Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 233
  1. #181
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,304
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    I am aware that a fetus is not technically classified as a parasite, however, it fits all of the classifications.

    parasite: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense

    https://meromicrobiology.blogspot.co...cation-of.html

    How to classify a parasite:

    • A living organism which receives nourishment and shelter from another organism where it lives is called parasites.
    • A parasite does not necessarily cause disease.
    • Simply parasitism is living in association with the host.
    • The parasite derives all benefits from the association and the host may either not be harmed or may suffer the consequences of this association, a parasite disease.
    • A parasite is an organism that is entirely dependent on another organism, referred to as its host, for all or part of its life cycle and metabolic requirements.


    Nowhere in the criteria does it specify that the parasite must come from outside of the host, but if you wish to get technical, the sperm does come from outside the host.

    Whether or not it is defined as a person is irrelevant to the OP. The question is "Who gets to choose?". Since the entity is ENTIRELY dependent on its host until approximately 22 weeks, the choice remains with the host.

    I am never arbitrary. Quite the opposite. I think of everything as logically as I can.
    I'll assume for the moment, to forward the debate, that you are 100% accurate that the fetus is a parasite (though I can't find support for the idea that science actually views a fetus of any species as a parasite). Does that make the prenatal human a "non-person"? If so, why?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. #182
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,540
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADYKRIMSON
    I am aware that a fetus is not technically classified as a parasite, however, it fits all of the classifications.

    parasite: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense

    https://meromicrobiology.blogspot.co...cation-of.html

    How to classify a parasite:

    A living organism which receives nourishment and shelter from another organism where it lives is called parasites.
    A parasite does not necessarily cause disease.
    Simply parasitism is living in association with the host.
    The parasite derives all benefits from the association and the host may either not be harmed or may suffer the consequences of this association, a parasite disease.
    A parasite is an organism that is entirely dependent on another organism, referred to as its host, for all or part of its life cycle and metabolic requirements.



    Nowhere in the criteria does it specify that the parasite must come from outside of the host, but if you wish to get technical, the sperm does come from outside the host.

    Whether or not it is defined as a person is irrelevant to the OP. The question is "Who gets to choose?". Since the entity is ENTIRELY dependent on its host until approximately 22 weeks, the choice remains with the host.

    I am never arbitrary. Quite the opposite. I think of everything as logically as I can.
    No it does not fit all the qualifications. I offered you the scientific and medical understandings of parasite, and how it is different.
    The medical community doesn't call the fetus a parasite BECAUSE IT DOESN'T fit all the criteria.
    The facts from the link were at least in part derived from this work...
    https://books.google.com/books?dq=Ch...201973&f=false

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html
    a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

    b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
    That it is or is not a person is the only relevant fact to consider in order to say "who gets to choose".
    Because if it is a person, then no justification is sufficient.
    If it isn't, then there is no justification needed.
    To serve man.

  3. #183
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It is clear that you are missing out on what the unborn that is attached to the mother is - it is a DISTINCT, UNIQUE, INDIVIDUAL human being. It is a different human being than the mother. What gives you the right to detach the lifeline from your kid, the coma vitim who is induced in a coma and will rcover from the coma?
    A better question is "What give you the right to suppose I cannot have that opinion?"

    The gamete, zygote, fetus, unborn is a person by NATURE. That is the TYPE of being a human being is - a personal being. Show me a human being who when left to develop is not a personal being.
    The gamete, zygote, or fetus...are gametes, zygotes, or fetuses. It is my opinion, that until they are born...until that umbilical is cut...they are not people. I am glad the government agrees with me.


    BUT, and a big but, it is a separate human being. It is NOT the mother but distinct from the mother.


    I can discuss abortion without bringing God into the equation...
    Sure you can. But my bet is the religious part of you will not allow you to look at the question in any way but the religious way.

    So...I see you as a prisoner of sorts.


    , just like you can without bringing atheism into the question BUT our underlying belief systems influence the way we look at the world.
    I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. Try to grasp that.



    BIG DEAL! What we are after is the truth of the situation.
    I doubt that. I think you are trying to sell the religious position...and pretending you are not.

    As I mentioned before, atheism qualifies as a religous belief. It attempts to answer life's ultimate questions like any other religious view does.
    Talk to an atheist about that. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

  4. #184
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    I am aware that a fetus is not technically classified as a parasite, however, it fits all of the classifications.

    parasite: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense

    https://meromicrobiology.blogspot.co...cation-of.html

    How to classify a parasite:

    • A living organism which receives nourishment and shelter from another organism where it lives is called parasites.
    • A parasite does not necessarily cause disease.
    • Simply parasitism is living in association with the host.
    • The parasite derives all benefits from the association and the host may either not be harmed or may suffer the consequences of this association, a parasite disease.
    • A parasite is an organism that is entirely dependent on another organism, referred to as its host, for all or part of its life cycle and metabolic requirements.
    I believe that these qualities could describe a newborn just as easily, and when do you go around killing newborns?

    What I see as happening with this kind of language is the demonization of the unborn. By labeling it a parasite it gives the mother reason to kill it because a parasite conjures up opinions of an unwanted leach. The problem is that it is a human being also, and once you justify killing one class or group of humans you can justify doing the same with another group because you lessen the intrinsic value of being human. Do you want to go down that road?

    The newborn STILL receives nourishment/nutrients and shelter from its mother.
    It does not necessarily cause disease, unless it comes in contact with another being that is contagious.
    The newborn is living in association with the host - the same house, the same room.
    The newborn is entirely dependent on its mother and benefits from her care.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    Nowhere in the criteria does it specify that the parasite must come from outside of the host, but if you wish to get technical, the sperm does come from outside the host.
    And you could call a relative that leaches off your good nature and money a parasite also. Does that mean you can kill/murder them?

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    Whether or not it is defined as a person is irrelevant to the OP. The question is "Who gets to choose?". Since the entity is ENTIRELY dependent on its host until approximately 22 weeks, the choice remains with the host.

    I am never arbitrary. Quite the opposite. I think of everything as logically as I can.
    More relevant is its nature/what it is - a human being.

    The choice SHOULD NOT remain with the host for the very reason that the unborn is a separate (different genetic composition), living, distinct, human being.
    Should I be allowed to kill another human being because I devalue and depreciate that human being? Can you LOGICALLY answer yes to that question (If so, "You're next! Step in line for the abattoir/slaughterhouse, please - right this way!")? If we don't protect the most helpless in socieity what is to stop us from protecting anyone we find inconvenient or unwanted or disagrees with our CHOICE? Do you legally want to give me the ability to choose whether or not I find your life wanted like you give the female the right to choose whether or not she finds the unborn life as wanted?

    This is the seriousness of the abortion rights debate.

    Peter

  5. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  6. #185
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I didn't run wild, your comment lacked any kind of time specificity as you applied it to the unbron in general.
    We just spent an entire day ending up discussing the line @ 8 weeks and then somehow you pulled in a 3T property (which you snuck in originally anyway)! If that's not a bait and switch, I don't know what is. If you can't have a serious discussion and keep track of where we are then at least admit your mistake.

    I see no support for this statement.
    It's obvious, squishing a small embryo requires much less effort than killing a baby.

    I see no support or reason to think I have offered outdated information or position.
    Strawman - I'm defending my stance on modern thinking, not your information; which may not be outdated, but they are irrelevant.

    Not at all. What you have said has no baring on the truth value of what I have said or the validity of my position.

    If you were to say, the empire state bulding is no larger than 10 feet.
    And I say "no" then google the hight of the empire state building, and then quote to you it's actual hight.

    There is no inherent logical flaw in my statement or the results.

    In the end I have actually supported my position, that it is as easy as a google search to disprove your nieve or ignorant claims is a flaw in your position not mine.
    These are the kinds of discussion that are useless though - in using your shifting arguments from 8W to 3T you end up failing to make your point. When we're discussing embryo's they do not hear because they don't have ears in order to do so; they probably don't even have much of a brain to even process those sounds much less remember them.


    You seem to be under the impression that I was applying the link to the 8 week old.
    I was not. you made a blanket statment about fetus' and their abilities, you did not have a time frame so I disproved it.
    Now your confused about what happens when and are attributing that to my argument, when it is your own blanket statement that is at fault.
    We'd been talking about T1, so as well as a bait and switch, you disingenuously threw in something irrelevant to support your point. It's fine, you got caught out doing so and just to make sure that we have our terminology right, Wikipedia has a nice chart:




    The diagram is interesting since maybe even 8W might be too short - 10-11W might seem more reasonable since it is still an embryo and not even legitimately a fetus. And since you've only been arguing for fetus', or inaccurately using terminology, or more likely given your above behavior, conveniently being loose with your language in order to lob in your "oh, a fetus can also remember words said outside of the womb", for emotional effect.

    Also interesting is that 24W is the mark at which there is a 50% survival changes and we'r not really into a viability period until 25W.

    So, your mistake has indeed enlightened me as to why this 24W mark is so common. I think you have literally set our agreement back from 8W to 24W. I trust that you're not going to say a 24W fetus can hear words too.

    Also, you need to stop calling the 1-10W entity a fetus - at that point you need to call it an embryo. I know you like your science and facts, so let's use accurate terminology. That way, you won't be tempted to bait and switch on language issues.


    Hinging your rejection of my case on a false and mistaken understanding of it.
    Great straw-man you have made. You can walk away the victor in your own mind, justifying your self if you like.
    I don't need to walk away from your own mistake of not keeping track of our discussion. You forget that you're the one in the minority position, one that is unsupported by the modern world, and one that you wish to argue for. The law of the land is that abortions are legal and your case remains a poor one and not really very well supported since you appear to be inaccurate in your terminology, which I hope I've now fixed.

    I am interested in hearing your explination of the two evils you are proporting.
    I think my evidence of the informed woman choosing not to have abortions is support that this supposed second evil simply doesn't exist in the way you have in mind.
    Killing a life is always an evil, whether deserved or not. However, in the case of an abortion, it is the lesser evil because such a child would not have a great life, especially one born from rape or incest. The alternative to making abortions illegal brings us back to the worse evil of desperate women being taken advantage in dangerous operations.

    And now your turn. Under which conditions do you support an abortion:

    1. The pregnancy is not viable, the baby seriously deformed or disabled and won't survive long, and the mother's life is at risk.
    2. The pregnancy is viable and the mother's life is at risk.
    3. The baby is from a rape - plan b is used.
    4. The baby is from incest - plan b is used.
    5. plan b is used regardless of the conditions.
    6. Down's Syndrome or some other life-long illness is detected.
    7. Woman cannot afford the child.
    8. Woman wanted a boy.

    Where do you draw the line?

  7. #186
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    [1] A precursor human being??? What might that be? Either it is a human being, or it is not. If it is not a human being, what kind of being is it? If it has a human nature and it is alive how can it be anything other than a human being?

    [2] You are going down a fallacious path, IMO. Just because it is similar does not mean it is the same thing. If the DNA comes from two human beings and it becomes a separate, individual living being at conception when the chromosomes combine how could it be anything other than human? If it is human and ALIVE how could it be anything of than a being?

    Just because something is similar does not make it the same thing. Some beings are alike because they share the same environment.

    Science has determined the unborn to be a human being at conception, not birth.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    [1] Well, no one is claiming that it is anything but human but [2] my point is that there isn't enough of an entity with recognizable human qualities such as functioning limbs, mobility, consciousness, self-awareness, intelligence, etc. It is basically a brain-dead creature that is easily killed without feeling too much squeamishness.
    [1] Not so. Frank claimed it was not a human being. You disagree. At least you are not brushing aside countless factual evidence by lieu of opinion.

    [2] Since you acknowledge it is a human being, what makes human beings valuable? Once you discriminate and degrade one group of human beings what stops you from doing so to another? That is the point. How can you justify killing a human being because it is not as developed as another human being? That is the argument you gave above.

    You advocate the woman decide whether or not to kill her offspring. Unless you can show me that the unborn is something other than a human being what is the difference between killing the human being before birth as opposed to after birth? I appeal to the SLED example - size, level of development, environment, dependency. That is the fundamental difference as to why you justify killing it before but not after birth, primarily its level of development. These same four standards apply to a newborn in comparison to an adult human being.

    I think the mothers feel guilty because they know they are taking a human life.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Killing a fetus is more worse than killing a brain-dead adult. It's a mercy killing that removes a burden on the family and society. And of course they are taking a human life - that's kinda the point of an abortion. What you're refusing to recognize is the difference between a non-self-conscious, non-aware, non-independent human and one that does have all those qualities: that's what makes euthanasia morally allowable.
    No, I recognize that self-consciousness is developing. I understand it is in the very nature of the human being. I also know that development begins at conception. Once you devalue one human life, regardless of the 1) degree of development (as you do here), 2) environment (1940's Germany instead of the USA; present-day North Korea instead of the USA), 3) dependency (in a coma and can't feed itself), 4) size (smaller than another human being), the door is open to doing it with others. Not meeting YOUR standards expressed above is concerning. The human being is no longer recognized as valuable.

    A mercy killing? You associate killing the unborn in the same way you justify killing a brain dead adult??

    I would think you see the human being as intrinsically valuable. If you don't, it just doesn't matter to you what happens to another human being. "Step this way please, Sharma, the government wants to dissect your mind while you are alive, slowly, without anesthesia, to discover more about you!"

    Don't think a scenario like the above can happen? Look at Germany during the 1940's. The Germans singled out six million human people - Jews - and devalued their human worth because of who they were. They also singled out another five to six million that fit specific classification, like the deformed and disabled, the mentally challenged (and we all can fit into a category, depending on who evaluates the standard) and experimented then executed them also. Are you going to argue they were less human in their being than other human beings, like you do with the unborn? When you differentiate between various classes/groups of human beings that is what you are doing.

    I think this kind of indifferent, uncaring, blase attitude is sickening that degrades a human being.

    Either EVERY human being is intrinsically valuable, or you can't object when someone selects you for that cruel experiment.
    After all, why are you as a human being worth any more than anyone else?

    Again, apply that standard of choice to other things that are or should be illegal. So, because something is done, you want to make it legal. Because someone murders another human being, you want to make it legal. Because someone steals, you want to make it legal. Such a standard does not follow, does it?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The argument is that abortions will happen anyway and causes more harm when done in back alleys. Legalizing it at least allows a level of control and education that would hopefully prevent the need for accidents. Your extension of whatever straw-man logic you're trying to apply to pro choice proponents makes no real sense when compared to other situations.
    How can there be more harm than the loss of a defenseless, innocent human life or loss of any life via murder? Remember that Hitler legalized murdering 11-12 million human beings. Abortion has legalized killing around 1.5 billion human beings since 1980.

    http://www.numberofabortions.com/

    Because a murder happens does not justify it being done.

    Education??? Abortion advocacy, or pro-choice, has not PREVENTED abortions, it has increased abortions. Those accidents should only happen because people choose to break the law and terminate a life, not because they were too irresponsible to use protection during sex or could not bear the inconvenience of carrying a human being to term - birth. I say that because the majority of abortions is not because of rape but because of lifestyle decisions according to one source.

    "Almost all abortions take place because a child would be inconvenient, too expensive, or too difficult to cope with, according to a new study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, abortion provider Planned Parenthood's research affiliiate. In a 2004 survey of 1,209 American women at 11 major abortion clinics, women revealed that neither health problems, rape, incest, nor coercion by family members or partners were the primary or even secondary reasons for seeking an abortion."

    http://www.actionlife.org/index.php/...hoose-abortion

    Here is another study that breaks it down further:

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

    "About 98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons and possibly 0.1% each for sex selection and selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies. This study used the Alan Guttmacher and "data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics" to compile its stats."

    Here is another:

    https://www.thoughtco.com/why-women-...ortion-3534155

    The Alan Guttmacher Institute seems to be the benchmark for many studies.

    https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/def...ll/3711005.pdf

    See page 113.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    How do you safely perform a murder?
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Not using coat hangers is a good start.
    There is nothing good about murder.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Wikipedia has a nice chart:
    Link:



    ---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And now your turn. Under which conditions do you support an abortion:

    1. The pregnancy is not viable, the baby seriously deformed or disabled and won't survive long, and the mother's life is at risk.
    2. The pregnancy is viable and the mother's life is at risk.
    3. The baby is from a rape - plan b is used.
    4. The baby is from incest - plan b is used.
    5. plan b is used regardless of the conditions.
    6. Down's Syndrome or some other life-long illness is detected.
    7. Woman cannot afford the child.
    8. Woman wanted a boy.

    Where do you draw the line?
    Slightly modified:

    1. The pregnancy is not viable, the unborn will not survive, and the mother's life is at risk.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.svg/1200px-Prenatal_development_table.svg.png
    Link address above.

  8. #187
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [1] Not so. Frank claimed it was not a human being. You disagree. At least you are not brushing aside countless factual evidence by lieu of opinion.
    I posted a picture earlier of the stages from an egg to embryo to a fetus. We should use that rather than quibble about emotional language such as the thingís apparent humanity or not. Iím not afraid of saying that we are killing a living creature.

    [2] Since you acknowledge it is a human being, what makes human beings valuable? Once you discriminate and degrade one group of human beings what stops you from doing so to another? That is the point. How can you justify killing a human being because it is not as developed as another human being? That is the argument you gave above.
    Iím not jousting the killing based on itís age. I am arguing that abortions are legal now because of the past history of not allowing it has caused untold deaths of women and that we are only discussing when it should be allowed to cause this death.

    It is no more better or worse than euthanizing a brain dead car victim rather than keeping the body alive indefinitely. Once there are signs of consciousness and agency, that killing becomes a murder.

    You advocate the woman decide whether or not to kill her offspring. Unless you can show me that the unborn is something other than a human being what is the difference between killing the human being before birth as opposed to after birth? I appeal to the SLED example - size, level of development, environment, dependency. That is the fundamental difference as to why you justify killing it before but not after birth, primarily its level of development. These same four standards apply to a newborn in comparison to an adult human being.
    Would you be against the plan-B pill? Would you be against an abortion when the motherís life is in danger? What if the child were to end up being severely disabled or mentally impaired?

    There are plenty of good reasons for an abortion - are you against all of them because they Ďhumaní? What if it were a product of rape or incest?

    I think the mothers feel guilty because they know they are taking a human life.
    Of course they are aware of that fact. Thatís kinda the point of an abortion!

    No, I recognize that self-consciousness is developing. I understand it is in the very nature of the human being. I also know that development begins at conception. Once you devalue one human life, regardless of the 1) degree of development (as you do here), 2) environment (1940's Germany instead of the USA; present-day North Korea instead of the USA), 3) dependency (in a coma and can't feed itself), 4) size (smaller than another human being), the door is open to doing it with others. Not meeting YOUR standards expressed above is concerning. The human being is no longer recognized as valuable.
    Meh, itís not a slippery slope and you know it. Nobody is saying that all embryos can be killed for no reason: itís considered a double murder if a pregnant woman is killed so youíre simply wrong to make these irrelevant comparisons with Naziís (which incidentally do nothing to help your credibility in this discussion).

    A mercy killing? You associate killing the unborn in the same way you justify killing a brain dead adult??
    In terms of the alternatives, yes.

    I would think you see the human being as intrinsically valuable. If you don't, it just doesn't matter to you what happens to another human being. "Step this way please, Sharma, the government wants to dissect your mind while you are alive, slowly, without anesthesia, to discover more about you!"
    A human ďbeingĒ sure, a human ďembryoĒ, not so much.

    Don't think a scenario like the above can happen? Look at Germany during the 1940's. The Germans singled out six million human people - Jews - and devalued their human worth because of who they were. They also singled out another five to six million that fit specific classification, like the deformed and disabled, the mentally challenged (and we all can fit into a category, depending on who evaluates the standard) and experimented then executed them also. Are you going to argue they were less human in their being than other human beings, like you do with the unborn? When you differentiate between various classes/groups of human beings that is what you are doing.
    So what specific classification of human do abortions target? Is is race? Wealth? Religion? Sexual orientation? No. Abortion laws do not promote or make it easier to discriminate against group or another. Though, it is a fact that not having abortion services and other womenís health clinics do disproportionally affect poor minorities.

    I think this kind of indifferent, uncaring, blase attitude is sickening that degrades a human being.
    Which is why abortions are not imposed on women! They get to make decisions about their own bodies, their lives and the conscience. It is not indifferent to allow a woman the right to decide how her body is to be used; it is not uncaring because those women would find more harmful alternatives, and itís certainly not blasť because I support full sex education with all the gory details about contraception and responsible sexual activity. I donít see anything sickening in that.

    On the other hand, you appear to promote leaving women alone to figure this out themselves, once upon a time and even today, in countries where abortions are illegal, women are the only ones that suffer. The closing of Texasí Planned Parenthood clinics has reduce the amount of care for women and they have suffered. I donít know where you fall on education but some people believe that teaching ignorance (in the guise of abstinence) is a good thing. Some religious groups even have a pseudo-incestual marriages between a father and a daughter to promote such abstinence. Those are sickening acts of ignorance about history and promotion of ignorance that need to be stamped out.

    Again, apply that standard of choice to other things that are or should be illegal. So, because something is done, you want to make it legal. Because someone murders another human being, you want to make it legal. Because someone steals, you want to make it legal. Such a standard does not follow, does it?
    We already do. Killing some one is legal if itís self defense; there are plenty of cases where actual premeditated murder, such as in wars, where it is fully justified and expected. Someone has to perform all the death penalty executions so killing is legal there too. Euthanasia is becoming legal for their terminally ill or suffering: are you going to call those people Naziís too?

    So youíre simplify things a little.

    How can there be more harm than the loss of a defenseless, innocent human life or loss of any life via murder? Remember that Hitler legalized murdering 11-12 million human beings. Abortion has legalized killing around 1.5 billion human beings since 1980.
    Do you support plan-b? Do you support abortions in the cases where the motherís life is in danger? When both would die unless the abortion was done? How about if the childís life would be a terrible one due to disease, disfigurement or other mental conditions? Would you force the parents to raise such a child? What if they canít, would you contribute to the care of this child?

    Education??? Abortion advocacy, or pro-choice, has not PREVENTED abortions, it has increased abortions. Those accidents should only happen because people choose to break the law and terminate a life, not because they were too irresponsible to use protection during sex or could not bear the inconvenience of carrying a human being to term - birth. I say that because the majority of abortions is not because of rape but because of lifestyle decisions according to one source.
    What about plan-B? Seems simple enough.

    [COLOR="#0000CD"][B]"Almost all abortions take place because a child would be inconvenient, too expensive, or too difficult to cope with, according to a new study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, abortion provider Planned Parenthood's research affiliiate. In a 2004 survey of 1,209 American women at 11 major abortion clinics, women revealed that neither health problems, rape, incest, nor coercion by family members or partners were the primary or even secondary reasons for seeking an abortion."

    [B]"About 98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons and possibly 0.1% each for sex selection and selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies. This study used the Alan Guttmacher and "data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics" to compile its stats."
    So we have better education, free contraceptives and plan-B. Do you have a problem with those ideas?



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  9. #188
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Everyone is assuming that I believe a fetus to be a parasite. This is not the case. I have stated that, personally, I could never terminate a pregnancy. For the sake of this debate (the one where we are trying to determine whose choice pregnancy termination is), I likened a fetus to that of a parasite. It meets all of the criteria of the SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION of a parasite. I am sorry if that upsets people, but it is a fact. I am 100% aware that it is really not a parasite.

    No it does not fit all the qualifications. I offered you the scientific and medical understandings of parasite, and how it is different.
    You gave me a link to an explanation, but that is not the scientific definition. If you like, I can give you the links to the CDC's, WebMD, or any other scientific site that lists the criteria to classify something as a parasite. The other link you are offering to "Libertarians for Life" is a biased site. I tend to stay away from them. HOWEVER, even using that classification, the only difference is that a parasite is living in a different species while the embryo or fetus is living in the same species. Everything else is identical.

    Does that make the prenatal human a "non-person"? If so, why?
    In my eyes with all of my emotions and beliefs, it is a person the moment it is conceived. It is a unique life that will grow to be a person. In the eyes of science, it is a fetus and a non-person until whenever the cut-off date is for termination. Until science decides to classify what makes us human beings, we will continue to argue this point (and probably even after that).

    I believe that these qualities could describe a newborn just as easily, and when do you go around killing newborns?
    No, because a newborn does not require a host to survive.

    And you could call a relative that leaches off your good nature and money a parasite also. Does that mean you can kill/murder them?
    Again, no. Because a leaching relative has the ability to survive outside of the host.

    More relevant is its nature/what it is - a human being.

    The choice SHOULD NOT remain with the host for the very reason that the unborn is a separate (different genetic composition), living, distinct, human being.
    Should I be allowed to kill another human being because I devalue and depreciate that human being? Can you LOGICALLY answer yes to that question (If so, "You're next! Step in line for the abattoir/slaughterhouse, please - right this way!")? If we don't protect the most helpless in socieity what is to stop us from protecting anyone we find inconvenient or unwanted or disagrees with our CHOICE? Do you legally want to give me the ability to choose whether or not I find your life wanted like you give the female the right to choose whether or not she finds the unborn life as wanted?

    This is the seriousness of the abortion rights debate.
    I understand. Thank you for clarifying.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  10. #189
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,304
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    In the eyes of science, it is a fetus and a non-person until whenever the cut-off date is for termination.
    When and where have biologists taken a position on the issue of personhood? From what I've seen, personhood is a philosophical concept only.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  11. #190
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    When and where have biologists taken a position on the issue of personhood? From what I've seen, personhood is a philosophical concept only.
    If they saw a fetus as a person, abortion would not be legal.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  12. #191
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,304
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    If they saw a fetus as a person, abortion would not be legal.
    This is not responsive to the question. You have claimed that scientists have weighed in on the topic of personhood, saying that a fetus is not a person. Support or retract your claim.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  13. #192
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,540
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    You gave me a link to an explanation, but that is not the scientific definition. If you like, I can give you the links to the CDC's, WebMD, or any other scientific site that lists the criteria to classify something as a parasite. The other link you are offering to "Libertarians for Life" is a biased site. I tend to stay away from them. HOWEVER, even using that classification, the only difference is that a parasite is living in a different species while the embryo or fetus is living in the same species. Everything else is identical.
    I linked to the materials ultimate source, which is apparently the book teaching about general parasiteolgoy. A text book for education at the medical university of south Carolina.
    And pointed it out in the post your responded too.

    https://books.google.com/books?dq=Ch...201973&f=false

    So your claim of a biased source is false. They are just using information that contradicts your position... but apparently is as authoritative as possible on a subject like this.


    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    No, because a newborn does not require a host to survive.
    The biological host becomes A societal host, with no real distinction to the theft of labor it requires.
    Or is the woman's biological contribution seen as greater than a mans sweat labor that goes to putting food on the table?
    or is the woman's sweat labor to put food on the table after birth some how substantially different than before?

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    Again, no. Because a leaching relative has the ability to survive outside of the host.
    Well, if you note from the definition you used. The entire life cycle doesn't have to be in the host for it to be a parasite.
    It's parasitic nature of taking energy and food from it's hosts just changes as it still requires outside energy and food from a .. host.

    your distinction is arbitrary. Perhaps it is all the more reason that he should be killed because they can.. and don't?

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    In my eyes with all of my emotions and beliefs, it is a person the moment it is conceived. It is a unique life that will grow to be a person. In the eyes of science, it is a fetus and a non-person until whenever the cut-off date is for termination. Until science decides to classify what makes us human beings, we will continue to argue this point (and probably even after that).
    Well first of all, science defines it as a human from conception. It isn't after all a K-9.
    As we stand here today science is silent on what it means to be a "person". Science is not what has informed me that you are a person. And I welcome you to point me to any scientific publication on the definition of a person and who does and does not meet the requirements.
    Certainly I have pointed to science to show how there are no relevant differences in relation to person-hood between the born and the unborn, but I have yet to see any science from the other side to contradict any of it.
    So ti's not as though both sides are on equal footing here.

    Look no further than how abortion is marketed, how when people are informed of the facts and receive an ultrasound, they do not get abortions. That is why one side would prefer the mother to be ignorant and my side wants to educate them. Because the facts or on the side I have forwarded.
    ----
    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    We just spent an entire day ending up discussing the line @ 8 weeks and then somehow you pulled in a 3T property (which you snuck in originally anyway)! If that's not a bait and switch, I don't know what is. If you can't have a serious discussion and keep track of where we are then at least admit your mistake.
    I was just responding to what you were forwarding.
    However if your objection to the 8 week changed from "no brain function" to.. "no personality"
    Then your just moving the goal posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    It's obvious, squishing a small embryo requires much less effort than killing a baby.
    Repeating the claim doesn't support it.
    I don't see how a medical procedure is less effort than non action.
    If you take no action at all, a baby will die. That is as little effort as I can see possible.
    At the very least killing a fetus takes a doctor visit and medication, in it's most common form it takes a full on procedure which includes birth.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Strawman - I'm defending my stance on modern thinking, not your information; which may not be outdated, but they are irrelevant.
    Right, which I counter with modern facts. .. unless your appealing simply to modern popular opinion irrelevant of facts.
    Ahh, yes the facts are irrelevant to your position so. Your guilty of an appeal to popularity fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    These are the kinds of discussion that are useless though - in using your shifting arguments from 8W to 3T you end up failing to make your point. When we're discussing embryo's they do not hear because they don't have ears in order to do so; they probably don't even have much of a brain to even process those sounds much less remember them.
    First I'm not shifting, that is a straw man and your mistake.
    Second, the 8 week thing came from debunking your point that they are basically brain dead. (back in post 126)
    IE the brain starts developing and is functioning vs a brain dead person who's brain is not functioning.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    The diagram is interesting since maybe even 8W might be too short - 10-11W might seem more reasonable since it is still an embryo and not even legitimately a fetus. And since you've only been arguing for fetus', or inaccurately using terminology, or more likely given your above behavior, conveniently being loose with your language in order to lob in your "oh, a fetus can also remember words said outside of the womb", for emotional effect.

    Also interesting is that 24W is the mark at which there is a 50% survival changes and we'r not really into a viability period until 25W.

    So, your mistake has indeed enlightened me as to why this 24W mark is so common. I think you have literally set our agreement back from 8W to 24W. I trust that you're not going to say a 24W fetus can hear words too.

    Also, you need to stop calling the 1-10W entity a fetus - at that point you need to call it an embryo. I know you like your science and facts, so let's use accurate terminology. That way, you won't be tempted to bait and switch on language issues.
    First of all your the one that uses the termenology "fetus" I have been pretty consitent with using "the unborn".
    In post 143, when you challenged me if I had evidence that a fetus exhibt emotions and personality.. My quote is me using the term "unborn".

    So your accusation of my miss use of the term is miss placed. your the one using arbitrary chriteria. I was just trying to find common ground.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I don't need to walk away from your own mistake of not keeping track of our discussion. You forget that you're the one in the minority position, one that is unsupported by the modern world, and one that you wish to argue for. The law of the land is that abortions are legal and your case remains a poor one and not really very well supported since you appear to be inaccurate in your terminology, which I hope I've now fixed.
    My position does not rely on specific dates and times. My position is for the unborn throughout.
    It is your position that contradicts different times and stats of development. Your for abortion, but don't even know when those abortions are killing persons according to your own arbitrary and made up criteria.
    You say I am in the minority, but your position is not the majority. Your is made up from your own mind without support or reason for anyone esle to accept.

    As for me being in the minority, that isn't a problem because majority doesn't determin truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Killing a life is always an evil, whether deserved or not. However, in the case of an abortion, it is the lesser evil because such a child would not have a great life, especially one born from rape or incest. The alternative to making abortions illegal brings us back to the worse evil of desperate women being taken advantage in dangerous operations.

    And now your turn. Under which conditions do you support an abortion:

    1. The pregnancy is not viable, the baby seriously deformed or disabled and won't survive long, and the mother's life is at risk.
    2. The pregnancy is viable and the mother's life is at risk.
    3. The baby is from a rape - plan b is used.
    4. The baby is from incest - plan b is used.
    5. plan b is used regardless of the conditions.
    6. Down's Syndrome or some other life-long illness is detected.
    7. Woman cannot afford the child.
    8. Woman wanted a boy.

    Where do you draw the line?
    No one has the right to take a life. Everyone has the right to life even if it is a P.O.S. life.
    Being poor is not evil, but killing is as you say.
    The kind of justification you offer is evil itself.

    Just to let you know, as a scientific fact abortion is never required to save the mothers life.
    C-Section can save the mother without having to give birth. The added step of killing the child is never relevant to saving the mothers life.

    If it is, it is so seldom that it is the exception, and we shouldn't use exceptions when forming social rules.
    To serve man.

  14. #193
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    This is not responsive to the question. You have claimed that scientists have weighed in on the topic of personhood, saying that a fetus is not a person. Support or retract your claim.
    For heaven's sake, logic dictates that science has "weighed in." It is illegal to have an abortion after a specific time; ergo, science deems an unborn a "person" at that time. Now, if you want me to find every scientist that believes that, it will be a long list...but here is a start:

    http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/201...17-timepoints/ (Ricki Lewis, PhD. in Science and Genetics)
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  15. #194
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    For heaven's sake, logic dictates that science has "weighed in." It is illegal to have an abortion after a specific time; ergo, science deems an unborn a "person" at that time. Now, if you want me to find every scientist that believes that, it will be a long list...but here is a start:

    http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/201...17-timepoints/ (Ricki Lewis, PhD. in Science and Genetics)
    Oh please, science and US law have as much to do with each other as the "price of tea in china" and "the love of a puppy"

  16. Likes ladykrimson liked this post
  17. #195
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,304
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    For heaven's sake, logic dictates that science has "weighed in." It is illegal to have an abortion after a specific time; ergo, science deems an unborn a "person" at that time. Now, if you want me to find every scientist that believes that, it will be a long list...but here is a start:

    http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/201...17-timepoints/ (Ricki Lewis, PhD. in Science and Genetics)
    I’m reminded of what liberals say about global warming- if you look hard you can find a few scientists who probably disagree for political reasons, but “the science is settled”, new life begins at conception.

    But your earlier claim was about personhood. If you think that is the same as human life, okay.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  18. #196
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    For heaven's sake, logic dictates that science has "weighed in." It is illegal to have an abortion after a specific time; ergo, science deems an unborn a "person" at that time. Now, if you want me to find every scientist that believes that, it will be a long list...but here is a start:

    http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/201...17-timepoints/ (Ricki Lewis, PhD. in Science and Genetics)
    I agree with much of what you have said in the last few posts, Lady, and have reservations on some other items. But I congratulate you on your advocacy in the face of some of the stuff coming your way from those who disagree.

    The issue of a pregnancy IS a unique situation...and although anyone, even a strong atheist, can have "moral" and "ethical" considerations about abortion...I will continue to champion a woman's right to make the decision for a pregnancy occurring in her own body. I personally think the legal restraints should be broader than they are, but I am willing to accept the consensus as to when they can and cannot happen.

    I also am more and more sure that religious considerations drive most of these anti-choice people...and while I champion a right to religious convictions...I draw the line when religious folk decide they are going to intrude their religious convictions on the rights all of humanity. They have a right to do it...but others have a right to oppose them in that regard.

    As far as I am concerned, until the umbilical is severed, the fetus is NOT a person...and the woman to whom the umbilical is attached gets to make a decision about whether to terminate the pregnancy.

    Once again, kudos for your advocacy in the face of all the opposition.

  19. #197
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I
    I was just responding to what you were forwarding.
    However if your objection to the 8 week changed from "no brain function" to.. "no personality"
    Then your just moving the goal posts.
    So you agree that at 8W the embryo does not hear words much less remember them?

    Repeating the claim doesn't support it.
    I don't see how a medical procedure is less effort than non action.
    If you take no action at all, a baby will die. That is as little effort as I can see possible.
    At the very least killing a fetus takes a doctor visit and medication, in it's most common form it takes a full on procedure which includes birth.
    Um no. Aborting the pregnancy is the goal then doing it when itís much smaller takes much less effort. No big operations are needed.


    Right, which I counter with modern facts. .. unless your appealing simply to modern popular opinion irrelevant of facts.
    Ahh, yes the facts are irrelevant to your position so. Your guilty of an appeal to popularity fallacy.
    Itís not fallacious when the same said popular opinion all agree that giving a woman the right to choose what to do with her body is a good thing! I fear that youíre missing the point somewhere in the weeds of definitions and what passes for ďscienceĒ in your world.

    First I'm not shifting, that is a straw man and your mistake.
    Second, the 8 week thing came from debunking your point that they are basically brain dead. (back in post 126)
    IE the brain starts developing and is functioning vs a brain dead person who's brain is not functioning.
    ďStartsĒ developing is the key point here. Doing more research, I donít mean brain death but a ďpersistent vegetative stateĒ. Here basic functions, similar to an embryo, are there but no cognitive functions. Does an embryo have cognitive function?

    So your accusation of my miss use of the term is miss placed. your the one using arbitrary chriteria. I was just trying to find common ground.
    Luckily, we now have common ground with the diagram I found. Youíre welcome.

    My position does not rely on specific dates and times. My position is for the unborn throughout.
    It is your position that contradicts different times and stats of development. Your for abortion, but don't even know when those abortions are killing persons according to your own arbitrary and made up criteria.
    You say I am in the minority, but your position is not the majority. Your is made up from your own mind without support or reason for anyone esle to accept.
    I didnít realize youíre a nazi about the whole issue. I guess that explains a lot of what you had to say and puts it all in a new light.

    I am fine with my position, relying on those experts moral and legal to come together to solve the age old issue of terminating an unwanted pregnancy in a moral and ethical manner.

    Your black and white view of the world is just part of a failed socially conservative quasi-religious view of the world that is blind to the complexities of life. Which is why your arguments continue to fail to take hold. Changing no minds and saving no lives.

    As for me being in the minority, that isn't a problem because majority doesn't determin truth.
    Truth being what exactly? I donít deny that a life is being snuffed our; thatís kinda the point.

    No one has the right to take a life. Everyone has the right to life even if it is a P.O.S. life.
    Being poor is not evil, but killing is as you say.
    The kind of justification you offer is evil itself.
    So youíd rather force a woman to carry a baby she may have had no choice carrying? Even in rape and incest?

    Just to let you know, as a scientific fact abortion is never required to save the mothers life.
    C-Section can save the mother without having to give birth. The added step of killing the child is never relevant to saving the mothers life.
    Are you serious? A C-section is a major operation and introduces unnecessary risk.

    If it is, it is so seldom that it is the exception, and we shouldn't use exceptions when forming social rules.
    So you donít even support plan B!? How about contraception? Or sex education? Where do you stand on issues that arenít black and white?
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 12th, 2018 at 05:53 AM.

  20. #198
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,540
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by sharmak
    So you agree that at 8W the embryo does not hear words much less remember them?
    Of course, as I never claimed otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by sharmak
    Um no. Aborting the pregnancy is the goal then doing it when it’s much smaller takes much less effort. No big operations are needed.
    this seems to be a shift on your part.

    Quote Originally Posted by sharmak
    It’s not fallacious when the same said popular opinion all agree that giving a woman the right to choose what to do with her body is a good thing! I fear that you’re missing the point somewhere in the weeds of definitions and what passes for “science” in your world.
    one of the problems with your appeal to popularity, is that in our culture the last time "the people" voted on it, they ruled it to be illegal except for a few exceptions.
    That will was then overturned by 5 judges. So our current state is more a porducte of politics then popular demand.
    The second is that even if the majority of people wanted abortions on demand, that still has nothing to do with science, and per my evidence of what occurs to peoples opinions
    when they see the ultra sound, the more facts people have generally lead to fewer abortions.

    So, the popular opinion does not agree to give women the right to choose. That simply didn't happen.
    And those that do don't argue from facts and reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    “Starts” developing is the key point here. Doing more research, I don’t mean brain death but a “persistent vegetative state”. Here basic functions, similar to an embryo, are there but no cognitive functions. Does an embryo have cognitive function?
    Before 8 weeks absolutly not. But then, why should we accept cognitive funtion as a requirment for person-hood?
    Are you not a person on the opperating table when you don't have any of those brain functions?
    Before you objected because it is temporary, but that isn't what your advocating here.. rather that is an arbitrary addition.
    The unborn have every potential and it is clear that at some point the unborn does have those features.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Your black and white view of the world is just part of a failed socially conservative quasi-religious view of the world that is blind to the complexities of life. Which is why your arguments continue to fail to take hold. Changing no minds and saving no lives.
    I would say there are two basic realities that show this to be false.
    1) That when my point of view provides women with free ultrasounds, the vast majority (90%) agree with me.
    So in order for me to basically kill your idiology, all i have to do is provid free ultrasounds to every person that desires or thinks they desire an abortion.
    Then, in that moment they realize that all the people who told them it was just a bloob of tissue or that the embreo/fetus is not their baby that needs protecting, were lying or wrong.

    2) The second is that God has already put a concious in people and so that pain of regret that is natural to those who have killed their unborn child, is a more powerful conviction than I could
    ever talk into them, and take no effor.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Truth being what exactly? I don’t deny that a life is being snuffed our; that’s kinda the point.
    The truth that killing humans is bad, at any stage.
    killing a human for personal convience is actual wickedness, in any context.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    So you’d rather force a woman to carry a baby she may have had no choice carrying? Even in rape and incest?
    yes because one crime does not justify another.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    So you don’t even support plan B!? How about contraception? Or sex education? Where do you stand on issues that aren’t black and white?
    Plan B is the day after pill right?
    First of all, none of those are relevant to what I said, and extrapolating them from what I said is nonsense.
    From my position, of course I am for education, I am the one advocating to give women ultrasounds (IE more information). I am certainly for educating children for the consiquences of their actions.
    I think birthcontroll can be good, but can be abused (as some are acutally abortion drugs). Personally, I think the biggest thing girls need to be taught is that birth controll is not without consiquences
    on their body and ability to have a child in the future. I see lot of people on birth controll for 20 years who then struggle to have a child.
    Plan B just looks like every other birth-control, it uses the same drug. I'm for it as long as it is preventing pregnancy, but I'm against drugs that end pregnancies. (Because of the whole right to life thing I have argued).

    --So question for you.
    At what point should it be illegal to abort? Are we at the 24 week mark now? Because I'm fine with agreeing with you there.
    To serve man.

  21. #199
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    378
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund
    I'm not sure you realize this, but you are making positive truth claims. That you call them "opinions" doesn't change their underlying nature nor does it mean they are exempt from criticism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    YOU, Freund, are making a "positive truth claim" here in these two sentences. Both sentences happen to make untrue truth claims...but that's fine with me. You have a right to be wrong.
    What claims are untrue? Please clarify.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa
    In any case, sharing an opinion...is NOT asserting a "positive truth claim"...other than that it IS my opinion.
    The below:

    The umbilical...is the thing that makes this difference truly a difference with a clear distinction. Until that umbilical is severed...the gamete, zygote, fetus...is not a person...is not a "baby." (Frank Apisa, #155)

    is a claim, and a pretty obvious one at that. There is no shame in changing your mind (or your "opinion") or revisiting your belief when presented with evidence which suggests that the belief ("opinion") you hold is flawed. To not do so is to be willfully ignorant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa
    Not my words, but I am willing to accept that it is my opinion that until the umbilical is cut...the gamete, zygote, or fetus...IS NOT A PERSON. That IS my opinion. If you do not like my opinion...I accept that you do not. If you are of a different opinion and want to discuss it, by all means, do so.
    It's not that I don't "like" your opinion--it's that it is an incredibly weak position not supported by any evidence outside of your own anecdotal viewpoint. This goes back to my original point: Why should I or anyone else share your opinion? Your "opinions" as presented simply aren't compelling at all as arguments because they are full of holes.

    You are welcome to hold opinions which are at odds with reality or that are logically flawed. No one here has disputed that. What you cannot presume is that anyone would be interested in having a one-way discussion because someone (e.g. Frank Apisa) isn't willing to have his views challenged by logic and reason. When you are ready to actually have a discussion, let us know. Otherwise you are wasting your time here, and I guarantee there are better things you can do with your time.

  22. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  23. #200
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,304
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    It is illegal to have an abortion after a specific time; ergo, science deems an unborn a "person" at that time.
    Actually, no, that was the result of five non-scientist justices of the Supreme Court.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    Now, if you want me to find every scientist that believes that, it will be a long list...
    Do that. I'd like to see your list. In the mean time, here are some who believe that life begins at conception:

    American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

    ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-s...an-life-begins

    We'll see if you have a group of physicians or scientists comparable to the ACP on your side.


    You may be interested to learn that the Department of Health and Human Services, in its new strategic plan for 2018-2022 will have a mission statement that reads in part:

    "HHS accomplishes its mission through programs and initiatives that cover a wide spectrum of activities, serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/...epartment-hhs/

    Hey Frank, do you still think the federal government is an authority on this subject? I bet not.



    And LadyK, here is a list of 41 medical textbooks that say new life begins at conception

    “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”

    Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

    *****

    “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

    Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

    *****

    “The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”

    conception4bCoy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).

    ******

    “Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”

    Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

    ******

    National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/medlineplus/fertilization

    The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.

    Steven Ertelt”Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13

    ******

    “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

    Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

    ******

    “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

    Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

    ******

    An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life.

    “It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.”

    F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

    ******

    “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

    Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

    ******

    “Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”

    The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

    Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

    ******

    “Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg… For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.”

    Prenatal Care, US Department Of Health And Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Division, 1990

    ******

    “Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

    “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

    ultrasound4d51Zygote is a term for a newly conceived life after the sperm and the egg cell meet but before the embryo begins to divide.

    From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

    ******

    The medical textbook, Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, states:

    “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”

    Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

    *****

    “Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.”

    Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136

    Quoted in Eric Pastuszek. Is the Fetus Human? (Rockford, Illinois: Tan books And Publishers Inc., 1991)

    ******

    “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. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.

    ******

    T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

    “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”

    ******

    Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

    “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

    ******

    Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

    “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

    ******

    “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”

    Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

    ******

    “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

    James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

    ******

    Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144

    “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”

    Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)

    ******

    “Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg…For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.”

    Prenatal Care, US Department of Health and Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Div 1990

    ******

    “….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”

    Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

    ******

    Shettles, Landrum, M.D., Rorvik, David, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, page 36, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983

    “… Conception confers life and makes you one of a kind. Unless you have an identical twin, there is virtually no chance, in the natural course of things, that there will be “another you” – not even if mankind were to persist for billions of years.”

    ******

    From Newsweek November 12, 1973:

    “Human life begins when the ovum is fertilized and the new combined cell mass begins to divide.”

    Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association (p 74)

    ******

    “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. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

    Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

    ******

    The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006. (Video)

    “Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.”

    ******

    In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005 (Prenatal Development Video)

    “The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.”

    ******

    DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584

    “The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world.”

    ******

    Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419

    “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”

    ******

    Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86

    “The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”

    ******

    Clark, J. ed., The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in the Human Body, Torstar Books Inc., Toronto, 1985, page 99

    “Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum and a much smaller male sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into the complex …structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection.”

    ******

    Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53

    “A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”

    ******

    Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

    “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”

    ******

    Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943

    “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”

    ******

    Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986

    “…but the whole story does not begin with delivery. The baby has existed for months before – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”

    ******

    Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

    “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

    ******

    Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

    “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

    ******

    Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

    “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

    ******

    Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

    “In this text, we 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. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”

    ******

    From Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

    “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”

    ******

    The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

    “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/4...at-conception/

    ---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I also am more and more sure that religious considerations drive most of these anti-choice people...
    Frank, do your admitted agnosticism and antagonism towards religion disqualify your opinions on abortion and personhood? If not, why should possible religious beliefs disqualify secular arguments made on those same subjects? It seems to me that you have a glaring double standard on whether opinions should be accepted as legitimate.
    Last edited by evensaul; February 12th, 2018 at 11:25 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

 

 
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Terms in the abortion debate
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: February 7th, 2018, 07:56 AM
  2. Is Equal Opportunity Possible?
    By UNC Reason in forum Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 6th, 2012, 08:14 AM
  3. Missed terrorist opportunity?
    By FruitandNut in forum Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 13th, 2007, 03:52 PM
  4. Abortion: split from a 1 vs 1 debate
    By CC in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 04:37 PM
  5. Debate Mastery: Abortion
    By TheOriginal in forum General Debate
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 20th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •