them, too. How many church cemeteries have a section for them? Juggs writes: That's the silliest thing I've ever heard... But then, you know that already so there is no need for me to be redundant. Ouch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Ringo writes: That's a good idea too. Sex education and easy access to birth control are among the best proven methods of preventing abortion. The fact that anti-abortionists tend to oppose them is a further indication of insincerity. Having been in that world I cannot agree with you here. Linear, you pay for Viagra; "they" pay for Viagra. That is, as taxpayers one pays for Viagra, since it is covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Birth control is not. Gollygeewillikers, I wonder why not. Let's see. Who is prescribed Viagra I wonder? Who is prescribed birth control?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Whodathunkit?
Juggs, you going to get to that question of what specifically determines "new life" the moment the sperm penetrates the egg? Or are you going to hide, since you haven't got a satisfactory answer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Besides that, she's wrong. The status of Viagra changed this year. I was unaware of that. In report from 2005:
Medicaid currently spends about $15 million a year on impotence drugs, proponents of the measure said. But they cited Congressional Budget Office projections saying the government would spend $2 billion over 10 years on impotence treatments once Medicare begins offering prescription drug treatment in 2006. It remains to be seen what happens to Viagra coverage in practice. Birth control coverage, tho technically provided by the Medicaid, is hard for low income women to obtain. The status of Medicaid birth control coverage is on the floor of the Senate.
The Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act of 2007 (S. 1075/H.R. 2523), introduced in the 110th Congress in the Senate by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Harry Reid (D-NV) and in the House by Reps. Nita Lowey (D-NY-18) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-3) will improve access to safe, affordable, and effective contraception by restoring and strengthening Medicaid coverage of family planning services. This bill employs a very simple principle of equity: women who would receive Medicaid coverage for pregnancy-related services should also receive coverage to prevent pregnancy if they so choose. As such, the bill requires states to provide Medicaid coverage for family planning services and supplies to all women who would be entitled to Medicaid-funded prenatal, labor, delivery, and postpartum care if they became pregnant. Researchers estimate that one in five women of reproductive age were uninsured in 2003--a 10 percent increase in uninsured women since 2001--and roughly 400,000 more women joined the ranks of those needing publicly subsidized care in just two years. However, 27 states and the District of Columbia have seen family planning funding decline or stagnate since 1994--a trend that could be exacerbated by new Medicaid cost-cutting proposals and greater hostility to reproductive health issues in Congress and state legislatures. Gap Widening Between U.S. Women's Birth Control Needs and Government Response | Guttmacher Institute
Currently, 11.5% of U.S. women of reproductive age (15-44) are covered by Medicaid. That's half of the uninsured, low income women.
Meanwhile, in the states, long-running controversy over a similar provision has led one state--Missouri--to stop funding contraceptive services entirely. My beloved home state. State coverage is also determined by income level.
Currently, states are required to provide pregnancy-related care to women with incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level, and many states extend that to 185 percent of the federal poverty level and beyond. For example, a single person (with no children) in New York applying on his or her own can make up to more than $19,000/year to qualify for FPBP. 19K. Have you any idea what 19K means in NYC? I do. I lived in NYC for 14 years. A slum apartment in the South Bronx cost me $850/month. I made $18/hour (36K) and I could barely afford apt/food/utilities. Birth control was out of the question. And I was 17K above the cutoff. In Illinois:
When a woman with one child earns more than $11,244 a year, she loses Medicaid coverage. 11K. The upshot is most women who need birth control don't get it.
Low-income women are far more likely to have an unintended pregnancy because of their lack of access to health care. In fact, a low-income woman is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy, five times as likely to have an unintended birth, and three times as likely to have an abortion as her higher-income counterpart. The report finds that while unintended pregnancy and abortion rates have decreased among teenagers, college graduates and women in the middle or upper class, the rate has increased almost 30% among low-income women. New Report Examines Medicaid’s Role in Family Planning | Guttmacher Institute Furthermore, abortion services are provided only in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's health is endangered. I was wrong about Medicaid coverage. But, in practice, this so called "coverage" is woefully inadequate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I think somebody had a little too much champagne.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024