Everyone Calls it a Baby When She's Not Having an Abortion

I understand the confusion

the abortion crowd spends so much time bobbing and weaving avoiding the reality; life or death for the child. It can get no clearer than that but that is the argument they must avoid. We see thread after thread after thread and mindless post after post talking about "choice" while offering only death to the child

interesting indeed

 

Nice rant about lunatic feminists sleazebags morons, et all.

You're on the the wong page. The suggestion she was having a night of pleasure is derogatory. Aimed at putting her down.

I am fine with women getting pregnant and men not getting pregnant. I'm not fine with derogatory sexist men demeaning women for having sex and getting pregnant.

Anyway, you nice fella's bash away. For all the difference it will make to anything.

 

No, nobody is "offering" life OR death. We're offering choice and control of one's own destiny. Not every living thing will have the ability to control it's own destiny, a fetus included. A human person, and in this specific case, a pregnant woman, does have the power, and should have the right to use it. Most will almost certainly choose to carry their pregnancy to term and birth a child. A minority of those women, for whatever reason(and the reason is nobody's business but theirs) will choose to have an abortion. That's hardly offering only death as you so sensationally put it.

 

uh huh...........so, life or death for the baby. That is the choice of which you speak; correct?

 

and you are also fine with killing babies

oh yeah, you're on the right side of this one......................good grief

 

For the fetus yes, that's what abortion is. But if we're going to talk about death of non-sentient life being an issue, then we have quite a bit more areas we need to examine than just abortion, starting with pretty much all the food we eat.

 

let's use your term and call it a fetus. Or, do you prefer foetus, zygote, goo, clump of cells, inconvenience or fill in the blank? In any event, then the choice is life or death for the fetus; is that correct?

 

I already answered that in the post you replied to here. If an abortion is performed, the fetus will no longer be alive. We both know that.

 

A zygote is not a child. The only bobbing and weaving is done by those trying to claim that it is.

 

I understand that. A pregnant woman is pregnant with a child. Why don't you go up to the first pregnant stranger you see and ask how the zygote is doing

lemme know how that works out for you

 

How do are we supposed to know the woman is pregnant with a zygote? Even she doesn't know.

It's a stupid suggestion.

 

Let me see if I've got what you're saying. Your corner of your country makes abortions generally illegal, but has a clause for the health and safety of the mother, which is interprited so broadly that "swollen feet" (or something not much hard to establish) is sufficient medical cause and so essentially abortions are fully legal.


Out of curiousity, what arbitrary instant do you select where a child switches from a lump of carbon molecules into life? Or do you support people killing their kids after they're born?

Hmmm well if you mean something like "a bum isn't equal in worth to a doctor" than maybe.

Nobody is talking about forcing adoptions. Rather that's something positive you can do.

The issue here, and why even libertarians are sometimes pro-life, is because what's being disapproved of is killing somebody.

Out of curiousity, what arbitrary instant do you select where a child switches from a lump of carbon molecules into life? Or do you support people killing their kids after they're born?

 

be proud of your terminology. Do not go through life as a coward who only says things from the sanctity of a keyboard. When you see that nice belly head on over and ask about the zygote, the fetus, the foetus, the goo, the inconvenience, the clump of cells

let us know how it works out for you

 

You know sec, most of us choicers don't feel the needs to walk up to pregnant women and shove our beliefs onto them. In fact we want to leave them alone and allow them to make their own choices.

 

She'll tell me to mind my own business. It's what I'd tell some impertinent stranger who approached me to ask nosy questions about my foetus when I was pregnant.

You do it first.

 

No I don't mean that. I meant what I said.

You are talking of adoption being an alternative to abortion when it's no such thing.

Adoption is an alternative to keeping and bringing up your child.

I don't select an arbitrary moment. It's birth. Fact.

 

A common colloquialism from older times is to refer to a pregnant woman as "with Child" but this does not make the statement scientifically correct.

One can hold whatever beliefs one wishes (educated or otherwise) in a free country but there is a difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others.

Believing in freedom means believing in freedom for others to hold views that differ from your own. This principle is enshrined in the constitution and is what separates free societies from those "sharia law for example" that make laws based on a religious whim.

 

Look, we're not even disagreeing on this point. However many arguements regarding abortion are based on acting as if giving birth to the child requires raising it, and therefore a mother that is financially, emotionally, or otherwise unfit to raise the child needs to abort it. It was probably a statement like that which caused me to mention adoption in the first place, though I don't recall.

Once someone agrees that adoption is a valid alternative to having to raise the child and the discussion moves to a discussion of ending a life versus nine months of inconvenience then we're on the same page.

So it doesn't strike you as a little odd that personhood depends not on the state of the person by an act. For example if birth is induced you have a human whose right to life you fully endorse, but if that same child was still in the womb because birth the mother hadn't gone into labor yet than you just have a clump of meaningless cells? What happens when the baby travels those few inches?

What about when a baby wakes up and starts to cry while still in the womb during a C-section, have they crossed your goal line yet or do they have to escape the actual confines of the womans body before they can't be freely killed. What if a child manages to wake up or is breathing during a late term abortion? Does it switch from a meaningless clump of cells to something that needs to have any amount of resources spent on it in a prenatal unit or not?

I wouldn't be brining this up if you were in support of ancient practices in other religions where fathers or mothers could decide to kill babies and/or infants if they decided they weren't fit. I'm operating under the asumption you consider that vile and immoral murder.

If you held a blelief structure where murder is OK, and parents can honor kill their kids if they act up, than at least you'd be logically consistant.

However I'm guessing you don't think of prosecuting for homocide in those cases as "forcing that belief on others."

I'd suspect that if a mother, upon deciding her child wasn't as pretty as she was hoping after giving birth, spiked them on the floor and tossed them in a dumpster, you'd probably think that some legal action should be taken against her.

If so, well, see my above comments to diamond up there.

 

Let me clarify.

You start with the premise that every human is entitled to "freedom" - life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. If you disagree with this premise then the USA is not for you.

Obviously murder and so forth is wrong because it violates the principles above.

The State is in charge of making and enforcing laws. The Constitution states that the State is not to make laws on the basis of Religious beliefs.

If you wish to have religious freedom (which is part of the point of stating that the State is not to make laws compelling folks to religious belief), and other freedoms, then it makes sense to respect the freedom of others.

Obviously "honor Killings" violate not only the State laws against murder but also the general principle of not forcing religious beliefs on others.

Those of Islam should be informed upon entering this Country that they are welcome to their personal beliefs but that each individual (including their own Children) are also entitled to the same freedom.

The problem with Lifer's trying to get the state to enact laws based on their personal religious beliefs is of the same mentality of those who use the threat of honor killing in order to induce compliance. The small difference is that the Lifers are trying to get the state to do their dirty work for them.

Both involve trying to use force in order to effect compliance to religious beliefs.

 

Ok, so far we're on the same page.

Well...

Actually, that's besides the point on the abortion issue, at least with Christians which is the dominant religion in America. The only relevance is the whole "thou shalt not commit murder" thing, which, most pro-choicers at least pretend to agree with.

Ok, so you at least agree that sometimes parents aren't allowed to kill their offspring.

Except again, abortion isn't about a religious belief, except the murder bit. On that note it isn't about the woman's body either. She can do whatever she wants with it if that doesn't involve ending someone elses life. It's only about the young life, whatever name you want to make up for it at any stage.

For example, if there were a 25 week old premature baby in a neonatal unit, and the mother decided she wanted to kill it because the baby's father left her, we wouldn't support killing it there. Nothing to do with her body at all.

Actually would you support the mothers "choice" to stab a baby in a neonatal unit if she happen to feel like it one day for whatever reason?

If you don't support that, what is so philosophically different about a baby of the exact same age and development that happens to reside in a different location?

 

There are philosophical differences. One is born and the other is not. One breaths air and the other does not.

The question I ask myself is: Is the entity "a human" and therefor entitled to rights including the right to life.

At 25 weeks I would claim that the entity is "a human" and have little concern about the "rights of the woman" at that point. If this person is too stupid to have the abortion prior to this point .. she has waived her "right to choose".. IMO.. because a living human exists.

At conception, the entity can not legitimately be shown to be a living "human" so that the entity can not letitimately be called "a someone".

The people pushing for personhood of the zygote at conception come mainly from religious groups directly or from groups staffed by religious zeolots.

Religious arguments such as "ensoulment" are used to give the zygote personhood or that God somehow had a hand in the creation of this person and Gods work should not be tampered with.

 

Alright, so you're at least a little pro-life.

So how, in your mind, does a zygote progress into a human? Does it become perhaps a half human at some point, so killing it should result in half sentences or something? Does it become human the instant it wiggles a toe? Does it have to wiggle two toes in order to go from meaningless molecules to precious human life?

It isn't exclusively a religious thing, but it does tend to be. I think the chief reason there is because of the idea of actual meaningful morality. Again we both share the same "thou shalt not commit murder" philosphy. So at base there's no difference.

The issue comes in when you have to decide which side to err on.

For example imagine a couple people who want to drive across some land, but they suspect that's probably trespassing and illegal.

If they think there are cameras to take pictures of their license plate and they could get prosecuted later, than they'd be inclined to not do it.

If they felt that there would never be any consequence aside from somebody getting mad that someone ran over their flowers, then they would be more likely to do it so long as one of them can convice their buddies to go along with it. There are all sorts of potential excuses. Maybe convincing themselves that it's probably public land and they aren't breaking any laws, or decide that they're engaged in the commendable practice of sticking to the man. Whatever. People are incredible rationalizers.

Fundamentally, I think that's what's going on here.

 

That's rather insulting to the women who don't even know they are pregnant until later in the pregnancy. And yes, this does happen especially if a woman is on birth control and already has irregular periods, if her pill fails and she's pregnant she probably won't realize until later in the pregnancy.

 

There are certain qualifications for example that characterize something as a living human. Lack of heart beat and brain function for example is clinically dead.

How the zygote progresses into a human is well studied. Initially there is no significant difference between the zygote cell and any other human cell other than the fact that DNA in the zygote has the program codes "create a human" turned on.

It is not that every other cell does not have these codes in its DNA .. these codes are just not turned on.

The firsts mitotic division results in the creation of two daughter cells which are genetic clones of the parent zygote. Each daughter cell has the ability to create a separate human if implanted in a egg.. and this is the case for at least the first 100-200 cells.

My question to you is: do we now have 100-200 humans ?

As it turns out .. none of these first cells end up being part of the eventual born human .. the go on to become the placenta which is discarded after birth.

Should we not try and save these hundreds of potential humans ?

These first cells form a hollow sphere known as the blastocyst .. it is inside this sphere that the cells that will form various parts of the human will form known as the embryoblast.

The process is an act of creation .. cells are created that make up all the parts of the human.

The first few heart cells are not a heart. The first few brain cells are not a brain.

At some point there are enough heart cells to claim .. that is primative functional heart, brain and so forth.

At some point there are enough pieces of a human present with enough functionality to claim .. that is a human.

We can debate when that point is .. but it is clear that there is a point at which it is just silly to call the single cell or cluster of cells .. a human.

Kind of going on with your idea here .. Let's look at the term "pro-life" and how its used in relation to morality.

Human's kill life every day in order to survive. In fact there is no way for humans to survive without killing life.
If it is "human-life" we are talking about .. how far do we go to protect it ?

First: What is the value of human life ? What do you value about being alive ?

Almost any person under extreme torture can be made to beg for death. Is a human life without memories, feelings, or any concept of humanity valuable ?

We all die at some point .. if the time alive of an entity is without any concept of the good things about living (taste, sense, smell touch, memories, feelings, consciouncness, friends, family, sex, relationship and so on) what is the significant value of this entity being alive ?

How do humans in general value life ? Almost every human risks their lives every day in order to achive happiness. When you go skiing, drive a car, ride a plane, eat a big mac, or simply walk down a flight of stairs you are putting your life at risk.

"life" is obviously worth risking to gain happiness in the short time we are alive.

How far do we go to protect "human life"? If we go too far and not allow any of the aformentioned risks a human life becomes void of the things we value about it.

In the case of a zygote we are not talking about a human life but a "potential human life". This "potential human life" has none of the characteristics we humans value because this potential has not been realized yet.

The question to myself is .. how do I value "potential human life" (a human life that does not actually exist yet and may never exist - in fact most of the 100-200 totipotent cells in the beginning with this potential will never have that potential realized) against the value of the constitutionally protected rights of a woman to life liberty and persuit of happiness.

If an actual human life (in of itself) is not valuable enough to take all possible precautions to protect that life (banning any type of fun or any risks we can think of including the act of procreation itself) ... what then is the value of a "human life" that does not even exist yet and has none of the components of what we value in life.

 

Your telling me that over 6 months into a pregnancy a woman does not know ?? come on ..