Doctors who do abortions

[alzan]

No. From conception to death, it is a human being. The difference between a zygote and an adult is a difference of development, not being.



Using this logic, what is your argument against killing a 5 minute old newborn?

That's a statement of belief, not fact. It is a potential human being up until viability There's still a lot that can happen that will stop the development of this potential human being; miscarriages happen most during the first trimester, less common during the second.

I wasn't implying that I would kill a 5 minute old newborn. Why would you frame my statement in that way?

 

[Atreus21]

That's a statement of belief, not fact. It is a potential human being up until viability.

No, what I said is a statement of logical assumption. It's a human being when it's born. Nothing happens before that fact to reasonably conclude that it's not a human being 5 minutes prior.

What you said is a statement of belief. The viability argument says that a child is a human being when it's able to live outside the womb. And we base that on...well, that's just where we draw the line.

I wasn't implying that I would kill a 5 minute old newborn. Why would you frame my statement in that way?

I didn't say you did. I challenged you to explain why this logic...

yet it still has had no experiences, memories or knowledge that, IMO along with other criteria constitute a human being. It is a blank slate ready to be filled with various pigments that will coalesce into a human being.

...wouldn't also apply to killing a newly born baby. A newborn lacks all of the criteria which you mention here.

 

[dabuddha]

So I would assume you oppose mandatory child support laws, becuase that dictates that a man works to support a woman's reproductive choice.

You know what they say about people that assume. Try staying on topic instead of going to completely unrelated extremes.

And any free society must put reasonable limits on choice. It is for example why I cant stab people who irritate me. Because my choice affects someone else.

I bolded the important word for you in that statement.

 

[IGBT]

leave em be..they are largely flushing liberals down the toilet. Who cares.

 

[cybrsage]

Not the same thing.

The only appreciable difference is that one is born and the other not yet born.

 

[nehalem256]

You know what they say about people that assume. Try staying on topic instead of going to completely unrelated extremes.

I bolded the important word for you in that statement.

1.) So you have no problem telling some people (men) what to do with their body

2.) And not allowing the crackhead mother with 6 kids to have more child would seem completely reasonable.

 

[cybrsage]

Depending on the stage of gestation, it is very much a clump of cells.

The fetus, up until viability, is a potential human being. After viability it is more of a human being; yet it still has had no experiences, memories or knowledge that, IMO along with other criteria constitute a human being. It is a blank slate ready to be filled with various pigments that will coalesce into a human being.

You'd be hard-pressed to convince most people that a clump of cells that has had barely two weeks of existence is a human or human being.

Actually, it is VERY easy to prove the "clump of cells" is a human. To be a human being, you must be born, but I can easily prove it is a human.

First, we show that humans start life as humans and are never any other species. Every living creature is categorized into a species. Therefor, since the "clump of cells" is alive, it is a species. If it is not human, then it must be some other species. Since humans are never any other species, we can logically conclude it must be human.

Second, the DNA of that "clump of cells" is a 100% unique expression of human DNA, and is not the same as the DNA of the mother. It is also not a mutation of the mother nor damaged cells of the mother. It is a different human from the mother. Since it is made up of human DNA, it is human. Since it is not the mother's DNA, it is not the mother. Therefor it must be a different human than the mother.

So, in short, the "clump of cells" is a unique human, proven via DNA and the biological lifecycle of humans.

 

[alzan]

No, what I said is a statement of logical assumption. It's a human being when it's born. Nothing happens before that fact to reasonably conclude that it's not a human being 5 minutes prior.

What you said is a statement of belief. The viability argument says that a child is a human being when it's able to live outside the womb. And we base that on...well, that's just where we draw the line.



I didn't say you did. I challenged you to explain why this logic...



...wouldn't also apply to killing a newly born baby. A newborn lacks all of the criteria which you mention here.

I've noticed your discussions in abortion threads usually include the "5 minutes prior" meme. Exactly how many late term abortions occur 5 minutes before birth would normally occur? I'm sure you have the numbers on that since you cite it often.

Able to live outside the womb with large amounts of medical aid. And still lots that can happen that would end the life of the potential human being.

That's true, you didn't. My bad. I was just giving my own definition of a human being. I was full term and still needed weeks in an incubator and other medical aid. It's not a given that every viable fetus or baby is going to live long enough to see their first, second or even third birthday. Even in the U.S. which has one of the lowest mortality rates.

I would no more take the life of a newly born baby then I would a 27 week old fetus in an incubator. Just saying that there are many circumstances that happen during pregnancy that can take the potential human being/human life.

I want less abortions performed as well; I just think there's better ways of accomplishing that goal.

 

[cybrsage]

Yes. Whether the child is innocent or not, a woman is not to be enslaved. She has a valid claim of self-defense against a child conceived from rape.

You support the execution of a man's offspring for the crimes committed by the man. Is it only the unborn you want to execute or is it any human?

 

[alzan]

Actually, it is VERY easy to prove the "clump of cells" is a human. To be a human being, you must be born, but I can easily prove it is a human.

First, we show that humans start life as humans and are never any other species. Every living creature is categorized into a species. Therefor, since the "clump of cells" is alive, it is a species. If it is not human, then it must be some other species. Since humans are never any other species, we can logically conclude it must be human.

Second, the DNA of that "clump of cells" is a 100% unique expression of human DNA, and is not the same as the DNA of the mother. It is also not a mutation of the mother nor damaged cells of the mother. It is a different human from the mother. Since it is made up of human DNA, it is human. Since it is not the mother's DNA, it is not the mother. Therefor it must be a different human than the mother.

So, in short, the "clump of cells" is a unique human, proven via DNA and the biological lifecycle of humans.

Right, it's a potential human being/human life. There's a lot that can and does happen that will end that potentiality.

 

[actuarial]

You support the execution of a man's offspring for the crimes committed by the man. Is it only the unborn you want to execute or is it any human?

When you have to resort to hyperbole you present yourself as someone who cannot have a reasonable debate, or someone who does not have legitimate points to bring forth. Either way, it does nothing to advance your position.

Abortion prior to viability is not execution any more than a parent choosing not to give their child any body part (including ones that would increase the parent's chance of death) is execution.

Either a fetus is a person or its not. If it is a person, it has no right to the mother's body and she can legally protect herself from the physical harm caused by that (unborn) person. If it is not a person, it is not murder.

For what it's worth, I don't think whether the child is a product of rape or not should have any bearing on the legality of abortion.

 

[cybrsage]

No. From conception to death, it is a human being. The difference between a zygote and an adult is a difference of development, not being.

Technically, the human becomes a human being at birth. Until then the human is not a being. However, you are correct. A zygote, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, an adult, an elderly - they are all natural stages of human development and are expected to happen unless an outside force ends the human's life.

 

[cybrsage]

When you have to resort to hyperbole you present yourself as someone who cannot have a reasonable debate, or someone who does not have legitimate points to bring forth. Either way, it does nothing to advance your position.

Abortion prior to viability is not execution any more than a parent choosing not to give their child any body part (including ones that would increase the parent's chance of death) is execution.

Either a fetus is a person or its not. If it is a person, it has no right to the mother's body and she can legally protect herself from the physical harm caused by that (unborn) person. If it is not a person, it is not murder.

For what it's worth, I don't think whether the child is a product of rape or not should have any bearing on the legality of abortion.

A fetus is not a person, but it IS a human. What crime has the unborn committed to warrant being killed?

You are correct, it is not murder. Of coure, it is also not murder to execute a criminal, therefor it is easy to determine that murder and execution is not the same thing. Your issue is that you mix up terms. You use execution and murder as if they are synonyms when they are not. Some executions are murder, some are not. You also use hyperbole incorrectly, which causes you to be even more confused.

 

[cybrsage]

Right, it's a potential human being/human life. There's a lot that can and does happen that will end that potentiality.

No, you are confusing life and being. They are not synonyms.

The "clump of cells" is a human life, but it is not a human being. Human life is a superset which includes the set of human being. It is a potential human being, but as soon as the cells begin division on their own it is a human life.

 

[Atreus21]

I've noticed your discussions in abortion threads usually include the "5 minutes prior" meme. Exactly how many late term abortions occur 5 minutes before birth would normally occur? I'm sure you have the numbers on that since you cite it often.

It serves to illustrate a simple point: At some point while still inside the mother's body, the child is a human being. So at some point, killing the child before birth is no different than killing the child after birth.

Since you don't agree with 5 minutes, how about 24 hours? 48 hours? 1 week?

Able to live outside the womb with large amounts of medical aid. And still lots that can happen that would end the life of the potential human being.

...which is a standard arbitrarily applied. We apply that because it sounds good, not because it has anything whatsoever to do with science or facts.

That's true, you didn't. My bad. I was just giving my own definition of a human being. I was full term and still needed weeks in an incubator and other medical aid. It's not a given that every viable fetus or baby is going to live long enough to see their first, second or even third birthday. Even in the U.S. which has one of the lowest mortality rates.

I would no more take the life of a newly born baby then I would a 27 week old fetus in an incubator. Just saying that there are many circumstances that happen during pregnancy that can take the potential human being/human life.

I am only concerned with the circumstances that we force on the fetus in question. If the child dies on accident, then no one could be said to be at fault for that death. If we deliberately move to destroy it, then we are committing a crime and a horrible crime at that.

I want less abortions performed as well; I just think there's better ways of accomplishing that goal.

You seem like a decent person. So I'll tell you what motivates me.

Before I had kids, I was pro-life. Now that I've had kids, I've become sentimental about it. For me, the magnitude of not just killing someone, not just killing a child, but killing your own child, is...there's not really a word for it. Staggering; barbaric; unthinkable. Those words don't suffice. It deals with the trust that a child has for its parents, especially for the mother; a trust so complete and so innocent that the child doesn't even know to question it.

If I tossed my 8 month old son off the Mississippi river bridge tomorrow, from the time I threw him to the time he hit the rocks and died, he would never know the enormity of the betrayal perpetrated against him. He would simply be too young to perceive that there was ever a threat to his person, much less from those least likely to present such a threat, and equally unable to act in his own defense if he could perceive it. For me, that's not a betrayal. It is the ultimate betrayal.

To betray a trust like that, to take advantage of a person's inherent weakness and powerlessness, and then use clever rationalizing to say it was in that person's ultimate best interest, is to reduce ourselves to something less than dirt.

 

[cybrsage]

For me, intent is vital. An abortionist's goal is the death of the unborn human. His entire set of actions are designed to culminate in the purposeful killing of an unborn human.

If the woman's life is in danger, horrible health risk, etc., then all reasonable measures should be taken to remove the unborn human from the mother to save her AND save the unborn human. In many cases, the newly born human will die due to not being developed enough to survive. That is sad, but that is no different from many procedures done where survival odds are low (but still higher than if the procedure is not done).

Intent is important. In both cases, the life/health of the mother is saved. In the case of an abortion, the way to do it is to purposefully kill another human...and that is what I see is wrong.

Abortions for convenience should never be allowed.

 

[alzan]

No, you are confusing life and being. They are not synonyms.

The "clump of cells" is a human life, but it is not a human being. Human life is a superset which includes the set of human being. It is a potential human being, but as soon as the cells begin division on their own it is a human life.

In my post that you quoted (#110) I was not saying that it was a potential human life; I simply used the terms as I did to show it was both potential human being and human life; not potential human being/potential human life.

 

[cybrsage]

In my post that you quoted (#110) I was not saying that it was a potential human life; I simply used the terms as I did to show it was both potential human being and human life; not potential human being/potential human life.

Gotcha, my apologies for reading it wrong. English is not the best at turning speech into writing..

 

[shortylickens]

Most people who support abortion realize it is a sad thing. It's just that the alternatives of taking pregnant women hostage and confining them until they give birth is fairly inhumane.

Agreed. Add on top of that the adoption process is fucking ridiculous.

 

[alzan]

It serves to illustrate a simple point: At some point while still inside the mother's body, the child is a human being. So at some point, killing the child before birth is no different than killing the child after birth.

Since you don't agree with 5 minutes, how about 24 hours? 48 hours? 1 week?



...which is a standard arbitrarily applied. We apply that because it sounds good, not because it has anything whatsoever to do with science or facts.



I am only concerned with the circumstances that we force on the fetus in question. If the child dies on accident, then no one could be said to be at fault for that death. If we deliberately move to destroy it, then we are committing a crime and a horrible crime at that.



You seem like a decent person. So I'll tell you what motivates me.

Before I had kids, I was pro-life. Now that I've had kids, I've become sentimental about it. For me, the magnitude of not just killing someone, not just killing a child, but killing your own child, is...there's not really a word for it. Staggering; barbaric; unthinkable. Those words don't suffice. It deals with the trust that a child has for its parents, especially for the mother; a trust so complete and so innocent that the child doesn't even know to question it.

If I tossed my 8 month old son off the Mississippi river bridge tomorrow, from the time I threw him to the time he hit the rocks and died, he would never know the enormity of the betrayal perpetrated against him. He would simply be too young to perceive that there was ever a threat to his person, much less from those least likely to present such a threat, and equally unable to act in his own defense if he could perceive it. For me, that's not a betrayal. It is the ultimate betrayal.

To betray a trust like that, to take advantage of a person's inherent weakness and powerlessness, and then use clever rationalizing to say it was in that person's ultimate best interest, is to reduce ourselves to something less than dirt.

You can pick whatever cut off point you wish; were I a doctor and according to data from tests, if I felt the mother's life were at risk I would advise her & husband/partner accordingly. Depending on developmental stage it's possible the baby could survive. Maybe once our medical technology improves we can eliminate the ~1000 late term abortions that occur now.

The best way to decrease the number of abortions is with better education for our teens and pre-teens and wider availability of all forms of contraception. We simply disagree on our definitions of human being.

I highly doubt that my having kids would change my position on the subject. Were my wife to become pregnant and something happened during the pregnancy that either threatened her life and/or her ability to have children in the future; my own position would be to abort. But her position is just as important if not more so, it being her body and all.

You seem like a decent person as well. We may just have to agree to disagree on some aspects of this topic. Like I said, we both want less abortions; we just have different means to that end.

 

[dabuddha]

1.) So you have no problem telling some people (men) what to do with their body

2.) And not allowing the crackhead mother with 6 kids to have more child would seem completely reasonable.

I do have a problem with telling men what they can do with their body. I'm confused though, are you for or against abortions?

 

[nehalem256]

I do have a problem with telling men what they can do with their body. I'm confused though, are you for or against abortions?

Abortion is necessary and should be mandatory for as an example "a welfare crackhead mother of 6 children"

 

[preCRT]

So when are all of the folks, including men, who are anti-choice going to have uterus implants so you can carry all of the unwanted embryos to term?

 

[cybrsage]

So when are all of the folks, including men, who are anti-choice going to have uterus implants so you can carry all of the unwanted embryos to term?

A few weeks after all the idiots who think the pro-life men should have uterous implants have brain transplants so they gain the ability to create rational thoughts.


run on sentences are an added bonus

 

[Kadarin]

Yes. Whether the child is innocent or not, a woman is not to be enslaved. She has a valid claim of self-defense against a child conceived from rape.

Ah. This is actually why I'm in favor of abortions for any reason. IMO consent to have sex does not equal consent to have a child. Women should have the right to have (and enjoy) sex without the obligation of carrying a baby to term.