|
|
|
|
|
| Abortion
Posted: 6/13/2008 12:42:05 PM | For example, my society applies a variety of laws designed to regulate what I do with my body in public (I cannot urinate when the urge strikes me), in a car (I have to protect my body with a seat belt whether I want to or not), how much alcohol the regulators deem is a fit amount before I cannot drive my regulated body wherever I want, what drugs I can put in my body, and so on. Thus the notion that "no law can be created that regulates what I do with my body" is false.
Your public peeing argument is weak because there are public restrooms at most every restaurant and gas station to ease you of your discomfort. Also, if you were in public and without a restroom, you would break the law before you pissed yourself.
Your dinking and driving argument is stacking issues to make sence of one issue. There is no law that says you can't drink alcohol in America. You are not allowed to drive while you are drunk because you are a danger to others. But you are allowed to consume a certain amount of alochol.
As I understand the justification of a seatbelt mandate, it is due to the fact that you waste too of the county's money when you die in a car accident. They really aren't worried about your body as much as they are worried about their bottom line.
As far your "an assumption without proof" comment, you can keep your head buried in the sand if you like, but the reality is that little girls will be forced to get wirehanger abrotions like they did when abortions were a danger to a woman's life. The back alley butcher is a reality that this generation has no experience with. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 6/13/2008 1:24:07 PM | I won't bother with the obvious arguments that we do in fact live in a societies in which we regularly subject ourselves and others to regulations that tell us and others what they can and cannot do with their bodies. The point was made. It was obvious. Whether you get it or not isn't really my problem.
As far your "an assumption without proof" comment, you can keep your head buried in the sand if you like, but the reality is that little girls will be forced to get wirehanger abrotions like they did when abortions were a danger to a woman's life. The back alley butcher is a reality that this generation has no experience with.
An argument from emotion that provides no evidence other than "It's true because I aid it's true"? That's the best you've got? OK. have a nice weekend.  | |
|
| whether you get it or not
Posted: 6/13/2008 3:15:51 PM | | What about when it is done against someone's will? What I believe may not matter to you, but what about our rights to make our own decisions. My decision was to have my child, I was an adult. The fact that an well astablished abortion clinic would perform an abortion against ones will, who is in they're right mind. Tells me money is what speaks most loudly here. You can do what you like if you can live with your canscious . But the fact is it is very traumatic, and today many abortion are performed at clinics with the individual haveing to watch by ultra-sound so they cannot be sued. Watching while the baby fights to stay away from what is happening inside the mother , fights to live. I am asking for some comments from some of you girls and women out there that has had this procedure. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 6/13/2008 3:27:42 PM | An argument from emotion that provides no evidence other than "It's true because I aid it's true"? That's the best you've got? OK. have a nice weekend
So you're going to go stick your head back into the sand because you never knew that wire hangers and knitting needles were common abortion tools? Before you go too far, read this passage about Geraldine Santoro. Is this what you want to deny while you passify your ego?
In the years before Roe, women died from attempting abortions on their own, using anything from wire coat hangers to knitting needles. Women also acquired abortions from unqualified people in unsanitary conditions, like the back seat of a car or a back alley--leading to victims who died painful deaths from hemorrhaging and infection.
In 1964, 28-year-old Geraldine Santoro bled to death on the floor of a Connecticut hotel room after she and her former lover, Clyde Dixon, attempted an abortion on their own. Dixon fled the scene, and Santoro died alone
http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/552/552_08_Abortion.shtml
It's a pro-choice web site indeed, however, I trust you realize the validity of this passage and that Geraldine Santoro wasn't the first or last woman to go about these potentially lethal procedures. This is a decision that she was willing to make. I'm willing to bet that she knew the dangers and still carried on with the procedure. If abortion was legal at the time, Geraldine would more than likely be alive today.
I'm happy that you are so dedicated to your cause, but, it doesn't give you the right to make decisons for people you don't know. They don't know you. So, if you mind your own business then you won't interfere with their personal lives. | |
|
| This Is My Buisness
Posted: 6/13/2008 5:19:52 PM | | Not someone elses, someone took from me I didn't choose it. You can be as calloused as you like, but I said you can believe whatever you wish, because in the end the choice is your's. But to me what happened to me was the same thing as if someone had murdered me, because it was suppose to be my choice and I am still waiting to hear from all of you out they're that have had one of these abortions where you had to watch it performed on ultra-sound. And it is great that you have your own feelings . | |
|
| She Lost Her Life Trying To Take A Life
Posted: 6/13/2008 6:42:27 PM | | Yes I am familiar with the story. If we would murder someone what would happen to us? If a women looses a baby due to a missciarage they don't say that she lost a fetus. But if someone wishes to get rid of the life they are carrying they call it a fetus, why would you say this is? I say to ease the concious. But we need to face the reality not try to kid ourselves. | |
|
| Consent
Posted: 6/14/2008 7:29:42 AM |
What about when it is done against someone's will? What I believe may not matter to you, but what about our rights to make our own decisions. My decision was to have my child, I was an adult. The fact that an well astablished abortion clinic would perform an abortion against ones will, who is in they're right mind. As you describe it, what was done to you was illegal. To continue with a procedure without the patient's consent is not a legal act. Have you tried seeing a lawyer? Did you sign a consent form?
If things are as you describe, I don't understand why you don't take legal action. Against a well established clinic, that undoubtedly has malpractice insurance, if they can't produce a signed consent form, you are probably suddenly rich.
But if they can, you consented. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 6/14/2008 7:42:08 AM | | I agree with N8dawg 100 percent. its not the baby's fault is here so therefore it does not deserve to die. Thou shall not commit murder is in the bible. abortion is murder and it dont matter what the reason you choose to abort. look at it antoher way. you murder ur ememy..does God think its ok becuase u didnt like them? of course not. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 6/14/2008 7:49:29 AM | My "cause"? None other than an honest desire to try and understand the issue form multiple sides with multiple inputs, attempting to remove emotions (on both sides) and look at facts alone, to try to find a logical answer to the rather obvious fact that abortion is not a simple matter to considerable numbers of people in our respective societies. As I said:
There is nothing intrinsic to one gender or the other that makes one or the other more or less able to voice an opinion on the matter.
There is also a tendency to talk only about eggs and sperm and embryos as if that which is growing in a woman's womb stays in that state until nine months later and suddenly transforms in a matter or hours into a baby immediately prior to birth. So, I would ask for some honesty and for those who support the right to abortion to say when they believe this egg/sperm/embryo transitions to being a "baby". I'm not interested in what someone else thinks, or quotes from others. I'm interested in what you think, where you draw the line (if you draw any line at all). Not for others. Not to judge others. Not even to support the claim that "abortion is murder". But to show that you've actually thought this through to its logical conclusion. I honestly cannot think of how much clearer I needed to be.
Maybe you could answer the above for yourself. I really would like your opinion. Or you can continue to presume that because I'm male or have a "cause" I'm disqualified from input. If that's the case, then we're done. HAND
PS. To clear away the obvious, how about I concede that prior to abortion being both legal and accessible some women chose to terminate their pregnancies in ways that injured them or cause their deaths, and that was not a Good Thing. I'll further concede that if a woman is going to have an abortion it is best performed in a proper medical facility with appropriate care and sterility, and the maximum care and minimum harm to her. I'll also concede that not every abortion is a matter of convenience (and not every one is because of rape, incest or to prevent harm to the health of the woman). I'd say in both cases that they represent a tiny sliver of the total. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 6/14/2008 9:10:29 AM | I'm not going to read the entire thread, but I will however share a story...
Yesterday I had plans rewiring my pool, my plan was to reroute an electric panel from my garage and use the panel for my pool instead. When I considered the route I was going to take from my garage to my pool I noticed a swallows nest to be in the way...Now the nest was empty so I took the nest down. A little while later while I was doing some work in the pool, I noticed two swallows fluttering around where the nest used to be, and then they just sat there on the wire and stared helplessly at where thier nest used to be. Then it hit me that I had destroyed their home, and I felt completely distraught about it. I phoned a frioend and asked him his opinion on what I should do, His words weren't encouraging as he told me how I had completely screwed these birds, as the female was most likely going to lay her eggs any day, and then he went on to describe the intricate way in which swallows build thier nests with mud and straw and the process involved. This made me feel even worse as I thought that there would probably not be enough time to rebuild another nest. Then I had thoughts of them building a nest on the ground as a last resort and having thier eggs eaten by snakes.
I could sense the frustration as the swallows chirped frantically and flutterred around the place where the nest was, so because I still had the nest in perfect condition I set out to refasten it back in the same spot, while the two birds watched the entire procedure. After I had the nest back up, I sat back and watched as the two birds took turns giving the nest another evaluation...They weren't satisied and wentback to the wire and just sat here for about an hour or so and then they left.
It is completely within my legal rights to remove a nest from my garage. I own the garage and not the birds, but the birds however do not recognize my name on title for my property, They just do what thier instinctive nature moves them to do. Even though I feel terrible I was completely acting within my rights to do as I please with my property.
But I ask, did I really do the right thing because it was in my interest that the nest be removed? And if it is within my rights to do what I did, then why do I feel the remorse that came upon me when I realized that I had completely screwed these two birds over as they were preparing to bring thier family into the world. | |
|
| Never signed
Posted: 6/14/2008 1:03:04 PM | | I never signed a consent form, only my mother did. And back then I was so traumatized and depressed and confused, I was not thinking of that. It took me many years to recover from what it did to me emotionally. I would love to see an attorney today but cannot talk about this with my mother and I could'nt even remeber the name of the clinic. Like I said , much, somehow got blocked from my memory and my mom may and may not remember at her age, she now has a bad heart and other medical issues. But if someone can be helped in someway, even if I can just be an encouragement to someone else, who is feeling bad for what they have done or what was done to them, I would love it. And thankyou very much for your thoughts and compassion. | |
|
| It Takes Two
Posted: 6/14/2008 1:09:15 PM | It takes two to make a baby and it doesn't matter what gender you are, we are all human, and we all should be entitled to our own opinions and it is good that you are open and wanting to hear from both sides. I applaud you for being open and searching out answers. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 6/24/2008 3:59:33 PM | message 12
I agree with you that a brain wave does determine human life and i have heard that happens about the seventh week into term , the book behold man documents the changes that the fetus under goes about this time (almost a semiregression and regrowth) I don't believe abortion can be justified in America we don't have a famine or over -population problem. I think women and men would be freer if abortion were made illegal again after the 7th week and everyone received a monthly economic stimulus check renamed "the social security minimum monthly income" ."Money answers all things" says the Bible and in this case it's true Women and Men would be far freer this way than by the legalization of abortion | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 6/25/2008 4:30:33 PM | For whatever someone can get out of this theory:
I believe that the spirit of a human enters and stays in the body when the child is born. Prior to that it hangs around the mother going in and out of the fetus. It's our "spirit" that connects us to the to the "infinitude" and that which makes us human. Otherwise we are an animal. Perhaps the original sin was this act taking place and giving the first human's the ability to make choice and not behave according in instinct.
In some of my meditative experiences I have realized that the brain and the mind are two different avenues of thought. The brain in an organ but the mind can travel outside of the body and experience more than the brain can capacitate.
Therefore, abortion is not death of someone who was a completed human being. The soul will therefore seek another avenue of reincarnation.
Some cultures, such as a Native American tribe that a former friend of mine belonged to, used herbs to both sterilize the mother and abort the fetus. People who are pro-life need to realize that there usually is an economic reason for abortions in that the parent will not be able to provide for the child. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:35:55 PM | I enjoyed your story, Consigliere - poor little birds. Thoughtful of you to return their nest. Did they ever decide to come back to it again?
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:09:09 PM | A touching story about birds from consigliere. I had a similarly soul searching encounter with the natural world yesterday as I drove my train through Askern near Doncaster. From a distance I could see a dark shape moving around in the evening light as I approached - it turned out to be a whippet taking a pee in the four foot (this is a colloquial name given to the space between the two steel rails). As I got nearer and identified the nature of the hapless mammal I initiated a series of staccato blasts on the horn to persuade it to move clear. Sadly, the dopey creature merely turned and looked at my train in a mildly concerned manner and proceeded to walk forwards along the track. Squoot! I'm afraid the poor beastie helplessly fell prey to the relentless passage of 600 tons of train over its body. I felt kind of upset initially but forgave myself with the thought that I'd given it fair warning, and it obviously wasn't best suited to the business of survival..
Golly, I've just noticed the number of my post. One hopes this does not portend anything unpleasant or distasteful....AAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:12:54 PM | Only posting because the reply count was 666, and I needed the power.
*stretches arms into the sky and blows up* | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/2/2008 11:35:13 AM | This post has taken quite an interesting turn. Please allow me to get back on the subject.
Pray tell, has anyone considered that believing a fetus is dead or alive absolutely does not change its biological state? I mean, we are considering a truth here and not just a perspective right? I mean really, it's a true or false question. Allow me to explore this logically.
Is a fetus a human life?
If so:
What justifies ending it?
Removing all the appeal to emotion, all the complex dynamics, and placing extreme cases under the same umbrella, I would like to see these questions answered.
Wikipedia defines relativist fallacy as follows: The relativist fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is a formal fallacy committed, roughly speaking, when one person claims that something may be true for one person but not true for someone else.
Under this far-fetched presumption (sarcastic), belief is not an option. Something is, or something is not, so dropping in to yell "murderer" or "radical fundamentalist" proves only that you have an opinion (we all know opinions are like a**holes).
For now, I will state that death is the assumed cost of abortion. I will explain why after I have made my other points.
I. Choice
Ok... Since we are dealing with a woman's choice, it must be stated that the fate of the fetus (withstanding natural death) rests upon one of two people. Either the fetus chooses for itself/himself/herself later in life, or the woman chooses for it/him/her. Granting the woman the choice automatically revokes the choice of the fetus. Whatever you BELIEVE (that awful word) about what a fetus is, is irrelevant at this point. Also BELIEVING that choice of this or that is subjective clouds the issue. It either belongs to ONE or the OTHER.
A. Working backwards here, IF a fetus were proven to be a human life, the pro-choice perspective would become paradoxical for this reason: Withstanding crimes involving mortal actions (not arguing the death penalty because it applies with or without this clause), each person's mortality belongs to him/her alone. The right of choice would first have to be removed from one before it can be granted to another. This is known as a double-standard fallacy.
B. IF a fetus were proven to be a human life, the "humane abortion" argument also falls down (for a broader definition, this applies to people who say the fetus is better off dead in some cases). The ONLY people who could give credible testimony about the humanity of death are the dead themselves. Unfortunately, they are not around to testify. We may also include extend this to suicide cases because they, having power over their own lives, found death to be a better option than life. Once again, they are not here to tell about it. It can be stated, however, that the choice was not made for them.
*** Conclusively, any living person should retain the choice to live or die for himself/herself alone (insert death penalty caveat if you prefer--it is irrelevant).
II. Mortal Decisions and the Weight of Rights and Needs
A. What justifies terminal action? Withstanding some countries which execute for population control, drunk driving, or even adultery, here in the States we only implement terminal action for terminal reasons. Pregnancy sucks. It causes nausea, soreness, hot flashes, emotional instability, post-partum depression, physical pain from birth, possibly a lifetime of wonder and worry (an inevitable effect of maternal instinct), the pain of separation through adoption, employment problems, and the list goes on... but not forever. Pregnancy is not a terminal condition (in nearly all cases). No matter how much grotesque inconvenience and turmoil one adds to the list, it cannot add up to the ultimate possession each human protects with relentless fervor. As loosely stated before, existence outweighs peace of mind as so many poor and suffering people attest to by continuing their lives. IF a fetus is a life, would it not make since to only justify abortion in the case of clear mortal danger?
B. Rape, incest, abnormality, apocalypse... All fall subject to the weight of rights and needs. Despite whatever it may be easier to think, the fetus is not the antichrist. Its father might be, but the father is protected from death by due process of law. If the victim is not allowed to end that life, IF the fetus is alive, it/he/she should also be protected. Note also that Roe vs. Wade is not due process of law as related to individuals on trial. Bad as it may be, the emotional trauma of extreme cases still remains what it is--emotional trauma. Not death. Death is permanent and irreversible. It cannot heal. Dead people cannot seek counseling or recover.
*** Conclusively, life is the ultimate possession. Convenience, peace of mind, and/or happiness, worldly possessions, even if placed on the same scale does not outweigh existence. Only pain which is indefinite or not decreasing in magnitude over time even comes close.
III. Death is the Assumed Cost
Hopefully, most people can clearly see that the previous statements are true for a being that is unquestionably human, but a fetus is questionable right? So why do we assume that death is the cost of abortion?
To answer this question, I refer back to the relativist fallacy. What you believe does not make a fetus any more or less human. It does not change its biological characteristics, alter its physiology, or promote or destroy its sentience.
That being said, psychologists clearly indentify developmental stages in humans, but not a single one of them claim these stages are without transition. Fetuses develop at exponential rates biologically, slowing down with age through infancy, childhood, and appears to level off at adulthood. Here is one article which shows the stages of development in a fetus:
Dahlen, H. (2007, April/May). The 3 stages of pregnancy [Electronic version].
I will consider Freud, Piaget, and Erikson's theories on developmental psychology to be common knowledge. It is foolish to assume no psychological development takes place in the womb given all the biological facets for it. I certainly hope most people will refrain from arguing this point, because it will be a losing argument. Psychological development transitions through stages, and clearly begins before birth.
The point is, there are no clearly identifiable markers which separate life and blob. If going into all the technical aspects of this would satisfy someone, if would sufficient to say that according the above-referenced article, most of some suggestive markers are present long before most abortions. Combine this reference with the above for that inference:
Strauss, L., Gamble, S., Parker, W., Cook, D., Zane, S., Hamdan, S. (November, 2007). Abortion surveillance -- United States, 2004 [Electronic version]. MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 56(SS-9), 1-33.
However, I will totally give you the fact that in a best-case scenario, we aren't for certain. That leaves the best-case scenario for abortion to be the removal of a cellular order of biological functions, and the worst-case scenario to be infanticide. Note that there is no in-between, really. Death and life are absolute terms.
With the evidence strongly pointing in the direction of sentience, we still have some reason to believe that the fetus might not be considered alive because it is not fully functional. Once again, I will totally give you that one. The only compromise we can reach is the unknown. What I believe or what you believe does not alter life and death. So why in the world would I say death is the assumed cost?
Life, death, chance, unknown = Russian roulette
Is abortion really like Russian roulette? Only if you consider that the revolver is not pointed at the person holding it. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/2/2008 5:26:23 PM |
Is a fetus a human life? Since there are no markers to separate human life from a blob, why take the pro-life crowd's definition that human life starts at conception. Sine we don't know, might a human egg or sperm be entitled to all of the protections we give to living cells, since these also will result in human life eventually if things proceed as expected. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/2/2008 7:09:09 PM | | Thou shall not committ murder. remember that. a raped victom can alwasy give baby up for adoption since so many peple cannot have kids. I see no reason to murder one. in fact its not the innocent baby's fault that the its mother was raped. why should baby pay the price? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/2/2008 8:06:59 PM | I stated that there were no clearly identifiable markers. To elaborate, the changing of the location of the fetus from the womb to the outside world is not the defining biological point at which it becomes human. It is common knowledge that a fetus is viable before birth. This is supported by successful premature birth. I also stated that many suggestive markers were in place at the time of many abortions. The CDC breaks down reported abortions into at or less than 8-week markers and greater than 12-week markers. Examining anything before these time frames, especially 4-6 weeks is pointless because pregnancy is very rarely discovered so early.
Granted, it becomes very difficult to define going backwards approaching conception from, say heartbeat for instance, but there is a key element in your statement that is false. If a non-united sperm and egg "proceed as expected" they will die. They will not result in human life on their own. The union of egg and sperm result in a unique strain of DNA. That marker is at least a blueprint. Should we then protect skin cells of an adult which contain the same essential encoding? No, because skin cells do not develop at exponential rates to form a unique human being. Neither do singular germ cells.
Prevention and reversal are two very different concepts. Pro-lifers often choose conception because conception is the point at which any action to alter the outcome of birth will be reversive in nature and not preventative. That is the objective fact. For all practical purposes, non-conception represents a zero-marker. It is the only one that is not subjective. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/3/2008 9:48:02 PM |
Since there are no markers to separate human life from a blob, why take the pro-life crowd's definition that human life starts at conception. Sine we don't know, might a human egg or sperm be entitled to all of the protections we give to living cells, since these also will result in human life eventually if things proceed as expected.
Just because living cells, such as skin cells, contain Human Genetic Material, does not mean that they have the “Inherent Capacity” to be a fetus or an infant or a toddler and so on. Living cells, such as skin cells that fall from your skin, DO NOT possess that “Inherent Capacity”. But, the “conceived” Zygote does.
The “conceived” Zygote is a Different kind of Human Genetic Material. It is a purpose-driven and self-integrating Entity that is in Command of it’s own Development. It is actually an “individual” Human Being…an “individual” Human Person that is "Developing".
The term “Inherent Capacity” in relation to conception, means that "nothing more will be added" to that Entity to make it a Human Being…It has Everything “programmed” within it from its beginning. (Conception).
However, Sperm and Ovum, left to themselves, will Die. They DO NOT possess the “Inherent Capacity” to be a Human Being. Only when they “undergo” the Conception or Fertilization Process, do they become “Individual” Human Beings and Human Life begins to Develop.
When someone says "I DON’T KNOW if the fetus is a Human Being, but I think Abortion should be Legal anyway"...I think that is an inadequate response...
What would we think of a structural engineer, who blew up an old building, without making sure there was NO Human Life inside?
What if this structural engineer said “I DON’T KNOW if there is any Human Life inside the building. All I have to be concerned with is the “indisputable” Human Life outside the building…so I’m going to go-ahead and Blow the building up anyway". We would think of him as very irresponsible, wouldn't we?
That's exactly what some people say about Abortion. They'll say “I DON'T KNOW if the Entity in the womb is a Human Being, BUT I think it should be Legal anyway”…
What would we think of a game-hunter that shot at a "rustling bush" without making sure NO Human Life was inside...If the game-hunter is NOT SURE...then he shouldn't shoot. Right?
So, if you are NOT SURE if the Entities in the womb are “individual” Human Beings....then the "Responsible Logic” would be…DON'T kill it. Right? That is the “crux” of the Abortion Debate…”WHAT is in the womb at Conception”?
I happen to think we are "Individual" Human Beings from Conception.
We didn’t COME FROM a Zygote....We ONCE WERE a Zygote.
We didn’t EVOLVE from a Fetus...We ONCE WERE a Fetus.
This Pro-Life position is both Scientifically and Philosophically Sound.
 | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/4/2008 5:03:34 AM | allegiant_one,
The structural engineer and the rustling bush is very similar to the conclusions I've come to. I am doing a paper on abortion right now, and I've related it to filling a room with lethal gas not knowing if it is occupied, and as above, Russian roulette. You absolutely correct that the pro-life position is scientifically sound. Occam's razor loosely states that complicating the issue is counter-productive, that one should only make as many assumptions as required. In this case, the only assumption that is valid and does not require extensive speculation and justification, is the fact that conception is the determinate point at which life begins a clear process of emergence.
Combined with the Principle of Insufficient Reason, the very simple derivation is that any point from conception to birth is subjective and/or unknown and should be treated as such. Some may argue that these two theories are somewhat contradictive, but that is part of my point. Follow my reasoning here.
-Evidence suggests that the fetus is alive and sentient at the time of most abortions.
-Earlier, evidence only suggests that the fetus is alive, but not neccesarily sentient.
Occam's Razor applies to the first statement, and the Principle of Insufficient Reason applies to the second. Even somewhat contradicting theories support the pro-life argument. Occam's Razor does not support abortion in any way shape or form, but actually supports the contradictive view. Conception is a one-way probablity. Whatever you try to apply to reverse-engineer the concept fails. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/4/2008 7:03:58 AM | altruist80,
The structural engineer and the rustling bush is very similar to the conclusions I've come to. I am doing a paper on abortion right now, and I've related it to filling a room with lethal gas not knowing if it is occupied, and as above, Russian roulette.
My thoughts are that Abortion is not all that "complex" as people make it…In fact, it is actaully quite simple to resolve. The Main issue, regarding Abortion, are the Answers to 2 "simple" questions.
1.) "What is IT?"
2.) "Can I kill IT?"
The answers, to those 2 "simple" questions, will trump, all other considerations in the Abortion Debate.
You absolutely correct that the pro-life position is scientifically sound.
Not only is the Pro-Life position scientifically Sound, but it is philosophically sound. Follow me here...
If you look at the Philosophical differences, by COMPARING the “newborn” with the person in the womb…you will find ONLY 4.
1.) Size
2.) Level of Development
3.) Environment
4.) Degree of Dependency
None of which are “MORALLY” Relevant to Disqualify the person in the womb as being FULLY Human.
I've learned to use the acronym SLED to remember them. Let’s look at them…
SIZE…Yes, it’s True…the person in the womb is “smaller” than the Newborn. But since when does SIZE have anything to do with the Rights that people have? Men, are generally Larger than Women…Does that mean Men have MORE rights? (I wonder what the ladies think on that one?) Is Shaquile O’Neal, MORE of a person, than Barbara Boxer…simply because he is Larger? I don’t think so…
LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT…Yes, this is also True…the people in the womb are "Less Developed" than the Newborn…but does that matter? A 4 year old girl, is LESS DEVELOPED, than a 22 year old college co-ed…but does that mean that the 4 year old is LESS Human than the co-ed, simply because she hasn’t Developed her Reproductive system? We think of BOTH as being EQUALLY Human, don’t we?
ENVIRONMENT…Yes, the people in the womb are in a different Location than the Newborn…but again, does that matter? WHERE you are, has NO bearing, on WHO you are. For example...Did YOU, stop being YOU…because you went from one Location, to another? Did that “change” in Location affect your “status” of being a Human Being? How can Location, then, matter?…How is Birth the “magic moment" to become a Human Being? It actually isn’t…
In fact, if Birth is the “magic moment” when someone “legally” becomes a person, then our US Constitution would have to have it’s Preamble changed. The Preamble proclaims the Rights and the Blessings of our Liberties in our Constitution to ourselves and to our “Posterity” (those who have yet to be born).
Preamble >>> “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
DEGREE of DEPENDENCY…Yes, it’s also true…the people in the womb are MORE DEPENDENT, than the Newborn. But does that matter? If Viability is what makes us Human Beings…then ALL People, who DEPEND on insulin, heart pace makers, kidney machines, or ANYTHING to “sustain” their Life would have to be “declared” NON-PERSONS (along with the Fetus)…because they would be NOT be Viable either.
Is an astronaut Viable when he/she is in Space? Not “outside” of his/her Spacesuit, they’re not.….Do they “become” NON-HUMAN or NON-PERSONS in Space? I don’t think so…
The Fetus in the womb is Viable, right where it is....It "belongs” there…..Naturally. "Induced Abortion" is the UN- natural
act of "deliberately" killing an "individual" Human Being while in the womb. The Fetus "becomes" NON-Viable when you remove it from the womb....
In this case, the only assumption that is valid and does not require extensive speculation and justification, is the fact that conception is the determinate point at which life begins a clear process of emergence.
Combined with the Principle of Insufficient Reason, the very simple derivation is that any point from conception to birth is subjective and/or unknown and should be treated as such. Some may argue that these two theories are somewhat contradictive, but that is part of my point. Follow my reasoning here.
-Evidence suggests that the fetus is alive and sentient at the time of most abortions.
-Earlier, evidence only suggests that the fetus is alive, but not neccesarily sentient.
Occam's Razor applies to the first statement, and the Principle of Insufficient Reason applies to the second. Even somewhat contradicting theories support the pro-life argument. Occam's Razor does not support abortion in any way shape or form, but actually supports the contradictive view. Conception is a one-way probablity. Whatever you try to apply to reverse-engineer the concept fails.
Absolutely...and permit me to expound more on the forward-engineering of Conception according to Science, applied with some Common Sense (sarcastic).
In Science, there is a Law called The Law of Biogenesis. This Law states: “Every living thing, Reproduces, after it’s own kind.” In other words, Dogs produce dogs…Cats produce cats…mice, mice…rats, rats…worms, worms…AND Humans, Humans. So, according to the Law of Biogenesis, if you want to Know what “something is”, that is in question…there’s a REAL EASY way to find out!…Just look at what it’s Parents are!
So, with that said, how can 2 human beings (man and woman) create “something” that is NOT “Protectable” human life….but later becomes one? (in clear “violation” of the Law of Biogenesis?) How can this be done, Scientifically? It can't.
And there is NO doubt, in the Medical and Genetic Communities that INDIVIDUAL Human Life begins at “Conception”. No-one will tell you, in a “scholarly” article or in “testimony” in court, that INDIVIDUAL Human LIFE can be “demonstrated” to Begin at any other point, other than Conception.
Even Scientist, Dr. Landrom Shettles.....the 1st Scientist to successfully achieve Conception in a test tube, wrote: “Conception, not only BEGINS life…It DEFINES life.”
I'll make 2 other points, then I'll stop for now.
SCIENTIFICALLY…Look at what is TRUE during Pregnancy. Fetal Development is so "explosive", that by the 43rd day of pregnancy, the fetus has a heart that is beating...AND...a brain that is producing “Brain Wave Activity” that we can measure on an Electroencephalogram.
SCIENTIFICALLY…Fetologists tell us that the “prospects” for Fetal PAIN are Very Real by the 9th week, and “FOR CERTAIN” by the 13th week of pregnancy…That's 1st Trimester Human Life.
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/4/2008 8:41:30 AM |
An argument from emotion that provides no evidence other than "It's true because I said it's true"? That's the best you've got?
Pitiful isn't it? Seems to work ok for the christians best seller tho.. | |
|
|
| Page 27 of 35
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 |
|
Home
login 
