Abortion

[??????????]

Well, around here people still have morals and realize that abortion is MURDER. Their are plenty of people here that are PRO-Life. I think if a county commissioner here stood for abortion they'd be voted out in a second.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CTguy, don't act like an ignorant fool, I know you're not one. "Sometimes legal" doesn't mean that they want abortion completely legal. It means they want abortion legal in the rare cases such as rape, incest, et cetera.

A previous poll done by CNN/TIME defined "sometimes" (CNN was the one who came up with the questions). Their definition of "sometimes" was,

"Which of these positions best represents your views about abortion? A woman should be able to get an abortion if she decides she wants one no matter what the reason. Abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances, such as when a woman's health is endangered or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances."

In that poll, done early 2003, the results were 39% wanted it always legal, and 57% wanted it only sometimes or never legal. You're incorrect in saying that most Americans want Abortion "completely legal".

Further, 35% of Americans (according to the CNN/TIME poll) favor Abortion in cases where the parents can't afford a child, while 61% are against it. 55%-88% of Americans support Abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened, the fetus may or does have physical/mental problems, the fetus was concived through rape, or by incest. Those cases make up 5% of all abortions done. 95% of abortions are done when the fetus was concieved perfectly, has no problems, and could easily be adopted.

But it is irrelivent if Americans want it legal or not. Most Americans wanted slavery legal. Most Americans want gay marriage illegal. Does that alone make any of them just? Of course not.

And you have still failed to answer my question or respond to my main point: How is the fetus not a human being? Biogenesis proves the fetus is a human being, the fetus is a homo saepiens, and the fetus is alive. How is it not a human being?

[CTguy]

I quoted you as directly saying that 55% want abortion illegal in cases of rape and incest...  which your poll showed the exact opposite of...

And as to the notion that anyone who supports abortion is immoral, that is bull.  You are probably one of those people who wants half the people in jail executed.  

Personally, if I was a woman and I had an unwanted pregnancy, I probably wouldn't get an abortion, however I think it is a PERSONAL CHOICE!

And like I said, you guys are the ones blowing this issue out of proportion.  I could care less what someone else does, nor would I want to promote abortion, it's you guys who cant get over this issue.  The vast majority of people in this country don't think that people who abortions are murderers.  

I have a friend who had an abortion.  She was not raped nor was her life in jeopardy.  However, it was her choice to have an abortion.  What was she going to do?  Raise a child at age 22 and ruin her life?  Give me a break.

And by the way, you guys are the ones who don't want contraception or std prevention programs in the first place.  If people were better educated about stuff like that then we wouldn't have so many abortions in the first place.  The fact is that abstinence programs have been a complete and utter failure and most of you know it.  

[Brambila]

This is the last time I'm going to ask you. I'm also placing this at the end of this post. How is the fetus not a human being? Biogenesis proves the fetus is a human being, the fetus is a homosaepiaens, and is alive. How, then, is it not a human being?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now you're just making things up... wonderful. I said that the poll supported Abortion in 5% of the cases it's done in, not just rape and incest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So would it also be a personal choice for a mother to kill her newborn? You still havn't answered that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Abortion is murdering a child. This isn't an opinion, this is FACT. By your logic, I can say that it's only your opinion that a newborn is human, and that it's my opinion that it isn't. Where's the logic in that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If she gave birth to that child, would she still have a right to kill it? After all, the child was going to ruin her life! So that makes it right to savagely chop off it's limbs!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ad hominem. You're completely missing the point. Once again, with your flawed logic, we should also start aborting newborns. It's MY personal choice that they arn't humans, and I should be able to kill them.

How is the fetus not a human being? Biogenesis proves the fetus is a human being, the fetus is a homosaepiaens, and is alive. How, then, is it not a human being?!

Again,

How is the fetus not a human being? Biogenesis proves the fetus is a human being, the fetus is a homosaepiaens, and is alive. How, then, is it not a human being?!

And just for luck,

How is the fetus not a human being? Biogenesis proves the fetus is a human being, the fetus is a homosaepiaens, and is alive. How, then, is it not a human being?!

[Beet]

Brambilla, you left me hanging with our debate a couple days ago when I said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's funny how you're demanding an answer so badly yet arguments have already been presented answering your question which you never responded to.

Biogenesis isn't needed to prove that the embryo is a biologically living being, but that doesn't mean its a morally human being. It just proves that the body is present, but not the mind.

[dunn]

Brambilla, you left me hanging with our debate a couple days ago when I said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's funny how you're demanding an answer so badly yet arguments have already been presented answering your question which you never responded to.

Biogenesis isn't needed to prove that the embryo is a biologically living being, but that doesn't mean its a morally human being. It just proves that the body is present, but not the mind.

what the difference between a mind of a one-hourold child to a 9th month embryo

[Beet]

After about 3 months I think it is no longer considered an embryo. But as to the difference immediately before labor and after birth, it would probably be that after birth, a range of sensations and awarenesses identified with full consciousness will have already occured. Not that anyone supports abortions at that late stage.

[Nation]

9th month fetuses aren't an issue Dunn, since abortions aren't allowed that late in the third trimester. Well, the third trimester in general, I believe.

[CTguy]

Brambillas moral views are way out of the mainstream.  This guy wants to ban gay people from living near him and calls anyone who has had an abortion a murderer.  He obviously thinks a substantial part (tens of millions) of the US population are murderers.  I can't listen to this kind of nonsense anymore.

This guy also seems to pick and choose his arguments.  He demands you answer his questions and then he ignores other debates where he doesn't want to respond.

I still want to know from the other debate, since he thinks it's ok to call all homosexuals metal cases since he claims 44% have mental disorders, why shouldn't I call all mexicans law breakers since 50% of mexicans living in the United States entered it illegally.  Since he likes to group and box in entire groups of people, maybe that town in Tennessee should ban Mexicans by his logic...  I'm sure they already want to anyways.

But anyways, back to this topic...  It's sad that in 2004 abortion is even an issue.  In Europe, even conservatives don't make an issue out of it.  This country was founded on religious freedom, not Christian zealotry...  not everyone thinks abortion is murder...  in fact, most don't.  If someone wants to get an abortion, let them, it doesn't concern you.  

[dunn]

9th month fetuses aren't an issue Dunn, since abortions aren't allowed that late in the third trimester. Well, the third trimester in general, I believe.

I am pro choice, I am just saying he has a point

[CTguy]

then according to him, you support murderers.  

You know, I've actually never cared much about the issue of abortion.  But seeing how radical the christian right has become I'm starting to think that the pro-life movement is just wing of the christian rights zealous movement to outlaw anything the bible disagrees with.  (Except capitol punishment of course).

[dunn]

then according to him, you support murderers.  

You know, I've actually never cared much about the issue of abortion.  But seeing how radical the christian right has become I'm starting to think that the pro-life movement is just wing of the christian rights zealous movement to outlaw anything the bible disagrees with.  (Except capitol punishment of course).

I din't get you. there is Capital punishment in the Bible

[Brambila]

I'm just going to copy and paste in the top and bottom of all my posts until you answer the question:


"How is the fetus not a human being? Biogenesis proves the fetus is a human being, the fetus is a homosaepiaens, and is alive. How, then, is it not a human being?!"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I didn't realize you said this. Somebody had said this before, and my response was: what about people in comas? The word "unconscious" literally means "without mind". People in comas don't have minds, just brainwaves (which alone do not make up a mind). So does this mean that people in recoverable comas can be killed?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't believe that. Women don't murder their fetuses (usually), Abortionists do. So yes, I'm sure at least a good 25 thousand people in the US are murderers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such as?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry I didn't reply ten seconds after you responded, but I had something called school. Do you mind me going? Do I have your permission to get an education? Honestly...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are, once again, ignoring my question. Which is fine. I'll just debate with Beef, he has better points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another thing you've ignored: Why do you asume I'm a Christian? Is it because I believe in God? Huh? What logic is that? Further, Christians arn't the only ones "Radical" about the abortion issue. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and even Hindus are against Abortion. And the current Pope of the Catholic Church condemns capital punishment (and also happens to be against abortion! What a shock!)


"How is the fetus not a human being? Biogenesis proves the fetus is a human being, the fetus is a homosaepiaens, and is alive. How, then, is it not a human being?!"

[Beet]

Sorry, I didn't realize you said this. Somebody had said this before, and my response was: what about people in comas? The word "unconscious" literally means "without mind". People in comas don't have minds, just brainwaves (which alone do not make up a mind). So does this mean that people in recoverable comas can be killed?

Actually, here's what I found for the definition of unconscious:

"Lacking awareness and the capacity for sensory perception; not conscious."

But to answer you example, people in comas have been conscious before and they have the possibility of becoming conscious again. Just like people in sleep. Whereas a fetus has never been conscious before. A mind exists when
(1) it is currently conscious, OR
(2) it has been conscious before and is able to be conscious once again.

[Brambila]

Sorry, I didn't realize you said this. Somebody had said this before, and my response was: what about people in comas? The word "unconscious" literally means "without mind". People in comas don't have minds, just brainwaves (which alone do not make up a mind). So does this mean that people in recoverable comas can be killed?

Actually, here's what I found for the definition of unconscious:

"Lacking awareness and the capacity for sensory perception; not conscious."

But to answer you example, people in comas have been conscious before and they have the possibility of becoming conscious again. Just like people in sleep. Whereas a fetus has never been conscious before. A mind exists when
(1) it is currently conscious, OR
(2) it has been conscious before and is able to be conscious once again.

Second definition from Merriam Webster:

2 a : not possessing mind or consciousness <unconscious matter> b (1) : not marked by conscious thought, sensation, or feeling <unconscious motivation> (2) : of or relating to the unconscious c : having lost consciousness <was unconscious for three days>


From MedTerms Medical Dictionary:

Unconscious: 1) Interruption of awareness of oneself and one's surroundings, lack of the ability to notice or respond to stimuli in the environment. A person may become unconscious due to oxygen deprivation, shock, central nervous system depressants such as alcohol and drugs, or injury. 2) In psychology, that part of thought and emotion that happens outside everyday awareness.

Mind: That which thinks, reasons, perceives, wills, and feels. The mind now appears in no way separate from the brain. In neuroscience, there is no duality between the mind and body. They are one.

Does a person in a (serious) coma think? No. Reason? No. Percieve? No. Will? No. Feels? No.

Sure, the fetus has no past consciousness, but that isn't the point. The point is that he or she will have consciousness, just like a person in a coma may regain consciousness. It doesn't matter if it doesn't have brainwaves or very little- there have been people who have died for minutes, and even the brainwaves have died, and the person was able to regain consciousness, and live a fairly normal life. Have you seen the show Chasing Evil (I think that's what it's called)- his situation is completely possible and does happen.

[nclib]

Why is abortion so sacred to the left?  What do they get out of it?  

Ever heard of something called feminism? Or is feminism too sophisticated an ideology for you to understand?

I find it very interesting that pro-lifers claim to be pro-child NOT anti-woman, even though pro-lifers have a much worse record on women's rights in general than pro-choicers.

Also, pro-lifers seem to care less about children's health care than pro-choicers. Very few pro-lifers are pro-life rather than anti-woman.

[Brambila]

NClib, do you have any sources to prove this? What about that forced abortion on a woman in Florida a few months ago?

[CTguy]

The Pope was also against the war in Iraq, but I don't remember hearing you scream that at Bush.

By the way, what do you call the people who bomb abortion clinics?  I've heard many religious leaders call them "heros."  What a nice religion you have.

[ElCidGOP]

As we can see, abortion is a very controversial issue.  For the most part, the abortion lobby has most politicians by the balls, especially in the red states.  There are some exceptions, notably Senator Santorum (who would make a fine president in my opinion) from PA.  

Abortion is a devisive issue.  For my part, I find the procedure to be an abomination, but this is America and the pro-abortion forces have the upper hand, for now.  It's too bad, but what comes around, goes around and there is hell to be paid for those on the wrong side.

[CTguy]

Hell to be paid?  I already don't go to Church so I guess I'm going to hell anyways...

Should be nice, maybe I'll finally get a tan.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's your problem, CTguy, I have not made one post supporting the war on Iraq. You have this idea that I'm some sort of radical right-wing fundamentalist Christian who wants nothing better than to go to war with Iraq. Where have I stated that I supported the war? Where have I stated that I'm a Christian? Finally, your point is an ad hominum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cowards. Jerks.

[Beet]

Mind: That which thinks, reasons, perceives, wills, and feels. The mind now appears in no way separate from the brain. In neuroscience, there is no duality between the mind and body. They are one.

Does a person in a (serious) coma think? No. Reason? No. Percieve? No. Will? No. Feels? No.

Sure, the fetus has no past consciousness, but that isn't the point. The point is that he or she will have consciousness, just like a person in a coma may regain consciousness. It doesn't matter if it doesn't have brainwaves or very little- there have been people who have died for minutes, and even the brainwaves have died, and the person was able to regain consciousness, and live a fairly normal life. Have you seen the show Chasing Evil (I think that's what it's called)- his situation is completely possible and does happen.

A person in a coma does not will, think, or feel, but has willed, thought and felt in the past. His brain waves may completely die, but they were active in the past. To end a human's life is to deny his or her potential to live. That is what you do by killing a person in a coma from which he may recover. But I think we can both agree that you cannot end a life that has not begun. This is where an embryo that has never had a mind differs from a person in a recoverable coma. Denying the potential for life to be created is not murder. Even you can agree that every hour of the day you don't try to procreate denies the potential for a life.

So murder in this case is to take a person who has been a human being morally (i.e. mind and body, and from a neurological viewpoint, the mental function of the brain), and prevent that human being from having mind and body again.

But if there has never been a mind before, there has never been a whole human morally speaking. If you disagree, look at how we condemn murder, and all other immoralities, from the perspective of the harm they do, and we think the same way about all debates concerning values and policies, as opposed to debates about scientific truths. This is why a being (or embryo or fetus) that has never known moral value[/i,] as opposed to merely existing physically, is fundamentally different. Having not known moral value, the mindless embryo cannot place any in itself. And we, as a society, do not place moral value on things that have never known it, whether these things be inanimate objects or trees and plants. At its core consciousness is subjective preference, and we correctly recognize that something that has never known subjective preference is not yet something that we can morally harm. And I think the recognition is in accordance with morality.

[CTguy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's your problem, CTguy, I have not made one post supporting the war on Iraq. You have this idea that I'm some sort of radical right-wing fundamentalist Christian who wants nothing better than to go to war with Iraq. Where have I stated that I supported the war? Where have I stated that I'm a Christian? Finally, your point is an ad hominum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cowards. Jerks.

Did I say you supported the war?  No, but clearly you pick and choose what people to quote as you do with psychologists and now religious leaders.  Why dont you spend as much time quoting the Pope when he disagrees with Bush.  Republicans don't have a monopoly on ideas from the Vatican.  So if you want to follow the Vatican's dogma then do it when it runs contrary to Bush, like when they are telling all Catholics to stand up against the War in Iraq.

[migrendel]

I would like to respond to something said earlier by StatesRights.

If supporting progressive and humane values that favor fair and equal treatment for all citizens is snobbish, than I call myself a snob with no shame. We do not do what is right just so we can be considered in touch with mainstream America, a land of Wal-Marts, gun owners, and Calvinism. I do not believe that is mainstream America. I believe that mainstream America falls somewhere in between those who favor same-sex marriage and those who favor banning homosexuals from the county, those who favor abortion on demand and those who favor denying rape victims a chance to right the wrong perpetrated against them. I make no claim to be part of mainstream America. I only wish you could acknowledge the fact that neither do you.

[CTguy]

The snobbish angle has been tried for years.  In fact I was watching a program about the kkk the other day.  And their main line of attack against whites supporting integration in the south was that they were all "communists and northern snobs."

Listening to some of the people here talk about gays and feminists I feel like I'm reading a history book.  Of course that makes me a "snob" too, but like you a proud snob.