Poll on abortion in case of 12 year old girl

[Tab]

My position is simply that we cannot determine that a fetus is not a person using any known set of criteria. Thus, we must assume that humanity is sufficient for personhood. As such, I am very much open to any criterion/set of criteria that adequately demonstrates a fetus to be something other than a person, as long as it stands up to logical analysis. As yet, I have been able to find any such criteria. This leads me to the inevitable starting point of conception, at which a distinct human life is formed, as the starting point for personhood as well.

First and formost...

Your use of rethoric and terms that are incredibly uneeded show that you're evading the agrueement. You've ignored a lot of what has been posted in this thread. I am beinging to understand that a lot of your agrueements are directly driven from your own personal (and possibly "Christian") beliefs, as you're also agaisnt gay marriage. It just so happens we've got a couple people on this forum that can sift through that argueement as you make it extremely difficult.

Abortion is and should be without a doubt in the parents rights assuming until the baby can sustian it's own life, which would be somewhere into the third trimester.

A fetus is a human body, but it does NOT have a brain. It does NOT have a functional cerebral cortex.(SAME EXACT CASE WITH TERRI SCHAVIO) It's not a human being, it is not self aware. The is no defintion of when life starts, it's completely up to the indiviual who has the baby when to make that decision as to when to end it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jhu
you're obsessing too much with human = person. in one sense it's too general (ie zygote = person). in another sense it is too narrow (alien being != person).

No, I never said that being an alien disqualifies you from personhood (indeed, I've stated otherwise many times). Humanity is sufficient for personhood, but not necessary. Please demonstrate otherwise.

Originally posted by: Tabb
First and formost...

Your use of rethoric and terms that are incredibly uneeded show that you're evading the agrueement. You've ignored a lot of what has been posted in this thread. I am beinging to understand that a lot of your agrueements are directly driven from your own personal (and possibly "Christian") beliefs, as you're also agaisnt gay marriage. It just so happens we've got a couple people on this forum that can sift through that argueement as you make it extremely difficult.

First and foremost, I would LOVE to not have to use this senselessly obtuse language. However, in constructing a secondary class of humans, the USSC created this distinction, therefore making it necessary to include in any debate on the subject. I would like you to demonstrate ONE case where anything I've said in either the gay marriage or abortion debates have anything to do with religion, much less Christiainity - just one. I think you are the one trying to evade argument by constantly bringing up religion.

Abortion is and should be without a doubt in the parents rights assuming until the baby can sustian it's own life, which would be somewhere into the third trimester.

WHY??? This is claimed over and over and over and over with no justification. It's also completely false to say that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb until into the third trimester.

A fetus is a human body, but it does NOT have a brain. It does NOT have a functional cerebral cortex.(SAME EXACT CASE WITH TERRI SCHAVIO) It's not a human being, it is not self aware. The is no defintion of when life starts, it's completely up to the indiviual who has the baby when to make that decision as to when to end it.

Wow. I can't argue with 'facts' that are simply incorrect. A fetus does not have a brain? So you're saying that, upon birth, a brain magically teleports from the netherworld into the fetus' head? You need to do some serious reevaluation of your position if these are the 'facts' that you're basing it on.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jhu
you're obsessing too much with human = person. in one sense it's too general (ie zygote = person). in another sense it is too narrow (alien being != person).

No, I never said that being an alien disqualifies you from personhood (indeed, I've stated otherwise many times). Humanity is sufficient for personhood, but not necessary. Please demonstrate otherwise.

alright, how about more advanced animals such as chimpanzees? why not give them personhood as well?

Abortion is and should be without a doubt in the parents rights assuming until the baby can sustian it's own life, which would be somewhere into the third trimester.

WHY??? This is claimed over and over and over and over with no justification. It's also completely false to say that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb until into the third trimester.

no, it cannot survive without technological intervention beyond 30-32 weeks.

A fetus is a human body, but it does NOT have a brain. It does NOT have a functional cerebral cortex.(SAME EXACT CASE WITH TERRI SCHAVIO) It's not a human being, it is not self aware. The is no defintion of when life starts, it's completely up to the indiviual who has the baby when to make that decision as to when to end it.

Wow. I can't argue with 'facts' that are simply incorrect. A fetus does not have a brain? So you're saying that, upon birth, a brain magically teleports from the netherworld into the fetus' head? You need to do some serious reevaluation of your position if these are the 'facts' that you're basing it on.

[/quote]

so you would say a zygote has a brain?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jhu
alright, how about more advanced animals such as chimpanzees? why not give them personhood as well?

I don't think you're quite ready for this discussion, sorry.

no, it cannot survive without technological intervention beyond 30-32 weeks.

I daresay you couldn't live without technology either, unless you're fairly adept at farming. Want to tell me why I can't abort you, or should I just let you die if you ever need surgery or medicine?

so you would say a zygote has a brain?

No, but I also wouldn't say that a zygote is a fetus.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jhu
you're obsessing too much with human = person. in one sense it's too general (ie zygote = person). in another sense it is too narrow (alien being != person).

No, I never said that being an alien disqualifies you from personhood (indeed, I've stated otherwise many times). Humanity is sufficient for personhood, but not necessary. Please demonstrate otherwise.

alright, how about more advanced animals such as chimpanzees? why not give them personhood as well?

Abortion is and should be without a doubt in the parents rights assuming until the baby can sustian it's own life, which would be somewhere into the third trimester.

WHY??? This is claimed over and over and over and over with no justification. It's also completely false to say that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb until into the third trimester.

no, it cannot survive without technological intervention beyond 30-32 weeks.

A fetus is a human body, but it does NOT have a brain. It does NOT have a functional cerebral cortex.(SAME EXACT CASE WITH TERRI SCHAVIO) It's not a human being, it is not self aware. The is no defintion of when life starts, it's completely up to the indiviual who has the baby when to make that decision as to when to end it.

Wow. I can't argue with 'facts' that are simply incorrect. A fetus does not have a brain? So you're saying that, upon birth, a brain magically teleports from the netherworld into the fetus' head? You need to do some serious reevaluation of your position if these are the 'facts' that you're basing it on.

so you would say a zygote has a brain? [/quote]

Cyclo's argument all boils down to...

Save the Cells!!!

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
On a constitutional level, Roe vs. Wade should go, or at least be rexamined very carefully. It's a tough spot to be in though; as with so many constitutional issues, Roe vs. Wade decided the legality of abortion, without really having anything to do with abortion (it was a very sideways way of making the decision).

This doesn't really affect me as much; Canada is very unlikely to re-criminalize abortion, as it would be political suicide for any federal and most provincial governments. I would like to see more emphasis in family planning and sex education on proper birth control, as I think abortion is unpleasant all around, and could be reduced to not much more than the medically useful kind with a little work.

As I've said before, teaching birth control perpetuates the need for abortion. This is exactly why contraceptive providers are also abortion providers. They give you the contraceptives free, then charge you for the abortion.

And not teaching birth control does what?

I've always paid for my condoms, and my girlfriends have always paid for their BC pills, and there's never been any need to participate in an abortion, or consider doing so. If you believe that all abortions are part of an 'industry' designed to perpetuate itself, then you have a very cynical view of why women fought for the right to abortions, something I would compare to believing that all labour unions are about greed, and always have been, despite ample historical evidence to the contrary.

no, it cannot survive without technological intervention beyond 30-32 weeks.

I daresay you couldn't live without technology either, unless you're fairly adept at farming. Want to tell me why I can't abort you, or should I just let you die if you ever need surgery or medicine?

You've had your chance to accuse me of arguing badly... why would you say something as stupid as the above?

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jhu
alright, how about more advanced animals such as chimpanzees? why not give them personhood as well?

I don't think you're quite ready for this discussion, sorry.

and i don't think you can give a good reason why other non-human animals should not be given personhood.

no, it cannot survive without technological intervention beyond 30-32 weeks.

I daresay you couldn't live without technology either, unless you're fairly adept at farming. Want to tell me why I can't abort you, or should I just let you die if you ever need surgery or medicine? [/quote]

a fetus born at 20 weeks won't live no matter what interventions are taken whereas a fetus born at 33 weeks can live without any interventions. ancillary technologies (farming, etc.) are irrelevant.

so you would say a zygote has a brain?

No, but I also wouldn't say that a zygote is a fetus.[/quote]

but you would still extend personhood to a zygote.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
And not teaching birth control does what?

I've always paid for my condoms, and my girlfriends have always paid for their BC pills, and there's never been any need to participate in an abortion, or consider doing so. If you believe that all abortions are part of an 'industry' designed to perpetuate itself, then you have a very cynical view of why women fought for the right to abortions, something I would compare to believing that all labour unions are about greed, and always have been, despite ample historical evidence to the contrary.

I'm not advocating not teaching birth control - I'm advocating teaching abstinence. There is a difference. Teaching birth control is like telling kids not to do drugs, then handing them the phone number of Cochaine Wolf, your friendly neighborhood crack dealer, just in case they decide to use drugs (and yes, there is a drug dealer in my home town named Cochaine Wolf - you just can't make stuff like that up).

My statements regarding the abortion industry have naught to do with the women who fought for the right to have abortions and everything to do with the suppliers of abortion trying to make a buck off these women. Of course, it so happens that the largest proponents in the campaign for abortion were also the founders of abortion and contraceptive suppliers, so really there is no difference at all. They may have had good intentions originally, but there can be no doubt that corruption has taken hold, just as it has in many labor unions.

You've had your chance to accuse me of arguing badly... why would you say something as stupid as the above?

Can you tell me why what I said was stupid? It clearly demonstrates why requirement of technology to prolong life is not a valid indicator of personhood.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jhu
...

You have demonstrated an argumentative approach, which leads me to believe that you are completely unwilling to undergo any real discussion on this subject. That, coupled with your obvious ignorance of the issues pertaining to this discussion, as already clearly demonstrated in this very thread, are why I will not bother to argue with your cheap rhetoric.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jhu
...

You have demonstrated an argumentative approach, which leads me to believe that you are completely unwilling to undergo any real discussion on this subject. That, coupled with your obvious ignorance of the issues pertaining to this discussion, as already clearly demonstrated in this very thread, are why I will not bother to argue with your cheap rhetoric.

You're unwilling to let go of your own bias to undergo any "real" discussion on this subject. Jhu's posts may be abit "different" but that doesn't mean it's somehow entitles you to just skip over it. You're avoiding a lot of points, just like you've done in the past.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
You're unwilling to let go of your own bias to undergo any "real" discussion on this subject. Jhu's posts may be abit "different" but that doesn't mean it's somehow entitles you to just skip over it. You're avoiding a lot of points, just like you've done in the past.

The answer to every question or point he raised is already in this thread. I don't dodge points unless they're based on 'facts' that are simply wrong. For yourself, you seem to understand something, agree with everything I say, then all of a sudden start from scratch and make some completely ridiculous post out of left field. See your previous post for an example.

As for my 'bias', it's true I am biased to favor my own opinion. This may stem from the years of reading and thought I've put into this issue. Why should I get rid of it?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
You're unwilling to let go of your own bias to undergo any "real" discussion on this subject. Jhu's posts may be abit "different" but that doesn't mean it's somehow entitles you to just skip over it. You're avoiding a lot of points, just like you've done in the past.

The answer to every question or point he raised is already in this thread. I don't dodge points unless they're based on 'facts' that are simply wrong. For yourself, you seem to understand something, agree with everything I say, then all of a sudden start from scratch and make some completely ridiculous post out of left field. See your previous post for an example.

I've read this ENTIRE thread more than once and not every point has been rasied. Even said this is still a debate forum, saying something to the effect of "It's been discussed previously" or "I already debated that" does nothing. It does nothing to avoid a point if you somehow come to the conclusion it's simply wrong. I understand a lot more than I used to. I agree on somethings that you've posted and I've changed my mind about the subject several times. You've got a huge bias un-warrented bias that floats with you and make the best attempts to make things not nearly as simple as they really are.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
I've read this ENTIRE thread more than once and not every point has been rasied. Even said this is still a debate forum, saying something to the effect of "It's been discussed previously" or "I already debated that" does nothing. I understand a lot more than I used to. I agree on somethings that you've posted and I've changed my mind about the subject several times. You've got a huge bias un-warrented bias that floats with you and make the best attempts to make things not nearly as simple as they really are.

Me stating that I already discussed it in this thread tells him that I'm not going to do it again. This is the intended purpose. I don't have the time or energy to have a one on one discussion with someone who isn't willing to even skim through my posts in a thread to see if their questions have already been addressed. If someone wants to make a genuine effort at discussion, they will extend this courtesy. If not, then I have no interest in debating with them. I'm not sure why this is even a point of contention.

Please point out where I have a 'huge unwarranted bias' and try to complicate things unnecessarily. I've made probably 1000 posts on the subject of abortion and I doubt you can find one. As I said, my 'bias' is simply that I have already reached a conclusion on this subject based on years of reading and thinking of my own. Why should this be discarded, simply to start back at square 1?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
I've read this ENTIRE thread more than once and not every point has been rasied. Even said this is still a debate forum, saying something to the effect of "It's been discussed previously" or "I already debated that" does nothing. I understand a lot more than I used to. I agree on somethings that you've posted and I've changed my mind about the subject several times. You've got a huge bias un-warrented bias that floats with you and make the best attempts to make things not nearly as simple as they really are.

Me stating that I already discussed it in this thread tells him that I'm not going to do it again. This is the intended purpose. I don't have the time or energy to have a one on one discussion with someone who isn't willing to even skim through my posts in a thread to see if their questions have already been addressed. If someone wants to make a genuine effort at discussion, they will extend this courtesy. If not, then I have no interest in debating with them. I'm not sure why this is even a point of contention.

Please point out where I have a 'huge unwarranted bias' and try to complicate things unnecessarily. I've made probably 1000 posts on the subject of abortion and I doubt you can find one. As I said, my 'bias' is simply that I have already reached a conclusion on this subject based on years of reading and thinking of my own. Why should this be discarded, simply to start back at square 1?

This is a debate forum, if you're not willing to go over something that you previously discussed because you all the sudden don't have the time. You obivously don't need to be here.

A example of your "huge un-warrented bias" would be in the example of your use wording. It's rather complex and does NOT need to be, I've seen this used before. It's used by people who can't agruee their points and resort to confuse the fsck out of their listeners.

Second, we have a "Abortion Propaganda". That IS an appeal to emotion just like how the life of a potential child will be or how difficult its' upbringing maybe. Not to mention all abortion pictures are LATE-TERM abortions, which I might add. Are ILLEGAL. You clearly avioded that agrueement.

Or the term "personhood" that has no real meaning. The state of being a person? What's that? You can't even define that.

How about we start at the point where fetus don't really have brains? Explain to me how Terri Schavio case is different than a fetus. Her cerebal cortex was basically liquidified or useless. Fetus either A)Don't have one B)It's not functioning at or not wired anyway that meaningfull or usefull.

Or how about zygotes? Are you saying I shouldn't kill zygotes? A zygote is not a fscking person.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
This is a debate forum, if you're not willing to go over something that you previously discussed because you all the sudden don't have the time. You obivously don't need to be here.

OK, where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Are you going to answer this same question 10,000 times, since this is apparently the purpose of this forum? Should you be banned if you refuse? Get a grip.

A example of your "huge un-warrented bias" would be in the example of your use wording. It's rather complex and does NOT need to be, I've seen this used before. It's used by people who can't agruee their points and resort to confuse the fsck out of their listeners.

It IS needed. You simply cannot have the abortion debate without all of this complete BS terminology. My position is actually such that these distinctions would be erased.

Your problem is that you would argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not human. Well, I hate to break it to you, but it IS human - from conception onwards ad infinitum - if it ain't human at conception, it never will be. Since people needed a way to deprive rights from humans, they manufactured a distinction by calling 'humans' that have rights 'persons' instead of just 'humans'. This distinction is not mine - I have argued vehemently against it in every post. I agree that it is confusing. I also think that it's downright stupid. It's a distinction manufactured by abortion advocates in some bassackwards way to allow their agenda by dehumanizing a zygote/embryo/fetus, trying to convince people that it's not really human. So, if you simply agree that this distinction is stupid, then we can do away with all this terminology. However, you are obstinately opposed to this, so I am forced to use it. I still don't see how this has anything to do with 'bias' in any way, shape, or form - you'll need to clarify that.

Second, we have a "Abortion Propaganda". That IS an appeal to emotion just like how the life of a potential child will be or how difficult its' upbringing maybe. Not to mention all abortion pictures are LATE-TERM abortions, which I might add. Are ILLEGAL. You clearly avioded that agrueement.

How is a display of facts an appeal to emotion? You're simply equating two things that are not equal. Further, late term abortions are NOT illegal. Abortions at any stage are legal in the United States and have been since the Roe v Wade decision. Thus, once again, my 'avoiding the argument' is simply me not piddling with 'facts' that are anything but facts.

Or the term "personhood" that has no real meaning. The state of being a person? What's that? You can't even define that.

See above. Your ignorance of the terminology that your ilk use to dehumanize fetuses is not my problem but your own.

How about we start at the point where fetus don't really have brains? Explain to me how Terri Schavio case is different than a fetus. Her cerebal cortex was basically liquidified or useless. Fetus either A)Don't have one B)It's not functioning at or not wired anyway that meaningfull or usefull.

Again, you are simply WRONG on the facts. I cannot argue against incorrect facts any more than I can defend a position that I never took. You are WRONG, period. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Or how about zygotes? Are you saying I shouldn't kill zygotes? A zygote is not a fscking person.

Care to explain WHY a zygote is not a person? After all, that's only the entire point of this debate! I would have thought that was clear by now.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
And not teaching birth control does what?

I've always paid for my condoms, and my girlfriends have always paid for their BC pills, and there's never been any need to participate in an abortion, or consider doing so. If you believe that all abortions are part of an 'industry' designed to perpetuate itself, then you have a very cynical view of why women fought for the right to abortions, something I would compare to believing that all labour unions are about greed, and always have been, despite ample historical evidence to the contrary.

I'm not advocating not teaching birth control - I'm advocating teaching abstinence. There is a difference. Teaching birth control is like telling kids not to do drugs, then handing them the phone number of Cochaine Wolf, your friendly neighborhood crack dealer, just in case they decide to use drugs (and yes, there is a drug dealer in my home town named Cochaine Wolf - you just can't make stuff like that up).

My statements regarding the abortion industry have naught to do with the women who fought for the right to have abortions and everything to do with the suppliers of abortion trying to make a buck off these women. Of course, it so happens that the largest proponents in the campaign for abortion were also the founders of abortion and contraceptive suppliers, so really there is no difference at all. They may have had good intentions originally, but there can be no doubt that corruption has taken hold, just as it has in many labor unions.

Please reference various Rip-sponsored threads on the impracticality of AO education. Abstinence might be the most effective strategy, but AO education is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand; look at the pregnancy rates in southern states where AO is already popular; it isn't working, it isn't going to work, and people are getting sick and pregnant because they lack information to at least partially protect themselves.

For the record, I would support safer-drug-use education, at least for people already involved with drugs.

You've had your chance to accuse me of arguing badly... why would you say something as stupid as the above?

Can you tell me why what I said was stupid? It clearly demonstrates why requirement of technology to prolong life is not a valid indicator of personhood.

No, it doesn't - the reason that in aggregate, we could not all survive without technology is that our population is too large for subsistence farming to feed everyone; on an individual basis, most of us could actually survive if we were given a few acres of land, some hand tools, and a book on subsistence farming. The fact that we would need to learn is hardly a limitation, as most of us have never had to farm, and didn't learn from past generations.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Please reference various Rip-sponsored threads on the impracticality of AO education. Abstinence might be the most effective strategy, but AO education is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand; look at the pregnancy rates in southern states where AO is already popular; it isn't working, it isn't going to work, and people are getting sick and pregnant because they lack information to at least partially protect themselves.

For the record, I would support safer-drug-use education, at least for people already involved with drugs.

As soon as you teach birth control or safe drug use, you have condoned the behavior and can be held liable should something go wrong. In a legal sense, that's the long and short of it for me. I don't tell someone 'murder is against the law, but if you're going to do it, here's how to get away with it.' No - murder is not the right thing for this person to do, period. We tell them as much and that's the end of it. They may murder all the same, but at least you gave an honest effort in trying to dissuade them from inappropriate behavior. You can't control their actions - you simply tell them why it is in their best interest not to kill someone else.

No, it doesn't - the reason that in aggregate, we could not all survive without technology is that our population is too large for subsistence farming to feed everyone; on an individual basis, most of us could actually survive if we were given a few acres of land, some hand tools, and a book on subsistence farming. The fact that we would need to learn is hardly a limitation, as most of us have never had to farm, and didn't learn from past generations.

So, you rely on technology for continued survival. Thus, independence from technology is not a requirement for personhood. That was the only point.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
This is a debate forum, if you're not willing to go over something that you previously discussed because you all the sudden don't have the time. You obivously don't need to be here.

OK, where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Where are you from Tabb? Are you going to answer this same question 10,000 times, since this is apparently the purpose of this forum? Should you be banned if you refuse? Get a grip.

A example of your "huge un-warrented bias" would be in the example of your use wording. It's rather complex and does NOT need to be, I've seen this used before. It's used by people who can't agruee their points and resort to confuse the fsck out of their listeners.

It IS needed. You simply cannot have the abortion debate without all of this complete BS terminology. My position is actually such that these distinctions would be erased.

Your problem is that you would argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not human. Well, I hate to break it to you, but it IS human - from conception onwards ad infinitum - if it ain't human at conception, it never will be. Since people needed a way to deprive rights from humans, they manufactured a distinction by calling 'humans' that have rights 'persons' instead of just 'humans'. This distinction is not mine - I have argued vehemently against it in every post. I agree that it is confusing. I also think that it's downright stupid. It's a distinction manufactured by abortion advocates in some bassackwards way to allow their agenda by dehumanizing a zygote/embryo/fetus, trying to convince people that it's not really human. So, if you simply agree that this distinction is stupid, then we can do away with all this terminology. However, you are obstinately opposed to this, so I am forced to use it. I still don't see how this has anything to do with 'bias' in any way, shape, or form - you'll need to clarify that.

Second, we have a "Abortion Propaganda". That IS an appeal to emotion just like how the life of a potential child will be or how difficult its' upbringing maybe. Not to mention all abortion pictures are LATE-TERM abortions, which I might add. Are ILLEGAL. You clearly avioded that agrueement.

How is a display of facts an appeal to emotion? You're simply equating two things that are not equal. Further, late term abortions are NOT illegal. Abortions at any stage are legal in the United States and have been since the Roe v Wade decision. Thus, once again, my 'avoiding the argument' is simply me not piddling with 'facts' that are anything but facts.

Or the term "personhood" that has no real meaning. The state of being a person? What's that? You can't even define that.

See above. Your ignorance of the terminology that your ilk use to dehumanize fetuses is not my problem but your own.

How about we start at the point where fetus don't really have brains? Explain to me how Terri Schavio case is different than a fetus. Her cerebal cortex was basically liquidified or useless. Fetus either A)Don't have one B)It's not functioning at or not wired anyway that meaningfull or usefull.

Again, you are simply WRONG on the facts. I cannot argue against incorrect facts any more than I can defend a position that I never took. You are WRONG, period. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Or how about zygotes? Are you saying I shouldn't kill zygotes? A zygote is not a fscking person.

Care to explain WHY a zygote is not a person? After all, that's only the entire point of this debate! I would have thought that was clear by now.

You have a to be kidding me. If you asked me where is from, yes I would answer. If you asked me again I would answer as well. If you going to constantly batter me with the question when it's already been asnwered numours times, it'll be clear you're being a arrogant fool.

Are you trying to tell me that terms Zygote/Embryo/fetus are BS terminology?

Umm, no. Again your mistaken, late term abortion are ILLEGAL. Prove otherwise.

While a late term abortion maybe disgusting, these don't take place. All of your abortion propaganda shows this. Do we ever see Zygotes or Embryo being aborted? Why not?

Uhm, you're the one who used the term "personhood" not me.

Wrong? I am simply Wrong? That's a great logically way of putting it.


Excuse me? You have the burden of proof. We don't prove things DIDNT HAPPEN. We don't prove things ARE NOT. It's completely illogical for various reasons. For starters, they don't have any brain at all they can't do really do anything a person can do.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
You have a to be kidding me. If you asked me where is from, yes I would answer. If you asked me again I would answer as well. If you going to constantly batter me with the question when it's already been asnwered numours times, it'll be clear you're being a arrogant fool.

So what if 100 different people all asked you this question in one thread? Would you keep answering? What if you had to give them detailed directions to the place you were born every time? I'm guessing you'd just tell them to scroll back in the thread - do their own legwork. This is no different.

Are you trying to tell me that terms Zygote/Embryo/fetus are BS terminology?

In terms of the abortion debate, yes. If you disagree, please demonstrate why they are relevant terms.

Umm, no. Again your mistaken, late term abortion are ILLEGAL. Prove otherwise.

Sorry kid, but you are simply ignorant. Have you heard of the partial birth (intact D&E) ban legislation? This procedure is performed usually in the third trimester. QED.

While a late term abortion maybe disgusting, these don't take place. All of your abortion propaganda shows this. Do we ever see Zygotes or Embryo being aborted? Why not?

They do take place. ID&E, as above. You can't abort a zygote, as you wouldn't know that you're pregnant at the zygote stage. An embryo looks pretty much identical to a fetus, just smaller. Maybe that's why you see fetus pictures instead of embryos.

Uhm, you're the one who used the term "personhood" not me.

Personhood: The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality: ?finding her own personhood as a campus activist?. It's in the dictionary. I thought the definition was self-evident, since we were discussing persons as opposed to humans. My mistake.

Wrong? I am simply Wrong? That's a great logically way of putting it.

Your facts are incorrect. What else do you want me to say? I simply can't argue with incorrect statements. Logic has no bearing here. Go read a book on the subject instead of regurgitating BS information you got from your parents.

Excuse me? You have the burden of proof. We don't prove things DIDNT HAPPEN. We don't prove things ARE NOT. It's completely illogical for various reasons. For starters, they don't have any brain at all they can't do really do anything a person can do.

My thesis: humanity is sufficient cause for personhood. Please present an objection. This is the form of a logical proof.

And please, STOP SAYING that a fetus does not have a brain. This is the most ridiculous claim I have ever read on these forums. As I said before, if a fetus does not have a brain, neither does a newborn child. If a newborn doesn't, neither do you. I'm beginning to wonder...

edit: Fetal brain scan

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As soon as you teach birth control or safe drug use, you have condoned the behavior and can be held liable should something go wrong. In a legal sense, that's the long and short of it for me. I don't tell someone 'murder is against the law, but if you're going to do it, here's how to get away with it.' No - murder is not the right thing for this person to do, period. We tell them as much and that's the end of it. They may murder all the same, but at least you gave an honest effort in trying to dissuade them from inappropriate behavior. You can't control their actions - you simply tell them why it is in their best interest not to kill someone else.

Sex isn't illegal, and drugs are a reality that is much more damaging if they are used in a more dangerous than necessary fashion; the anaology to murder is flawed, because there is no such thing a a victimless murder.

It's a pretty big stretch to say that sex education equates to condoning sex; it also has to be a case where utilitarian criteria apply. Whatever strategy prevents the most harm, without directly infringing on 'right and wrong' is the best strategy. Since there is nothing objectively immoral about sex, only potential risks involved, I fail to see how educating people about the best way to avoid those risks, and other, less than optimal ways should they ignore the 'best' way, is in any way damaging. The fact is sex education lowers STD and unwanted pregnancy occurences, according to the best evidence. It may lead to a little more sex happening than under an AO education policy, but coupled with base rates for use of protection, and base rates for effectiveness of that protection, there is a net benefit to society. Since you know some people aren't going to practice abstinence (but you don't know which ones), and you know there are methods available to severely reduce the risk of ill consequences for these people, it is negligent to withhold information pertinent to the well-being of some individuals on the basis of a moral crusade against an activity which is not objectively immoral (i.e. no unwilling victims).

Think of it this way - the only way to be certain you won't die skiing/bungee-jumping/whatever, is to not do it, and for some activities, the overall risk level remains significant, regardless of what precautions you take; sex is the same. There are always risks involved in any sexual activity other than masturbation.

Heck, most of the population is orally HSV-1 positive from childhood, therefore you *could* give yourself a genital herpes infection just by touching your face and then going to the bathroom without thoroughly washing your hands first. Fortunately, the vast majority of the population is not susceptible to genital HSV-1 infections; but some people are.

I think what you fail to see is that sex education in any non-religious context is an exercise in management of risk, not morality.

So, you rely on technology for continued survival. Thus, independence from technology is not a requirement for personhood. That was the only point.

Only in aggregate - any given person could survive living in the woods with a few well-shaped sticks. I understand your argument, but the analogy is weak, and I don't think it proves much.

I think viability is an interesting, if inconclusive criteria.

Also, let me ask a question: would you support leaving all rape laws as they are, and increasing penalties for a rapist who does not use a condom? (some do, but only to avoid leaving evidence) There is an obvious, objective 'worseness' of consequences and potential consequences to raping someone without a condom.

 

[Tab]

So what if 100 different people all asked you this question in one thread? Would you keep answering? What if you had to give them detailed directions to the place you were born every time? I'm guessing you'd just tell them to scroll back in the thread - do their own legwork. This is no different.

Yes, I would. I'd just simply copy and paste as to what I said eariler. Even so, 100 people haven't ask directions to my house. This isn't 100 people either.

Your facts are incorrect. What else do you want me to say? I simply can't argue with incorrect statements. Logic has no bearing here. Go read a book on the subject instead of regurgitating BS information you got from your parents.


Apparently, you know me better than I know myself. None of my information comes from any of my parent. My mother is just like you are, she'll do her best to get me angry, intterupt me. Then she'll call me immature. Saying I am simply wrong does nothing, you've gotta prove why I am wrong. You have yet to do so.

Wow, a random picture with no crediblity what so ever. Sorry, you're going to have to better than that.

Show me credible evidence the shows the late term abortions are legal in the united states. Even if they are legal, I would without a doubt call them a unwarrented execution.

What seperates us from animals, is that we are aware of our own exsistance. We can think, unlike animals. Can a zygote or fetus do the same? Nope.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Sex isn't illegal, and drugs are a reality that is much more damaging if they are used in a more dangerous than necessary fashion; the anaology to murder is flawed, because there is no such thing a a victimless murder.

Should it be a crime if you give someone HIV? What if you get someone pregnant?

It's a pretty big stretch to say that sex education equates to condoning sex; it also has to be a case where utilitarian criteria apply. Whatever strategy prevents the most harm, without directly infringing on 'right and wrong' is the best strategy. Since there is nothing objectively immoral about sex, only potential risks involved, I fail to see how educating people about the best way to avoid those risks, and other, less than optimal ways should they ignore the 'best' way, is in any way damaging.

I can point out where there are objectively unethical things about 'safe sex', but will refrain from doing so in this thread. I plan on starting a thread about this before too long.

Think of it this way - the only way to be certain you won't die skiing/bungee-jumping/whatever, is to not do it, and for some activities, the overall risk level remains significant, regardless of what precautions you take; sex is the same. There are always risks involved in any sexual activity other than masturbation.

Actually, lots of people die while masturbating as well (auto-erotic asphyxiation I believe is the name), but your point is noted. The difference, however, between the risk of bungee jumping and risk of sexual activity is that when you engage in sex, you have the chance to infect or impregnate someone else. This affects the life of the woman, as well as the life of the potential child that could be a product of your action. These effects can be life threatening and, therefore, should be taken more seriously than those of bungee jumping, where I doubt you could kill anyone but yourself.

I think what you fail to see is that sex education in any non-religious context is an exercise in management of risk, not morality.

I have no religious objection to teaching the use of birth control. I simply know (from my own experience not so long ago as a teenager) that if you tell a kid not to do something then tell them how to get away with it, they're even more likely to do it than if you simply tell them not to. My objection is not necessarily with the risk analysis, but with the ethics. Like I said, I'll leave that for another thread.

Only in aggregate - any given person could survive living in the woods with a few well-shaped sticks. I understand your argument, but the analogy is weak, and I don't think it proves much.

I think viability is an interesting, if inconclusive criteria.

You simply can't define a person based on the technology available to them for sustenance of life. Is someone in the middle of the Sahara desert dying of thirst less worthy of rights than someone in the hospital hooked up to an IV to rehydrate them? The guy in the Sahara doesn't have access to this technology - should we strip him of his rights as a person? Technology changes, making it impossible to make a firm logical distinction based on its progress. To be logically sound, you need a non-floating criterion.

Also, let me ask a question: would you support leaving all rape laws as they are, and increasing penalties for a rapist who does not use a condom? (some do, but only to avoid leaving evidence) There is an obvious, objective 'worseness' of consequences and potential consequences to raping someone without a condom.

Yes, I suppose I would. I'm not sure how much more severe it would be, as I'm not terribly familiar with rape legislation, but certainly I would. The problem is that the case of rape obviates that the sexual contact never should have happened. It is an unethical act. The use of a condom to avoid getting caught obviates that condom use is pushing the unethical nature of the act further. This isn't a direct analogy to normal sex, but it's getting there.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I would. I'd just simply copy and paste as to what I said eariler. Even so, 100 people haven't ask directions to my house. This isn't 100 people either.

I've been asked the same questions countless times in this thread. After a while, I don't see any point in placating these people, as if they were really interested, they would have already read through the thread and found the answers. You disagree with that? I'm over it.

Apparently, you know me better than I know myself. None of my information comes from any of my parent. My mother is just like you are, she'll do her best to get me angry, intterupt me. Then she'll call me immature. Saying I am simply wrong does nothing, you've gotta prove why I am wrong. You have yet to do so.

You are trying to argue against the facts. Facts stand on their own merit. If you refuse to accept them, I can do nothing to sway you to do so. Persist in your ignorance if you choose, but don't expect me to waste my time trying to educate you when you refuse to be educated. Your "Wow, a random picture with no crediblity what so ever" is case in point. I posted a picture of a fetal brain scan from General Electric's web site, intended to show off their new fetal imaging technology, and you say it has no credibility? WTF ever. You're simply being argumentative and closed minded.

Show me credible evidence the shows the late term abortions are legal in the united states. Even if they are legal, I would without a doubt call them a unwarrented execution.

Should Late-Term Abortions Be Outlawed?
Doctor's office dedicated to late term abortions
List of late term abortion clinics

What seperates us from animals, is that we are aware of our own exsistance. We can think, unlike animals. Can a zygote or fetus do the same? Nope.

You so readily say 'nope' - can you demonstrate this? The brain is clearly developed and displays all regions common to an adult brain at eight weeks' gestation time, well within the first trimester. How do you know when the embryo/fetus knows when it exists? Are you going to ask it?

 

[illustri]

dunno if this has been discussed, but if she resides in a place where parental consent was mandatory for undergoing an abortion, and the sack of sh1t mother was the only legal guardian, who will give consent? You can't consent to a serious medical procedure before 18, but at 12 you shouldn't bring a pregnancy to term...

any way you cut it, it sucks

 

[Tab]

You haven't discussed every possible scernaio and like I said earlier. It does absolutely nothing to say, "Oh I disscussed that." Show me where it was if not restate what you need to do. It doesn't do anything to say "You're just wrong either". Show me where I am wrong. I fail to see the difference between Terri Schavio and a fetus thats a couple days old at least.

Saying "This is a fetal brain image does nothing to support your claim." Wow, I see stuff in it. It doesn't mean anything to me, nor do you have any evidence that brain is even functioning. Show me information from a credible sources that show me what that grey matter in the picture is. Neither, do a random abortion website that have been around for ages! Show me legal documents that say abortions beyond the 2nd trimester are somehow legal.

Zygotes and Embryo's don't have brains in the first place. How do you expect them to think?

I'll away for the next day or so. That means a good break from these forums.