Bye Bye Roe v. Wade

[OCybrManO]

So, DNA is sacred? I'd better stop cutting my hair! Also, you're getting into the controversial nature/nurture area by saying that a person is totally determined by their DNA rather than through a series of life experiences... and, even if it is all in the DNA, there is a big difference between blowing up a building and ripping up a blueprint.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Even let them commit murder on an unborn child? We should put people in jail for such things.

Listen jimmy, you need to define "child", because even rational arguments break down without clearly defined terms.

If your post comparing ejaculation/ovulation to mass murder is anything to go by, this would mean the entire population of the earth would be jailed at puberty.
Obviously you'll need to draw the line somewhere beyond sperm or egg.

Please state where that line is.

If I killed you in your sleep, you would have no knowledge of it and would not feel anything at the time.

This is an inaccurate analogy, not comparable due to the simple fact that adults have more rights than fetuses, for the reason that adults are fully developed, while fetuses are not.

A better analogy would be if the person were born unconscious and stuck in a before being killed, but even that isn't very accurate.
Maybe people should drop the analogies and get into more fact-based arguments, on both sides of the coin.

Please explain the scientific basis for how an early-stage fetus and an an adult man are synonymous in terms of consciousness, because I'm hearing a lot of stuff about how a fetus would be angry at society and having distinct personalities, etc.

Now, I hope these aren't just emotional appeals pulled out of thin air, because that would be trite.

 

[Last One In]

Listen jimmy, you need to define "child", because even rational arguments break down without clearly defined terms.

If your post comparing ejaculation/ovulation to mass murder is anything to go by, this would mean the entire population of the earth would be jailed at puberty.
Obviously you'll need to draw the line somewhere beyond sperm or egg.

Please state where that line is.


This is an inaccurate analogy, not comparable due to the simple fact that adults have more rights than fetuses, for the reason that adults are fully developed, while fetuses are not.

A better analogy would be if the person were born unconscious and stuck in a before being killed, but even that isn't very accurate.
Maybe people should drop the analogies and get into more fact-based arguments, on both sides of the coin.

Please explain the scientific basis for how an early-stage fetus and an an adult man are synonymous in terms of consciousness, because I'm hearing a lot of stuff about how a fetus would be angry at society and having distinct personalities, etc.

Now, I hope these aren't just emotional appeals pulled out of thin air, because that would be trite.

Mech, one can't argue with a person like you because you're so narrow minded. You're asking for concrete facts when neither you nor the other can provide them. Now I don't know the specifics of the birth process, other than the basics(that the sperm and egg unite and form a tiny human being who will grow to an adult if allowed to), but I do know that science can't explain everything. It can't yet look into a person's thoughts except for brain waves. It can't distinguish if there is a soul in the human. so until then, this argument is up in the air. For now, I'm going to implore you to use your logic and realize that were a child not aborted, he/she would grow into an adult with a distinct personality, just like you and me; if he/she were aborted, they would not grow into a full adult and thus would die. Best of luck to you in shaping your views.

 

[OCybrManO]

Mech, one can't argue with a person like you because you're so narrow minded.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

Now I don't know the specifics of the birth process, other than the basics(that the sperm and egg unite and form a tiny human being who will grow to an adult if allowed to)

That's exactly what I thought you might say.

It can't yet look into a person's thoughts except for brain waves.

Not quite... but they have reverse-engineered it to a point where they can generate images of what the person is looking at from brain activity.

It can't distinguish if there is a soul in the human.

So, logically, we must assume that such a magical entity as a soul exists... right?

For now, I'm going to implore you to use your logic and realize that were a child not aborted, he/she would grow into an adult with a distinct personality, just like you and me; if he/she were aborted, they would not grow into a full adult and thus would die.

For now, I'm going to implore you to use your logic and realize that unless you are alive in the sense that you and I are alive (as in, having a brain that gives us consciousness)... you can't die in the same way that we can. You must first have something before you can lose it. As such, death to an embryo is more like death to a fern than death to one of us.

 

[Lemonking]

So, DNA is sacred? I'd better stop cutting my hair! Also, you're getting into the controversial nature/nurture area by saying that a person is totally determined by their DNA rather than through a series of life experiences... and, even if it is all in the DNA, there is a big difference between blowing up a building and ripping up a blueprint.

it takes 28 days until nerves are developed.....so he/she can feel her bones being crsuhed by a vacum cleaner or her body desolved by chemicals....what a ****ing hypocrit you are you whine about the Death sentence,but when it comes 2 babys who are eagerly waiting to great their mother......what a Bone head you are....:angry:

 

[OCybrManO]

That's practically a whole month. Plus, the brain (nerves themselves don't sense pain, they send input to be decoded by the brain) is starting to appear around the 5th week along with some other organs, including the lungs. If you haven't read the whole thread... please do. If you did, you would notice that I already addressed that... and that we're not talking about a fetus that is several months old. So, either catch up with the rest of us or GTFO.

"what a Bone head you are"

Once again: Pot, meet kettle.

EDIT:

IMO, abortion is only wrong once the fetus has the ability to feel pain and/or is conscious of its surroundings... but, because we can't really measure that very well (there are machines to detect fetal brain activity, but they are relatively new and expensive), I would use a conservative estimate of about 5 weeks. At that time, the heart is making its first beats and other organs like the lungs and brain stem are starting to appear. Plus, it gives you 3-4 weeks after you can find out whether you are pregnant or not (1-2 weeks depending on the self-testing method and even less if you get a blood test) to have the procedure done.

 

[Eg.]

For gods sake, as a guy, Im going to hate myself for saying this, but if a girl gets pregnent its the guys fault. In the first place, you should be using some kind of contraceptive to make sure you dont get her preggers, cause unless you WANT A KID, you should take every step not to have one.

If at any point, the chick gets pregnent WHEN YOU DIDNT MEAN HER TOO, a guy has the responsibility of stepping back, and supporting her in any descions(sp) she makes. At that point, the guy has for some reason or another, messed up. Balls out of your court.

While some people argue against SAFE AND MEDICALLY SOUND ABORTIONS as if they were the work of the devil, I find it equaly toubling if people argue against contrceptives, as they LOWER THE STATISTICAL NEED FOR ABORTIONS.

Now, treating human tissue, one way or another, as if it were trash is nothing new. Roughly 80% of all cancer research, and virus research, is carried out on the cancerous overies of a lady that died in 1951. Her STILL FUNCTIONING OVERIES still produce eggs, and the overie tissue itself is grown and harvested to do life saving research. Is that woman technically dead, and are we killing her potential children? No. Clumps of cells do not equal life.

If we limit abortions, we limit the scope of general medical research and ethics, thus by restricting one medical practice THAT RAISES THE QUALITY OF LIFE, then we threaten others.

Stem cells, really quick: The stem cells harvested from embryos, and fetuses, are of a higher quality and quantity that those from adults. If we say that an embryo is a full, living human, than stem cells have the same potential. WEL GOODBYE TO ALL THAT RESEARCH.

Lastly, Im a staunch conservative. Republican values HO! But im also a biotech student, and I have learned the dangers of backward thinking, such as the LIMITING OF RIGHTS

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Mech, one can't argue with a person like you because you're so narrow minded. You're asking for concrete facts when neither you nor the other can provide them.

How narrow-minded of me to demand a factual basis for your arguments!

The systems of law and of government in both the united states and canada are secular by design.
Asking for secular facts is not unreasonable in that regard, since without secular facts the system breaks down into a pile of rhetoric.

Now, your refusal to use facts would invalidate your argument on its own, but let's look at what else you have to say.

"Now I don't know the specifics of the birth process, other than the basics(that the sperm and egg unite and form a tiny human being who will grow to an adult if allowed to)"

Incorrect. This is due to the fact that the cells do not just instantly become a 'tiny human' on contact.

I would define humanity as having some level of mental ability and/or the ability to survive outside of a mother.

The nervous system of a fetus does not adequately develop until somewhere around the sixth month of pregnancy.
The fetus does not even have the ability to feel until approximately the 14th week of pregnancy.
Also, the fetus cannot survive until it has completed the 28th week of gestation.

So, in that regard, I think it's pretty clear that facts do support the 12th week as an adequate cutoff point, as the fetus has no mind or independant body at that point, being more a part of the mother.

"but I do know that science can't explain everything. It can't yet look into a person's thoughts except for brain waves. It can't distinguish if there is a soul in the human. so until then, this argument is up in the air."

I'm sorry that science cannot detect 'souls', but they also cannot detect space ghosts and other things.

If we had to just give up on everything that might have a soul, the world would break apart.
What if your hamburger has a soul? Stop eating!
What if your computer has a soul? Stop typing on it!
Etc.

The point is that you are making a theological argument based on what you admit is very limited knowledge.
That is all fine, but it has no place influencing the legal system, especially when it is contradicted by facts.

"For now, I'm going to implore you to use your logic and realize that were a child not aborted, he/she would grow into an adult with a distinct personality, just like you and me; if he/she were aborted, they would not grow into a full adult and thus would die."

Again, you are arguing with beliefs.
Using that same logic, you are preventing a child from living every time you don't have sex with a woman.
A couple together for ten years could churn out well over 13 kids. But, instead, people only have around two or three in a lifetime. What about the other ten?
They are being prevented from existing!
That doesn't constitute murder though.

In fact, it would be infinitely worse to actually go out and devote every moment of your life to the sole pursuit of reproduction. Were everyone to do that, the world would be hugely overpopulated, resources would go down and infant mortality would skyrocket.

Obviously, the harsh reality is that there are cases where a birth can be an intensely negative thing. Perhaps the mother cannot afford to raise a child. Perhaps the couple loathe children. Etc.
These are not environments where one would want a child to be born.
Is it moral for the government to force parenthood onto those unwilling?

There is the further problem of the alternative. If there are parents who absolutely cannot/will not care for future children as well as possible, and abortion is banned as a choice, the sole remaining option is adoption.

Now, can mandatory adoption be considered moral?
Because that's essentially the case here. When contraception fails in this scenario, children are taken by the state.

Those are the logical and scientific reasons for why I consider the choice to be the most positive of possible scenarios.

I'd prefer flawless contraception, but that is not going to happen.

 

[JNightshade]

Originally Posted by The One Guy I Actually Agree With Here
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

QFTMFT.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I am not a kettle. ;(

 

[Last One In]

I'd prefer flawless contraception, but that is not going to happen.

Maybe we could cut off every newborn's coin purse we wouldn't have to worry about contraception or abortion. Doubt anyone would be having children then. Anyway, when your countrys are full of bitter cynics who had bitter abortions, while the US is fruitful and joyful, you guys can come over and share in some of that joy if you ever feel like it. Plus we got those Mexicans, who are usually catholic, and are usually against abortion. They're always a merrry bunch. I welcome people like that to this country. Anyway, if you ever feel like leaving your dark, cynical, lifeless, soulless countrys for something a bit brighter, don't hesitate to drop by.

 

[Sulkdodds]

That's such a compelling argument. Canada is dark and soulless while the US is...'fruitful and joyful'.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, but they've got "those mexicans".

I don't know where the mental leap from "condoms should work better" to "mandatory castration" came from, but it went straight off a cliff and died on lack of impact.

But I am glad that there are no abortions in America!

Canada:
Number of abortions in 2002: 105,154
Percentage of population: 0.33%

United States:
Number of abortions in 2002: 1,293,000
Percentage of population: 0.44%

Wait, that's more - not less.
in fact, of the numbers listed on Wikipedia, that was the highest amount by far, as well as the second highest in terms of population ratio.

Oops, I used facts again!

 

[Last One In]

But once we ban it that number will drop significantly

 

[Mechagodzilla]

But until then, the US is a hellhole?

Come on, can't you see you're acting just a little petulant for someone with no real rationale behind his arguments?


You keep dodging the fact that you want to force a catholic belief onto the entire nation just because it 'sounds nicer'.
Please explain why a belief should be forced on the population when it is not supported by fact.

 

[Last One In]

But until then, the US is a hellhole?

Come on, can't you see you're acting just a little petulant for someone with no real rationale behind his arguments?


You keep dodging the fact that you want to force a catholic belief onto the entire nation just because it 'sounds nicer'.
Please explain why a belief should be forced on the population when it is not supported by fact.

The fact is that abortion kills people and we as a nation cannot promote that.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I've clearly demonstrated that that is not a fact.

It is, at best, speculative, because you cannot define either life or humanity to an adequate degree.

You can't just say "the fact is" without presenting actual facts.

 

[Eg.]

Embryo != live, sentient human

Do cancerous overies=live woman?

 

[satch919]

The fact is that abortion kills people and we as a nation cannot promote that.

A war is being fought as we speak based on fictitous reasons, so I don't think we're in any position to tell other people to stop killing things.

Perhaps you're looking for a utopian society. Guess what, you're not going to find it here or any other place on this earth. Accept other's ideas and be glad you and the rest of society has options and choices.

 

[Last One In]

well, I guess i'll have to live by example

 

[Solaris]

Or you could just argue your point.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Indeed:

Get off your ass and do something.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

well, I guess i'll have to live by example

Yay!

This isn't sarcasm. I am seriously impressed that someone has finally come up with the correct way to deal with church-state separation.

 

[Last One In]

Yay!

This isn't sarcasm. I am seriously impressed that someone has finally come up with the correct way to deal with church-state separation.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I say that I am a christian, but I can't remember the last time I actually did something that truly helped someone. I always go around preaching about how bad abortion is, but I have no idea how it is. i've never even met a person who has had an abortion. My views sound pretty good to me though, and I find truth in them. You may be of a different opinion, and if you find truth in what you believe then more power to you.