Political Crossfire Forums

[Gilbert1908]

mattwa33193 wrote: It absolutely amazes me that we have forgotten things we knew 250 years ago.

The laws of the United States are unique in that they reflect an understanding of the fact that criminalizing a behavior will rarely prevent it.

Murder is not prevented by laws, but by our knowledge that murder is wrong. If someone chooses to commit murder, the law serves to punish them, not prevent their action.

Same with theft. Same with any crime against another.

This is why drug laws are so ineffective. And it's why making abortion would be ineffective as well.

People, rightly or wrongly, perceive an abortion as a bad (or not so bad, depending on the person) thing that happens to them, not the fetus. All the laws, and protests, and disgusting commercials in the world will do nothing to change that.

Aside from arguments about choice or when life begins, I think abortion is a bad thing. At the very least it represents the destruction of potential, and destruction of something with an unknown nature (we don't know if this would have been a good person or a bad person, for example) is never good. I would love it if people stopped getting abortions, but laws won't make that happen. Education will. Educate people on how to avoid having something bad happen to them and they will, for the most part, listen and learn. Simply telling them not to do it, or threatening to punish them if they do will accompish nothing.

Something which is law is not automatically right. Slavery was held to be constitutional for nearly 100 years after the DOI, seperate but equal, women excluded from the vote and many other things were believed to be wrong by many people but upheld as legal and constitutional.

Laws do not stop behavior, that was proven during prohibition, so we tolerate 25,000 people each year killed by drunken driving while we protest about the insanity of 2000 military volunteers killed in war.

We have laws that protect unborn caribou but not not unborn humans.

We spend 24 hours a day worried about a pretty young middle class girl killed in Aruba on a vacation while 100 poor little girls are beaten and killed on the "wrong side of the tracks" without so much as a mention.

The reason to codify things which are "bad" (your word) is to make it clear to be bad.

The whole discussion of "choice" is an Orwellian reality. Pro-Choice was newspeak for abortion and many swallowed it hook line and sinker. Pro-Choice does not refer to anything other than abortion, it is not used in reference to ANY OTHER legal choice. It was the single most effective example of political marketing in the latter half of the 20th century.

Why argue the termination of a human life when you can argue a woman's right to choose is untouchable, especially during the height of the feminist movement. Notice how little the ACTUAL choice is ever discussed by "talking heads".

[spearsy23]

Gilbert1908 wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: It absolutely amazes me that we have forgotten things we knew 250 years ago.

The laws of the United States are unique in that they reflect an understanding of the fact that criminalizing a behavior will rarely prevent it.

Murder is not prevented by laws, but by our knowledge that murder is wrong. If someone chooses to commit murder, the law serves to punish them, not prevent their action.

Same with theft. Same with any crime against another.

This is why drug laws are so ineffective. And it's why making abortion would be ineffective as well.

People, rightly or wrongly, perceive an abortion as a bad (or not so bad, depending on the person) thing that happens to them, not the fetus. All the laws, and protests, and disgusting commercials in the world will do nothing to change that.

Aside from arguments about choice or when life begins, I think abortion is a bad thing. At the very least it represents the destruction of potential, and destruction of something with an unknown nature (we don't know if this would have been a good person or a bad person, for example) is never good. I would love it if people stopped getting abortions, but laws won't make that happen. Education will. Educate people on how to avoid having something bad happen to them and they will, for the most part, listen and learn. Simply telling them not to do it, or threatening to punish them if they do will accompish nothing.

Something which is law is not automatically right. Slavery was held to be constitutional for nearly 100 years after the DOI, seperate but equal, women excluded from the vote and many other things were believed to be wrong by many people but upheld as legal and constitutional.

Laws do not stop behavior, that was proven during prohibition, so we tolerate 25,000 people each year killed by drunken driving while we protest about the insanity of 2000 military volunteers killed in war.

We have laws that protect unborn caribou but not not unborn humans.

We spend 24 hours a day worried about a pretty young middle class girl killed in Aruba on a vacation while 100 poor little girls are beaten and killed on the "wrong side of the tracks" without so much as a mention.

The reason to codify things which are "bad" (your word) is to make it clear to be bad.

The whole discussion of "choice" is an Orwellian reality. Pro-Choice was newspeak for abortion and many swallowed it hook line and sinker. Pro-Choice does not refer to anything other than abortion, it is not used in reference to ANY OTHER legal choice. It was the single most effective example of political marketing in the latter half of the 20th century.

Why argue the termination of a human life when you can argue a woman's right to choose is untouchable, especially during the height of the feminist movement. Notice how little the ACTUAL choice is ever discussed by "talking heads".
It's difficult to talk about termination of human life when there is none (related to abortion)

[mattwa33193]

Gilbert1908 wrote:
Something which is law is not automatically right. Slavery was held to be constitutional for nearly 100 years after the DOI, seperate but equal, women excluded from the vote and many other things were believed to be wrong by many people but upheld as legal and constitutional.

Laws do not stop behavior, that was proven during prohibition, so we tolerate 25,000 people each year killed by drunken driving while we protest about the insanity of 2000 military volunteers killed in war.

We have laws that protect unborn caribou but not not unborn humans.

We spend 24 hours a day worried about a pretty young middle class girl killed in Aruba on a vacation while 100 poor little girls are beaten and killed on the "wrong side of the tracks" without so much as a mention.

The reason to codify things which are "bad" (your word) is to make it clear to be bad.

The whole discussion of "choice" is an Orwellian reality. Pro-Choice was newspeak for abortion and many swallowed it hook line and sinker. Pro-Choice does not refer to anything other than abortion, it is not used in reference to ANY OTHER legal choice. It was the single most effective example of political marketing in the latter half of the 20th century.

Why argue the termination of a human life when you can argue a woman's right to choose is untouchable, especially during the height of the feminist movement. Notice how little the ACTUAL choice is ever discussed by "talking heads".

Several errors here.

I'll start with the easiest. The "pretty young middle class girl" got all that media attention because her family could only be considered middle class by Bill Gates. In other words, it was bought. Doesn't make it right, but it takes the implication of racial prejudice out of the equation.

We have strict laws in place regarding drunk driving, not that they do any good. You are proving my point.

Pro-Choice has been made into Pro-Abortion by anti-abortionists, not talking heads. Abortion is the only choice being debated, but that doesn't mean it is the only choice being protected. A woman's right to carry the baby to term, give it up for adoption, or keep it are also protected.

Passing laws that can not (and will not) be enforced weakens all laws.

A fetus is not a person until it achieves sentience.

Spend your energy educating people instead of yelling at them and you will get a better result. Assuming the result you want actually is fewer abortions.

[Gilbert1908]

The Underground wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: It absolutely amazes me that we have forgotten things we knew 250 years ago.

The laws of the United States are unique in that they reflect an understanding of the fact that criminalizing a behavior will rarely prevent it.

Murder is not prevented by laws, but by our knowledge that murder is wrong. If someone chooses to commit murder, the law serves to punish them, not prevent their action.

Same with theft. Same with any crime against another.

This is why drug laws are so ineffective. And it's why making abortion would be ineffective as well.

People, rightly or wrongly, perceive an abortion as a bad (or not so bad, depending on the person) thing that happens to them, not the fetus. All the laws, and protests, and disgusting commercials in the world will do nothing to change that.

Aside from arguments about choice or when life begins, I think abortion is a bad thing. At the very least it represents the destruction of potential, and destruction of something with an unknown nature (we don't know if this would have been a good person or a bad person, for example) is never good. I would love it if people stopped getting abortions, but laws won't make that happen. Education will. Educate people on how to avoid having something bad happen to them and they will, for the most part, listen and learn. Simply telling them not to do it, or threatening to punish them if they do will accompish nothing.

Something which is law is not automatically right. Slavery was held to be constitutional for nearly 100 years after the DOI, seperate but equal, women excluded from the vote and many other things were believed to be wrong by many people but upheld as legal and constitutional.

Laws do not stop behavior, that was proven during prohibition, so we tolerate 25,000 people each year killed by drunken driving while we protest about the insanity of 2000 military volunteers killed in war.

We have laws that protect unborn caribou but not not unborn humans.

We spend 24 hours a day worried about a pretty young middle class girl killed in Aruba on a vacation while 100 poor little girls are beaten and killed on the "wrong side of the tracks" without so much as a mention.

The reason to codify things which are "bad" (your word) is to make it clear to be bad.

The whole discussion of "choice" is an Orwellian reality. Pro-Choice was newspeak for abortion and many swallowed it hook line and sinker. Pro-Choice does not refer to anything other than abortion, it is not used in reference to ANY OTHER legal choice. It was the single most effective example of political marketing in the latter half of the 20th century.

Why argue the termination of a human life when you can argue a woman's right to choose is untouchable, especially during the height of the feminist movement. Notice how little the ACTUAL choice is ever discussed by "talking heads".
It's difficult to talk about termination of human life when there is none (related to abortion)

Denying that a fetus is a human life is like denying the earth revolves around the sun. You can believe it, but it does not make is so.


"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote." Pernaud & Moore Pg.2 (common textbook in Embryology courses)

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual." Larsen Pg 1 (Human Embryology Textbook)

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed” O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York.
"Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25." Moore and Persaud, p. 2;
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoa and the resulting mingling of the chromosomal material each brings to the union that culminates the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual. Every one of the higher animals starts life as a single cell the fertilized ovum. The union of two such sex cells to form a zygote constitutes the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual." Bradley M. Patten, M.D. Foundations of Embryology (3rd Edition, 1968), New York City: McGraw-Hill.

"The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life". J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 17 and 23.

"The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual." Leslie Arey. Developmental Anatomy (7th Edition, 1974). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers.

"Zygote. This cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being ... Development begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte to form a zygote. Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote." K.L. Moore. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd Ed., 1977). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 1 and 12.

"Based on my education and background, therefore, I believe that from the moment of the union of the sperm and the egg in the human species, there is present a new living human being. The human life is there from the moment of fertilization, and its very essence starts early but is not completed until the second decade of life. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood, and that interruption at any point constitutes termination of human life." Alfred M. Bongiovanni, M.D., University of Pennsylvania Medical Professor, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 24, 1981.

"A human being develops from a mass of living material no larger than a pinhead, material contributed by both parents and capable of living and growing for a lifetime ... This genetic makeup was established at the beginning of your life, when a haploid egg and a haploid sperm combined to produce a diploid zygote, your first somatic cell." J.H. Otto and A. Towle. Modern Biology. New York City: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1969.

"It is widely accepted and widely taught that human beings as well as other organisms reproducing by sexual reproduction this is nothing unique to humans; this is a general biological principle start their existence at the time of conception or fertilization, as a single cell, the zygote." Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, M.D., Harvard Medical School, quoted in the Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, 1981.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant. 3rd Edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.

"Individual human life begins at conception and is a progressive, ongoing continuum until natural death. This is a fact so well established that no intellectually honest physician in full command of modern medical knowledge would dare to deny it. There is no authority in medicine or biology who can be cited to refute this concept. It is not a "theory," as Justice Blackmun wished to easily pass it off." D.J. Moran, M.D., J.D. Gorby, M.D., and T.W. Hilgers, M.D., "Abortion in the Supreme Court: Death Becomes a Way of Life." Abortion and Social Justice, Sheed and Ward, 1974.

"From conception the child is a complex, dynamic, rapidly-growing individual. At fertilization, a new and unique individual is created which, although receiving one-half of its chromosomes from each parent, is really unlike either." B. Heffernan, "The Early Biography of Every Man," Abortion and Social Justice, Sheed and Ward.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings ... Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species." Report of the Senate Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to the Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981, page 7.

"Life has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning the moment of its conception." Jerome Lejeune, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Fundamental Genetics, Paris Medical University, quoted in the Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, 1981.

[Gilbert1908]

mattwa33193 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:
Something which is law is not automatically right. Slavery was held to be constitutional for nearly 100 years after the DOI, seperate but equal, women excluded from the vote and many other things were believed to be wrong by many people but upheld as legal and constitutional.

Laws do not stop behavior, that was proven during prohibition, so we tolerate 25,000 people each year killed by drunken driving while we protest about the insanity of 2000 military volunteers killed in war.

We have laws that protect unborn caribou but not not unborn humans.

We spend 24 hours a day worried about a pretty young middle class girl killed in Aruba on a vacation while 100 poor little girls are beaten and killed on the "wrong side of the tracks" without so much as a mention.

The reason to codify things which are "bad" (your word) is to make it clear to be bad.

The whole discussion of "choice" is an Orwellian reality. Pro-Choice was newspeak for abortion and many swallowed it hook line and sinker. Pro-Choice does not refer to anything other than abortion, it is not used in reference to ANY OTHER legal choice. It was the single most effective example of political marketing in the latter half of the 20th century.

Why argue the termination of a human life when you can argue a woman's right to choose is untouchable, especially during the height of the feminist movement. Notice how little the ACTUAL choice is ever discussed by "talking heads".

Several errors here.

I'll start with the easiest. The "pretty young middle class girl" got all that media attention because her family could only be considered middle class by Bill Gates. In other words, it was bought. Doesn't make it right, but it takes the implication of racial prejudice out of the equation.

We have strict laws in place regarding drunk driving, not that they do any good. You are proving my point.

Pro-Choice has been made into Pro-Abortion by anti-abortionists, not talking heads. Abortion is the only choice being debated, but that doesn't mean it is the only choice being protected. A woman's right to carry the baby to term, give it up for adoption, or keep it are also protected.

Passing laws that can not (and will not) be enforced weakens all laws.

A fetus is not a person until it achieves sentience.

Spend your energy educating people instead of yelling at them and you will get a better result. Assuming the result you want actually is fewer abortions.

I have no interest in defining a "person" it is none definable scientifically, a fetus is undeniably human and alive. (See above)

I'm not yelling at anyone simply giving my opinion and observations.

[steen]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I have no interest in defining a "person" it is none definable scientifically, a fetus is undeniably human and alive. So is your appendix or a hydatidiform mole. Whopetidoo. :roll:

[Gilbert1908]

steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I have no interest in defining a "person" it is none definable scientifically, a fetus is undeniably human and alive. So is your appendix or a hydatidiform mole. Whopetidoo. :roll:

I hope you and your mole are happy together.

[Kumar]

steen wrote: In which abortion fits just fine.
It's really pretty pointless and predictable, but regardless:
"No, because a life is being ended."

Quote: oh, an analogy. Pro-life analogies usually suck, and this one is no exception.
You hurt my feelings.

Quote: The embryo is not "someone. It doesn't have the needed individuality.
Conception initiates life. Just refer to Gilbert's list of physicians, scientists, and texts that point this out. I don't see how anyone can sincerely believe that the one minute before and after birth separates the living from the non-living.

Quote: Also the case with abortions.
See above.

Quote: And what is this evidence?
Didn't you say you were a medical student? That alone should be sufficient. But even aside from that, do a Google search, or you can read the information provided by Gilbert. If you want to argue that a fetus is not a person, okay. But you're on shaky ground when it comes to arguing that it's not a life.

Quote: And, for good measure, you finish off with an outright falsehood. Could you please avoid such histrionics in the future?
How is it false? A fetus is a life. It follows that those in favor of abortion are opposed to this life. This doesn't mean that they as well believe it to be a life and base their position on killing someone, because people like yourself sincerely believe it to be choice.

However, it's a little ironic, considering how often you throw out the "oppressionist" claim when debating pro-lifers.

[steen]

Gilbert1908 wrote: steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I have no interest in defining a "person" it is none definable scientifically, a fetus is undeniably human and alive. So is your appendix or a hydatidiform mole. Whopetidoo. :roll: I hope you and your mole are happy together. Nice try at avoding being show your argument as invalid. I had expected more from you than lame deflection :cry:

[steen]

Kumar wrote: steen wrote: In which abortion fits just fine.
It's really pretty pointless and predictable, but regardless:
"No, because a life is being ended." And so on and so on..... Yes, when pro-life merely repeat the same argument time after time, you will get the same answers as well.

Quote: Quote: oh, an analogy. Pro-life analogies usually suck, and this one is no exception. You hurt my feelings. :!oops: (but seriously, they do. Analogies must have a relevance and meaningful comparison.)

Quote: Quote: The embryo is not "someone. It doesn't have the needed individuality. Conception initiates life. And "life" does not confer individuality, personhood, or "someonehood." After all, my appendix is "life."

Quote: Just refer to Gilbert's list of physicians, scientists, and texts that point this out. political sources, non-specific textbooks etc. yes, when you hunt for confirming sources rather than what the evidence actually is, then you can come up with claptrap lists like that.

Quote: I don't see how anyone can sincerely believe that the one minute before and after birth separates the living from the non-living. Of course, the embryo or fetus is 'alive." It is made up by live cells. We weren't disputing that. Please keep your vocabulary straight and avoid unwarranted substitutions.

Quote: Quote: And what is this evidence? Didn't you say you were a medical student? That's awhile ago.

Quote: That alone should be sufficient. But even aside from that, do a Google search, or you can read the information provided by Gilbert. If you want to argue that a fetus is not a person, okay. But you're on shaky ground when it comes to arguing that it's not a life. It is "life." It is not "a life." It doesn't have the necessary individual existence to be "a" life.

Quote: Quote: And, for good measure, you finish off with an outright falsehood. Could you please avoid such histrionics in the future?
How is it false? A fetus is a life. It follows that those in favor of abortion are opposed to this life. And THAT is the falsehood. We are not opposed to the fetus. We are supporting the woman making decisions about her own body. An embryo or fetus may or may not die, depending on the woman's choice, but that doesn't mean that we are "pro"its death. So again, avoid such deceptive and dishonest mis-labeling. It shows a dishonest streak in you that you do not want to carry on a debate board.

Quote: This doesn't mean that they as well believe it to be a life and base their position on killing someone, because people like yourself sincerely believe it to be choice. Huh?

Quote: However, it's a little ironic, considering how often you throw out the "oppressionist" claim when debating pro-lifers. Because pro-life have proven themselves. They are not about bringing down the number of abortions. There are multiple ways this could be done, and which have worked very successfully in other western countries. Pro-life leaders, politicians etc. have directly come out against these measures. So it sure isn't a concern about saving the lives of embryos and fetuses. That leaves ONLY the woman as an issue, and the controlling, oppressing and enslaving her into a biblical theocracy as the reason behind the pro-life movement.

[Kumar]

steen wrote: And so on and so on..... Yes, when pro-life merely repeat the same argument time after time, you will get the same answers as well.
As long as you realize that in such cases, it's a two-way street.
Pro-life: "It's a life"
Pro-choice: "No, it's a choice"

Quote: :!oops: (but seriously, they do. Analogies must have a relevance and meaningful comparison.)
And the one in question did. Those who view the fetus as a life base their rejection of pro-choice arguments on the basis of my analogy.

Quote: And "life" does not confer individuality, personhood, or "someonehood." After all, my appendix is "life."
What is the arbitrary guideline you use to define personhood?

Quote: political sources, non-specific textbooks etc. yes, when you hunt for confirming sources rather than what the evidence actually is, then you can come up with claptrap lists like that.
Really? When I read through it, the list had few political sources are more medical/scientific sources. And what do you mean by non-specific textbooks?

Quote: Of course, the embryo or fetus is 'alive." It is made up by live cells. We weren't disputing that. Please keep your vocabulary straight and avoid unwarranted substitutions.
I'm not talking about "alive" as in skin cells. I'm talking about an independent organism.

Quote: It is "life." It is not "a life." It doesn't have the necessary individual existence to be "a" life.
That is the main source of our disagreement. As a unique organism, that alone qualifies it to be a life to me.

Quote: And THAT is the falsehood. We are not opposed to the fetus. We are supporting the woman making decisions about her own body. An embryo or fetus may or may not die, depending on the woman's choice, but that doesn't mean that we are "pro"its death. So again, avoid such deceptive and dishonest mis-labeling. It shows a dishonest streak in you that you do not want to carry on a debate board.

Quote: This doesn't mean that they as well believe it to be a life and base their position on killing someone, because people like yourself sincerely believe it to be choice. Huh?
You segmented a statement meant to be taken as one. The issue is that it's relative. To pro-lifers, the fetus is a life, and therefore those supporting abortion are supporting death. That's not to say they're bad people, because they base their beliefs on a different point of view--that the fetus is not a life. Therefore, to them, pro-lifers are against choice.

Quote: Because pro-life have proven themselves. They are not about bringing down the number of abortions. There are multiple ways this could be done, and which have worked very successfully in other western countries. Pro-life leaders, politicians etc. have directly come out against these measures. So it sure isn't a concern about saving the lives of embryos and fetuses. That leaves ONLY the woman as an issue, and the controlling, oppressing and enslaving her into a biblical theocracy as the reason behind the pro-life movement.
That's quite a leap you're making there. There are many different types of pro-lifers. I'm sure that there are a few out there who are all about controlling women. There are a lot that base their opposition on religion. I base my opinion independently and on the basis that the fetus is a life. I support reasonable measures that will curtail abortions, but little can compare to prohibiting it.

[mattwa33193]

Quote: What is the arbitrary guideline you use to define personhood?.

Sentience. It's not arbitrary.


Quote:
I'm not talking about "alive" as in skin cells. I'm talking about an independent organism.

But a fetus is nothng but a bunch of cells until sentience is acheived. It is differentiated by its potential, not its nature.

Quote:
That is the main source of our disagreement. As a unique organism, that alone qualifies it to be a life to me. .

That definition would also qualify the Ebola Virus.

[Kumar]

mattwa33193 wrote: Sentience. It's not arbitrary.
It is arbitrary. I hear some say tissue specialization, others say independent growth, and then individuals such as yourself state sentience as the guideline.

Quote: But a fetus is nothng but a bunch of cells until sentience is acheived. It is differentiated by its potential, not its nature.
It is a developing organism with a unique genetic code.

Quote: That definition would also qualify the Ebola Virus.
Viruses are not organisms, nor are they considered "life".

[mattwa33193]

[quote="Kumar"] mattwa33193 wrote: Sentience. It's not arbitrary. Quote:
It is arbitrary. I hear some say tissue specialization, others say independent growth, and then individuals such as yourself state sentience as the guideline..

Not arbitrary to me. I have always been absolutely consistent on this point.

Quote: But a fetus is nothng but a bunch of cells until sentience is acheived. It is differentiated by its potential, not its nature. Quote:
It is a developing organism with a unique genetic code..

As is any living thing that has not reached maturity.

Quote: That definition would also qualify the Ebola Virus. Quote:
Viruses are not organisms, nor are they considered "life".

True. Let's try amoebas. Or your lawn.

[steen]

HEYYYYYY What heppened to my post? Very well, I shall repost. I will not be overpowered by adversity.. :)

Kumar wrote: steen wrote: And so on and so on..... Yes, when pro-life merely repeat the same argument time after time, you will get the same answers as well. As long as you realize that in such cases, it's a two-way street.
Pro-life: "It's a life"
Pro-choice: "No, it's a choice" certainly. It shows that no new argument have cmae by in the last decade, and as such, the debate and the legal issue is at a standstill. If this is the only dialogue left, then abortions will continue at their current level as well. No change will happen.

Quote: Quote: :!oops: (but seriously, they do. Analogies must have a relevance and meaningful comparison.)
And the one in question did. Those who view the fetus as a life base their rejection of pro-choice arguments on the basis of my analogy. And it has absolutely no relevance in my world.

Quote: Quote: And "life" does not confer individuality, personhood, or "someonehood." After all, my appendix is "life." What is the arbitrary guideline you use to define personhood? There is nothing arbitrary about it. Personhood is a legal concept, and the law is clear that this status does not apply to the unborn.

Quote: Quote: political sources, non-specific textbooks etc. yes, when you hunt for confirming sources rather than what the evidence actually is, then you can come up with claptrap lists like that. Really? When I read through it, the list had few political sources are more medical/scientific sources. Most were religious sources.

Quote: And what do you mean by non-specific textbooks? That their credibility is not known. Text books, as compared to actual scientific journal articles are not peer-reviewed and are targeted at the customer. Loma Linda University, f.ex. no doubt have "science" textbooks geared towards their particular religious beliefs.

Quote: Quote: Of course, the embryo or fetus is 'alive." It is made up by live cells. We weren't disputing that. Please keep your vocabulary straight and avoid unwarranted substitutions. I'm not talking about "alive" as in skin cells. I'm talking about an independent organism. I don't see that applying to the embryo or fetus. All energy input and waste elimination is done per the woman's body whhich also maintains its homeostasis. All it really has is an encapsulated form and blood supply. This is no different than any bodily organ, or if you want to throw DNA uniqueness into the mix, it is what we also see in tumors and hydatidiform moles.

[quote] Quote: It is "life." It is not "a life." It doesn't have the necessary individual existence to be "a" life. That is the main source of our disagreement. As a unique organism, that alone qualifies it to be a life to me. And I don't see it as an individual organism. See above.

Quote: Quote: And THAT is the falsehood. We are not opposed to the fetus. We are supporting the woman making decisions about her own body. An embryo or fetus may or may not die, depending on the woman's choice, but that doesn't mean that we are "pro"its death. So again, avoid such deceptive and dishonest mis-labeling. It shows a dishonest streak in you that you do not want to carry on a debate board.

Quote: This doesn't mean that they as well believe it to be a life and base their position on killing someone, because people like yourself sincerely believe it to be choice. Huh?
You segmented a statement meant to be taken as one. The issue is that it's relative. To pro-lifers, the fetus is a life, and therefore those supporting abortion are supporting death. We support the woman's right to chose birth or abortion. We are not FOR choosing death. That is a misrepresentation.

[quote] Quote: Because pro-life have proven themselves. They are not about bringing down the number of abortions. There are multiple ways this could be done, and which have worked very successfully in other western countries. Pro-life leaders, politicians etc. have directly come out against these measures. So it sure isn't a concern about saving the lives of embryos and fetuses. That leaves ONLY the woman as an issue, and the controlling, oppressing and enslaving her into a biblical theocracy as the reason behind the pro-life movement. That's quite a leap you're making there. There are many different types of pro-lifers. I'm sure that there are a few out there who are all about controlling women. There are a lot that base their opposition on religion.[quote]Ah, but the political and movement leaders are all for control and absolutely opposed to other measures that can limit the number of abortions, such as sex-ed, contarception and support of pregnant women and young mothers. So when the pro-life movement push, the measures that limits unwanted pregnancy or help the woman feel she can handle parenthood in her situation, they are all removed. The goal is not to limit abortions, but rather to bind and tie down the woman so she doesn't encroach into the theocratic, patriarchal world. Enslavement and control of the woman is the goal of the pro-life policies and politics.

[Plodder]

Quote: And it has absolutely no relevance in my world. at least you admit that you are in your own phychological world.
Quote: Personhood is a legal concept It is a meta physical concept

Quote: We are not FOR choosing death. That is a misrepresentation.
when you support muder you support death



Quote: Enslavement and control of the woman is the goal of the pro-life policies and politics. Liar.

[spearsy23]

Plodder wrote: Quote: And it has absolutely no relevance in my world. at least you admit that you are in your own phychological world.
Most people live in the same world he does.

Quote: Quote: Personhood is a legal concept It is a meta physical concept Regardless of what you think it is a legal concept.

Quote: Quote: We are not FOR choosing death. That is a misrepresentation.
when you support muder you support death
Even if it was murder, read your own post. "when you support murder you support death" when you change a term it changes the whole sentence.


Quote: Quote: Enslavement and control of the woman is the goal of the pro-life policies and politics. Liar.
I'd go more for he's a little overdramatic.

[War Approving Democrat]

anonymous4reasons wrote: Look at history, abortion has been taken place for thousands of years, it is just a known fact, and with it legal that means women can go into safe enviroments with proper equipment and medicines or in a back room with no medicine and a dirty knife. I hate the fact of loosing a beating heart, and I think abortion should be the last choice, but just because you make something illegal doesn't mean you stop it, you make it worse and unsafe.

This is exactly correct my opinion is that abortion can not be stopped and this will prove it. a ban would lead to more deaths doing this so if it is legal it is safer and gives more to the rights of women to choice.

[Plodder]

a ban would lead to less abortions because less women would be willing to risk osing their lives in exchance for a more pleasant lifestyle.

[spearsy23]

Plodder wrote: a ban would lead to less abortions because less women would be willing to risk osing their lives in exchance for a more pleasant lifestyle.

No they wouldn't, now it would just be an unsafer practice. Try and think like a mother that wants an abortion. Usually they have their career to think about and think if they have the baby their life will pretty much be over with anyway.