DescentBB

Maddalena Douse is one of the smallest premature babies ever to survive in the U.K. — thanks to a pair of scissors.

When she was born six months ago at just 23 weeks, she was so tiny doctors did not know if they should try to save her.

But when they put her on the scales she weighed 1 pound, the minimum weight for a baby to be considered viable — so they fought for her.

Only when she was safely on a ventilator did doctors discover the scissors had been accidentally left on the scales, and that 8-inch Maddalena in fact weighed only .84 pounds, or about 13 ounces.

The lucky baby has now been discharged from the Royal Sussex Hospital and is expected to grow into a healthy child. Maddalena's twin sister, Isabella, died a few weeks after the girls' birth.

“She now weighs 5½ pounds and is getting stronger by the day," Maddalena's mother, Kate, said. "She’s our little miracle, and we’re so glad to have her home in time for Christmas.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/1 ... z2FSDyzi4q

don't have to read more, CUDA(actually, I had seen the story before, and it's miraculous). The words in your quoted bit go right to the heart of the matter:
"she was born"

callmeslick wrote:"she was born"

That. And, it's a perfect example of our impending future where babies won't be aborted, they will be incubated. Again, this whole conversation will eventually be meaningless. All of your points (both sides) won't even make sense in the quite near future, so just give it up already. I would say "try spending your time and energy on solving the impending population explosion," but there is a pretty good chance in the next decade or two there will be 100% effective birth control with no side effects (as in, simply turning on/off the ability to reproduce).

Your moral outrage is my entertainment.

And you trying to exploit the sublimely absurd is mine.

callmeslick wrote:don't have to read more, CUDA(actually, I had seen the story before, and it's miraculous). The words in your quoted bit go right to the heart of the matter:
"she was born"

Take a gander at Foil's post.... being born is a really weak way to define person hood from a scientific standpoint.

So... justify to me why being born has relevance upon the personhood of Maddalena?

callmeslick wrote:don't have to read more, CUDA(actually, I had seen the story before, and it's miraculous). The words in your quoted bit go right to the heart of the matter:
"she was born"

ok lets look at this differently

Maddalena Douse is one of the smallest premature babies ever to survive in the U.K. — thanks to a pair of scissors.

When she survived a botched abortion six months ago at just 23 weeks, she was so tiny doctors did not know if they should try to save her.

But when they put her on the scales she weighed 1 pound, the minimum weight for a baby to be considered viable — so they fought for her.

Only when she was safely on a ventilator did doctors discover the scissors had been accidentally left on the scales, and that 8-inch Maddalena in fact weighed only .84 pounds, or about 13 ounces.

The lucky baby has now been discharged from the Royal Sussex Hospital and is expected to grow into a healthy child. Maddalena's twin sister, Isabella, died a few weeks after the girls' birth.

“She now weighs 5½ pounds and is getting stronger by the day," Maddalena's mother, Kate, said. "She’s our little miracle, and we’re so glad to have her home in time for Christmas.”

see the difference? NO, I'm sure you don't

yeah, I do see a difference, CUDA, and therein lies the rub.

callmeslick wrote:yeah, I do see a difference, CUDA, and therein lies the rub.

ya and the only difference to you is wanted or unwanted. no difference in physical status. only the fact that one was born by choice... and you scream moral outrage over the school shootings (which you should) but you have no care about the people that make a choice to kill "UN BORN" children. there is no difference NONE. it's still a child, it still has a beating heart. it is still alive. would you be OK if someone came into that room seconds after it was born and shot it??

Do you understand what a partial birth abortion is??where a baby that is only head out and the DR take a scalpel and severs its spinal cord while the rest of the baby is still in the womb?? is that OK with you. does that blur the line of Born or not Born. you cannot have it both ways slick. either a life is valuable or it's not. you cannot be disgusted over the school shootings but say that abortion is a choice.

“I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is 'Abortion', because it is a war against the child... A direct killing of the innocent child, 'Murder' by the mother herself... And if we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? Mother Teresa

vision wrote:...All of your points (both sides) won't even make sense in the quite near future, so just give it up already.

I'm skeptical about your view of scientific progress solving abortion. But even if that's the case, and it happens ten years from now, we still have ten years in which this subject is still very valid.

I.e. a solution X years from now does not imply a solution now. The meantime is still meaningful.

Foil wrote:I'm skeptical about your view of scientific progress solving abortion.

You are almost right. Science will accomplish it, but no one will fund an incubator program for unwanted embyos because people are selfish on both sides of the argument. The pro-choice people will just say "simply abort" and the pro-life people will say "not my responsibility." If the pro-life people really cared about unborn babies, today, they would all make themselves known and offer themselves up as surrogate mothers, as those who will take the medical expense Maddalena, and as foster parents. Granted some do, but most just like to get excited and hear themselves talk.

and the pro-life people will say "not my responsibility." If the pro-life people really cared about unborn babies

I think you'll find that a great many conservatives really do care, and back it up with their time and money.

My wife and I are going through Foster Parent classes now. I'm 52. and I think you'll find a majority of foster parents are conservatives. and we put our money where our mouths are.My Wife and I have counseled two women so far on Abortion. BOTH came to us for advise. one of the women chose to not go through with it and we are now Grandparents to an incredible little boy, the other one chose to go through with it. afterwards she asked me if I was Mad at her. I told her. No why would I be mad. I told her I was disappointed but not mad. to this day she calls me her Work Dad.

I don't just talk the talk. and I have a genuine concern for the people that have to make that decision. while I will fight with my last ounce of energy to abolish the practice. I will never condemn those that make that choice.

The Doctors on the other hand are a different story. since everyone of them took an oath to do no harm. and those that perform abortions violate that oath.

CUDA wrote:while I will fight with my last ounce of energy to abolish the practice.

It's nice you want to walk the walk. I would also suggest you spend some of that energy on things that reduce unwanted pregnancies, namely promoting contraception and women's rights, and of course, science and education. Rather than making laws against something (which never works), help create a world where people don't have unwanted pregnancies and have no incentive to get an abortion. It's all about finding solutions to problems outside of legal definitions and legislation.

Here is an example: Today, traffic accidents are one of the leading causes of death. We have all sorts of laws to reduce the dangers (seat belts, drunk driving laws, automobile safety regulations), and progress has been made, but it's still a huge problem. However, it is highly likely that in 100 years or so the number of people who die from traffic accidents will drop by staggering amounts because automobiles will be autonomous, and controlled by sophisticated programming far superior to what a human can do without. I predict in the year 2100 it will be nearly impossible to drive drunk.

So I admire your ambition, but things like this tread are a huge waste of time. They accomplish nothing, and that's why I call it entertainment. Solutions are to be found at the cusp of innovation, powered by enlightened ideas.

vision wrote:It's nice you want to walk the walk. I would also suggest you spend some of that energy on things that reduce unwanted pregnancies, namely promoting contraception and women's rights, and of course, science and education. Rather than making laws against something (which never works), help create a world where people don't have unwanted pregnancies and have no incentive to get an abortion. It's all about finding solutions to problems outside of legal definitions and legislation.

I agree. Let's just neuter all jews then we won't have to worry about having unwanted non-Aryans around. Then we won't have to worry about useless laws telling the Nazis that they can't murder them.

Your logic is flawed vision. This isn't about solving a problem with technology - this about stopping a whole people group from being marginalized by other groups to the point of mass murder. Science isn't ever going to solve to problem of some people marginalizing others.... social reform could, theoretically, but I don't see it happening. The only way science could solve the problem would be for it to take away people's ability to act of their own volition.

vision wrote:Rather than making laws against something (which never works),

so your saying that Slicks and the Democrats call for more Gun control legislation in the wake of Newtown is folly and a waste of time?

The anti-gun crowd doesn't deserve that much credit, CUDA. In that case It's folly before vision's prognostications even leaves the science-fiction section.

CUDA wrote:

vision wrote:Rather than making laws against something (which never works),

so your saying that Slicks and the Democrats call for more Gun control legislation in the wake of Newtown is folly and a waste of time?

Not a total waste of time, but not where we need to spend the energy. New gun control legislation will have a similar effect to traffic laws, which is some benefit, but not a solution. It is possible that rewritten laws will reduce the number of guns in circulation, and thus, slightly lower the rates of gun violence. That's definitely a good thing considering the marginal trade-off, but again, not a solution. Of course, more laws will likely increase illegal gun sales. However, I don't think new gun laws are comparable to something like prohibition or "the war on drugs," since it appears humans by nature are more apt to experiment and enjoy drugs and alcohol than guns. I bet we could even find data to prove that if we wanted. (I personally don't see a need for owning a handgun, much less an assault rifle.)

To stop this particular brand of gun violence, our culture needs to address its mental health issues. More needs to be done to identify people who are unstable and get them treatment. We need to help them feel safe and loved and strong.

snoopy wrote:Science isn't ever going to solve to problem of some people marginalizing others.... social reform could, theoretically, but I don't see it happening.

It's got nothing to do with science or social reform. Science will eventually be able to save all would-be aborted babies. We are practically there already. The remaining hurdles are not scientific or even sociological, but financial. We can probably fund the science to make it a reality in a mater of decades, but then we have to fund the millions and millions of extra people we bring into the world. So break out your checkbook!

vision wrote:The remaining hurdles are not scientific or even sociological, but financial. We can probably fund the science to make it a reality in a mater of decades, but then we have to fund the millions and millions of extra people we bring into the world. So break out your checkbook!

Regardless, the type of problem that it is is irrelevant, and the impact that it has on us as a society is irrelevant. People deserve the right to life.

vision wrote:We can probably fund the science to make it a reality in a mater of decades, but then we have to fund the millions and millions of extra people we bring into the world. So break out your checkbook!

Financial is already used as a justification for abortion, so you can’t simply pass off the costs to the public.

I don’t really know how you envision this thing working, does a women get pregnant, decide she doesn’t want the child and report to some “removal to tube” station, and simply pass the burden to everyone else, well there would have to be some price paid at that point for the service, and to cover costs into the future. (abortions...errr anti-abortions would become very very expensive)

Or will every woman get the service as a matter of course?

Either way I can see how abortions will still be made based on all of the reasons used today, and many more like eye color or projected intelligence.

Under your system it sounds like abortions will be under the control of lab coats and bureaucrats, instead of the biological parents…not a very good idea…but if you care to actually flesh out how this system will actually work…

You would think our leaders, all of them, would make defining when sentient life begins a high priority. After all it is murder sanctioned by the Supreme Court or else it is a great injustice to have half the congress accusing millions of citizens of murder every year! That is the kind of messy reality that the government should want to clean up right away!

For the anti-abortion crowd it is a matter of life and death literally! Why have they not at least authored a bill that simply defines when life begins? Or have they, I don't know.

For the pro-abortion side it would seem a simple easy way to put the argument to rest. Define when life begins and declare anything the potential mother does before that point to be no one else's business but her own.

I think they all like having the issue to be undecided so they can keep using the other sides position as a threat to keep their voters on the plantation.

Lets petition for a 'social cliff'. If they don't define life by next December 25th the following law automatically goes into effect:
Life begins at the beginning of the third trimester and all current congressmen and president and vice president are all banned for life from serving in the government and banned for life from becoming lobbiests effective immediately.

Spidey wrote:I don’t really know how you envision this thing working, does a women get pregnant, decide she doesn’t want the child and report to some “removal to tube” station, and simply pass the burden to everyone else...

Same as adoption. The only difference is the child spends it's first several months in a incubator. If the pro-life people want the babies to live so bad they shouldn't have a problem the bill. Jut get the law passed.

Spidey wrote:Under your system it sounds like abortions will be under the control of lab coats and bureaucrats, instead of the biological parents…not a very good idea…

But isn't that what the pro-life moment wants? Parents can't decide to terminate a pregnancy?

It's really a win-win situation. Just need the make it a priority and get the funding.

Will, regarding when it begins legally, Roe v. Wade seems to implicitly set that date at no later than viability during the third trimester, since that's the first time that you can only abort to protect the mother's life or health, which seems to be saying that the fetus is a sentient life. There are problems with this though from both sides, with technology now having pushed viability before the third trimester and with the notion of protecting the mother's health having since then been stretched. I'm far from an expert, but that's my understanding of where we currently stand legally as far as a federal definition is concerned, and I invite correction.

The vast majority of the pro-life crowd believes sentient life should legally begin at conception, although some just think Roe v. Wade is too extreme. The pro-choice crowd has people who just want to defend Roe v. Wade but also some who actually think that abortions should be allowed even later. I don't agree with you in that we should pigeonhole either crowd into choosing a date. I think it's fine having a '<' crowd and a '>=' crowd and that being the thing that they all agree on.

Jeff250 wrote:...
I don't agree with you in that we should pigeonhole either crowd into choosing a date. I think it's fine having a '<' crowd and a '>=' crowd and that being the thing that they all agree on.

It seems to me that if every one just agreed that life begins within that window of time then yea, you could leave it kind of ambiguous. But since we have half the population, including a large portion of the actual Congress, claiming an abortion is murder that the responsible thing to do is to clear up the argument so that either the murder stops, or the false allegation of murder stops.

If a bunch of pro lifers were to go around punching pregnant pro abortion women in the stomach causing still births in their second trimester would the pro abortion people feel good about restricting the legal charges to assault? Or would they go along with a manslaughter or murder charge? Can they get behind a legal defense of the claim that the assailants merely caused the potential mothers to lose some tissue?

My guess is they would want some clarity. From my perspective the refusal to solve the debate makes the congress look like selfish cowards.

Interesting thinking Will. while abortion seems to be legal why, if you kill a pregnant woman at any stage of pregnancy, will you be charged with a double homicide?

Will Robinson wrote: ...all current congressmen and president and vice president are all banned for life from serving in the government and banned for life from becoming lobbiests effective immediately.

Can we just do that? Pretty please?

woodchip wrote:Interesting thinking Will. while abortion seems to be legal why, if you kill a pregnant woman at any stage of pregnancy, will you be charged with a double homicide?

Actually, yes you can.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/10/su ... -and-baby/

http://www.lifenews.com/2009/06/05/state-4210/

http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/ki ... ville.html

.

That's the point TC. If the woman didn't want it, it's murder... if the woman did want it, it's tissue... legally. Tell me where there is consistency in that.

snoopy wrote:That's the point TC. If the woman didn't want it, it's murder... if the woman did want it, it's tissue... legally. Tell me where there is consistency in that.

there isn't, but the folks who wrote the law regarding murder of pregnant women wanted to do so in order that folks like you could pose such questions.
They want there to be consistency, along the lines of making abortion murder.

callmeslick wrote:

snoopy wrote:That's the point TC. If the woman didn't want it, it's murder... if the woman did want it, it's tissue... legally. Tell me where there is consistency in that.

there isn't, but the folks who wrote the law regarding murder of pregnant women wanted to do so in order that folks like you could pose such questions.
They want there to be consistency, along the lines of making abortion murder.

It is a valid question. It deserves a straight answer because without one we are either condoning millions of murders each year or we are ruthlessly stigmatizing millions of women each year. I see legislators offering bills designed to deal with Rush Limbaugh's "offensive speech". Where is the outrage at the constant "abortion is murder" speech coming, not just from a blowhard radio guy, but from many members of the Congress? Every member of Congress claims to know exactly when abortion should or shouldn't be allowed but they don't want to pass a law providing the United States with a clear position on that timeline.

If the answer gets carved in stone then they can't cash in on the issue for campaign donations and single issue voters start straying from the plantations.

I tried to answer it. IMO, the legislation declaring double homicide for murdered pregnant women is wrong, and disingenuous.

callmeslick wrote:I tried to answer it. IMO, the legislation declaring double homicide for murdered pregnant women is wrong, and disingenuous.

well I say your stance is a double standard and disingenuous.. you yourself say you don't approve of abortion if the baby is viable. but now you say it's OK to kill a viable baby as long as you kill the mother at the same time.

Whats the difference in that and a late term abortion that you claim to be against.

wrong and murder are two different things.

callmeslick wrote:wrong and murder are two different things.

mur·deredmur·der·ing
Definition of MURDER
transitive verb
1
: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

so your saying that the ONLY difference in Abortion and Murder is one is a legal killing of an individual.

Murder is defined as the planned taking of a life.

both Abortion and Murder are premeditated or planned.

both Abortion and Murder are intended to take of a life.

so it would seem to me that we DO need to define life. because failure to do so is tantamount to Government sanctioned Murder. on the scale of Newtown times 1.3 million a year

geezus, CUDA, you just go around and around the same things. That's why I get so bored with these abortion threads. You reject, out of hand, the standalone viability argument, you insist on calling it murder, with no definition of 'living' individuals. It's tiresome, so don't expect any further response from me in this thread. Read you last post and realize that you have been making the same single point, and trying to get me(and others) to agree with you, without embellishing your reasoning. That isn't debate. That isn't even worth continuing to beat to death.

bull★■◆●

YOU set the parameters of the discussion. YOU said that you don't agree with abortion if the baby is viable. YOU said it not me
Then YOU said it's a double standard to charge someone with 2 murders if they kill a mother and her unborn child. I mentioned the viability in my earlier retort and YOU said it's not the same thing. you keep changing the rules of the game as you go along.