The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[bshoc]

I was not making groupie comments but supporting other posters' posts which may have otherwise been ignored. You claimed I (and others) glossed over points, and I was pointing out your hypocrisy.

LOL

I was not making groupie comments

Bshoc, come back when you can actually refute katie-tully's argument.

I was not making groupie comments

well said.

I was not making groupie comments

Bshoc, come back when you can actually refute katie-tully's argument.

I was not making groupie comments

well said.

hrmmm ...

I don't believe you have stated any good reason why abortion is the same as murder. I believe that a foetus before an age at which it can survive independently of its mother's body is not considered "living", or with a "soul", and the abortion of such a foetus is thus not considered murder. I believe an abortion is a medical procedure that should be solely up to the woman undergoing it.

Can you put aside what "I believe" and focus on the facts? Children post birth cant survive without their mother either, neither can people on life support machines etc. Its not a valid argument.

 

[kami]

Can you put aside what "I believe" and focus on the facts? Children post birth cant survive without their mother either, neither can people on life support machines etc. Its not a valid argument.

Newborns can survive without the mother - any person can feed a newborn, even a machine. With a foetus, only the mother can support the baby due to undeveloped or non-existent organs.

 

[dagwoman]

Quoting me numerous times is just a waste of space. "Well said" was barely a "groupie comment", merely a comment of agreement. It's not worth discussing because you simply want someone to insult.

I said "I believe" because it seems that whenever anyone brings up facts you disagree with, you disregard them as "biased" or "lefty". I thought perhaps bringing an opinion rather than a fact you disagree with may be easier for you to debate constructively and without flaming.

As kami said, newborns can survive without their mother, whereas foetuses before around 22 weeks cannot.

 

[katie_tully]

Your excuse for abortion is that a child three or four months after conception cannot live without reliance on its mother, taking your absolutist logic to its logical conclusion, neither can a 1 year old child, thus making it ok for us to "abort" 1 year old children.

Now you're misconstruing the purpose of my statement in an attempt to once again try and liken abortion to murder. The health and well being of the feotus depends entirely on the health and well being of the mother - the vessel. If you want to play semantics I can misconstrue your statement too. A 1 year old child is capable of living without its mother - especially if the mother dies after child birth. A born human is no longer dependent on the well being of its vessel, is it

Abortion is the "responsibility" of nobody

You're only saying that because you disagree with abortion, however seeing as how you've previously relinquished responsibility of the male during pregnancy you've inadvertently passed on all decisions regarding the foetus to the mother - including her legal right to an abortion.

Now you're just being a retard as your case is lost, I said the responsibility for pregnancy, not the child itself. And even if it were the sole responsibility of the mother it still wouldn't be contradictory since abortion in no way relates to such a responsibility.

I don't quite understand how you can make two completely contradictive statements in one paragraph and still believe they make any sense. If the responsibility for pregnancy is the female's, then the responsibility of the child's is also the females. So if the female drinks excessively during pregnancy and the child is born with feotal alcohol syndrome she is not responsible?
You cannot be responsible for a pregnancy yet at the same not responsible for the foetus inside, you tool.

Why keep a good thing to yourself?

Dont care about about murders? Fantastic don't commit one, but lets keep it legal for others eh?

"Now that I'm safe I'm pro choice" eh?

Pathetic.

I thought you said earlier -

No I didn't link abortion to murder

Wait - is that yet another contradiction?

 

[KFunk]

Bshoc, I figured I'd throw these questions at you again:

"(1) What kind(s) of 'beings' do you think should have the right to life? (i.e. define beings: humans? animals? cells? cells with the potential to become human?)

(2) Why should these beings have a right to life? (justification, etc.)"

 

[bshoc]

Newborns can survive without the mother - any person can feed a newborn, even a machine. With a foetus, only the mother can support the baby due to undeveloped or non-existent organs.

Embryos and fetuses can too in most extents, how do you think IVF works?

 

[katie_tully]

Embryos and fetuses can too in most extents, how do you think IVF works?

Um. No.

 

[dagwoman]

What a stupid argument. The point of bringing up the argument is that the woman must carry the ebryo/foetus because it cannot survive without it; it doesn't matter how IVF works. your argument about embryos and foetuses in IVF is pointless, because only zygotes and very early embryos are made and can survive through IVF, and it is not an alternative to aborting a foetus.

 

[katie_tully]

IVF doesn't work that way anyway. Technically it's a zygote and it's planted into the female when it's still no more than 10 cells. A bundle of cells don't constitute as 'surviving' outside the womb; as much as bshoc would like to tell us.

 

[bshoc]

Now you're misconstruing the purpose of my statement in an attempt to once again try and liken abortion to murder. The health and well being of the feotus depends entirely on the health and well being of the mother - the vessel. If you want to play semantics I can misconstrue your statement too. A 1 year old child is capable of living without its mother - especially if the mother dies after child birth. A born human is no longer dependent on the well being of its vessel, is it

22 week old fetuses have survived outside the womb, theoratically speaking a fetus can be transplanted into a new mother, children are always dependant on their parents from conception to high school, denying this is weaving into arbitration, arbitration that is not based on anything proven.

You're only saying that because you disagree with abortion, however seeing as how you've previously relinquished responsibility of the male during pregnancy you've inadvertently passed on all decisions regarding the foetus to the mother - including her legal right to an abortion.

Yes I disagree with abortion, likewise I disagree when law is circumvented.

Abortion is not a "legal right," its a medical procedure that is only legal with a legaly mandated thorough medical verdict which must indicate a threat to the life of the woman if the abortion is not performed, however most if not all performers of abortion illegaly bypass this verict and carry out the procedure, clearly in violation of the law with not fines or jail time, that is what must be changed, there is no need for serious change to the laws on the books, only that the current ones be enforced as their authors intended.

I don't quite understand how you can make two completely contradictive statements in one paragraph and still believe they make any sense. If the responsibility for pregnancy is the female's, then the responsibility of the child's is also the females. So if the female drinks excessively during pregnancy and the child is born with feotal alcohol syndrome she is not responsible?
You cannot be responsible for a pregnancy yet at the same not responsible for the foetus inside, you tool.

omg idiot ... lets take this one word at a time just like playschool ok?

Getting pregant is the sole responsiblity of the mother as it is her body, the child is itself as the result of this pregnancy is the responsibility of both parents as half of the child is genetically the fathers, whilst the mother has certain rights abortion is not and should not be one of them.

I thought you said earlier -

Wait - is that yet another contradiction?

I'm using murder as a parallel example, if you want to link the two, thats your issue.

 

[bshoc]

IVF doesn't work that way anyway. Technically it's a zygote and it's planted into the female when it's still no more than 10 cells. A bundle of cells don't constitute as 'surviving' outside the womb; as much as bshoc would like to tell us.

If they're not surviving then the expectation is that they are dying, so by that logic why do implanted embryos grow?

 

[katie_tully]

22 week old fetuses have survived outside the womb, theoratically speaking a fetus can be transplanted into a new mother, children are always dependant on their parents from conception to high school, denying this is weaving into arbitration, arbitration that is not based on anything proven.

Uh. Theoretically no such thing can be done. When a woman falls pregnanct, her body automatically supresses her immune system so that her body does not reject the pregnancy (thus resulting in spontaneous abortion). A foetus cannot by transplanted to another woman - it can't happen. Not theoretically, not at all.

You seem not to comprehend the difference between a dependent 'foetus' and a 'dependent' child. Because of such, I won't even bother explaining.

Abortion is not a "legal right," its a medical procedure that is only legal with a legaly mandated thorough medical verdict which must indicate a threat to the life of the woman if the abortion is not performed, however most if not all performers of abortion illegaly bypass this verict and carry out the procedure, clearly in violation of the law with not fines or jail time, that is what must be changed, there is no need for serious change to the laws on the books, only that the current ones be enforced as their authors intended.

Who are you to decide who's claim for an abortion is legitimate and who's is not?

Getting pregant is the sole responsiblity of the mother as it is her body, the child is itself as the results of this pregnancy is the responsibility of both parents as half of the child is genetically the fathers, whilst the mother has certain rights abortion is not and should not be one of them.

Quoted for complete stupidity.

 

[katie_tully]

If they're not surviving then the expectation is that they are dying, so by that logic why do implanted embryos grow?

I suggest you google some words;
zygote, oocyte, embryo, cell, fertilisation and most importantly 'ivf'. When you understand what the different stages of formation are and just what IVF is i'll consider you less of an idiot. Still an idiot, just slightly less than 100%

 

[bshoc]

I suggest you google some words;
zygote, oocyte, embryo, cell, fertilisation and most importantly 'ivf'. When you understand what the different stages of formation are and just what IVF is i'll consider you less of an idiot. Still an idiot, just slightly less than 100%

I know what the stages of human development are, however unlike you I also understand that they're nothing more than arbitrary divisions and that splitting the process into 100 named stages or lumping them together into one would be as correct as the current one.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

that splitting the process into 100 named stages or lumping them together into one would be as correct as the current one.

They're not arbitrary though, they're based off of what is actually happening to the organism...

 

[katie_tully]

No, quite clearly you have no comprehension what-so-ever.

 

[bshoc]

You seem not to comprehend the difference between a dependent 'foetus' and a 'dependent' child. Because of such, I won't even bother explaining.

Why differentiate dependancy? Dependancy is dependancy. Complexity is the refuge of the insecure.

Who are you to decide who's claim for an abortion is legitimate and who's is not?

A voting citizen, just like you. That said the itself decision should be left to medical professionals, as a responsible society it should be our (the governments) responsbility to provide stringent boundaries and guidelines for these procedures to be performed, and most importantly, to enforce them.

Quoted for complete stupidity.

Thus our current system = complete stupidity ..

 

[bshoc]

They're not arbitrary though, they're based off of what is actually happening to the organism...

Heh is Pluto still the 9th planet?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

There's always problems with defining things, maybe one day we'll use different words to explain the various stages of development, that doesn't change that the stages of development (as we described them) do occur.

Such classifications are really just there to make it easier.

 

[Capitalist Scum]

Why differentiate dependancy? Dependancy is dependancy. Complexity is the refuge of the insecure.

Oversimplification is the result of a complete and utter lack of understanding.