Abortion??? anyone??

[palerider]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

This thread avoids the elephant in the room.
Some try to frame the opponents argument by insisting that this only a legal argument not a religious one. However, the intensity, emotion, and anger over what are just legal definitions imply that there is something more than just a legal argument. If this were just a discussion of the legal interpretation of when a person attains legal status, it would not have the elements of emotion found in these posts by pro-life advocates.

We had a civil war over slavery which was a legal argument. I understand how badly you want this to be a religious argument since it would make your argument as valid as any other. Unfortunately....

That being said, an embryo is not a human being, it is an embryo. If an embryo was a human being, it would be called a human being instead of an embryo. A fetus is not a person, it is a fetus. If a fetus was a person, it would be called a person not a fetus.

That being said, you have proved that you don't have a very good background in the biological sciences.

"the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.)

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, vii.

Embryo, teenager, blastocyst, infant, fetus, child, zygote, toddler, blastomere, old geezer. All are simply nouns that we use to describe the same thing at various stages of its development. That thing is a human being.

I do encourage you to provide some credible science to support your outlandish claim that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being.

Fertility clinics that provide in vitro fertilization services have hundreds of frozen fertilized human eggs in storage. Pro-lifers would have use believe that these are humans held hostage indefinitely (and some destroyed or "murdered),what must certainly is without their permission. Nevertheless, there is no pro-life movement that is bringing legal suit to free them. If the argument is a strictly legal one, why no habeas corpus?

Because at present, the law of the land is based on an eroneous assumption that unborns are not living human beings. The assumption was admitted by the court. They freely admitted to making a decision while in a state of uncertainty and in doing so violated their judicial and ethical responsibility to not act in a state of uncertainty when great damage may be done. Over 40 million human beings have died in this country alone as a result of that assumption.

An observation: As far as I know, no Christian religion thinks that an unborn that dies goes to hell (Catholics believe that they go to "Limbo" I think.). If that be the case, it would seem logical that abortion would be an advantage inasmuch as it would be an automatic escape from the possibility of going to hell. And, life is so short it is insignificant to the length of time a "soul" is going to spend in eternity. It follows then, to be aborted instead of born would be a huge advantage for a "soul". So, why the drama?

Again, if this were a religious discussion, your opinion would be as valid as anyone elses. It isn't though, and you aren't going to be able to make it one. I do invite you to participate in the scientific and legal discussion that is taking place.

 

[dahermit]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Again, if this were a religious discussion, your opinion would be as valid as anyone elses. It isn't though, and you aren't going to be able to make it one. I do invite you to participate in the scientific and legal discussion that is taking place.

Here you are: "...the law of the land is based on an... assumption that unborns are not living human beings..." This is the law of the land. This is a legal argument about what is taking place. Now, why do you think that it evokes such an emotional response in you?

 

[palerider]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Here you are: "...the law of the land is based on an... assumption that unborns are not living human beings..." This is the law of the land. This is a legal argument about what is taking place. Now, why do you think that it evokes such an emotional response in you?

It evokes a response in me in the same manner as the court deciding that blacks were not human beings and therefore may be owned as property and worked like animals would have. It evokes a response in me in the same manner as the court deciding that your property may not only be taken and used for public purposes but can also be taken from you and given to other individuals who can generate more property taxes than you. It evokes a response in me in the same manner as if the court decided that you, personally, were not a human being and therefore not entitled to any human rights.

It is an issue of human beings being denied their most basic human rights. Again, I know how badly you want this to be a religious or moral argument, so your views will be as valid as all others, but again, alas, it is not and therefore yours are not because you can't support them with anything even approaching credible science, or the law.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

When a person dies are they a human being?

 

[palerider]

When a person dies are they a human being?

Of course. Have you never taken a course in archaeology or seen a program on TV dealing with archaeology? Do they ever suggest that the human bones they were finding belonged to some other species? Or that they were human beings before they died but "turned into" something else after their death?

A human being is what you are. It is what you were on the day you were concieved, it is what you are today, and what you will be after you die. This isn't rocket science and I am not quite sure what it is that is giving you so much trouble.

You are the same individual human being today as you were on the day you were concieved. You have grown and matured (?) but any second year lab student, if given a cell from you way back then and one today could quite easily state with no doubt at all that the cells came from the same individual human being. You didn't come from a zygote. You, personally were a zygote. You didn't come from an embryo, or a fetus either. You personally were both an embryo and a fetus. You with a capital Y.

You can trace your life back to a singular point in time and no further. Your life began when the fertilization of your mother's egg by your father's sperm was complete. You can go no further back in time because before that, you, with a capital "Y" did not exist. From that moment forward, however, you have existed and your life has unfolded to this very moment.

The only thing you are today that you weren't before you were born is older and more mature. You weren't some other sort of creature who turned into a human being. You have been a human being all along. Sorry if that shocks you, but it is simply the way it is. Hard science verifies it and I defy you to provide some credible science that disputes it.

 

[dahermit]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

It evokes a response in me in the same manner as the court deciding that blacks were not human beings and therefore may be owned as property and worked like animals would have. It evokes a response in me in the same manner as the court deciding that your property may not only be taken and used for public purposes but can also be taken from you and given to other individuals who can generate more property taxes than you. It evokes a response in me in the same manner as if the court decided that you, personally, were not a human being and therefore not entitled to any human rights.

It is an issue of human beings being denied their most basic human rights. Again, I know how badly you want this to be a religious or moral argument, so your views will be as valid as all others, but again, alas, it is not and therefore yours are not because you can't support them with anything even approaching credible science, or the law.

Again you have presented an eloquent and convincing argument. I am very close to being convinced that you are, as you have stated, just expressing your righteous outrage at Roe v. Wade and you are as outraged at the other erroneous and odorous supreme court rulings and your passion and motivation are not religious based. You have been prolific in posting about the abortion issue...now if you would please point to where you have been posting as prolifically about the other court issues that you have listed above, then I will be convinced. You can start with your posts concerning the abuse of Eminent Domain.

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

abuse of Eminent Domain.

Its an example of where the "Greater Good" trumps an Individual's Rights. Our Rights were not meant to be this conditional and entirely at the whim of Government but that's exactly what has happened...

People have either forgotten, or haven't yet realized, that the "Greater Good" is the destroyer of Individual Liberty and the only way to guarantee the latter is by rejecting the former.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

So if a dead person is a human being do pro-lifers rant on about not killing them?

 

[palerider]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Again you have presented an eloquent and convincing argument. I am very close to being convinced that you are, as you have stated, just expressing your righteous outrage at Roe v. Wade and you are as outraged at the other erroneous and odorous supreme court rulings and your passion and motivation are not religious based. You have been prolific in posting about the abortion issue...now if you would please point to where you have been posting as prolifically about the other court issues that you have listed above, then I will be convinced. You can start with your posts concerning the abuse of Eminent Domain.

Personally, I couldn't possibly care less whether you believe me or not and I am certainly not going to enter a conversation for the purpose of convincing you.

I focus on abortion because it has resulted in over 40 million deaths since the court made its decision. When the death toll as the result of the eminent domain decision rises above zero, let me know and I will split off an appropriate amount of time relative to the death toll as a result of roe v wade.

The fact that there is no religious content in my argument should be enough to convince a rational person. The fact that it doesn't convince you, even though I have posted, as you say prolifically without resorting to articles of faith speaks to your cognitive faculties.

I have posted quite a bit on other topics as well. A simple search will prove that I have devoted a fairly large amount of time to other subjects and you will find no overt religious discussion there either unless the subject was in some way specifically religious as in the discussions between lilly and myself on islam.

Again, I understand how badly you would like for this to be a religious discussion. Your arguments would have equal footing with my own but since this is not a religious discussion, either jump in and test your arguments against the realities as they exist, or fly away and try to make someone elses arguments into a religious discussion.

 

[palerider]

So if a dead person is a human being do pro-lifers rant on about not killing them?

You really aren't able to put together a rational thought are you? Like I said darwin; you have brought a knife to an intellectual gunfight.

 

[palerider]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Its an example of where the "Greater Good" trumps an Individual's Rights. Our Rights were not meant to be this conditional and entirely at the whim of Government but that's exactly what has happened...

People have either forgotten, or haven't yet realized, that the "Greater Good" is the destroyer of Individual Liberty and the only way to guarantee the latter is by rejecting the former.

Reaching such a realization would require critical thinking and alas, critical thinking isn't somethng that the newer generations are learning in school. They are being indoctrinated to accept what they are told and critical thinking and questioning the dogma that they are asked to take in a spoonfull at a time lands them in some sort of trouble.

Just look at the vast majority of modern liberal argument here, and on other boards and much to my dismay, a fair percentage of conservative argument. Critical thinking and conclusions based on any lengthy consideration of a subject are mostly absent.

 

[dahermit]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

...either jump in and test your arguments against the realities as they exist, or fly away and try to make someone elses arguments into a religious discussion.

It is very apparent to me that you have a great advantage over me in knowledge, intelligence and debating skills. And, I am trying my very best to understand, and I appreciate your patience. But, if I fly away, who will read your posts?

So, let me summerize...so if I understand your position, your argument is only a legal one, not religious. Therefore, if the medical people started referring in the literature to fetuses less than say, eight weeks as only potential human life and the constitution were amended to say a fetus only would attain human rights after that eight weeks, then you would have no problem with abortions before the term of eight weeks?

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

So, let me summerize...so if I understand your position, your argument is only a legal one, not religious. Therefore, if the medical people started referring in the literature to fetuses less than say, eight weeks as only potential human life and the constitution were amended to say a fetus only would attain human rights after that eight weeks, then you would have no problem with abortions before the term of eight weeks?

Sorry to interrupt but I wanted to chime in with something:

All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It doesn't say we are "Born" equal, it doesn't say we attain equality at some arbitrary date after conception - We are Created equal, at conception. Its at conception that we became Individuals and its at that point of conception that we, as Individuals, obtain the "Unalienable Rights" of Man.

Science supports the fact that we are Individuals at the point of Conception... We don't become Individuals at some later date during gestation. Thus, as somone who has no religious beliefs, my opposition to Abortion is not from a theological standpoint but from one of the belief that Individual Rights are supreme.

 

[bododie]

Abortion is a woman's choice. Period. Using common sense and not getting pregnant before one is ready, is a woman's responsibility.

 

[dahermit]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Sorry to interrupt but I wanted to chime in with something:

All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It doesn't say we are "Born" equal, it doesn't say we attain equality at some arbitrary date after conception - We are Created equal, at conception. Its at conception that we became Individuals and its at that point of conception that we, as Individuals, obtain the "Unalienable Rights" of Man.

Science supports the fact that we are Individuals at the point of Conception... We don't become Individuals at some later date during gestation. Thus, as somone who has no religious beliefs, my opposition to Abortion is not from a theological standpoint but from one of the belief that Individual Rights are supreme.

Read my post again...carefully. You will see I refer to a hypothetical constitutional amendment and science hypothetically taking a position. A hypothetical question for PaleRider.

"...my opposition to Abortion is not from a theological standpoint but from one of the belief that Individual Rights are supreme..." Not "theological", but from a "belief"?