Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 361 of 440 (140781)
09-07-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by gene90
09-07-2004 7:36 PM


Re: Here We Go Again
Responses to Schraf's posts. (281, 282, 283, 284, and 290)
quote:
Exactly when does the combination of a sperm and an egg become human, and how can you tell?
At the point when, left alone from medical intervention, the embryo or fetus has the greatest probability of a normal birth. In my [b][i]opinion[/b][/i] that would be implantation. This is the natural bottleneck in the reproductive process. You can tell because it generally ends in live birth.
quote:
Ah, so you must support the use of IUD's, because they prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs.
Yes.
quote:
Now I expect to hear about your vocal and persistent advocacy of IUD use to prevent unwanted pregnancy, thus reducing the number of abortions, am I correct?
I much prefer it to abortion.
quote:
Wow, gene, you just really don't have any ability at all to even remotely put yourself in a raped woman's shoes, do you?
This is an emotional appeal rather than a logical argument.
Further, I would ask if you have any ability to be sympathetic to aborted fetuses, particularly those late-term abortions.
quote:
You are punishing the woman for the crimes of her rapist, but, of course, this seems unimportant to you.
You would punish the child for the crimes of the rapist.
You cannot atone for one evil with another.
quote:
I really want to know, gene, why you did not list greater availability of birth control and greater reproductive education as ways to reduce the need for abortion?
My first choice is greater self-restraint.
But birth control, even Plan B, are preferable to abortion.
quote:
gene, since you now believe that a human killing another human is morally wrong, are you now an anti-war pacifist, contrary to your past support of much militarty action, including the US military's use of land mines and cluster bombs, which kill many innocent civilians?
This is a red herring. How do you feel about the death penalty (I'm against it myself.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by gene90, posted 09-07-2004 7:36 PM gene90 has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 362 of 440 (140782)
09-07-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by gene90
09-07-2004 7:36 PM


If a mother stopped feeding a newborn, it would die, would it not? And she would go to jail. How is it any different on the inside?
No, someone else could feed a newborn. That happens many times in fact. There is NO ONE ELSE that can feed a fetus.
In addition, an infant cannot kill the mother in the process of being fed. A fetus can.
In addition, infants are already alive, a fetus may never actually reach that point, but can put the mother's life at risk all the same.
If you cannot tell the difference between a fetus growing in a woman's body, and a child playing in a park, then you are completely delusional.
One does not have to be ignorant of those physical differences in order to be proLIfe, though I suppose it helps.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by gene90, posted 09-07-2004 7:36 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by gene90, posted 09-07-2004 7:54 PM Silent H has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 363 of 440 (140783)
09-07-2004 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by CK
09-07-2004 7:43 PM


Re: Here We Go Again
Charles Knight:
quote:
New guy? Who would you be refering to Jen?
Why, you of course. Only because I could not remember your name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by CK, posted 09-07-2004 7:43 PM CK has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 364 of 440 (140785)
09-07-2004 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by gene90
09-07-2004 6:48 PM


gene90 writes:
The Laminator's belief that people that are never required to give of themselves to help others apply just as well to babies, thus implying that infanticide should be legal. Similar thinking is why thousands of elderly people die every summer in France because nobody will get them an air conditioner.
I'd love to hear what he thinks about socialized medicine.
This is against my better judgement, but I'm going to respond anyway.
I said people are not obligated to take an extra step to help someone else. I did not say that people are obligated to not help. And what the hell does this have anything to do with infanticide? I've said this a million times and I'm going to say it again. There is a difference between active and passive killing of someone.
You are obligated to allow a child a chance to live by not actively killing it. This is why we have adoption agencies. This is why you can leave your child at the police station, fire station, and a whole bunch of other places.
Regarding socialized medicine, I don't know what you want to hear about. What part of it do you want me to express my opinion on?

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by gene90, posted 09-07-2004 6:48 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by gene90, posted 09-07-2004 7:56 PM coffee_addict has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 365 of 440 (140786)
09-07-2004 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Silent H
09-07-2004 7:47 PM


Funny, I thought you were a pro-lifer. Anyhow...
quote:
No, someone else could feed a newborn. That happens many times in fact. There is NO ONE ELSE that can feed a fetus.
True, but irrelevant to my point.
My point is that when women DO NOT feed their children, and the children die, they go to jail.
However, if the child happens to be unborn, and they terminate the pregnancy, the child dies and it is legal.
quote:
In addition, an infant cannot kill the mother in the process of being fed. A fetus can.
I make the exception for "medical" abortions, because both may die.
quote:
If you cannot tell the difference between a fetus growing in a woman's body, and a child playing in a park, then you are completely delusional.
Ad hominem attack.
Step up to the plate, and explain yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Silent H, posted 09-07-2004 7:47 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by jar, posted 09-07-2004 7:58 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 374 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 5:29 AM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 366 of 440 (140790)
09-07-2004 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by coffee_addict
09-07-2004 7:52 PM


quote:
I said people are not obligated to take an extra step to help someone else. I did not say that people are obligated to not help
Fair enough. If I have misrepresented you as saying people are obligated not to help, I apologize.
quote:
You are obligated to allow a child a chance to live by not actively killing it. This is why we have adoption agencies. This is why you can leave your child at the police station, fire station, and a whole bunch of other places.
Basically, it is ok to passively kill, but not actively, correct?
So if a mom starves her infant, that's ok, because it was passive. She didn't kill it herself, simply denied it food.
Socialism and welfare come in because I don't want to support others with my tax money, yet it is pushed by people with political connection to the pro-choice ideology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
General note: guys, I'm not going to have time to respond to all of you, that would be (literally) a full-time job. You can help me out by not wasting my time with attacks and fallacies.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-07-2004 07:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by coffee_addict, posted 09-07-2004 7:52 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by coffee_addict, posted 09-07-2004 11:11 PM gene90 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 367 of 440 (140793)
09-07-2004 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by gene90
09-07-2004 7:54 PM


gene90 writes:
Step up to the plate,
Agreed. All the pro lifers have to do it agree to adopt, raise, educate and protect every unwanted child and it will make a big dent in abortions.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by gene90, posted 09-07-2004 7:54 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by gene90, posted 09-07-2004 8:03 PM jar has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 368 of 440 (140795)
09-07-2004 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by jar
09-07-2004 7:58 PM


quote:
Agreed. All the pro lifers have to do it agree to adopt, raise, educate and protect every unwanted child and it will make a big dent in abortions.
No, actually it won't.
You are implying a cause-and-effect relationship that, to my knowledge, does not exist.
This is not a supply/demand economy we're talking about. Accidents and poverty cause abortions, among other things. Not adoptability. How many kids are getting adopted is not going to affect condom use, or the age of sexual activity, or personal responsibility. As a previous poster said, all they have to do is drop a kid off at a firestation or, in this state, a hospital, and it's done.
By the same logic you are using here, I could carry an umbrella around with me to end droughts.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-07-2004 07:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by jar, posted 09-07-2004 7:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by jar, posted 09-07-2004 8:18 PM gene90 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 369 of 440 (140799)
09-07-2004 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by gene90
09-07-2004 8:03 PM


No, I'm not implying a cause and effect relationship. I'm simply saying that if you will commit to adopting every unwanted child it will provide an option that does not exist today. At the same time, open adoption to same sex couples.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by gene90, posted 09-07-2004 8:03 PM gene90 has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 370 of 440 (140826)
09-07-2004 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by coffee_addict
09-07-2004 7:45 PM


quote:
Yes, the point of viability is the point where an organism is able to survive with a lot of help. This is why I do not approve of some form of late term abortion where the doctor is required to actively kill the fetus.
Fifty years ago, technology could not keep a 7 month old fetus alive, so it would be all right to abort it since it was not human life. In 2004, a 7 month old fetus can be kept alive, it is therefore immoral to abort it. Possibly one day in the future, artificial wombs will be developed that can bring a fetus to term from a much earlier point.
Does everyone of these babies' lives begin at a different point in gestation? In the future, should abortion be illegal if it is viable at 2 months?
What about people from areas where they do not have access to advanced medical technology? Does the fetus's life begin later than a fetus born in a technologically advanced society?
This isn't necessarily a criticism, I'm just trying to flush out the viability concept.
quote:
If you're going to want to abort, by all means do so as long as you allow the doctors to do their job and try to help the child as much as possible
One of the big questions in the abortion debate is whether we can applly the term child, a human life, to a fetus. If we cannot, then why would we let the doctor bring to term a fetus that the mother, for whatever reason, wishes to abort?
quote:
This is even more vague than the point of viability.
Possibly, but I think it touches on the issue of what we value as humans. It's not cardiopulmonary activity, since no one would be comforted if their loved one retained CP activity if they were brain dead; we value human thought. This is why CP activity isn't used as an indicator of death anymore, it is used to indicate that the brain has ceased functioning and therefor the person has died. In the future, if we can keep the brain alive without CP activity, I'm sure we'd consider the person to be alive. The cessation of brain wave ativity indicates a person has died, so why shouldn't the start of human brain wave activity indicate the start of life?
The vagueness comes in interpreting EEG's of fetuses as indicating human thinking. Even fetuses with just a brainstem show brain wave activity, since an EEG is just an indicator of the firing of neurons. I think it's been pretty well established, though, that a large part of what makes us human is our cerebral cortex. So, for now, I'd be fine with outlawing abortion for any nonmedical reason after the point in which the cerebral cortex has fully developed and is showing brain wave patterns similar to that of adults on an EEG.
This message has been edited by JustinCy, 09-07-2004 08:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by coffee_addict, posted 09-07-2004 7:45 PM coffee_addict has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 371 of 440 (140835)
09-07-2004 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by gene90
09-07-2004 7:36 PM


Re: Here We Go Again
Schraf: When does the combination of an egg and a sperm become human, and can I tell?
Gene: ---
Gene: A human taking another human's life is morally wrong.
Schraf: Since a human taking another human's life is wrong, are you a pacifict, against all war and also the death penalty?
Gene: ---
Gene: Part of the factor (of when a fertilized egg becomes human) is that uterine implantation has not yet occured.
Schraf: Ah, so you must support the use of IUD's, because they prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs.
Now I expect to hear about your vocal and persistent advocacy of IUD use to prevent unwanted pregnancy, thus reducing the number of abortions, am I correct?
If not, why?
Gene: ---
Gene: The fact that rape is underreported is irrelevant to abortion, because if a woman decides to abort her fetus she should be decisive enough to report it.
Schraf: Wow, gene, you just really don't have any ability at all to even remotely put yourself in a raped woman's shoes, do you?
I personally know several women who were raped, reported it, and who's cases went to trial, and both of them regret ever having said anything because how the police and the guy's lawyer treated them was terrible.
Let's have you get sodomized and see how eager you are to shout it from the rooftops.
Gene: Also, if you are arguing, as I do, that abortion is wrong because it is a human life, you don't have the luxury of excepting rape, unless you think you can punish a child for the crimes of its biological father.
Schraf: You are punishing the woman for the crimes of her rapist, but, of course, this seems unimportant to you.
I really want to know, gene, why you did not list greater availability of birth control and greater reproductive education as ways to reduce the need for abortion?
Gene: ---

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by gene90, posted 09-07-2004 7:36 PM gene90 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 372 of 440 (140836)
09-07-2004 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Silent H
09-07-2004 7:10 PM


You said that the state of "personhood" could be defined by how we define death. You used the clinical definitions of death based on biological functions (well lack thereof) to do this.
No, the legal definintion of death and the "personhood" guidelines are different documents, one legally binding the other not. Those who believe in a soul are free to use their belief in making up their own minds, they cannot ethically impose it on other people who do not believe in a soul.
Don't you DARE use your logic on me... I've already said "hallelujah" to this ages ago.
One could even add that preventing a lower standard from existing DOES endanger some mothers sometimes.
The problem is as I have stated, you don't have to win ME over, you have to win THEM over.
um, ok. What I am looking for, I guess, is a standard that will go to the supreme court with consistency, logic and a rational plan for allowing people to be as irrational as they want to be.
(and based on legal precedent.)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Silent H, posted 09-07-2004 7:10 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 5:46 AM RAZD has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 373 of 440 (140839)
09-07-2004 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by gene90
09-07-2004 7:56 PM


gene90 writes:
So if a mom starves her infant, that's ok, because it was passive. She didn't kill it herself, simply denied it food.
No, that is active killing. It is considered natural for a human being to seek out food, water, and shelter. Therefore, a woman has the right to not feed her child, but she is obligated to not prevent it from getting food from other sources, such as child services and other public organizations. If she actively prevents the child from seeking help or eating, she is actively killing it. Again, I'm going back to the obligation to allow one to have a chance at it.
This goes the same with late term abortions. I see no reason why doctors should actively kill the fetus before the head is out all the way. If for whatever reason an abortion is needed, I see no reason why the pregnancy can't be ended with the aborted child having the best care our medical technology can provide.
gene90 writes:
Socialism and welfare come in because I don't want to support others with my tax money, yet it is pushed by people with political connection to the pro-choice ideology.
Well, we are stepping into the political arena, which I am not very well aquainted with. Speaking from an ethical point of view, noone is obligated to pay taxes just so others can have welfare and such. However, weird things happen in politics and I don't think implimenting ethical ideology on political decision is the best way to approach our problems.

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by gene90, posted 09-07-2004 7:56 PM gene90 has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 374 of 440 (140893)
09-08-2004 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by gene90
09-07-2004 7:54 PM


Funny, I thought you were a pro-lifer. Anyhow...
I am proLife... only I am also proChoice. My definition of life is different than yours, and includes the quality of life for yourself and your children.
True, but irrelevant to my point.
No, you do not get to say "my point". It is not yours to pick and choose. What was set out is that there is no real difference between a fetus and a fully developed human being.
In defending that, you brought up the analogy of a mother feeding her infant, and a mother having to feed a fetus. YOU challenged someone to come up with a difference.
I did present some differences and so refuted your claim.
First MAJOR difference is that a newborn is a whole independent being who may be fed by others. A fetus is wholly DEPENDENT on one single person and is diverting her body's resources to the task of not just FEEDING, but BUILDING the fetus's body.
My point is that when women DO NOT feed their children, and the children die, they go to jail. However, if the child happens to be unborn, and they terminate the pregnancy, the child dies and it is legal.
That is because the two cases are dissimilar. Now do you understand?
I make the exception for "medical" abortions, because both may die.
That's nice. How about if the fetus is unlikely to be fully or properly formed?
Also, you sort of miss the fact that a woman and her doctors may not be aware of all the risks to the woman's health that any pregnancy may have. A woman may have a life saving abortion without ever knowing it. Or attempt to carry a child in a "good pregnancy" to term (there would be no medical reason), and then die in childbirth.
Actually that leads me to a question, you said above that "both may die". If it is known that only the mother will die in child birth, but the child will live, would you be any less for an abortion?
Ad hominem attack.
No, that was not ad hominem. I am serious. If you cannot tell the difference between a fetus growing in a woman's body, and a fully grown child in a park, then you are delusional.
You are believing some irrational thought you have, a fantasy, to the exclusion of very graphic and apparent reality.
My guess is, if your religious faith said that until birth they are malformed bits of clay which harbor demons, and only at birth God blesses them (with life and soul) or curses them (they have no soul... and deformity is one sign), you would not be against abortion. And you would not have this illusion of a little smiling kid in a baseball cap in the mother's womb.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by gene90, posted 09-07-2004 7:54 PM gene90 has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 375 of 440 (140895)
09-08-2004 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by RAZD
09-07-2004 10:42 PM


No, the legal definintion of death and the "personhood" guidelines are different documents, one legally binding the other not.
Maybe I missed something. It really looked like you were using the defs of death and personhood, despite being different docs, to draw parallels and so come up with legal guidelines for fetal life and so abortions.
Those who believe in a soul are free to use their belief in making up their own minds, they cannot ethically impose it on other people who do not believe in a soul.
Ohhhhh, I hate to start trying to play their hand in this. Just remember I am playing devil's advocate.
While I agree with the above... which is why I said the key component in this debate is NOT what you outlined, but getting them to realize the issue is religious tolerance... if we do not get them to realize religious tolerance is the issue at hand and a part of US law, then the above is moot.
What they will CERTAINLY bring up is that we used to not recognize blacks as people. They were animal property and could be treated as such. Those in favor of slavery used nearly the same argument you did above. But in the end it was the Xian abolitionists that turned out "right" and we now recognize blacks as humans.
At this point in time gestational life is considered nonhuman, but like the slaves, they are simply being wrongly defined by society at large. ONE DAY, it will be realized that the Xian antiabortionists, were right and they are equally humans (or persons).
um, ok.
I hope you realized that my first line was just a joke.
I guess, is a standard that will go to the supreme court with consistency, logic and a rational plan for allowing people to be as irrational as they want to be.
I agree, but your foe is not interested in allowing people to be irrational (read equal to immoral) as they want to be. That is of course because they do not realize that they themselves are being irrational. They do not accept moral relativism.
They believe that the government has the right to enforce some moral restraints, and one of them is clearly not killing human life. And to them it is also clearly evident that fetal life is human life and so protected.
Remember they are even using people's basic instincts to work their argument up legally. For example if a pregnant woman is attacked and her child dies, they are banking on people wanting to charge the attacker with murder. If a pregnant woman needs medical attention for the fetus, they are banking that the woman will want medical coverage to extend as if it were a child.
Excuse me now, I have to go wash my hands.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2004 10:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2004 11:23 PM Silent H has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024