The End of Abortion in America is Coming Soon

Except of course you forget that no person is under ANY obligation to sustain the life of another.

 

Um... you do realise that in many States (including California) hospitals are required by law to give emergency medical attention to those who they know cannot pay?

This effectively puts an obligation on the hospital, and ultimately the paying medical customers, to reach into their pocketbook and sustain the life of another .
Tell me, just out of curiosity, are you opposed to medical professionals being COERCED to sustain someone else's life?

 

And once again you fail to see the difference between physical(biological) dependence and social dependence.

No one in a hospital is forced to give their blood or any of their body parts to emergency victims.... or let the victims sustain life inside their bodies.

 

and once again you fail to understand the difference between biological dependence and social dependence despite the fact it has been explained to you numerous times and is obvious, given the context of the discussion, that when I say "Except of course you forget that no person is under ANY obligation to sustain the life of another." it means biologically not socially .. let me know when you find a hospital that connects one person to another without their consent in order to keep one of them alive.

 

Jesus Christ, 68 PAGES of this.

Abortion is LEGAL guys, and has been since 1973. The only reason that any anti-abortion "movement" still exists is because the Catholics are against it.

My prediction, Francis will say abortion is alright within a year. He can do that, the matter has not been spoken on ex Cathedra and so is still pretty much up for grabs. (I don't know if the Pope can overturn even an ex Cathedra but think he can. What about "infallible" don't you understand?")

The early Augustine did not believe the soul was implanted until birth and the Pope could say that too

The Church is hemorrhaging parishioners and organized religion in general is actually dying. The Pope's whole raison d' etre is at risk.

Read the section of Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly" on the "woodenheadedness" of the Julian Popes in dealing with Protestantism. It's practically the same as this controversy though over much different things, but is being handled in the same way. I think the Curia put out the Grand Inquisitor and put this guy in to handle this crisis

 

I know but it is so much fun watching pro-lifers run around in circles.

 

Why would anyone call a baby a zygote or fetus? The truth of the matter is the terms zygote and fetus are utilized to represent stages of development. What is the development stages a representation of? A baby. Reality is that the only reason not to call it a baby is to remove oneself from the feelings you get when the word baby is used. No one who wants a child goes to the doctors office and says let's see how our fetus is doing. Also, the comparison of a baby in development to an inanimate object like a tire proves this point. You want to distance yourself from calling a zygote and fetus a baby.

I am not disputing science. I simply gave a logical opinion that puts the baby and mother on equal footing with respect to a determination of when abortion should be illegal. I also said based on my judgement, there will always be abortions because of the rights of the mother.

 

Because that is what they are

Just as baby is

no they are representations of stages of human development, just as teenager is. Fetus is the developmental stage between 8 weeks and birth.

Reality is using the correct terms in the correct way, pro-lifers use the word baby incorrectly purely to project an image that is not only wrong but intellectually dishonest.

Informal usage is not intellectually honest in debates, What a person calls the fetus doesn't change what it is in reality and it is not a baby. By your logic a woman who says she has a bun in the oven will give birth to a cake

It proves the point that no matter what it is informally called, it doesn't change the reality that prior to birth and after 8 weeks the correct term is fetus.

Simply because a zygote or a fetus is not a baby.

They cannot be on an equal footing, is the person who injures you without consent on an equal footing to you?

As it should be .. BTW one other correction a woman is not a mother until she gives birth or has other born children.

Mother - A woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mother

 

Interesting observation. Though, in my opinion I stated that when a baby can feel pain the baby's rights trump the mothers. This in effect forces the mother to carry the baby full term. The alternative is to end the baby's life. Some may choose to see this as acceptable but I do not. Once the baby can feel pain they are equal to the suffering the mother would go through. The alternative is to numb the baby. This however carries with it the acceptance that your dealing with a life beyond something that is without sensation and thus, knowledge of itself. I do not accept the ending of life that has knowledge of itself.

 

this does not address consent, in order for the fetus to continue it's existence it must cause injury to another person to do so and if the female does not consent to those injuries she has every right to do whatever is required to stop the other person injuring her .. just as you do .. even if she has consented to those injuries for 8 months and then changes her mind. A person can consent to being tied up and whipped for 8 months if they wish to, the second they say "no" any injury incurred after that point would be bodily harm and as such illegal and would allow the person to defend themselves against any further injury. The fact that states ban abortion after 24 weeks is a clear violation of the equal protection clause, the state cannot act to protect the fetus without also acting to protect the female against the injuries caused by the fetus, this is why abortion should not be a legal issue, it should be nothing but a medical decision, then it falls to the doctors to decide whether they are prepared to facilitate an abortion after a certain period, it becomes a moral and ethical decision on the behalf of the doctor .. just as it is in Canada where their abortion rate is lower than the US.

Pro-lifers have painted themselves into a corner by chasing a legal solution .. especially in the US.

 

As you can see your questions were answered in posts 683 and 685 .They are, as always, much better written than mine and from a much smarter poster but I concur with every word.....

 

Why do you want to force it to endure the pain of being squeezed through the cervix and down the birth canal?

 

I don't believe in being labeled pro-life or pro-choice. Personally I stay away from labels. I would rather use reasoning to come to judgements about issues like abortion.

Consent only on the woman's part is a misrepresentation of what happens in an abortion. States have abortion laws to protect an unborn child. Does science know the thoughts of a baby before its born? This question should be asked when someone brings up a one sided consent argument. This is my point about a life that has knowledge of itself. Once the brain is capable of receiving pain signals then the consent of the baby is needed to end its life. Which of corse is impossible. So, who looks out for the baby after that? No-one but those who see the conflict of decency after 24 weeks. We are not a society that looks just at the rights of the woman. Our system weighs the conflicting rights and comes to a conclusion that is acceptable to the morals of our nation.

 

Our country(the Supreme Court) weighed the issue and came to the conclusion that abortion should be legal because that's acceptable to the laws of our nation.


There are no conflicting rights....it's the woman who is pregnant who calls the shots.

 

It's her body, and her right to determine what happens to it. There is no other person involved.

And other countries have total abortion bans supposedly "to protect an unborn child," but their abortion rates are higher than the US. Laws do not effectively stop or even reduce abortions, because women ultimately believe they have the authority over what happens to their bodies.

It isn't simply a "right to life" that you want to give the fetus; it's a right to life sustained at the expense of someone else's human rights and body. No person has that extraordinary right.

 

I will allow the right wingers to reply.

It sure is funny how the right wingers have taken a tremendous beating on this thread.

 

If the number of women who are against abortion rises, wouldn't the number of abortions performed drop? See, as it was brought up by other members, outlawing abortion will not stop abortions from taking place any more than the "war on drugs" has stopped drug use. A much better tactic would be to put your time and energy into convincing women that abortion is wrong rather than trying to outlaw it.

 

""...convincing women that abortion is wrong""...

Good luck with that....women have been getting abortions since forever.....it won't change because someone screams "Shame on you" from a street corner ...


A much better tactic is to push for better access to better, more affordable birth control, job creation and lowering the cost of education .

The Anti-Choicers are against all that...

 

My argument has to do with an equal status when the rights of the woman are superseded by the rights of the baby. At that moment, life for the baby is more important than the suffering a woman would go through. This constitutes a conflict of rights, when science can come to a conclusion of when the baby is capable of feeling pain then said baby is capable of knowledge of itself. It is no longer a mass of meaningless tissue. The argument should be brought to the Supreme Court if the point of awareness is below the maximum age of a baby in current laws for abortion.

 

"""" At that moment, life for the baby is more important than the suffering a woman would go through. """"


That is only your opinion.


YOU don't get to decide what suffering women must accept or what suffering anyone else must accept.

Most abortions are performed long before a FETUS feels pain....since you don't like, and refuse to acknowledge, science YOU can hardly be the judge of when a FETUS feels pain.

 

My opinion carries with it the weight of anyone who will listen to reasoning. I have not stated I am against abortion. In fact I have stated the the rights of a woman come first. The difference is I don't follow the line when it comes to the right of life for a baby. Currently, from what I can gather in the reasurch I have done, science is not settled on when a baby can feel pain. I have read 8 weeks to 28 weeks. So, it is hardly settled. Truth is, people make the decision of when an abortion is acceptable. If the vast majority believe that a baby with knowledge of itself should be treated as a human then we as a society will do so.

 

If outlawing it will not reduce the number of abortions, then why object to outlawing it?

 

With what is known of brain development, it is unlikely a fetus could feel pain before 27 weeks. "People" make the decision of when an abortion is acceptable, i.e. individual pregnant women make that decision. This is not a majority decision. It is an individual decision based on individual circumstances. Rest assured that a "baby" with knowledge of itself (which is some months AFTER birth) will be treated as a human, since that "baby" is a member of society at that point.

http://www.svss-uspda.ch/pdf/brain_waves.pdf
While no embryo or fetus has ever been found to
have "brain waves," extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies. A very good
summary of their findings can be found in „Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus,"
a review article (often cited by "pro-lifers" writing about fetal pain, but not about brain
development) by K.J.S. Anand, a leading researcher on pain in newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM:
Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal
electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic
bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they
become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.



- - - Updated - - -

Illegal abortions are inevitably more dangerous for women. Legal abortions are inevitably safer. Why object to legal abortion unless you WANT women to die?

 

Women die in legal abortions, therefore, we should outlaw them. Otherwise, to save the lives of the children.

 

Once again, I ask - what about the pain it will feel being squeezed through the cervix and down the birth canal?

- - - Updated - - -

More women die from gestation and childbirth - shall we outlaw that?