Political Crossfire Forums

[apathykills]

Wow. That hurts. Serious;y, it's a combination of a few things. The first is that we're crazy enough to care about babies. You may not look at it this way, but pro-lifers or antiaboritonists or whatever you want to call them think that a child's life is valuable enough to save. The second thing is that religion is indeed a strong motivator. As a Catholic, or even just a religious person, or, perhaps, someone who has a deep respect for life, we believe that each and every life is important to God's plan and should be given the chance to flourish. When a woman has a choice to kill her child, she is infringing upon the rights of others. That baby isn't anyone's property but his or her own, and deserves the respect and dignity that you or I receive regularly. People have to realize that responsiblilty as a parent comes above personal securty.

[AmericaFirst]

apathykills wrote: Wow. That hurts. Serious;y, it's a combination of a few things. The first is that we're crazy enough to care about babies. You may not look at it this way, but pro-lifers or antiaboritonists or whatever you want to call them think that a child's life is valuable enough to save. The second thing is that religion is indeed a strong motivator. As a Catholic, or even just a religious person, or, perhaps, someone who has a deep respect for life, we believe that each and every life is important to God's plan and should be given the chance to flourish. When a woman has a choice to kill her child, she is infringing upon the rights of others. That baby isn't anyone's property but his or her own, and deserves the respect and dignity that you or I receive regularly. People have to realize that responsiblilty as a parent comes above personal securty.

While I agree with you for the most part, "pro-choicers" will argue that the "fetus" (what you and I call a child) is not yet a human and has no rights - something I could never grasp and hope I never come to feel that way....

[Selfish_Meme]

Actually that is not entirely correct. Is one cell a child? I don't think so. A baby is a child, somewhere along the way that cell attains some attribute that makes us think of it as more than a cell or group of cells. Pro-choice people seem invariably to be against late term abortions.

Its not because scentifically it is proven that the fetus thinks or feels. Personally I think it is because of 'tenure' and childlike characteristics. Pro-choicers don't want to kill human progeny necessarily, and by the time the fetus has attained an arbitrary age where some definably 'person' characteristics appear is where they usually draw the line.

What they do not recognise is a cell or group of cells having rights that preempt the mothers. At least until we can show some evidence for greater consideration.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Actually that is not entirely correct. Is one cell a child? I don't think so. A baby is a child, somewhere along the way that cell attains some attribute that makes us think of it as more than a cell or group of cells. Pro-choice people seem invariably to be against late term abortions.

Its not because scentifically it is proven that the fetus thinks or feels. Personally I think it is because of 'tenure' and childlike characteristics. Pro-choicers don't want to kill human progeny necessarily, and by the time the fetus has attained an arbitrary age where some definably 'person' characteristics appear is where they usually draw the line.

What they do not recognise is a cell or group of cells having rights that preempt the mothers. At least until we can show some evidence for greater consideration.

If the vast majority of induced abortions took place during the firs couple of weeks of pregnancy I suppose there may be some logic behind it. But induced abortions take place between 8 and 12 weeks of development when many human characteristics are obvious the have eyes, ears, arms, legs, gentalia, a heart beat, they can hear.

So the one cell argument is moot since virtually 100% of all induced abortions take place long after that point.

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Actually that is not entirely correct. Is one cell a child? I don't think so. A baby is a child, somewhere along the way that cell attains some attribute that makes us think of it as more than a cell or group of cells. Pro-choice people seem invariably to be against late term abortions.

Its not because scentifically it is proven that the fetus thinks or feels. Personally I think it is because of 'tenure' and childlike characteristics. Pro-choicers don't want to kill human progeny necessarily, and by the time the fetus has attained an arbitrary age where some definably 'person' characteristics appear is where they usually draw the line.

What they do not recognise is a cell or group of cells having rights that preempt the mothers. At least until we can show some evidence for greater consideration.

If the vast majority of induced abortions took place during the firs couple of weeks of pregnancy I suppose there may be some logic behind it. But induced abortions take place between 8 and 12 weeks of development when many human characteristics are obvious the have eyes, ears, arms, legs, gentalia, a heart beat, they can hear.

So the one cell argument is moot since virtually 100% of all induced abortions take place long after that point.
Yes I can see your point, and it is valid. Pro-choicers generally think though that even more evidence of 'person' characteristics are neeeded. Like the ability to feel, and the brain starting to work, thats why they say 20 - 23 weeks. It is arbitrary though and neither side has a monopoly on the truth. I think most pro-choicers would modify their limits given new or better evidence of a fetus's personhood.

[AmericaFirst]

As I have mentioned before, my wife is pregnant with our second child and is due in approximately 5 weeks (37 days and counting :shock: ).

During the first pregnancy and this one, we have a daily "diary" that we read that tells us what is going on in the childs development at any particular stage. You enter your due date at the end and date each section backwards until you are at the beginning. We have ultrasounds from about 4 weeks for both children and let me tell you, you can see the child taking shape even then.

I'll ask it again (because no one has yet to answer me on this): if you are "pro-choice", do you have any children and if so, did you get excited about seeing the ultrasound? If so, HOW can you be "pro-choice" and don't you think you are being a HYPOCRITE?

Look, I am not trying to say I want to force anyone to have a child they don't want. What I am saying is that people need to be MORE RESPONSIBLE for their actions and, now call me a nut for saying this ( :roll: ), try NOT getting pregnant (or for guys, not impregnating anyone) in the FIRST PLACE!

46 MILLION ABORTIONS A YEAR

and someone tried to tell me that having an abortion was being responsible - please :gdgf:

[Selfish_Meme]

AmericaFirst wrote: I'll ask it again (because no one has yet to answer me on this): if you are "pro-choice", do you have any children and if so, did you get excited about seeing the ultrasound? If so, HOW can you be "pro-choice" and don't you think you are being a HYPOCRITE?
I don't have any children and so can't answer the second part of the question.

I do agree with part of what you say. I think that the longer you remain pregnant knowingly, the greater the rights of the fetus become. Because when you find out you are pregnant you either want it or you don't. If you don't get an abortion straight away you are not 100% against being pregnant. Then if it is done later it is probably some other factor, economic or something else that made you decide.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Actually that is not entirely correct. Is one cell a child? I don't think so. A baby is a child, somewhere along the way that cell attains some attribute that makes us think of it as more than a cell or group of cells. Pro-choice people seem invariably to be against late term abortions.

Its not because scentifically it is proven that the fetus thinks or feels. Personally I think it is because of 'tenure' and childlike characteristics. Pro-choicers don't want to kill human progeny necessarily, and by the time the fetus has attained an arbitrary age where some definably 'person' characteristics appear is where they usually draw the line.

What they do not recognise is a cell or group of cells having rights that preempt the mothers. At least until we can show some evidence for greater consideration.

If the vast majority of induced abortions took place during the firs couple of weeks of pregnancy I suppose there may be some logic behind it. But induced abortions take place between 8 and 12 weeks of development when many human characteristics are obvious the have eyes, ears, arms, legs, gentalia, a heart beat, they can hear.

So the one cell argument is moot since virtually 100% of all induced abortions take place long after that point.
Yes I can see your point, and it is valid. Pro-choicers generally think though that even more evidence of 'person' characteristics are neeeded. Like the ability to feel, and the brain starting to work, thats why they say 20 - 23 weeks. It is arbitrary though and neither side has a monopoly on the truth. I think most pro-choicers would modify their limits given new or better evidence of a fetus's personhood.

But between 8-12 weeks the fetus is moving, reacts to loud noises, s*cks its thumb, it has a heartbeat, hands, legs, external genitalia.

I don't think they would change their positions, since personhood is indefinable scientifically. It is a philosophical term, so Christians assign personhood to ensoulment and proabortionists assign personhood to a wide ranging set of developmental signs which coincidentally always match up with the Supreme Court Row V. Wade end of 2nd trimester ruling.

There is simply no medical dispute only philosophical ones that human life begins at conception or implantation then continues its development from that point until death.

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: But between 8-12 weeks the fetus is moving, reacts to loud noises, s*cks its thumb, it has a heartbeat, hands, legs, external genitalia.
I havn't seen any evidence for that, the earliest I have seen medical documentation for external stimulus was after 26 weeks. The brain simply isn't hooked up before then.

Gilbert1908 wrote: I don't think they would change their positions, since personhood is indefinable scientifically. It is a philosophical term, so Christians assign personhood to ensoulment and proabortionists assign personhood to a wide ranging set of developmental signs which coincidentally always match up with the Supreme Court Row V. Wade end of 2nd trimester ruling.
I definately would change my mind if there was evidence for earlier brain activity. I'm sure most of the others would too. Roe vs Wade came to the same decision based on the same evidence. It's not a stand it's a considered opinion. Calling pro-choice people pro-abortion is inciteful and not really useful. They do not mean the same thing.

Gilbert1908 wrote: There is simply no medical dispute only philosophical ones that human life begins at conception or implantation then continues its development from that point until death.
It is a philosophical question, thats why there is no medical evidence for it.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: But between 8-12 weeks the fetus is moving, reacts to loud noises, s*cks its thumb, it has a heartbeat, hands, legs, external genitalia.
I havn't seen any evidence for that, the earliest I have seen medical documentation for external stimulus was after 26 weeks. The brain simply isn't hooked up before then.

Don't take my word for it.

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/hdevsum.html

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

"By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises."

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I don't think they would change their positions, since personhood is indefinable scientifically. It is a philosophical term, so Christians assign personhood to ensoulment and proabortionists assign personhood to a wide ranging set of developmental signs which coincidentally always match up with the Supreme Court Row V. Wade end of 2nd trimester ruling.
I definately would change my mind if there was evidence for earlier brain activity. I'm sure most of the others would too. Roe vs Wade came to the same decision based on the same evidence. It's not a stand it's a considered opinion. Calling pro-choice people pro-abortion is inciteful and not really useful. They do not mean the same thing.
What kind of brain activity?
What choice is it that they are in favor of?

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: There is simply no medical dispute only philosophical ones that human life begins at conception or implantation then continues its development from that point until death.
It is a philosophical question, thats why there is no medical evidence for it.

Well if medical evidence is that human life begins at conception and there is no medical evidence of anything called "personhood" what is the reaoning behing terminating a human life?

I liken it to being for the death penalty because while there is no evidence this man commtted the murders, philosophically the guy going to the gas chamber does not fit any of the traits of an innocent person.

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: But between 8-12 weeks the fetus is moving, reacts to loud noises, s*cks its thumb, it has a heartbeat, hands, legs, external genitalia.

Don't take my word for it.

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/hdevsum.html
Central Nervous System Develops between 20 - 36 weeks

Gilbert1908 wrote: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Weeks 25 to 28

* the fetus reaches a length of 15 inches
* the fetus weighs about 2 lbs. 11 oz.
* rapid brain development
* nervous system developed enough to control some body functions

Gilbert1908 wrote: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html
The last link is suspect and the only one to mention any external stimuli response that is that early, that is not what the curreent medical opinion is.

http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
fetalbraindevelopment wrote: from around the 20th to 27th weeks the fetus responds with arousal and body movements to vibroacoustic and loud sounds delivered to the maternal abdomen.

Gilbert1908 wrote: What kind of brain activity?
Delta brainwaves would do, these are the signifiers of a working brain, even the dumbest animal has them.
Gilbert1908 wrote: What choice is it that they are in favor of?
Pro-abortion means to want abortions, Pro-Choice means to want the choice to have or not have abortions, not the same thing.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Well if medical evidence is that human life begins at conception and there is no medical evidence of anything called "personhood" what is the reaoning behing terminating a human life?
A braindead person also has no 'personhood'. Thats what it means, there is not a 'life' left just a shell.

Gilbert1908 wrote: I liken it to being for the death penalty
I don't find the two very similar, only in the death penalty are we dealing with a full 'person'. The condemned criminal is a danger to other 'persons' while a fetus can only be a danger to the mother.

[Selfish_Meme]

About the link I didn't like above

LeaderU wrote: Leadership U is not:

- an institution--we don't have classrooms or grant degrees
- a "brochure site"--it's not about our agenda, but this resource is provided as a service
- making anyone money--our mission is to provide answers to many of science's, religion's and life's weightier issues free of charge. We are sponsored by Christian Leadership Ministries, a non-profit organization

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: About the link I didn't like above

LeaderU wrote: Leadership U is not:

- an institution--we don't have classrooms or grant degrees
- a "brochure site"--it's not about our agenda, but this resource is provided as a service
- making anyone money--our mission is to provide answers to many of science's, religion's and life's weightier issues free of charge. We are sponsored by Christian Leadership Ministries, a non-profit organization

The article is reprinted from Psychology Today.

But the you need to prove that a human life is not worthy of continuing, since the medical evidence of a human life is obvious.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote:

Gilbert1908 wrote: I liken it to being for the death penalty
I don't find the two very similar, only in the death penalty are we dealing with a full 'person'. The condemned criminal is a danger to other 'persons' while a fetus can only be a danger to the mother.

I making an analogy betwee the decision making process not the developmental states. In both cases evidence is ignored in favor of philosophy.

Statistics bear out that the mother is a far greater danger to the fetus, don' t you think?

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote:

The article is reprinted from Psychology Today.

But the you need to prove that a human life is not worthy of continuing, since the medical evidence of a human life is obvious.
I am fine with human life, a fetus is human life. It is not a person.

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I making an analogy betwee the decision making process not the developmental states. In both cases evidence is ignored in favor of philosophy.
Maybe you could explain a bit what the anology is?

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:

The article is reprinted from Psychology Today.

But the you need to prove that a human life is not worthy of continuing, since the medical evidence of a human life is obvious.
I am fine with human life, a fetus is human life. It is not a person.

So you believe that human life has little or no value until it achieves something called personhood, which can not be defined specifically nor determined as to exactly when it comes into being.

My analogy was pointing out that terminating a human life because of a philosophy and not because of science is a very slippery slope which our society is well along.

It is the devaluing of human life based upon arbitrary standards which I object to.

A life does not have value until it can, is, or has FILL IN TH BLANK.

Soon couples will be having abortions because they want a green eyed child, or a blond. With advancement in genetics there will no doubt be abortions because the likelyhood for certain health conditions exist.

Philosophy is no way to decide life and death issues.

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: So you believe that human life has little or no value until it achieves something called personhood,
Yes, this is what I think, A cell from my arm has as much right to life as a fetus.

Gilbert1908 wrote: which can not be defined specifically nor determined as to exactly when it comes into being.
I define a person as a reasoning compassionate being. The actual dictionary definition is similar, but of course it's English so can have many meanings, not all of which are right for all contexts.

Gilbert1908 wrote: My analogy was pointing out that terminating a human life because of a philosophy and not because of science is a very slippery slope which our society is well along.
Science would not give a reason for terminating a life, science defines what is, philosophy explains how that relates to us. You just can't make this sort of decision without philosophy.

Gilbert1908 wrote: It is the devaluing of human life based upon arbitrary standards which I object to.

A life does not have value until it can, is, or has FILL IN TH BLANK.
The only explanation for giving a cell the same rights as a person is religious. It can only be devalued from a religious interperatation.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Soon couples will be having abortions because they want a green eyed child, or a blond. With advancement in genetics there will no doubt be abortions because the likelyhood for certain health conditions exist.
A. People already do this especially in China and India.
B. The statistics are clear that the number of abortions is reducing in developed countries. In the future the need for abortions will lessen even more as couples turn to better IVF to conceive the child they want. Also better contraceptives will mean the number of unwanted pregnancies should reduce eventually towards 0.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Philosophy is no way to decide life and death issues.
I disagree, it is the only way. Science gives evidence to backup your philosophical position. It doesn't have a position.

[Selfish_Meme]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you believe that human life has little or no value until it achieves something called personhood,
Yes, this is what I think, A cell from my arm has as much right to life as a fetus.
Sorry I was too hasty I should have said as an embryo or early term fetus.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So you believe that human life has little or no value until it achieves something called personhood,
Yes, this is what I think, A cell from my arm has as much right to life as a fetus. So then you do not distinguish an actual distinct individual human life from that which is subordinate in complexity and being? And again we are discussing abortion so a single celled creature is not relevant.

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: which can not be defined specifically nor determined as to exactly when it comes into being.
I define a person as a reasoning compassionate being. The actual dictionary definition is similar, but of course it's English so can have many meanings, not all of which are right for all contexts. so then a new born is not a person since it can not reason nor does it posess compassion. So when exactly does a person aquire the abilty to reason and express compassion?

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: My analogy was pointing out that terminating a human life because of a philosophy and not because of science is a very slippery slope which our society is well along.
Science would not give a reason for terminating a life, science defines what is, philosophy explains how that relates to us. You just can't make this sort of decision without philosophy. Philosophy does dictate what your action is but it should not have any influence in determining the factual state of health.

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: It is the devaluing of human life based upon arbitrary standards which I object to.

A life does not have value until it can, is, or has FILL IN TH BLANK.
The only explanation for giving a cell the same rights as a person is religious. It can only be devalued from a religious interperatation. You keep reverting back to a fetus as a "cell" at 8-12 weeks when 70% of all abortions are done(none are done prior to 8 weeks) the fetus is far more than a single cell. It is a false comparison.

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Soon couples will be having abortions because they want a green eyed child, or a blond. With advancement in genetics there will no doubt be abortions because the likelyhood for certain health conditions exist.
A. People already do this especially in China and India.
B. The statistics are clear that the number of abortions is reducing in developed countries. In the future the need for abortions will lessen even more as couples turn to better IVF to conceive the child they want. Also better contraceptives will mean the number of unwanted pregnancies should reduce eventually towards 0. I would hardly hold up China as a moral beacon in this discussion. Nor does the existence of such activity justify it being done.

It is little solace that only 40 million abortions my be done rather than 42 million. I would like to find a way to have far fewer.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Philosophy is no way to decide life and death issues.
I disagree, it is the only way. Science gives evidence to backup your philosophical position. It doesn't have a position.[/quote]

I agree and my point to you was that since "personhood" has no meaning in science it is hard to make it a standard by which a life is ended.

You have established a philosophy which determines a medical conclusion without any medical evidence.