Abortion

[palerider]

No I'm saying you are trying hard to lump all things into one basket calling it the same thing and saying because you believe it we all must believe it. I don't... most people don't... and neither does the law of the land.

Science is clearly on my side here. I can provide credible science that states explicitly that unborns at any stage are human beings while you can't provide a single piece of credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. Since we are all human beings, it is perfectly acceptable to "lump"us all into the same group. What people believe is irrelavent to what is.

Your position resembles a religious argument much more than mine since yours depends upon faith. You continue to claim that unborns are not human beings in the face of science that says otherwise. You must be arguing from a position of faith.

By the way, a court case does not constitute the "law" of the land. The law of the land is duely legislated and voted on by the representatives of the people.

Allow me...

Is a Fetus Part of a Woman's Body?
Yesterday's Best of the Web Today expressed puzzlement about the difference between a "baby" and a "fetus." Andrew Coulson of The Ganteloupe wrote in to offer an answer:

Andrew Colson is a journalist, an accountant, and is involved in developing educational systems. He is hardly an authority of any sort on human developmental biology.

Immunological studies have demonstrated beyond cavil that when a pregnancy implants itself into the wall of the uterus at the eighth day following conception the defense mechanisms of the body, principally the white blood cells, sense that this creature now settling down . . . is an intruder, an alien, and must be expelled. Therefore an intense immunological attack is mounted on the pregnancy . . . and through an ingenious and extraordinarily efficient defense system the unborn child succeeds in repelling the attack . . . Even in the most minute microscopic scale the body has trained itself, or somehow in some inchoate way, knows how to recognize self from nonself. --Dr. Bernard Nathanson, The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality (New York: Frederick Fell, 1983), p.150.

To argue that the unborn is part of its mother is to say that the mother possesses four legs, four arms, four eyes, two heads and, in the case of a male child, a penis and two testicles

As I have said, if you are going to use biology as a basis for your argument, knowing biology would help.

par·a·site Pronunciation[par-uh-sahyt]
noun: an organism that lives on or in an organism, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

Once again, learn some biology. Here is why an unborn is not a parasite.

First and foremost, a parasite is, by definition, organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species. 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. This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, and in no way parasitic.

A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source. A human embryo or fetus is formed from inside the mother-- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized.

A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite. A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not, except in very rare cases, cause harm to the mother.

A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved. A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will often respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue. When the human embryo or fetus attaches to the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

I get it... it's the old WOW I sure hate that poll... OK then polls don't mean anything defense. Very good.

Truth is truth. People who quote polls do so because they don't have any real argument. Just look at yours and it is clear why you NEED to quote polls; as if a poll could be a valid reason to allow one human being to kill another for reasons of convenience.

 

[Pidgey]

"Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."*

From: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

*"All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives."

 

[top gun]

palerider;17373]No. That is exactly what I am not doing. I know that you would rather argue against religion than icy logic...

Pale the thread is getting way to long now. I believe I've stated my position adequately. At some point it just becomes battling opinion and I believe we've now both posted plenty of evidence and argument for our positions.

Your personal attacks and personal insults were of course uncalled but I never expected to change your opinion in the first place. Still I believe... You don't fight the fights you can win. You fight the fights that need fighting and you where obviously trying to be nothing more than a bully in this case. And there is nothing in the world I like more than taking on a bully.

I respect the fact that you feel strongly. Luckily for women in America the United States Supreme Court and the majority of Americans agree with my stated position and abortion has been a legal and safe medical procedure for decades.

I don't know that I stated it but I will now. I personally don't like abortion either. I believe in a lot of birth control to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However things happen and abortions will always take place and no one can ever force a woman to carry a child to term.

That all being the case I always want the safest medical procedure available to women. And I don't want rich women who can afford to travel to have the abortion option and poor women to be trapped.

Bottom line for me is this is a far to personal and critical decision for me to make for someone else. I believe this decision is between the woman in the circumstance, her family, and her doctor.

We don't agree. We will never agree. But thankfully as we speak women in the United States of America are protected under the law on this issue. You have every right to rail for turning back time. I personally think you'll continue to fail. Good day...

 

[palerider]

Pale the thread is getting way to long now. I believe I've stated my position adequately. At some point it just becomes battling opinion and I believe we've now both posted plenty of evidence and argument for our positions.

You have stated it, but not very adequately if you ask me. And I agree that your position is based entirely on your opinion. Mine however, is backed by hard, credible science so I understand why you would be looking for an out.

Your personal attacks and personal insults were of course uncalled but I never expected to change your opinion in the first place. Still I believe... You don't fight the fights you can win. You fight the fights that need fighting and you where obviously trying to be nothing more than a bully in this case. And there is nothing in the world I like more than taking on a bully.

Why would I change my position. It is based entirely on the truth as opposed to yours which relies on inaccuracies at every turn. Every biological reference you made was simply wrong, your analogies were not apt, and your reasoning was hypocritical at best.

Bottom line for me is this is a far to personal and critical decision for me to make for someone else. I believe this decision is between the woman in the circumstance, her family, and her doctor.

All decisions to kill another human being are personal. Should government butt out of all of them, or just decisions to kill the most innocent among us?

But thankfully as we speak women in the United States of America are protected under the law on this issue.

Too bad their children aren't.

 

[top gun]

palerider;17424]You have stated it, but not very adequately if you ask me. And I agree that your position is based entirely on your opinion. Mine however, is backed by hard, credible science so I understand why you would be looking for an out.

Again your hubris and self loving is only your opinion of what has taken place.

Why would I change my position. It is based entirely on the truth as opposed to yours which relies on inaccuracies at every turn. Every biological reference you made was simply wrong, your analogies were not apt, and your reasoning was hypocritical at best.

I've given you statements other than mine that back up my position. On the biology of it all you so desperately look to split some hair to try and bolster a weak position. Example: You didn't like the fact many (the law included as it stands) consider the bioplast or fetus to be part of a women's body. So I said well you might call it a parasite if you like because it cannot live without feeding off its host. You come back with a definition of a parasite being from one species to another. But you know that doesn't change the fact that the fetus is parasitic... cannot live without feeding off the host is parasitic. It just gets to a point I know I've made my point... I move on.

All decisions to kill another human being are personal. Should government butt out of all of them, or just decisions to kill the most innocent among us?

Again I think The United States Supreme Court considered this issue very carefully decades ago and I agree with their decision that you are wrong. Feel free to get back with me if they ever change their ruling.

Too bad their children aren't.

It is truly a very sensitive issue.

 

[palerider]

Again your hubris and self loving is only your opinion of what has taken place.

What has happened is that you offered your opinion and tried to justify it using hypocritical reasoning, incorrect biology, and bad analogies. One only need look back over the thread to see exactly what has taken place.

I've given you statements other than mine that back up my position. On the biology of it all you so desperately look to split some hair to try and bolster a weak position. Example: You didn't like the fact many (the law included as it stands) consider the bioplast or fetus to be part of a women's body. So I said well you might call it a parasite if you like because it cannot live without feeding off its host. You come back with a definition of a parasite being from one species to another. But you know that doesn't change the fact that the fetus is parasitic... cannot live without feeding off the host is parasitic. It just gets to a point I know I've made my point... I move on.

You offered a statement from a journalist and an accountant on a biological issue. Exactly how lame is that top gun?

The fact is that unborns do not meet the definition of what a parasite is. Words mean what they mean and your use of the word parasite is just one more example of your use of mistaken, or deliberately deceptive, biology to support your position. You made a point but since it was based on incorrect information, it means nothing.

Again I think The United States Supreme Court considered this issue very carefully decades ago and I agree with their decision that you are wrong. Feel free to get back with me if they ever change their ruling.

Actually, they didn't consider it very carefully. Show me a right to abortion in the constitution. Show me something that even looks like a right to abortion in the constitution.

At the time roe was decided, an argument of sorts could be made that unborns were not human beings and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. In the majority decision, justice blackmund stated explicitly that if the time ever came that an argument for the personhood of unborns could be made, that the framework of the roe decision would fall in upon itself.

It can no longer be argued that unborns are not human beings and in fact, people are in jail right now having been charged for manslaughter for killing unborns. One can only be charged for manslaughter if one kills a human being, and in fact, one can only be charged for manslaughter if one kills a person. Prescident for the personhood of unborns has been established. The framework of roe is near collapse.

 

[top gun]

palerider;17445]What has happened is that you offered your opinion and tried to justify it using hypocritical reasoning, incorrect biology, and bad analogies. One only need look back over the thread to see exactly what has taken place.

Well then that being the case I would say I'm more than comfortable with letting everyone look back at what has transpired and let them make their own decision on who seems the most reasonable and accurate. We certainly aren't going to perswade each other at this point are we?

As I said I'm just going to continue to standing with the 65% of Americans that do not want Roe v. Wade overturned and the long standing decision by our United States Supreme Court.

My guess is you will continue to spit into the wind.... and that's fine. But remember what Freud said... Insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over but expecting different results.

MEDIAMATTERS
FOR AMERICAN

A Gallup poll conducted June 24-26 found that nearly two-thirds of respondents want a new Supreme Court justice who would vote to uphold Roe. Gallup asked: "If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or vote to uphold it? "Sixty-five percent responded, "Vote to keep it," while 29 percent responded, "Vote to overturn."

 

[palerider]

As I said I'm just going to continue to standing with the 65% of Americans that do not want Roe v. Wade overturned and the long standing decision by our United States Supreme Court.

Tell me. Had you lived a century and a half ago, would you have stood with the majority who accepted slavery?

And standing with the majority on damned near anything puts you dead in the wrong. The majority have a long and illustrious history of being completely wrong. That is because standing with the majority doesn't reqire any thought at all. They are all standing there hoping that someone else has done the thinking for them. Clearly you haven't put much thought into it or you would have your biological, and rhetorical facts straight.

My guess is you will continue to spit into the wind.... and that's fine. But remember what Freud said... Insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over but expecting different results.

Freud has been as thoroughly debunked as your arguments.

A Gallup poll conducted June 24-26 found that nearly two-thirds of respondents want a new Supreme Court justice who would vote to uphold Roe. Gallup asked: "If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or vote to uphold it? "Sixty-five percent responded, "Vote to keep it," while 29 percent responded, "Vote to overturn." [/COLOR]

Polls are for people who can't think. You do realize, don't you, that one can get any results one wants by manipulating the questions? Or don't you think that hard about poll results that you like?

 

[top gun]

palerider;17546]Tell me. Had you lived a century and a half ago, would you have stood with the majority who accepted slavery?

No.

But we're a lot smarter now... that's why choice was deemed Constitutional.

And standing with the majority on damned near anything puts you dead in the wrong. The majority have a long and illustrious history of being completely wrong. That is because standing with the majority doesn't reqire any thought at all. They are all standing there hoping that someone else has done the thinking for them.

Well you almost got me there with "majority dead in the wrong" Bush did win twice, but one of those he lost the popular vote so I'm still going to say... Still a democracy my friend. Obviously don't have a democracy if you are the arbitrator of what must be.

Clearly you haven't put much thought into it or you would have your biological, and rhetorical facts straight.

Sometimes I just don't feel the love Pale... are you trying to break up with me?

Freud has been as thoroughly debunked as your arguments.

Gotcha! Freud = idiot

Polls are for people who can't think. You do realize, don't you, that one can get any results one wants by manipulating the questions? Or don't you think that hard about poll results that you like?

Poll seemed pretty straight forward. Do you want to see Roe overturned... 65% No... 29% Yes. Maybe that was a trick question... I'll look into it.

 

[numinus]

I am soooo glad you brought this up.

The hypocrisy of grab bag religious principle to try and force one groups will over another. I'm sure if you are serious about "religious" principle being part of your argument you steadfastly stand by all scripture in the Bible and not just what's convenient at the time in an attempt to impose "your" personal wants & desires???

I have no problem believing God is like beauty... it's in the eye of the beholder.

However... religion on the other hand is a proven sham, in many cases a self proven sham. As if that were not enough of a problem even after that people pick and choose what to believe out of that compounding to the "sham" factor.

Anyone know of anyone who does any of this on religious grounds...

We would not allow women into a church for 33 days after giving birth to a male child and 66 days after giving birth to a female child. (Leviticus 12:4-5)

We would not eat pork, lobster, shrimp, clams or crab meat. (Leviticus 11:7,12)

We would execute people for having affairs. (Leviticus 20:10)

Add that to the crazy train of the clergy in child sex abuse scandals and even if one could somehow extrapolate out why, that of all things, God would allow this to be perpetrated by his chosen representatives... you still couldn't trust the church because you'd never know if the representative was good or bad!

Religion is soooooo obviously a man made response to fear of the unknown that has been perverted so many times over history just to benefit certain power brokers... it's not even arguable.

Let's let the individual women decide and face their own consequences in the "afterlife' because government control mixed with evangelical hypocrisy are a pact that's surly to lead only to hell!

Oh, you think that this imperative applies ONLY to people of faith? It wouldn't be a dogma, NOT an imperative, wouldn't it?

Why do people naturally equate religion with morality? This has been going on since the arian (or was it pelagian) heresy.

You are loosing the argument by default.

 

[top gun]

Oh, you think that this imperative applies ONLY to people of faith? It wouldn't be a dogma, NOT an imperative, wouldn't it?

Why do people naturally equate religion with morality? This has been going on since the arian (or was it pelagian) heresy.

You are loosing the argument by default.

Taking religion out of the equation leaves "morality" up to the people. On the choice issue that's old news that has been decided and legal for decades now.

In many ways even man made religion is fine. There are many good aspects... but there is also a dark side. I'm sure the Taliban "think" they're doing Gods work too making women wear burkas. IMO Christian Conservative Evangelists are the American version of religious over reaching for power & control. People just need to understand it's all man made up stuff, they do not represent "God", and not let themselves fall into cult type obedience. That's just my honest take on the situation my friend.

 

[palerider]

But we're a lot smarter now... that's why choice was deemed Constitutional.

Smarter? Then we enslaved them because of their color. Today we deny them the right to live based on their age. Where do you get "smarter" out of that?

 

[9sublime]

Smarter? Then we enslaved them because of their color. Today we deny them the right to live based on their age. Where do you get "smarter" out of that?

Thats pure arse Palerider. They are not denied the right to live because of their age, but because of the peoples wishes and needs who are already alive, and because they do not know anything about life so they do not miss out on anything.

Although Palerider, you have made me less pro-choice. Whilst I dont regard abortion as murder, and am certainly not pro-life now, I do think abortion should be avoided a lot more.

 

[Coyote]

Thats pure arse Palerider. They are not denied the right to live because of their age, but because of the peoples wishes and needs who are already alive, and because they do not know anything about life so they do not miss out on anything.

Although Palerider, you have made me less pro-choice. Whilst I dont regard abortion as murder, and am certainly not pro-life now, I do think abortion should be avoided a lot more.

That's about where I seem to have ended up too.

 

[palerider]

Thats pure arse Palerider. They are not denied the right to live because of their age, but because of the peoples wishes and needs who are already alive, and because they do not know anything about life so they do not miss out on anything.

They are already alive 9sublime. In fact, considering their metabolism and rate of growth, they are so alive that by comparison, you are on death's door.

Why don't you think through your arguments before you make them. Newborns don't know anything about life but they enjoy the protection of the law. Following your logic, it must be ok to kill them as well.

Tell me, if you left a lottery ticket at my home by mistake having not memorized the numbers and it was a winner, and I cash it claiming it as mine. Have you lost anything because you didn't know that I won with your ticket?

Although Palerider, you have made me less pro-choice. Whilst I dont regard abortion as murder, and am certainly not pro-life now, I do think abortion should be avoided a lot more.

Congratulations. You are on the road to enlightenment. I would argue that your refusal to see abortion as murder is nothing more than stubborness on your part. Unborns are undeniably human beings and murder is the killing of one human being by another with intent. What else can abortion be but murder.