Susan Komen cuts off funding for criminal organization Planned Parenthood.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

That child, born to such circumstances, has a CHOICE in what happens to him during his childhood? Of course not. And what happens to him in his childhood doesn't then directly effect every other part of his life? Of course it does.

Thanks for taking the time to write such an excellent, thorough response.

west coaster wrote:

east coaster wrote:

If men don't have to deal with it every month it sounds like it is not a man's problem.

But again, how are your rights being denied just because your decision is not being financed by someone else? Take responsibility for your damn self.

Small thinking...Pathetic, stay on your side of the country !

Small thinking because I don't agree with you, huh? That sounds very 'enlightened' of you.

Enlightened just enough to demand that others pay for your decisions.

I have a right to own a car, where is my government check to buy a new car? I demand a nice sporty BMW.

And, trust me, I will stay on my side of the country. I don't want any part of your debt ridden socialist BS you west coasters love to cling to.

Kidding, right? wrote:

What a crock. How about that baby living inside you. What a great Mother you are. Was baby too much for you? An inconvenience? A financial burden? Not the right time? May you burn in hell someday simply because you thought it OK to tear a baby limb from limb because you weren't ready but the baby was.

A zygote is not a baby. You pro-lifers know full well it isn't. If you found out a woman had an abortion at 2 weeks, do you think that is the exact same thing as knifing a 3 year old? Of course you don't. No pro-lifer has ever told me, when pressed that they think they are the same thing. The moral valence of murder has something to do with the thing in question having a nervous system. People don't have souls and there is no God, so see how you would revise your views given those facts.

God, of course, is the biggest abortionist of all - my mom had 2 miscarriages before she had me. And of course, you have killed someone has soon as you get pregnant - every cradle is a grave.

As soon as you get pregnant you have killed someone

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Who needs to become educated? I think you just received a thorough education on life right here, junior.

On the contrary, the entire context and nature of your argument confirmed exactly what I have thought to myself all along in my mind: Your entire post appeals to emotion, and tries to convince people that way. In previous posts, I have listed concrete, scientific facts (babies developpment in the womb) that are irrefutable, and that support previously found scientific data. Additionally, you use the most extreme of circumstances in your argument, which is even appealing more to people's emotional side. Your entire argument is based off emotion, not facts.

And on a completely different side of the token, the argument started out about abortion. You know that all scientific facts are against your side of the argument, and that the pro-choicers in this thread lost that argument a while ago. So you completely change the argument to why we should have bigger government government helping the poor people. Whether or not we have government helping the poor people has no relevance to whether or not you believe that a fetus is a living being with a right to life. If you believe it has a right to life, you believe abortion is murder. If you believe it is not yet human, then you believe it is not murder. That is what the argument is about. This is not about giving out more welfare, etc. That is for another thread. Whether one supports abortion or not should depend on what they believe about the fetus in the womb--not about what happens after. Your entire second section of your response spoke nothing of why you thought abortion should be legal, and what facts you have to back up your statements. It was all based on bashing republicans and how they should give out more welfare to help babies born into bad situations. Basically, you completely changed the topic of the thread because sticking to the topic at hand wasn't going to well. If you want to discuss how republicans are trying to take away welfare from families who need it, or how they are trying to deny healthcare to families who need it, that is for another thread.

I understand the entire point of your posts--Republicans seem to care so much about life before (abortion) and at the end (terry shiavo) but screw people over unless they are born into $$$. And that argument may have some validity. And I agree that more should be done for those born into very tough situations like that. However that doesn't really respond to anything I said about why abortion should be illegal. You have just really avoided the topic more than anything.

Brian wrote:

God, of course, is the biggest abortionist of all - my mom had 2 miscarriages before she had me. And of course, you have killed someone has soon as you get pregnant - every cradle is a grave.

http://www.amazon.com/Every-Cradle-Grave-Rethinking-Suicide/dp/1616583509

As soon as you get pregnant you have killed someone

"God gives, and God takes away."

If God gives the life, is it not his to take away?

Obviously you don't believe in God, but taking the pretext that He exists (as would be required for Him to have the power to kil your baby) the christian belief would be that God gives the life to start with...it was a gift. You did nothing yourself to be born. So if he gave it to you, why does he not have the right to take it?

But the heart of the abortion debate should not center around God. We do not need to reference religion to prove that a living organism with a functioning heart, brain, lungs, arms, and legs is alive with its own life, separate from its mothers. That is why we have science :)

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

1) It is, at best, very doubtful that one can say state that either one of those "persons" (the fetus or brain-dead person) is "alive" in the true sense of the word. The brain-dead person certainly is not. And the fetus? Well, that is at the heart of this debate. But honestly, since we will not settle that part of the debate, let's leave that aside, and praise your empathy and concern for the unborn and "living dead" like Terry Schiavo. Kudos to you. Moving on...

Terry Shiavo? That is up for debate, and a different argument.

But denying that fetuses are "alive" in the true sense of the word is why I keep telling people to get educated on the issue. Do a quick search on google and you can get a result for the definition of the word "alive" in under 2 seconds. Here is one from freedictionary.com:

a·live

adj.

1. Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.

2. In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.

3. Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.

4. Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.

1.Science has proven, time and time again. Beings with functioning organs and breathing on their own are "having life."

2. "in existence or operation." Obviously a fetus fits this; Its organs function and exists.

3. Moving things? All babies move around in the womb.

4. See above. In developpment there is definitely activity/animation in the fetus. How would it develop without moving?

A fetus fits every single aspect and description of the word "alive." There is no debate. This is why I ask people to be more informed on the issue. Seriously? Doubting a fetus is "alive?" There is not any way you can twist the definition of "alive" so that a fetus does not fit it. If more people educated themselves on the issue there would be less embarrassing displays of ignorance as I just pointed out above.

It isn't a question of being a live, it's a question of being a person. An early term fetus without consciousness is clearly not a person. Similarly, if you suffer severe brain damage, your family can take you off your ventilator without being said to have killed you; 'you' were already dead.

Captain Tenneal wrote:

That is why we have science :)

I'm curious how you would respond to the bit of science that was posted much earlier in the thread showing abortion rates to be nearly independent of legal restrictions on the procedure. Moral issues aside, it doesn't do any good to make it illegal.

Captain Tenneal wrote:

I understand the entire point of your posts--Republicans seem to care so much about life before (abortion) and at the end (terry shiavo) but screw people over unless they are born into $$$. And that argument may have some validity. And I agree that more should be done for those born into very tough situations like that.

hey, lookie at that. You DID get the point of my post and even agreed with it more or less. Excellent.

But I didn't avoid any topic. YOU challenged my notion about the inconsistency or wrongheadedness of right wingers defending "life" at conception and after brain damage ONLY. You said such concept made perfect, rational sense. I showed you otherwise, and it seems like now you agree. If you do, then I commend you for it.

If you want to discuss abortion in a vacuum, then I can engage you on that another day (you already see my last post was long enough). However, I will only say at this point, that such a discussion as that should not occur isolated from every other factor (including the mother's health and well-being, etc).

Furthermore, I don't think right wingers actually care about the issue that much anyway. As I pointed out with my last post, they bow to the god of capitalism and free markets MUCH MUCH MORE than they do to the altar of "life". For examples: see Death Penalty of innocent criminals, see sending young men to die in the middle east for oil profits, see lack of concern for poor people, see no concern about large businesses polluting environment which DIRECTLY leads to deaths, see lack of concern about gun control or highway deaths ["there should be NO speed limit or seat belt laws!" they say], etc, etc. And since (at least) just as many religious people and conservatives get divorced, beat their kids, molest children, etc, etc, as do liberal atheists, but while claiming to be following "God's word" and "cherishing marriage" blah, blah, blah, why should I not think that these same people that call women who get an abortion "CHILD MURDERERS!" are not just as hypocritical on this issue as they are on all other issues?! I shouldn't doubt it for a second.

Most people like you (not saying you personally, I don't know for sure) who scream MURDER! at abortion doctors and women who make this painful choice are doing so just to spew anger and hatred at someone they don't like (i.e. liberals), and score political points. It seems like a great way to slam someone you hate. What better thing than to call them a baby murderer? But do they REALLY care about the black fetus born to the crack addicted mom?? Do they REALLY desperately want that kid born, despite knowing that as soon as he is born, they will then fight tooth and nail to deny that kid free health care, and there may be a very big chance he ends up institutionalized or in prison? No, they don't really care about him. Not one iota. They just want to spew hatred and vitriol at people they already don't like.

Pro-life my ass.

Making abortion illegal is treating the symptom, not the cause. There are a lot of societal issues that need to be dealt with if you really want to see abortion rates drop. I'm sure both sides of the argument could agree that abortions aren't the most favorable route of stoping pregnancy. You have to teach people and give them full access to contraceptives (and yes, there are plenty of people in this country that either don't have access or don't think enough to use them). That is a problem that can be fixed! Planned Parenthood - like it or not- is one program that works on that.

Just telling people "oh this is bad, so you can't do it anymore" doesn't solve anyone's problems. This is shown pretty well with alcohol. Its more effective to teach people to drink responsibly than it is to tell them outright that its a bad thing to do and they shouldn't (see prohibition, teens with strict parents, bros taking jagerbombs to replace 4loko, etc). Safe sex is the same deal. No one WANTS to get abortions (unless there's some weird fetish out there I've missed in my years of trolling the interwebs...), but sometimes people see it as their only option because they weren't properly educated.

Fishing Instructor wrote:

Captain Tenneal wrote:

That is why we have science :)

I'm curious how you would respond to the bit of science that was posted much earlier in the thread showing abortion rates to be nearly independent of legal restrictions on the procedure. Moral issues aside, it doesn't do any good to make it illegal.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/Sedgh-Lancet-2012-01.pdf

I will read the study tomorrow (it is 1:45am where I live.)

But I am in favor of whatever would have the lowest abortion rates. If abortion being legal actually made there be less abortions, then yes I would rather have it legal.

However, I will say that the coutries where abortion is illegal and have higher rates are usually developping countries in Africa...so I am not sure how well the government can really enforce that rule, or how important enforcing it is to them. I can definitely see it being easier to get a "back-alley abortion" in Africa than in the US. I think the United States would probably do a better job, but I will read it tomorrow before I comment too much.

Oh yeah, and this thread could probably use this to lighten up a bit:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/planned-parenthood-opens-8-billion-abortionplex,20476/

Zygotes don't have any of those things, but all pro-lifers are maximalists. An embryo doesn't have those things either. And if you are a parent, you gave your kids life, so can you just take it away?

And life is not a gift. Leaving aside the grievous and obvious (and countless) examples, it isn't clear that even the better lives are gifts. How is it better than non-existence? God, if he existed, would be like the homeless guy who runs up to clean your windshield at a stoplight and then thinks you owe him something. The idea that someone is harmed by never existing is preposterous and that would have to be the case were life a gift. If a person acted like this God, we would know exactly what to call them - a capricious and arbitrary tyrant.

Let's start from the beginning...

Objective and subjective are adjectives. Adjectives describe nouns. "Objective" and "subjective" are adjectives that describe whether a noun is an object or a subject.

Life isn't an object. You can point to a person or dog or tree or other thing that is alive, but you can't point to "life". Life is a subject.

The definitions of life, death, consciousness and other concepts are subjective. Thus, we can't make factual statements about life until we define precisely what life is and when it begins.

For example, Dr. Fritz Baumgartner defines the beginning of life as when the 23 chromosomes of the mother and father combine to form a unique 46 chromosome cell. According to this definition, it is a fact that life begins at conception.

If life is defined as beginning when an embryo implants in the uterus (which is the medical definition of the beginning of pregnancy), then it is a fact that life begins on day 6 of gestation.

If life is begins when the heart begins to beat, then it is a fact that life begins on day 22 of gestation.

If life begins when brain waves first become detectable, then it is a fact that life begins during week 6 of gestation. Is this when the fetus becomes conscious? Defining life in terms of consciousness is problematic, because

consciousness is not precisely defined. However, I would feel comfortable saying a fetus is not conscious before brain waves are detectable. More rapid development of the nervous system doesn't occur until later in the pregnancy (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/brain-development-in-fetus.html).

If life begins when the lungs can function (i.e. fetus becomes "viable"), then it is a fact that life begins around week 23 or 24.

In regards to the definitions you cited earlier, the first definition is clearly the usage that applies to living things. The fact that the dictionary uselessly defines "alive" as "having life" illustrates my point. The second usage is reflected in idioms ("keep your hopes alive") and descriptions of machines ("regular oil changes extend the life of your transmission"). The third and fourth usages also reflect figures of speech, examples of which were provided.

Fair enough. Obviously it is up for debate as for when one considers something first "alive." However, the further and further into developpment a fetus is, the more and more it is difficult to argue it isn't alive. Is an embryo alive? Up for debate. But I think that there is no question that a fetus at 25-30 weeks is alive. Past this time, The fetus moves on its own, has functioning arms, legs, heart, lungs, brain, etc. So no matter the definition of "alive," past somewhere between 25-30 weeks it becomes a very difficult argument to make that the fetus isn't alive. It is more difficult beforehand however.

Captain Tenneal wrote:

Fair enough. Obviously it is up for debate as for when one considers something first "alive." However, the further and further into developpment a fetus is, the more and more it is difficult to argue it isn't alive. Is an embryo alive? Up for debate. But I think that there is no question that a fetus at 25-30 weeks is alive. Past this time, The fetus moves on its own, has functioning arms, legs, heart, lungs, brain, etc. So no matter the definition of "alive," past somewhere between 25-30 weeks it becomes a very difficult argument to make that the fetus isn't alive. It is more difficult beforehand however.

Right, and this is why I think maximalist stances on the issue "It's a life!" "No, It's a choice!" Are both problematic. An abortion at 2 weeks, obviously who gives a shit - only a religious nutter would. An abortion at 7 months - only an ideologue who has to be right wouldn't be bothered by that. I wold be perfectly happy with some sort of compromise, but the pro-lifers especially will never go for it because their whole stance is based on religious notions about souls and they have no idea how to make an moral argument without reference to God and absolutes.

Captain Tenneal wrote:

I think that there is no question that a fetus at 25-30 weeks is alive.

So do most people. Consequently, abortion is increasingly regulated, and in most states illegal, as the fetus approaches viability (around 24 weeks gestational age).

I think abortion should be illegal earlier than 24 weeks. However, determining the gestational age at which abortion becomes illegal should be a two-fold process. First, society needs to define when life begins. Second, the gestational age at which that definition is fulfilled should be scientifically determined.

Unfortunately, the climate of the current abortion debate precludes a rational approach to these questions (as this thread illustrates). Neither describing a fetus as "just a clump of cells" or as "basically a baby in a different environment" are factually correct. Indeed, since the fetal stage of development includes the 8th to 40th weeks of gestation, no blanket statement about what a fetus is or can do is likely to be precise.

I agree with Brian that the Pro-Life movement's tactics are particularly damaging. Just calling themselves "Pro-Life" bypasses any conversation about when life begins. I also think that protesting all abortions while carrying pictures of partial birth abortions is particularly dishonest. From Wikipedia:

"In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 26% of abortions in the United States were known to have been obtained at less than 6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, 15% at 8 weeks, 4.1% at 16 through 20 weeks and 1.4% at more than 21 weeks... Partial birth abortions accounted for 0.17% of US abortions in 2000"

Yes, a woman should have the right to her own body. Government/Tay Payers should have absolute zero involvement on her decision to have an abortion.

However, when you ask the government/tax payers to pay for your abortion, you are the one that have chosen to include the government/tax payers in your decision. The government/tax payers should be able to say what and what cannot be done if you choose to accept funding from them.

no one is asking for tax payer dollarsis it OK in your world for me to refuse to have my tax dollars spent on the military?

BASEMENT wrote:

Yes, a woman should have the right to her own body. Government/Tay Payers should have absolute zero involvement on her decision to have an abortion.

However, when you ask the government/tax payers to pay for your abortion, you are the one that have chosen to include the government/tax payers in your decision. The government/tax payers should be able to say what and what cannot be done if you choose to accept funding from them.