DescentBB

Ferno wrote:ethical standards, moral standards, whatever. it doesn't matter.

fact is, it's not your decision. you have no say in the matter.

Nice to see that point fly right over your head.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:That's not what the courts say when they make men pay for it

Can't have it both ways

so, if the man agrees to the woman getting the fetus aborted, all is right, correct? This would change the whole debate, and the proposed restrictive legislation. Once again, limiting myself to personal experience within my circle of friends and acquaintences, ALL the abortions I am aware of were the product of joint consent(albeit reluctant or regretful in many cases).

I wasn't saying that.

Ferno says it's the woman's choice get over it.... I say if it's the woman's choice then when she chooses to have the child, then that was her choice, and she has no recourse for support for the child from the father, "if" the father didn't want the child. but again it's all about what the INDIVIDUAL wants with no care to those around them, and how those choices effect others.
THIS IS LIFE
A joy for some. an inconvenience for others. and anyway you cut it, a MASSIVE responsibility.
but make no mistake the choices that are made affect us forever. it will irrevocably change it for ALL involved. one group will have to deal with the burden and expense of raising a child that they didn't plan on. the other will end up terminated... DEAD....with no life. and those that choose the second option will have to live with the potential guilt and many times the shame for those that chose to end that life. either way the choices are not easy or good. but that's why our choices in life have consequences. unfortunately society wants to try and teach us otherwise. they want to refuse to accept that responsibility. because it's all about YOU. it's about what YOU want and only that. that is a self centered line of thinking not taking into account others. too many take the "quick" way out because of panic or convenience, and a panicked decision usually isn't a good one.

Ferno wrote:This is a general statement to all anti-abortioners:

Is it your body? no.

Is it your decision? no

Are you their medical doctor? no

then stay the hell out of their affairs. your rationalizations, filibusters and pontifications are irrelevant. you wouldn't want someone telling you what to do, so what right do you have to tell them what to do?

It all comes back to the definition of an individual human life.

If the thing inside the woman is just some tissue, or a part of her body, then you have no argument form me. She can do whatever she wants with it. Kill it quickly, torture it to death.... I don't particularly care. The argument is moot at that point.

If it's an individual human life, then the woman shouldn't have any more right to murder the human inside of her than I do to murder my neighbor.

(As TG said)

Top Gun wrote:

Ferno wrote:ethical standards, moral standards, whatever. it doesn't matter.

fact is, it's not your decision. you have no say in the matter.

Nice to see that point fly right over your head.

Actually your point means SFA. Though you are a kid and you think it means something, in time you'll realize it's not the case.

The Canadian government has had this debate months ago, and they've decided that if it's not your personal business, if you're not directly involved, you have zero say in what another person can do with their own unborn child. If you understand it, great. If not, history is going to leave you behind.

And that isn't going to change.

If it's an individual human life, then the woman shouldn't have any more right to murder the human inside of her than I do to murder my neighbor.

LOL. this analogy is so scary it's funny. See previous passage.

Ferno wrote:

If it's an individual human life, then the woman shouldn't have any more right to murder the human inside of her than I do to murder my neighbor.

LOL. this analogy is so scary it's funny. See previous passage.

I think I can appreciate your objections to that analogy. How about this one?

If it's an individual human life [i.e. citizen protected by the state], then the woman shouldn't have any more right to murder the human inside of her than she does to murder her 2-year old.

again: the problem here is you're all attaching a rather scary word to what a person decides to do with their fetus. This has the obvious effect of influencing someone in a major decision that they should not be influenced by at all. In short, you all want to control what they decide to do with their fetus based on YOUR religion and based on what YOU think what constitutes a person.

but I fear this is not going to register at all, so have fun with your judgments. I know if I were to be involved in this sort of thing, if it was my wife that was being told not to do it because "abortion is murder", i'd tell you all to look past your own noses because it's not your decision to make and you can just kiss my ass.

Okay, I'll drop the word "murder". Let's try again:

If it's an individual human life [i.e. citizen protected by the state], then the woman shouldn't have any more right to terminate the fetus inside of her than she does to terminate her 2-year old.

I assume that your reply will be that you make a distinction between a life outside the womb and one inside it. If that's the case, can you give me a reason for that distinction? What is it about being in the womb that makes the life not worthy of state protection? (Or to borrow Jeff250's question mechanic, what exactly has changed the second/moment the newborn exits the womb that should change its legal status?)

Foil your fighting a loosing battle Ferno will never admit the hypocrisy of his position. this is MUCH more than a woman's right to choose. this affects multiple people. the Mother, Father, the unborn Child........and so on. to him it's only about the woman. he's wrong,

I think we can all agree on this...descent is too Y chromosome

Foil wrote:Okay, I'll drop the word "murder". Let's try again:

If it's an individual human life [i.e. citizen protected by the state], then the woman shouldn't have any more right to terminate the fetus inside of her than she does to terminate her 2-year old.

I assume that your reply will be that you make a distinction between a life outside the womb and one inside it. If that's the case, can you give me a reason for that distinction? What is it about being in the womb that makes the life not worthy of state protection?

I'll save him the opportunity. It might be because life inside the womb is not INDEPENDENT, in other words, that life is completely non functional without the bodily functions of the mother. Thus, I would turn the question around and ask, why(since it is a new concept historically)should the State protections be extended to a fetus?

(Or to borrow Jeff250's question mechanic, what exactly has changed the second/moment the newborn exits the womb that should change its legal status?)

at that point, it becomes viable independent of the mother.

callmeslick wrote:...why(since it is a new concept historically)should the State protections be extended to a fetus?

It's not a matter of "extending" state protection for fetuses; those protections existed and were taken away.

Regarding the why, it's simply because it is an individual human life. Claims that the state shouldn't protect citizens because of who they are owned/carried by or dependent on, is a huge violation of human rights, IMO.

callmeslick wrote:

Foil wrote:...What is it about being in the womb that makes the life not worthy of state protection?

...because life inside the womb is not INDEPENDENT...

So... the life is not worthy of state protection because it is dependent on another to survive?

That is a bizarre rationale, but I'll humor you. Would you apply the same "protected only if it's independent" to other dependent individuals (say, a conjoined twin)?

callmeslick wrote:

(Or to borrow Jeff250's question mechanic, what exactly has changed the second/moment the newborn exits the womb that should change its legal status?)

at that point, it becomes viable independent of the mother.

Technically, a fetus can be viable up to a few months prior to full-term. While late-term abortions are generally a rare occurrence, does that fact change things?

Human babies are born premature because of brain size, and remain dependant on the mother (or other care giver) for a very long time after birth, using the term “independent” in this context is laughable.

The only difference between unborn and born for all intents is location, that being outside the womb to allow for proper brain development.

Which also has a huge bearing on the “personhood” argument.

Foil wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...why(since it is a new concept historically)should the State protections be extended to a fetus?

It's not a matter of "extending" state protection for fetuses; those protections were taken away, and should be returned.

when were they ever a matter of tort law?

Regarding the why, it's simply because it is an individual human life. Claims that the state shouldn't protect citizens because of who they are owned/carried by or dependent on, is a huge violation of human rights, IMO.

you're entitled to your opinion. Mine differs. I also don't wish to see rights and State protection extended to animals and plants, although some do.

So... the life is not worthy of state protection because it is dependent on another to survive?

since when should the state be getting involved with the protection of what is essentially a bodily organ within the woman's body? Really, you make it seem like any moment, the fetus is going to leap up, run around the room and go out and work for a living. The woman carrying that child has fully responsibility for all decisions made about her body, and the fetus, until very late term is wholly incorporated within her body. I find the whole bizarre notion of State involvement repugnant.

That is a bizarre rationale, but I'll humor you. Would you apply the same "protected only if it's independent" to other dependent individuals (say, a conjoined twin)?

the difference is, that they are dependant on the care of others, but not solely dependant on the bodily functions of one individual. So no, I would not use the same criteria.

Spidey wrote:Human babies are born premature because of brain size, and remain dependant on the mother (or other care giver) for a very long time after birth, using the term “independent” in this context is laughable.

maybe to you, but I can sure see the difference between being dependant on others, versus dependant on one individual's body functions.

The only difference between unborn and born for all intents is location, that being outside the womb to allow for proper brain development.

Which also has a huge bearing on the “personhood” argument.

this whole 'personhood' argument is yet another try to circumvent centuries of understanding the situation differently, and common law based upon that.
There are massive biological differences between life in a womb and life outside, so making it simply a matter of 'location' is ludicrous.

Damn, I can’t seem to find “fetus” listed anywhere under internal organs of the female body.

Spidey wrote:Damn, I can’t seem to find “fetus” listed anywhere under internal organs of the female body.

I implied that functionality was similar, not that the fetus was a true organ. You know that, had nothing to offer to counter the argument, so you blabber up the above. Lotsa help, there.

That’s utter BS, because if you look back at some of the other posts in this thread, you would have seen, that I already pointed out the female body considers a fetus a parasite…so much for your “body part” argument.

And, just what function does that organ have? LOL

Spidey wrote:That’s utter BS, because if you look back at some of the other posts in this thread, you would have seen, that I already pointed out the female body considers a fetus a parasite…so much for your “body part” argument.

And, just what function does that organ have? LOL

the body does NOT consider a fetus a parasite. You were wrong, and I chose not to comment. The immune system doesn't reject it, the endocrine system allows for development of blood flow and nurture. The fetus is, and I am not suggesting otherwise, a special circumstance. The only real point I wanted to inject into this ongoing argument is the one I made above to Foil: Historically, no separate rights are given to the unborn. For centuries, women have terminated pregnancies, and it was never deemed illegal to do so. Dangerous, of course, but not illegal. This whole recent trend about legislation of morality(recent in the sense of post 1920 and the prohibition thing) is a terrible misuse of state authority, and it appalls me that some(predominantly male) members of society feel they have the obligation to foist their morality upon others. Historically, only moral issues which threaten civil society as a whole(murder, theft, etc) were subject to State protection. So it should remain.

callmeslick wrote:

Foil wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...why(since it is a new concept historically)should the State protections be extended to a fetus?

It's not a matter of "extending" state protection for fetuses; those protections existed, and were taken away.

when were they ever a matter of tort law?

Before Roe vs. Wade, a number of laws (both implict and explicit) protected prenatal life.

callmeslick wrote:I also don't wish to see rights and State protection extended to animals and plants, although some do.

Neither do I. Animals and plants are not citizens. Don't put words in my mouth.

callmeslick wrote:...essentially a bodily organ within the woman's body?

When you can point to a bodily organ with different DNA, and entirely separate nervous / musculoskeletal / circulatory / etc. systems, I'll take this point more seriously.

callmeslick wrote:Really, you make it seem like any moment, the fetus is going to leap up, run around the room and go out and work for a living.

I never said or implied any such thing. I've been pointing out flaws in these artificial distinctions about "dependence".

As Spidey mentioned, dependence goes well beyond birth; do you still insist on that rationale, which would mean for example, that a 2-month old fully-dependent newborn shouldn't be protected, if its caregiver decided to end its life?

callmeslick wrote:Historically, no separate rights are given to the unborn. For centuries, women have terminated pregnancies, and it was never deemed illegal to do so. Dangerous, of course, but not illegal.

Where did you get that idea? It's incorrect, and it would imply that Roe vs. Wade legally did nothing.

callmeslick wrote:Historically, only moral issues which threaten civil society as a whole(murder, theft, etc) were subject to State protection. So it should remain.

Agreed. And the question remains, is taking the life of a fetus (abortion) equivalent to taking the life of a protected citizen? If so, then it falls under the definition you just stated.

Foil wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Historically, no separate rights are given to the unborn. For centuries, women have terminated pregnancies, and it was never deemed illegal to do so. Dangerous, of course, but not illegal.

Where did you get that idea? It's incorrect, and it would imply that Roe vs. Wade legally did nothing.

Roe v Wade was not, in any way, about the legality of abortion. It was about providing access to it for those involved on the grounds of privacy rights.
To wit:
State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
My comment was that such legislation around moral issues is historically very recent. I qualified that as post 1920, well before Roe and the state laws which triggered it.

Agreed. And the question remains, is taking the life of a fetus (abortion) equivalent to taking the life of a protected citizen? If so, then it falls under the definition you just stated.

No, it doesn't. A fetus is not a protected citizen, and I am arguing that one NEVER should have such status.

You’re right slick, the fetus is not a parasite or a body part…it’s another gard darn freakin human being!!

Try arguing with that definition!

Still waiting for the function of that organ…

Spidey wrote:You’re right slick, the fetus is not a parasite or a body part…it’s another gard darn freakin human being!!

Try arguing with that definition!

Still waiting for the function of that organ…

I don't hold fetuses to be human beings, holding that definition for independant, viable, outside-the-body individuals. So, yes, I will argue with your definition. And, on that point, we aren't going to come to some point of agreement, so the question becomes whose definition should define our laws for all citizens? And my question becomes why should men be involved in the deciding?

Foil wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Foil wrote:...What is it about being in the womb that makes the life not worthy of state protection?

...because life inside the womb is not INDEPENDENT...

So... the life is not worthy of state protection because it is dependent on another to survive?

That is a bizarre rationale, but I'll humor you. Would you apply the same "protected only if it's independent" to other dependent individuals (say, a conjoined twin)?

take it even further, what about quadriplegics. or those in an iron Lung.

neither example,CUDA, relies on the biological functionality of a single individual for every aspect of their lives.

callmeslick wrote:neither example,CUDA, relies on the biological functionality of a single individual for every aspect of their lives.

That’s an odd rationality for deciding if something has the right to live or not.

Either you have a good reason for an abortion or you don’t.

so babies as young as 20weeks can survive outside the womb without " biological functionality of a single individual" but we still abort later then that. your argument is on shaky ground.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:neither example,CUDA, relies on the biological functionality of a single individual for every aspect of their lives.

That’s an odd rationality for deciding if something has the right to live or not.

Either you have a good reason for an abortion or you don’t.

right. And, since I am an individual, my reasons would count only in consultation with the woman carrying the fetus. Not, as some of you suggest, for carrying my 'reasons' to cover every member of the society. I would prefer to see personal decisions remain personal, both for women(or couples) contemplating abortion, and physicians choosing to provide medically safe abortion methods.

and, CUDA, just become some babies can survive, doesn't mean that they are doing so at the time of termination. That said, beyond imminent danger to the woman, I have a problem with later term abortions. Most folks do. Very few such decisions are based on simple reasoning like inability to bring a child up. Wouldn't you agree?

callmeslick wrote:and, CUDA, just become some babies can survive, doesn't mean that they are doing so at the time of termination.

no it doesn't. but one thing is certain. ALL babies aborted WILL die

That said, beyond imminent danger to the woman, I have a problem with later term abortions. Most folks do. Very few such decisions are based on simple reasoning like inability to bring a child up. Wouldn't you agree?

tell that to Ferno he'll just says STFU it's none of your business.
the issue is where do you draw the line. they are saving babies younger and younger every day. today it's 20 weeks. tomorrow they might be Logan's run and be in incubators never having Biological contact with another individual. where is that line?

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:and, CUDA, just become some babies can survive, doesn't mean that they are doing so at the time of termination.

no it doesn't. but one thing is certain. ALL babies aborted WILL die

no ★■◆●? Who knew?


Look, it's clear that this circular argument will change nothing, nor anyone's point of view. Once you reach for the far-fetched hypotheticals, to my mind,
you are grasping at straws. We aren't going to agree on this, but I'm not playing that 'what if' game. What I will do is fight, with every political tool at my disposal, for the right to prevent folks from imposing their moral views on others. And, before one of you zealots comes back with 'current law imposes a morality upon me.....etc', let me point out that each and every one of you is perfectly free to reject abortion as an option in your own households. Let that choice remain a free one for all of us.

Ok, since you brought that up, it has never been my intention to argue the morality of abortion, nor do I have any intention of fighting to restrict it. So there is no way I fit into any “zealot” category.

My point in these abortion threads from the very start, has always been to dismiss some of the ridiculous reasoning on this issue. (on both sides)

Such as a fetus being a body part…lol

Or, life begins at conception.

fair enough, Spidey.

I think Cuda brings up an interesting point. As science grows more and more advanced, what if they are able to grow children in synthetic wombs? Are they just property at that point or at what point would they gain personhood and protections? If the mother has the right to terminate at anytime the child is dependant on her to mature, where do you draw the line for test tube babies?

Your getting too deep flip, I’m still trying to figure out why it would be any more my business if a women kills her baby after it’s born, then before.

it's not.
it's either life or it isn't. in a matter of seconds the baby goes from a parasite to a citizen with rights. and it's not because of a change in biology. it's because of a change in residence.

slick wrote:at that point, it becomes viable independent of the mother.

define viable. a new born still must be taken care of. it must be fed, kept warm, changed. it is still totally dependent on it's mother or some individual or it will die. so what is the difference.

vi·a·ble (v-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

it seems to me that by the definition of the word ALL fetuses are viable.why is it that it just has to be outside the womb to be considered viable. it seems that the conditions do not change.. it is still dependent on someone for survival.

I still stand by my choice position. 99% of all abortions are convenience abortion. not medical reason abortions.

this is no different then the slavery issue. they justified slavery by saying the black were less then human. they did the same thing with the Jews during the holocaust, they called them subhuman. we are doing the same thing with babies we have lowered their status to subhuman so we can control and kill them without remorse or guilt

CUDA wrote:

slick wrote:at that point, it becomes viable independent of the mother.

define viable. a new born still must be taken care of. it must be fed, kept warm, changed. it is still totally dependent on it's mother or some individual or it will die. so what is the difference.

vi·a·ble (v-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

it seems to me that by the definition of the word ALL fetuses are viable.why is it that it just has to be outside the womb to be considered viable. it seems that the conditions do not change.. it is still dependent on someone for survival.

SOMEONE can be anyone. Prior to birth, the fetus is SOLELY, COMPLETELY dependent on the biological functionality of ONE INDIVIDUAL.
Sorry about the damned caps, but I thought I have already made this distinction more than clear to a reasonable person.

I still stand by my choice position. 99% of all abortions are convenience abortion. not medical reason abortions.

do you have a shred of data to back this up? Of course you don't.......

this is no different then the slavery issue. they justified slavery by saying the black were less then human. they did the same thing with the Jews during the holocaust, they called them subhuman. we are doing the same thing with babies we have lowered their status to subhuman so we can control and kill them without remorse or guilt

this is no different than complete nonsense. It's a personal choice issue, involving one family. ONE.It isn't like I, or anyone that I have ever heard is suggesting that abortion be mandatory, or even suggesting that it is some sort of perfect choice. Still, it is a personal decision that should be made by each family, as they see fit. Their PRIVATE and difficult decision should be theirs to make, without some sanctimonious twits getting in the way with their high and mighty moral proclamations.

He's pretty close Slick.

Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

Source: Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by:The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online:

the overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic497 ... z2EVDlWHDa

thanks for the data. I figured closer to 10% not a matter of convenience. Data seems to be 5-7%(some of the 'others' may not be matters of convenience, so I split the difference. Still 5 to 7 times CUDA's claim.