the truth about abortion

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: m316foley

What's is matter? Courts shouldn't decide something that important huh? What about the 2000 presidential election? Don't be a flip-flopper! They did NOT overthrow the will of the people, they overthrew the will of you and the stuck up, upperclass, snobby, people that are stuck on their religious view points with an agenda to push their beliefs on others.

LOL. I just read this. The only thing the courts did was to establish that the gov. cannot make people's votes say what the gov. thinks that they mean. It was a stupid mistake by the people who designed the voting stations, not any one else.

OK, back on topic.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
I have something to add.
From what I've heard, the main pro-abortion arguments are

1. The woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes.
2. If the feus does not show any cortial activity, how can it be human?

My answer
1. The fetus is NOT part of the woman's body. She gives it food and air, and it grows on its own, without sharing any genetic information or blood.
2. Oh, smart one guys. So we define humanity by its stage of development? Of course, the counter argument is "well, if it cannot be sustained by any other means other than the mother, it connot be human." My answer: science changes, so if tomorrow we can keep first trimester fetuses alive, does humanity's definition change? Did we "evolve?" See, this is stupid.

Haha! Pro-abortion huh? Is that how you like to put your twist on it? Actually, it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion buddy.

1.) The woman is part of the woman's body. It cannot live without it. Even at 26weeks old, the survival rate outside the womb is 50%. A preterm baby cannot even live outside the woman's uterus if it's less than about 22 weeks old. Therefore, it's part of the woman's body. It does somewhat share the woman's bloodstream. "The Fetus' brain signals hormone release that pass to the mother?s bloodstream and hormones trigger uterine muscles to contract and relax; labor"

2.) Let's hypothetically and boy do I mean hypothetically say that a fetus is a human? Would you go all the way to say an embryo or zygote is a human? I mean, it's not like they have sex organs or anything? And I believe to identify a type of human, there has to be sometype of sex organ.

So, you've been stumped. Go do more research and I'll continue arguing why "PRO-ABORTION" is incorrect and why PRO-LIFE is...thank you

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dullard
I also would disagree that all people will have sex no matter what. All, no. Some, yes. In fact, for most the answer is yes they will have sex. That is a sad state, but it is beyond the goal of this discussion.

I agree completely.

The church is indirectly culpable, since they currently attempt to prevent their members from understanding and using contraception.

How does the Church try to prevent people from understanding contraception? Nor does the Church say anything about its use in sex outside of marriage.

Lets try this example. Two companies hire pizza delivery drivers:

Company (A) tells their drivers not to speed, not to drink and drive, etc. Company (A) then INSISTS that all drivers have seat belts, airbags, and alcohol detection car starters. Heck, lets go so far as to say company (A) provides equipment so that the car won't operate without the seat belt latched, or it won't operate without the airbags on, it won't operate with a drunk driver, and there are speed governors in the vehicles. Some drivers will get in accidents, some of those accidents will be their own fault. Some of those will be speed or alcohol related. But in most cases, the drivers have some form of protection and the company did all it reasonably could to protect their drivers.

Company (B) tells their drivers not to speed, not to drink and drive, etc. Then company (B) sends the drivers off on thier own at their own risk. Some drivers will get in accidents, some of those accidents will be their own fault. Some of those will be speed or alcohol related. None of the drivers have advanced protection equipment (alcohol detectors, cars that don't run without seatbelts, etc).

Why aren't the drivers for B culpable? They knew that their behavior was inappropriate, since the company drilled it into them for years before they ever got behind the wheel. They were fully aware of safety measures that were available. However, they still CHOSE to behave in a way contrary to the company's policy and refused to take steps to protect themselves. Pizza delivery companies do not supply their employees with safe cars for this very reason: ultimately, the driver is responsible. If he chooses to act recklessly, then he better protect himself or be prepared to accept the consequences of his actions. It's his choice, and the responsibility for his actions rests on his shoulders.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
It's not my opinion, it is an accepted fact among the medical professionals of the world. Cognition is a function of cortical activity. Absence of the latter is absence of the former.

Can we have a source, please? I know quite a few doctors, and know that most of them would beg to differ with your oversimplified approach.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: m316foley

Haha, a fetus is not a part of a woman's body? Ummm, yeah. So my arm isn't part of my body? Uh yeah, go back to biology and learn some facts. Without the woman's body, it would NOT survive, it is connected physically and emotionally to the woman. It is part of her body.

What's is matter? Courts shouldn't decide something that important huh? What about the 2000 presidential election? Don't be a flip-flopper! They did NOT overthrow the will of the people, they overthrew the will of you and the stuck up, upperclass, snobby, people that are stuck on their religious view points with an agenda to push their beliefs on others.

You. The fetus does not share blood or DNA with the mother like your arm does with you. No one is saying that your arm is a person. But to use your analogy, me cutting off your arm is something that willl send me to jail. Should a fetus be less protected? LOL. Stupid remark. The fetus is not part of the woman.

EDIT: I still am reding new and exciting things in your post. Emotionally? Um, well, to be realistic, NO. Everyone knows that if the fetus shows no cortial activity, and if, like you guys think, it has no soul until that time, it cannot have emotions. By this logic, it is more of the woman's body toward the end of the pregnancy, when it is less dependant.

However, take the woman out of the equation, and you have a dead fetus...

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: themusgrat
I have something to add.
From what I've heard, the main pro-abortion arguments are

1. The woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes.
2. If the feus does not show any cortial activity, how can it be human?

My answer
1. The fetus is NOT part of the woman's body. She gives it food and air, and it grows on its own, without sharing any genetic information or blood.
2. Oh, smart one guys. So we define humanity by its stage of development? Of course, the counter argument is "well, if it cannot be sustained by any other means other than the mother, it connot be human." My answer: science changes, so if tomorrow we can keep first trimester fetuses alive, does humanity's definition change? Did we "evolve?" See, this is stupid.

Haha! Pro-abortion huh? Is that how you like to put your twist on it? Actually, it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion buddy.

1.) The woman is part of the woman's body. It cannot live without it. Even at 26weeks old, the survival rate outside the womb is 50%. A preterm baby cannot even live outside the woman's uterus if it's less than about 22 weeks old. Therefore, it's part of the woman's body. It does somewhat share the woman's bloodstream. "The Fetus' brain signals hormone release that pass to the mother?s bloodstream and hormones trigger uterine muscles to contract and relax; labor"

2.) Let's hypothetically and boy do I mean hypothetically say that a fetus is a human? Would you go all the way to say an embryo or zygote is a human? I mean, it's not like they have sex organs or anything? And I believe to identify a type of human, there has to be sometype of sex organ.

So, you've been stumped. Go do more research and I'll continue arguing why "PRO-ABORTION" is incorrect and why PRO-LIFE is...thank you

It nowhat shares the woman's bloodstream, unless nutrition constitutes blood. I'll say it again, you did not read my post. If what you say is true, whenever science changes, the definition of humanity changes. OOh this is good. Humanity is now also defined by its ability to have sex. Sex is everything.

You have not read my post, and sex organs do not define humanity.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: m316foley


However, take the woman out of the equation, and you have a dead fetus...

Ok, take a 1-day-old away from its parents, and you have a dead human. No, it is a dead fetus, since it has to be able to survive alone to be human.

You still have not thought about my post. If our ability to keep fetuses alive improves, the ability for a fetus to be human also improves. RELATIVE STANDARDS ARE NOT STANDARDS.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Cognition is not personhood.

EDIT: It is an indicator of a stage of development.

actually, in a sense, it is... "i think, therefore i am"

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Cognition is not personhood.

EDIT: It is an indicator of a stage of development.

actually, in a sense, it is... "i think, therefore i am"

I think that I could make the argument that trees think, after a fashion, at least more than a fetus. My dog thinks more than a fetus, is she a person? We are talking about humanity. Maybe personhood was a bad word choice.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: Gand1
go away

why should I go away? People are too scared or afraid of facing reality. Ignorance must be bliss, huh? While millions of babies are being murdered.

please go away.

if you were serious i think you could do it without photos. i don't like looking at pictures of knee surgery either, but i still think it's ok.

The photos were used, I'm assuming, to grab people's attention, and to prove that many abortions are of fetuses that do look human, moreso than the pro-abortionists' lie of "just a bunch of dead cells." Whatever stage of develpoment they were in, they looked more human than anything else.

No one has addressed my points yet. But don't try, you will probably fail. Think of some new arguments.

pretty please with sugar on it- go away

themusgrat- what's wrong with you? I don't recall making any arguments for or against abortion? So how can you say 'think of some new arguments'? Based on your lack of sense, I'd like you to go away too

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: m316foley


However, take the woman out of the equation, and you have a dead fetus...

Ok, take a 1-day-old away from its parents, and you have a dead human. No, it is a dead fetus, since it has to be able to survive alone to be human.

You still have not thought about my post. If our ability to keep fetuses alive improves, the ability for a fetus to be human also improves. RELATIVE STANDARDS ARE NOT STANDARDS.

Ok, give a fetus away to another person, it's dead
Give a 1 day old away to another person, it can survive.

And yes, what I said is true about the bloodstream, I got it out of my biology book.

A fetus is nothing without its mother...

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: m316foley


However, take the woman out of the equation, and you have a dead fetus...

Ok, take a 1-day-old away from its parents, and you have a dead human. No, it is a dead fetus, since it has to be able to survive alone to be human.

You still have not thought about my post. If our ability to keep fetuses alive improves, the ability for a fetus to be human also improves. RELATIVE STANDARDS ARE NOT STANDARDS.

Ok, give a fetus away to another person, it's dead
Give a 1 day old away to another person, it can survive.

And yes, what I said is true about the bloodstream, I got it out of my biology book.

A fetus is nothing without its mother...

Well, as much as I agree with the sense of what you're saying, he's right - the two bloodstreams don't intermix (ideally). However, all small molecules are free to cross, not just nutrients.

 

[ahurtt]

Thanks to TV, news, Hollywood movies, and video games, and the internet, I have been rendered completely desensitized to what I assume would have otherwise been very disturbing footage in that video. Otherwise I might have lost my lunch.

Net effect of video on my views on abortion = 0. Nice try.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
It's not my opinion, it is an accepted fact among the medical professionals of the world. Cognition is a function of cortical activity. Absence of the latter is absence of the former.

Can we have a source, please? I know quite a few doctors, and know that most of them would beg to differ with your oversimplified approach.

*cough* Don't start this trend...

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
It's not my opinion, it is an accepted fact among the medical professionals of the world. Cognition is a function of cortical activity. Absence of the latter is absence of the former.

Can we have a source, please? I know quite a few doctors, and know that most of them would beg to differ with your oversimplified approach.

*cough* Don't start this trend...

Are you really asking me to provide proof that consciousness resides in a functioning brain?

Should I prove to you that the Earth is round too?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Are you really asking me to provide proof that consciousness resides in a functioning brain?

Should I prove to you that the Earth is round too?

No, I'm asking for proof that the accepted medical definition of 'person' is the existence of cortical function. But you already knew that, and you know that it's not because if it was, my roommate's bastard cat would be a person and have all the same rights as you.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
Are you really asking me to provide proof that consciousness resides in a functioning brain?

Should I prove to you that the Earth is round too?

No, I'm asking for proof that the accepted medical definition of 'person' is the existence of cortical function. But you already knew that, and you know that it's not because if it was, my roommate's bastard cat would be a person and have all the same rights as you.

Well, I misspoke. The definition is actually more concrete that that. High cortical function defines HUMAN LIFE.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Well, I misspoke. The definition is actually more concrete that that. High cortical function defines HUMAN LIFE.

No, this is also patently false. Human life undoubtedly begins at conception, as I already stated in this very thread. If a zygote is not human and alive, it would never become human nor would it become alive. Can you show me any source backing your claim?

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: Gand1
go away

why should I go away? People are too scared or afraid of facing reality. Ignorance must be bliss, huh? While millions of babies are being murdered.

And will you and your ilk adopt and/or raise these kids?

abortion isn't the problem as much as the myriad of other issues associated with reproduction. Lack of consistent sex education and easy access to birth control for everyone are just a couple of examples.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: OrByte

As for the "Rights" side of the issue, women have rights to their bodies. Why is that hard to understand? there shouldn't be any argument over this issue this is a womans body. And as such she can choose as she pleases, the moral majority cannot encroach upon a womans rights to assert its moral compass, she has her own.

Did you take the time to read my post? Nope. The reason that the issue of late term abortions holds no final say is because again, my post said that as science changes, the humanity of fetuses will change, if abortion stands. Also, I somewhat agree with you on morality, but you forget the obvious fact that YES, the gov. does regulate, to a point, morality. Killing is wrong, but should it be right for people whose religions say so? There are some moral rules that are law, and many people, such as you, try to promote the idea that what is right for someone may not be right for another. Again, this is wrong as it pertains to morality and the gov.

you are right I didnt take the time to read your post because you (for the most part) are arguing the science of the issue and to me that is just a red herring. Science cannot prove one way or another. The abortion debate should be about rights and morality, not about science.

And I don't know any religion that says killing is OK. What was your point there? Your analogy about murder is erroneous because as stated before, only when a persons morality (and hence actions) encroach upon the rights of other individuals does the government have the right to hold someone accountable. The government isn't holding someone accountable to its morality (in the case of murder) it is holding someone accountable for the encroachment of the victims right to life. In this abortion issue you simply cannot grant those rights to fetuses without scientific proof that they are individuals. And science cannot answer that. How am I granting some rights to some and not others? Your argument is hard to follow.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
Well, I misspoke. The definition is actually more concrete that that. High cortical function defines HUMAN LIFE.

No, this is also patently false. Human life undoubtedly begins at conception, as I already stated in this very thread. If a zygote is not human and alive, it would never become human nor would it become alive. Can you show me any source backing your claim?

and where are your sources to back yours?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
Well, I misspoke. The definition is actually more concrete that that. High cortical function defines HUMAN LIFE.

No, this is also patently false. Human life undoubtedly begins at conception, as I already stated in this very thread. If a zygote is not human and alive, it would never become human nor would it become alive. Can you show me any source backing your claim?

The AMA definition of death is the cessation of life. Death is defined as sponteneous cessation or absence of cortical activity (brain death).

If death is the cessation of life, and death is the cessation of cortical activity, then life = cortical activity. What is it that you don't understand here?

If you perform the surgery correctly, you can almost completely remove the upper cortex, leaving the midbrain and medulla intact. The human in question might actually have a heartbeat, will breathe, and will actually swallow... but it's no longer alive. According to you, it should be voting.

 

[joincamp]

just to stir the pot a little, put yourselves in the shoes of a person whose mother was considering abortion but didn't. would your views change then?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: joincamp
just to stir the pot a little, put yourselves in the shoes of a person whose mother was considering abortion but didn't. would your views change then?

hypotheticals aren't really useful.

In this case I would argue that the mother made the right CHOICE.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: joincamp
just to stir the pot a little, put yourselves in the shoes of a person whose mother was considering abortion but didn't. would your views change then?

No they wouldn't. I love my parents, and they've done an amazing job in terms of my upbringing. I would not, however, want to be born to parents who didn't want me.

Actually, for those who count themselves and people of faith, why are you worried? If you're not born in one body, you'll be born in another.