Happy Atheist Forum

Science has not demonstrated that an only inmaterial soul exists.

Really, brain is the only "soul" that exists.

A human brain is similar one day before delivery and the day after delivery.

Then, delivery should not be considered birthday anymore.

For that reason, a Fetal Civil Registration should be established and abortionist mothers should be sent to jail.

WARNING:
English is not my mother language.

Well, that doesn't exactly follow, now does it?  First off, no one is pro-abortion, it'd be great if they never had to happen, but when the life of the mother is at significant risk, or when the child is hopelessly deformed (no skull, for example, or whose legs are growing into their heart), I think it needs to be there as an option.

Next, you clearly think the brain is equal to a soul, which I understand.  But do you think a few neurons are equal to a human brain?  Is 1/100 of your brain comparable to a brain, to you?  What about before there is any neuronal tissue at all?  It is true that a baby's brain the day before birth is almost exactly like a baby's brain after birth, but we don't abort babies in the last trimester unless the mother is at grave risk, anyway.

Finally, you want to redefine murder to be from the moment of conception on, correct?  25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, so is that manslaughter?  And what should be the sentence for a woman who self-aborts?  How long do you want to imprison them?

Deleted by poster

Pipebox:

QuoteWell, that doesn't exactly follow, now does it? First off, no one is pro-abortion,

Why not?  Your word imply a moral doubt. If an embryo or a fetus were so valuable as sperm, why not to promote abortion?

Quoteit'd be great if they never had to happen, but when the life of the mother is at significant risk, or when the child is hopelessly deformed (no skull, for example, or whose legs are growing into their heart), I think it needs to be there as an option.

You referred to cases with attenuating circumstances. I believe that you would be more honest if you referred to cases with aggravating circumstances, for example, a rich and healthy woman with a healthy full term fetus with a cleft palate.

QuoteNext, you clearly think the brain is equal to a soul, which I understand. But do you think a few neurons are equal to a human brain? Is 1/100 of your brain comparable to a brain, to you?

If a person may be discriminated for his/her lesser brain capacity, should Einstein had the right to take a gun and kill a "normal" man?

QuoteWhat about before there is any neuronal tissue at all? It is true that a baby's brain the day before birth is almost exactly like a baby's brain after birth, but we don't abort babies in the last trimester unless the mother is at grave risk, anyway.

Unfortunately, some women and doctors have killed babies in the last trimester for futile reasons. Do you have knowledge about Morin Clinic in Barcelona?

QuoteFinally, you want to redefine murder to be from the moment of conception on, correct?

No. From the moment when the blastocyst is implanted. But, as a starting point, at least let`s establish an international Fetal Civil Registration in the 13 th week.

Quote25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, so is that manslaughter?

In USA, some women have been punished because or her cocaine consumption when pregnant that has damaged the fetus.

QuoteAnd what should be the sentence for a woman who self-aborts? How long do you want to imprison them?

If a 13th week Fetal Registration were implemented, the supposed father and the supposed mother (right now, there are pregnant women who are not biological mothers) would be legally forced to sign a document where their paterhood were informed. They would be warned about that to kill that registered baby would be punished as a murder.

DIY:

QuoteIn a sanitised black and white world, I agree, abortion is wrong. The trouble is, and I don't want to
sound condescending, the world is a messy F upped place. Here is a story that appeared recently; Vatican Backs Excommunications Stemming From an Abortion
(I hope I did that right).
There are so many victims in this story, and it illustrates, as the saying goes, the (catholic) law is an ass. Really tragic.

I will say to you the same that I said to Pipebox: you will seem more honest if you include not only cases with attenuanting circumstances, but also cases with aggravating circumstances.

QuoteAbortion must always be a personal choice. There will always be some women who for reasons of their own want to end their pregnancy.

There are also men with reasons to end a marriage, but men who kill a wife are locked in jail.

If a fetus is a part of a family, abortion is domestic violence and it has to be punished according to it.

QuoteThe question becomes, under what conditions will it be done; in a hospital under the care of a doctor, or in a back room with a hangar?

Jack the Ripper commited his crimes in dark street. Should society have build special rooms to help him (and other serial killers) to murder comfortably?

Even the wrost criminals have human rights, but an extremist approach of that rights means complicity.

Here we go again.  

Quote from: "cyberateos"Science has not demonstrated that an only inmaterial soul exists.

Really, brain is the only "soul" that exists.

A human brain is similar one day before delivery and the day after delivery.

Then, delivery should not be considered birthday anymore.

For that reason, a Fetal Civil Registration should be established and abortionist mothers should be sent to jail.

WARNING:
English is not my mother language.

The brain is not a "soul" no matter how many times people, usu. Christians, say it is.  The human brain is synopses and electrical activity.  Period.

I am not in favor of abortion at all, but I will not protest it nor will I vote to ban it.  It's not my place to say what a woman can and can't do with her body.  In a perfect world, the father would be involved in the process and women would carry babies to term and give them to other families to raise if they don't want them.  Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.  It's messy and sometimes people have to do desperate acts to survive.

I am not pro-abortion.  I am not rounding up pregnant women and teens and rushing them into abortion clinics after brainwashing them into doing so.  I am pro-choice.  I could say that you are anti-though and anti-choice and anti-woman and anti-civil rights for the stance you take, but I won't.

Mothers are not the abortionists... the doctors who perform the abortions are technically the abortionists.  Should we jail them too?  What about the father?  The one who participated in the fertilization... jail him as well?

QuoteThe brain is not a "soul" no matter how many times people, usu. Christians, say it is. The human brain is synopses and electrical activity. Period.

Of course. For that reason, I used quotation marks: "soul".

QuoteI am not in favor of abortion at all,

Why? If you are not if favor on abortion, then you have a moral conflict.

Quotebut I will not protest it nor will I vote to ban it.

You continue having a moral problem here because of your contradiction.

QuoteIt's not my place to say what a woman can and can't do with her body.

Are you saying that a woman may use her hands to strangulate another woman, or her genitalia to induce children to masturbate her?

 Don`t you believe that male and female right over their bodies have limits?

QuoteIn a perfect world, the father would be involved in the process and women would carry babies to term and give them to other families to raise if they don't want them. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.

But we have to indend to live in a perfect world.

QuoteIt's messy and sometimes people have to do desperate acts to survive.

Are you saying that an unemployeed man should have the right to kill to steal money?

QuoteI am not pro-abortion.

Why?

QuoteI am not rounding up pregnant women and teens and rushing them into abortion clinics after brainwashing them into doing so.

Why not?

 I promote condom use among teenagers.

QuoteI am pro-choice. I could say that you are anti-though and anti-choice and anti-woman and anti-civil rights for the stance you take, but I won't.

What about the choice of the fetal person? What about his/her civil rights?

QuoteMothers are not the abortionists... the doctors who perform the abortions are technically the abortionists. Should we jail them too? What about the father? The one who participated in the fertilization... jail him as well?

The doctor is a mercenary and should be punished too.

The father of the fetal baby should be punished only if he has knowledge about the abortion projects of his wife/girlfriend and does not report it to Police.

cyberateos, preference + empathy /= cognitive dissonance.

Curios:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

First off, your English is superb!  

Quote from: "cyberateos"Why not?  Your word imply a moral doubt. If an embryo or a fetus were so valuable as sperm, why not to promote abortion?

No moral doubt, I was trying to nudge you in the direction of your logic, an argument of reductio ad absurdum.  Specifically, the argument that a baby he day before birth looks almost the same as the day after, where you infer that it looked almost the same the day before that, and then the day before that, and so on, and this works in both directions.  The argument that you can see no difference between any two given days so that means abortion is akin to killing a full grown adult (the implication I get while reading your post, presumably why you want jail time for these women) is not logical.  There are pronounced differences over time, and while deciding a cut off point for anything may be arbitrary, that is not to say that all points are equal.

QuoteYou referred to cases with attenuating circumstances. I believe that you would be more honest if you referred to cases with aggravating circumstances, for example, a rich and healthy woman with a healthy full term fetus with a cleft palate.

I absolutely did not suggest any woman with a fetus having a cleft palate should be aborted.  I do, however, like that you made it a rich woman.  This implies you think there would be an argument to be made if she lived in a diseased, poverty-filled slum.  I do not endorse such an argument, I would bring a child to term even in a slum, but I still think the choice should remain with the mother.  Anyway, the extreme circumstances I mentioned you did not account for in your original post, and surely these alone justify legal abortion.

QuoteIf a person may be discriminated for his/her lesser brain capacity, should Einstein had the right to take a gun and kill a "normal" man?

Again, reductio ad absurdum, and a bad analogy.  If Einstein had a brain-dead son on life support that he was paying for, where he had full medical authority for the son, he could definitely have the plug pulled.  Einstein, on the other hand, does not get to "abort" any other brain-dead children, and he doesn't get to murder people on the street.  If Einstein found he had a nerve tumor possessing 1/100th the neurons in his brain, he could have it removed.  The part that offends your sensibilities is that the fetus will eventually become a person, assuming it won't die in term.  But is it a person yet?  There's a legitimate question to be asked there, that I have no easy solution for.  And that's why I'm content to say that I would never endorse abortion of my offspring, unless there were serious complications, but I do not presume to have the moral authority to deny anyone else their right to choose.

QuoteUnfortunately, some women and doctors have killed babies in the last trimester for futile reasons. Do you have knowledge about Morin Clinic in Barcelona?

I do not.  But there are still cannibalistic tribes in the world, and I don't use them to justify cannibalism.  I do not vote in Barcelona, I do not endorse Barcelona's needless third trimester abortions.

QuoteNo. From the moment when the blastocyst is implanted. But, as a starting point, at least let`s establish an international Fetal Civil Registration in the 13 th week.

No objections, given the existence of the FCR.

QuoteIn USA, some women have been punished because or her cocaine consumption when pregnant that has damaged the fetus.

I do not necessarily agree with the law, either.  In any case, how things are is not an argument for how they ought to be.  Presumably these women brought their fetuses to term, yes?  If they had aborted them immediately there would be no legal implications, but when you bring a child into the world who is damaged because of your actions, then it is open to a judge to decide if you are in opposition to child protection laws.  You are dealing with a wrong that is manifest in a person, now, rather than a wrong in something that has no cognitive function and can't feel pain.  Again, the grounds are too blurry for me to say we should strip women of abortion.

QuoteIf a 13th week Fetal Registration were implemented, the supposed father and the supposed mother (right now, there are pregnant women who are not biological mothers) would be legally forced to sign a document where their paterhood were informed. They would be warned about that to kill that registered baby would be punished as a murder.

Then a woman that falls down the stairs may be guilty of manslaughter or murder.  If she is found guilty of neither, then I know what the new method of abortion will be: accidents.  So, how do you feel about potentially imprisoning women who had an honest-to-god (forgive the term) accident and killed her much-beloved child-in-progress?  Does that sound in the spirit of the law to you?

Quote from: "cyberateos"Science has not demonstrated that an only inmaterial soul exists.

Really, brain is the only "soul" that exists.

A human brain is similar one day before delivery and the day after delivery.

Interesting. At what point can a brain be considered a brain? We don't go from sperm meeting egg to having a brain, after all. Does two cells of gray matter in the first trimester constitute a brain? Or perhaps the most basic brain functions during the second trimester? Or ability to move? Or ability to interact? This is not a simple matter.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Curios:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

Precisely. What rlrose328 was expressing is not cognitive dissonance. It's personal preference altered by empathy. An example of cognitive dissonance would be what a theist experiences when confronted with hard, tangible evidence against literal Biblical stories. rlrose328's statement was akin to someone saying that they would really like a Big Mac if it were available, but since all we have are Whoppers, she'll have to settle for that..

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"... but since all we have are Whoppers, she'll have to settle for that..

One does not "settle" for Whoppers, heretic.

PipeBox:

QuoteFirst off, your English is superb!

Thanks. Saint Google is helping me. ;)

Quotebut I still think the choice should remain with the mother.

Are you saying that a rich and healthy woman should have the right to kill her healthy full term baby? Do you agree that you are implicitly promoting pederastia (a raped baby or an aborted baby are similar)? :lol:

QuoteEinstein, on the other hand, does not get to "abort" any other brain-dead children, and he doesn't get to murder people on the street. If Einstein found he had a nerve tumor possessing 1/100th the neurons in his brain, he could have it removed.

Compared to Einstein`s brain, some brains could be similar to a 1/100 th neurons.

I believe that having a more developed brain does not mean to have a license to kill.

QuoteThe part that offends your sensibilities is that the fetus will eventually become a person, assuming it won't die in term. But is it a person yet? There's a legitimate question to be asked there, that I have no easy solution for. And that's why I'm content to say that I would never endorse abortion of my offspring, unless there were serious complications, but I do not presume to have the moral authority to deny anyone else their right to choose.

You stance is similar to that of some person in the slave traders age: "I would not have a black slave, but I respect the idea of persons who have black slaves". :unsure:

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "cyberateos"Science has not demonstrated that an only inmaterial soul exists.

Really, brain is the only "soul" that exists.

A human brain is similar one day before delivery and the day after delivery.

Interesting. At what point can a brain be considered a brain? We don't go from sperm meeting egg to having a brain, after all. Does two cells of gray matter in the first trimester constitute a brain? Or perhaps the most basic brain functions during the second trimester? Or ability to move? Or ability to interact? This is not a simple matter.

Here in Latin America, an embryo is protected since the implantation of the blastocyst into the womb. Even "two cells of gray matter" are considered a brain.

But I am suggesting an international less extremist rule: a 13 month Fetal Civil Registration that would be imposed by UNO worldwide.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Here we go again.  ;)

What?  So many words just got put into my mouth.

No, I am not condoning the rape of babies.
No, an abortion at 3 months is not murder.  You murder people, and a fetus, this early, is decidedly not yet a person, by consensus (tyranny, if you prefer) of the majority.
No, I am not using extreme cases to justify the system as it stands.  Are you suggesting that you would keep abortion available for extreme circumstances?  Then who would dictate the circumstances?

You completely miss the point on any of my replies containing "Einstein."  Not only are most of us a lot closer to Einstein in neuron count than you seem to believe, so are most newborn babies.  Notice that neuron count doesn't count for much, as a dead brain may also have many, but they do assign an absolute ceiling for mental capacity, and for first trimester fetus, that ceiling is so low as to be non-respondent.  Having a more developed brain is not a license to kill, you seem to be trying to confuse the issue: the baby is, for all intents and purposes at this stage, a parasite that will become a person, and I believe women should retain reproductive freedom, lest you force a 13 year old to have daddy's baby.  It is intimately a part of the female reproductive tract, and as such, subject to her.  To be very crude, if women had the ability to expel unwanted pregnancies under their own power, would you still consider yourself to have any standing?  A pregnant woman can only abort her baby, take note, so there is no license to kill.  To abort anyone else would be acting against their will in the same capacity as me removing your kidneys.  The baby has yet to have a will for the mother to be against.

Despite all this, I would like a super-conservative limit on abortions, and I think it should be whenever a fetus can be demonstrated to perceive pain.  But I also know that's a very personal choice and is namely because I don't even like the idea of causing flies and spiders pain, and I'm a soft-hearted guy.  And, yes, I still eat meat and drink milk because it's still put on the shelf and one person boycotting in this day and age does nothing, and I'll take my guilty, dissonant pleasures.  But I'm something of a moral nihilist, in that if can't have morality declared by the majority, you cannot declare any morality but your own.  And you will come up against a wall if you try to fight man with your sole moral backing.

Again, I see NO reasonable way to outlaw abortions, because even questions of what extreme situations justify abortion entail subjective answers.  As such, I leave those subjective answers to those who are exercising their reproductive systems.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Even "two cells of gray matter" are considered a brain.

So you'd have to be okay with abortion for the first 27-30 days. Before that, there's  no brain whatsoever. You're pro choice for the first 30 days after conception.

I don't condone raping babies either.

Why, what's wrong with raping bab-- aaah, you almost got me! Clever, clever.  

My position on this topic is that the line should be drawn at the point when higher brain function 'begins' since higher brain function is what gives us our personalities and personhood.  Obviously that is not a hard line so we'd have to figure out the earliest time it could develop and use that as the line.  However, I think any laws should include exceptions for medically necessary abortions after that line is crossed.  (based on research I have come across on fetal development) I think this would put the line at about 23 weeks (24 to 26 seems to be when they think higher brain function begins to form) or right at the beginning of the third trimester.  I believe a lot of places are already using the third trimester as the line.  I also think this is the least arbitrary line next to drawing it at conception.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Science has not demonstrated that an only inmaterial soul exists.

Really, brain is the only "soul" that exists.

A human brain is similar one day before delivery and the day after delivery.

Then, delivery should not be considered birthday anymore.

For that reason, a Fetal Civil Registration should be established and abortionist mothers should be sent to jail.

WARNING:
English is not my mother language.

Well, not many abortions are had a day before birth, so I really think that this is a false dilemma, though I do understand that you are trying to say that "birth" is an arbitrary day for a cut off, but I think that if you believe that, then you have missed the point. The birth is the day that a baby becomes its own entity, and is no longer a contingent entity.

The cut of point is whatever is estimated to be the minimum time you can expect it to be possible for a foetus to survive outside of the mother. In all the "pro-life" analyzes of abortion, it seems to me that the woman involved is not even considered, she isn't mentioned, and a foetus being able to survive independently is implied to be a completely arbitrary place to start.

When you consider the welfare of the mother, then you will see the relevance.

Quote from: "Whitney"My position on this topic is that the line should be drawn at the point when higher brain function 'begins' since higher brain function is what gives us our personalities and personhood.  Obviously that is not a hard line so we'd have to figure out the earliest time it could develop and use that as the line.

Even a completely fully formed, and birthed infant is not emotionally or consciously as developed as an adult cow, or pig.

I've always found it strange that there are laws which tell us what we can and can't do to our bodies. Euthanasia for instance. If someone wants to end themselves, who the hell is everyone else to tell them they can't? It's my body and if I want to kill myself, I should be allowed to do so by law. As far as I'm concerned (and this is probably going to be rather controversial) as long as a baby is inside its mother, it is part of the mother. She should be allowed to abort it, for whatever reason, at any time during the pregnancy. There should be lots of counselling on hand to support mothers going through some sort of crisis to help them deal with what they are going through and to support them after the birth should they be persuaded against the abortion option. Lots of counselling.

It should ultimately be the mother's choice no matter what any religious or moralistic outsiders say.

I heard a guy once say that masturbation was thousands of tiny instances of murder. That was his religious justification against the sin of masturbation. Taking it a little too far, methinks.

Quote from: "karadan"I've always found it strange that there are laws which tell us what we can and can't do to our bodies. Euthanasia for instance. If someone wants to end themselves, who the hell is everyone else to tell them they can't? It's my body and if I want to kill myself, I should be allowed to do so by law. As far as I'm concerned (and this is probably going to be rather controversial) as long as a baby is inside its mother, it is part of the mother. She should be allowed to abort it, for whatever reason, at any time during the pregnancy. There should be lots of counselling on hand to support mothers going through some sort of crisis to help them deal with what they are going through and to support them after the birth should they be persuaded against the abortion option. Lots of counselling.

It should ultimately be the mother's choice no matter what any religious or moralistic outsiders say.

I heard a guy once say that masturbation was thousands of tiny instances of murder. That was his religious justification against the sin of masturbation. Taking it a little too far, methinks.

Methinks it stems back to people wanting to save one another. Some people just have to save things. Doesn't matter if they're crap.

Quote from: "cyberateos"

QuoteMothers are not the abortionists... the doctors who perform the abortions are technically the abortionists. Should we jail them too? What about the father? The one who participated in the fertilization... jail him as well?

The doctor is a mercenary and should be punished too.

The father of the fetal baby should be punished only if he has knowledge about the abortion projects of his wife/girlfriend and does not report it to Police.

I'm done here... didn't take long to see that you are here to nitpick and twist words.  I have to play that game with my 9yo... I don't have to play it here.

Have a good conversation.

I like the idea of some type of registry but I think it should actually be in reverse that you can only have a baby once you have been properly trained and licensed.  Much like getting married, practicing law, driving a card, cutting hair, and performing surgeries all require a license and proper qualifications so too should having a child.  So, it should be "no license = no baby".  And, if you don't want an abortion then you can pair up with couples or single people who have been properly licensed and you can give them your baby.

Pipe:

QuoteNo, I am not condoning the rape of babies.

Perhaps not directly, but indirectly you are. If you accept that a premature baby who was conceived 8 month ago, may have its brain sucked, then implicitly you are accepting that a baby may be cruely battered, and a rape is a kind of cruel battering.

QuoteNo, an abortion at 3 months is not murder.

We are not talking about a 3 month fetus, but about an 8 month healthy fetus whose mother is rich and healthy. Please let`s refer to that precise case.

QuoteYou murder people, and a fetus, this early, is decidedly not yet a person, by consensus (tyranny, if you prefer) of the majority.

Argumentum ad populum.

If majority says that virgin women should have their heart pulled away to keep quiet the Son, does it imply that majority is OK?

QuoteNo, I am not using extreme cases to justify the system as it stands. Are you suggesting that you would keep abortion available for extreme circumstances? Then who would dictate the circumstances?

Let`s change the word "abortion" for "kill" or "murder". Y

es, I would accept euthanasic "murders". Society, lawmakers, scientificists, etc., should help to determine the cases.

QuoteYou completely miss the point on any of my replies containing "Einstein." Not only are most of us a lot closer to Einstein in neuron count than you seem to believe,

Ha, ha... Probably. But precisaly that is the problem: if I or other person could demonstrate that we have a brain more powerful than yours, should we have the right to kill you?

Quoteso are most newborn babies. Notice that neuron count doesn't count for much, as a dead brain may also have many, but they do assign an absolute ceiling for mental capacity, and for first trimester fetus, that ceiling is so low as to be non-respondent.

1) Are you sure? A 3 month fetus probably has more brain capacity you could believe
2) If a 3 month fetus is discriminated because of its low brain capacity, a newborn or even a born adult may be discriminated too.
3) You are referring constantly to 3 month fetuses, avoiding to discuss my example of a 8 month healthy fetus, with a healthy and rich mother.

QuoteHaving a more developed brain is not a license to kill, you seem to be trying to confuse the issue:

No. I am not trying to confuse the issue, but to make it clear.

Quotethe baby is, for all intents and purposes at this stage, a parasite that will become a person,
Antiscientifical theist argument.

Imagine that your wife is pregnant and instead of a human being she has a tapeworm. Ha, ha, ha... That would be a fiction science argument.

Quoteand I believe women should retain reproductive freedom,

I believe that both, women and men should have that right and other right. Here the point is if those right should be focused with an extremist approach, or not.

Quotelest you force a 13 year old to have daddy's baby.

Are you going to begin newly to search, desesperately, attenuating circumstances? Why are you avoiding to deal with the case of a healthy and reach 31 year old woman who kills her healthy 8 month fetus?

QuoteIt is intimately a part of the female reproductive tract, and as such, subject to her.

I don`t understand you. If you are saying that a female fetus with her own genitalia is only a clytoris of its mother, really you need to buy a biology book. :crazy:

QuoteDespite all this, I would like a super-conservative limit on abortions, and I think it should be whenever a fetus can be demonstrated to perceive pain. But I also know that's a very personal choice and is namely because I don't even like the idea of causing flies and spiders pain, and I'm a soft-hearted guy.

Ha, ha... A soft-hearted guy that supports infanticides and pederastia... :)

QuoteAgain, I see NO reasonable way to outlaw abortions, because even questions of what extreme situations justify abortion entail subjective answers. As such, I leave those subjective answers to those who are exercising their reproductive systems.

All murders may imply extreme situations that justify that acts. For example, the husband of Terry Schiavo is not considered an evil persons for lots or people. But to leave subjective answers to all husbands would not be supported for anybody.  

Men should not have a license to kill wives and mothers should not have a license to kill fetal babies. Exceptional cases should be ruled by the State to avoid abuses.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "cyberateos"Even "two cells of gray matter" are considered a brain.

So you'd have to be okay with abortion for the first 27-30 days. Before that, there's  no brain whatsoever. You're pro choice for the first 30 days after conception.

I don't condone raping babies either.

I have suggested that a raped girl could take day after pill or even a RU486 very soon after she was raped. Only a blastocyst or an early embryo would be killed.

Quote from: "Whitney"I think this would put the line at about 23 weeks (24 to 26 seems to be when they think higher brain function begins to form) or right at the beginning of the third trimester.  I believe a lot of places are already using the third trimester as the line.  I also think this is the least arbitrary line next to drawing it at conception.

Are you saying that a born 22 weeks baby could be legally ripped with an ax while resting into its artifitial incubator?

Quote from: "VanReal"I like the idea of some type of registry but I think it should actually be in reverse that you can only have a baby once you have been properly trained and licensed.  Much like getting married, practicing law, driving a card, cutting hair, and performing surgeries all require a license and proper qualifications so too should having a child.  So, it should be "no license = no baby".  And, if you don't want an abortion then you can pair up with couples or single people who have been properly licensed and you can give them your baby.

Really. Surely in the future a contraceptive annual injection could be applied to all persons, and only people who has obtained a Governmental permission to have children could have them.

Quote from: "cyberateos"

Quote from: "VanReal"I like the idea of some type of registry but I think it should actually be in reverse that you can only have a baby once you have been properly trained and licensed.  Much like getting married, practicing law, driving a card, cutting hair, and performing surgeries all require a license and proper qualifications so too should having a child.  So, it should be "no license = no baby".  And, if you don't want an abortion then you can pair up with couples or single people who have been properly licensed and you can give them your baby.

Really. Surely in the future a contraceptive annual injection could be applied to all persons, and only people who has obtained a Governmental permission to have children could have them.

Don't know about government, maybe it could be privatized to a worthy "World's Children" non-profit organization or something.  Dare to dream, this is but one of mine!

Quote from: "cyberateos"Are you saying that a born 22 weeks baby could be legally ripped with an ax while resting into its artifitial incubator?

I don't believe she said anything of the sort.  You are doing nothing here but recasting our words in the worst possible light.  You KNOW she didn't mean that.  I believe you think you are making us think, but what you're really doing is rabblerousing with the intent to incite anger and frustration.  

Try reading what people ARE saying instead of rewording it with hurt in mind.

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "cyberateos"Are you saying that a born 22 weeks baby could be legally ripped with an ax while resting into its artifitial incubator?

I don't believe she said anything of the sort.  You are doing nothing here but recasting our words in the worst possible light.  You KNOW she didn't mean that.  I believe you think you are making us think, but what you're really doing is rabblerousing with the intent to incite anger and frustration.  

Try reading what people ARE saying instead of rewording it with hurt in mind.

She said clearly that an intrauterine baby younger than 23 week would be ethically killable.

But what if a 22 week baby is already extrauterine?

Abortion and infanticide cross their ways sooner or later.

Cyberateos, you cheeky, brazen bitch:  it is already illegal to abort at 8 months.  You want to outlaw all abortion that you don't consider euthanasia, which would include 3 month old fetuses.  The law, which is voted on in congress, or by the people, or by a jury, is necessarily ad populum.  It is an agreement by the people to abide by the rules of the majority.  And yes, a 3 month old fetus has less mental capacity than a cow, so I would not be terribly surprised by it.

You are not trying to make the case for your arguments, you are trying to twist other people's.  I'm finished with this thread.

Mods: kill my post if you need to, he isn't going to read this, anyway, just try to find some way to claim the moral high ground while giving no arguments to back his position.

Quote from: "PipeBox"Cyberateos, you cheeky, brazen bitch:  it is already illegal to abort at 8 months.  You want to outlaw all abortion that you don't consider euthanasia, which would include 3 month old fetuses.  The law, which is voted on in congress, or by the people, or by a jury, is necessarily ad populum.  It is an agreement by the people to abide by the rules of the majority.  And yes, a 3 month old fetus has less mental capacity than a cow, so I would not be terribly surprised by it.

You are not trying to make the case for your arguments, you are trying to twist other people's.  I'm finished with this thread.

Mods: kill my post if you need to, he isn't going to read this, anyway, just try to find some way to claim the moral high ground while giving no arguments to back his position.

Pipebox:

I don`t need to use offensive words against you.

Here is a big truth:

If you support abortion during all pregnancy stages, then, indirectly you are supporting infanticide and pedearasty too.

Then, I invite you and all atheists or not atheists to promote laws to protect intrauterine minors.

"IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY, INTRAUTERINE CHILDREN ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT"

Don't like abortions? Don't have one.

/thread

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Don't like abortions? Don't have one.

/thread

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Don't like abortions? Don't have one.

/thread

1) In slave traders time, it was said: "don`t like slavery? Don`t buy a slave?"


2) If you are a man, lots of Governments force you to accept an abortion of your fetal child.

1) The sins of the fathers are not the sins of their sons. Also, please don't tell me that you're comparing the horrific life of adult slaves (typically families) with the well-being of a cluster of cells that can flush out of a woman's vagina completely unnoticed. If so, that's a harsh line to walk, man.

2) I have this nasty habit of being responsible, rational and thoughtful and only having safe sex with women who also happen to be responsible, rational and thoughtful. If there was more of that going on, this debate wouldn't be needed.

Hypothetical:

A woman has a rare disease, that if she gets pregnant, her body will release an enzyme that is fatal to her and would deeply impact the health of her child. If this woman is raped and impregnated, would you support her getting an abortion to save her life?

Quote from: "cyberateos"She said clearly that an intrauterine baby younger than 23 week would be ethically killable.

But what if a 22 week baby is already extrauterine?

Abortion and infanticide cross their ways sooner or later.

You have my deep and abiding pity if you cannot understand the difference between abortion of an embryo or fetus and blatant murder of a baby or child.  That's just sick, man.  

This is a prime example of your twisting what people say to fit your own argument.  It's not a proper method of debate.  If you can't state your argument without twisting the words of the opponent, then you shouldn't be debating.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"1) The sins of the fathers are not the sins of their sons. Also, please don't tell me that you're comparing the horrific life of adult slaves (typically families) with the well-being of a cluster of cells that can flush out of a woman's vagina completely unnoticed. If so, that's a harsh line to walk, man.

2) I have this nasty habit of being responsible, rational and thoughtful and only having safe sex with women who also happen to be responsible, rational and thoughtful. If there was more of that going on, this debate wouldn't be needed.

1) A third trimester abortion is not a "cluster of cells that can flush out of a vagina unnoticed".

Use this link:

http://www.tldm.org/News7/ParallelsSlaveryAbortion.htm (http://www.tldm.org/News7/ParallelsSlaveryAbortion.htm)

2) I agree: men should not have sex with feminazis.

Quote from: "jcm"Hypothetical:

A woman has a rare disease, that if she gets pregnant, her body will release an enzyme that is fatal to her and would deeply impact the health of her child. If this woman is raped and impregnated, would you support her getting an abortion to save her life?

JCM:

I have said, very clearly, that it is dishonest to use cases with attenuating circumstances instead of cases with aggravating circumstances.

Let`s reach an agreement in this case:

A 31 year old healthy and reach woman who kills her 8 month healthy fetus because it had a cleft palate.

Quote from: "rlrose328"You have my deep and abiding pity if you cannot understand the difference between abortion of an embryo or fetus and blatant murder of a baby or child.  That's just sick, man.  

This is a prime example of your twisting what people say to fit your own argument.  It's not a proper method of debate.  If you can't state your argument without twisting the words of the opponent, then you shouldn't be debating.

Can you demonstrate that really it is different to kill a nine month fetus and to kill a seven month premature baby? Is not the first really older that the second?

Quote from: "cyberateos"1) A third trimester abortion is not a "cluster of cells that can flush out of a vagina unnoticed".

Again, you continue to dwell on late-term abortions when those are in the vast minority of abortions done in this country.  Studies done in 2003 show that late term abortions account for only 1.4% of abortions done.  (Don't get me wrong... it's horrible that that figure exists at all.)  You know perfectly well that the OP was referring to early-term abortions and yet again, you deliberately twisted it around.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Can you demonstrate that really it is different to kill a nine month fetus and to kill a seven month premature baby? Is not the first really older that the second?

Why is it that you are focusing SOLELY on late-term abortions done with healthy, rich women?  Why does the fetus deserve more rights than the mother?  Why did you come here to argue with atheists about this issue?

No, I can't demonstrate it's different and you know that.  But my demonstration is irrelevant.  If a woman chooses to abort her fetus, that's her business, not mine and not yours.  Period.  I would be more than happy to take the child when it's born if she doesn't want it.  But I can't force her to carry a child if she doesn't want to.  What about all of the thousands of spontaneous abortions that take place every day all over the world?  How will you stop those from happening?  And how will you prosecute those women who, for some unknown reason, lose a child involuntarily?  I mean, that life is lost.

I just typed a medical transcription sample (with no identifying information whatsoever) that detailed a sonogram in which the fetus was found deceased at 13 weeks.  Should THAT mother be prosecuted as well?  She must have done SOMETHING to cause the death, right?

We can all twist each others' arguments around... but I'd rather discuss this rationally.  Is that possible with you?

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "cyberateos"1) A third trimester abortion is not a "cluster of cells that can flush out of a vagina unnoticed".

Again, you continue to dwell on late-term abortions when those are in the vast minority of abortions done in this country.  Studies done in 2003 show that late term abortions account for only 1.4% of abortions done.  (Don't get me wrong... it's horrible that that figure exists at all.)  You know perfectly well that the OP was referring to early-term abortions and yet again, you deliberately twisted it around.

rose:

I repeat: we are talking about a concrete case: a 31 years old healthy woman who has killed her healthy 8 month fetal baby because it had a cleft palate.

Do you believe that she shoul receive a legal lethal injection?

Quote from: "cyberateos"

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "cyberateos"1) A third trimester abortion is not a "cluster of cells that can flush out of a vagina unnoticed".

Again, you continue to dwell on late-term abortions when those are in the vast minority of abortions done in this country.  Studies done in 2003 show that late term abortions account for only 1.4% of abortions done.  (Don't get me wrong... it's horrible that that figure exists at all.)  You know perfectly well that the OP was referring to early-term abortions and yet again, you deliberately twisted it around.

rose:

I repeat: we are talking about a concrete case: a 31 years old healthy woman who has killed her healthy 8 month fetal baby because it had a cleft palate.

Do you believe that she shoul receive a legal lethal injection?

Your "concrete case" is an example you've come up with to try to back any one of us into a corner so we'd HAVE to admit she should be able to kill her 8mo fetus.  It is NOT a "concrete case."

That 31yo woman has the right to do what she needs to do for her life.  Neither you nor I nor the government has a say in what she does with her body.  Period.  Yes, if it were outside of her body, it would be murder.  But it's NOT outside her body.  These are two distinct scenarios and you cannot compare them as if they were the same.

I'll ask YOU again... why is it that the fetus should have more rights than the mother?  What if just carrying that baby puts such a strain on the mother that her life is in danger?  Would she have the right to abort then?  Or the case of the 8yo girl who got pregnant by her father... her mother allowed an abortion because the girl was pregnant with twins and carrying them even PARTIALLY to term would have killed the girl.  What about THAT case?

You cannot paint this issue with one brush.  It is a picture with MANY shades of grey.

And no, I do not think the woman should face a lethal injection.  That is the most ludicrous thing I've heard you say yet... and you've said MANY ludicrous things thus far.

Quote from: "PipeBox"Well, that doesn't exactly follow, now does it?  First off, no one is pro-abortion, it'd be great if they never had to happen, but when the life of the mother is at significant risk, or when the child is hopelessly deformed (no skull, for example, or whose legs are growing into their heart), I think it needs to be there as an option.

http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1219281537.shtml

QuoteNext, you clearly think the brain is equal to a soul, which I understand.  But do you think a few neurons are equal to a human brain?  Is 1/100 of your brain comparable to a brain, to you?  What about before there is any neuronal tissue at all?  It is true that a baby's brain the day before birth is almost exactly like a baby's brain after birth, but we don't abort babies in the last trimester unless the mother is at grave risk, anyway.

Doe v. Bolton defined "health" so gravely as to include pretty much anything, allowing abortion until birth.

QuoteFinally, you want to redefine murder to be from the moment of conception on, correct?  25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, so is that manslaughter?  And what should be the sentence for a woman who self-aborts?  How long do you want to imprison them?

1: Spontaneous abortions are just that: spontaneous. We would not prosecute women who miscarry just as we do not prosecute parents of SIDS syndrome.
2: Considering the typical circumstances and lack of malice aforethought, abortion would be voluntary manslaughter.

rlrose:

QuoteI just typed a medical transcription sample (with no identifying information whatsoever) that detailed a sonogram in which the fetus was found deceased at 13 weeks. Should THAT mother be prosecuted as well? She must have done SOMETHING to cause the death, right?

Fetal persons should have a Death Certification, exactly as adult have. If the physician findes suspicious signs, a fetal necropsy would be done. If injuries produced by curettage or scissors are found, the mother would be arrested.

QuoteThat 31yo woman has the right to do what she needs to do for her life. Neither you nor I nor the government has a say in what she does with her body. Period. Yes, if it were outside of her body, it would be murder. But it's NOT outside her body. These are two distinct scenarios and you cannot compare them as if they were the same.

You are, in fact, accepting that a baby may be legally raped, straining its anus.

If you believe that because the mother is the owner of her body she has the right to suck the brain of ther healthy full term fetus (in a partial birth abortion), you are giving a rapiest a license to use his penis to rape a baby. :D

QuoteYou cannot paint this issue with one brush. It is a picture with MANY shades of grey.

All murders have that shades of grey but we are talking about AN EXACT SHADE of grey. ;)

QuoteAnd no, I do not think the woman should face a lethal injection. That is the most ludicrous thing I've heard you say yet... and you've said MANY ludicrous things thus far.

What punishment would you believe should be applied to a man who kidnaps babies to rape them and leave the corpse in the forest?

Quote from: "cyberateos"

Quote from: "Whitney"I think this would put the line at about 23 weeks (24 to 26 seems to be when they think higher brain function begins to form) or right at the beginning of the third trimester.  I believe a lot of places are already using the third trimester as the line.  I also think this is the least arbitrary line next to drawing it at conception.

Are you saying that a born 22 weeks baby could be legally ripped with an ax while resting into its artifitial incubator?

What 22 week babies are in artificial incubators?  They'd be vegetables.

Edit...btw...admin break:

Cyberateos.  Please take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the forum rules.  Your debate tactics are not civil.  There is no reason to assume that other members want to rape or murder babies.  Using such debate tactics is not only uncivil but a poor means of making a strong case for yourself.  Argue the issues, not the emotions.  If you continue, I'll start handing out warnings.

Whitney:

The world record to survive out of womb is the 21th week.

You don`t want that topics such as infanticide and pederasty be menctioned, but all laws should have a general application.

Then, I consider that it is unavoidable to correlate that topics to an abortion law.

But if you don`t like my debating tactics, I could almost leave this discussion, permitting other members (such as Nulono) to continue.

I would participate only scarcely, because I would have my hands tied.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Whitney:

The world record to survive out of womb is the 21th week.

You don`t want that topics such as infanticide and pederasty be menctioned, but all laws should have a general application.

Then, I consider that it is unavoidable to correlate that topics to an abortion law.

But if you don`t like my debating tactics, I could almost leave this discussion, permitting other members (such as Nulono) to continue.

I would participate only scarcely, because I would have my hands tied.

I wouldn't have a problem putting the line at 21 weeks then....I doubt that baby was very healthy though.  I don't really feel like researching it right now.

If you can't be civil this is not the place for you...your choice.

Whitney:

QuoteI wouldn't have a problem putting the line at 21 weeks then....I doubt that baby was very healthy though. I don't really feel like researching it right now.

That limit (21 week) surely will become increasingly lower as technology evolves.

Right now, the abortion limit of UK has exceeded the viability boundary. Then, forecefully, a unpleasant comparison of abortion and infanticide is present.

QuoteIf you can't be civil this is not the place for you...your choice.

Strawman fallacy.

Making inavoidable correlations is not uncivil.

Really, what is not civil is to pretend that a member has his/her hands tied.

But I repeat: if you and me have different point of view regarding civility, let`s consider that this debate has finished. No problem.

In that case, as far as I'm concerned it's done.  There is no need to imply people want to allow baby rape in order to discuss abortion.

Quote from: "Whitney"In that case, as far as I'm concerned it's done.  There is no need to imply people want to allow baby rape in order to discuss abortion.

I am concerned for all the rights of babies, regardless if that babies are intrauterine or extrauterine:

Right to health, right to a civil registration, right to be protected, etc.

That protection is not only against murderers, but also against rapiests and other attackers.

If all you consider that my stance is not confortable to this group, my participation in this line has finished, and I will see other discussions.

Quote from: "cyberateos"You are, in fact, accepting that a baby may be legally raped, straining its anus.

If you believe that because the mother is the owner of her body she has the right to suck the brain of ther healthy full term fetus (in a partial birth abortion), you are giving a rapiest a license to use his penis to rape a baby. :D

So we must answer your questions, the "concrete" situation you posed, but if we ask you questions, we're not being intellectually honest?  Bull.  Answer my questions as I have answered yours.

Quote from: "cyberateos"

Quote from: "rlrose328"And no, I do not think the woman should face a lethal injection. That is the most ludicrous thing I've heard you say yet... and you've said MANY ludicrous things thus far.

What punishment would you believe should be applied to a man who kidnaps babies to rape them and leave the corpse in the forest?

Again with the ludicrous and unrelated scenario.  What I would sentence a man who kidnaps and rapes "babies" is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  Please stick to the topic.

Quote from: "cyberateos".

If all you consider that my stance is not confortable to this group, my participation in this line has finished, and I will see other discussions.

The problem is not with "comfort" the problem is you approaching debate like a jerk.

Anyway, I'm done.  I'm not going to bother trying to discuss civility and proper debate technique with you.  You know the rules, you can google what civil, debate, and strawmen mean.

Rose:

QuoteSo we must answer your questions, the "concrete" situation you posed, but if we ask you questions, we're not being intellectually honest? Bull. Answer my questions as I have answered yours.

This is your question:

QuoteWhat if just carrying that baby puts such a strain on the mother that her life is in danger? Would she have the right to abort then?

But a 8 month baby could be delivered. I may be removed with a C section. There is not need to kill it. :hmm:

A 8 month ago conceived baby is a 8 month ago conceived baby; is it not important if that baby rests into a womb or into an incubator.

Really, religion is what has confounded the minds even of supposedly "atheists", who have not be able to understand that DELIVERY should NOT mean BIRTH anymore.

cyberateos, there's a reason why you're running up against so much resistance. It also happens to be why your views aren't law: they're extreme, unnecessary and antagonistic.

Cyberateos, first off, sorry for losing my cool at you.
Second, I'm sorry to be back in this conversation, because I don't think anyone that makes such inflammatory remarks is deserving of the participation of others in their thread.

Third, I thought I'd just say that what you mention is not justice, it's vengeance.  You know why we imprison or lethally inject murderers and serial killers?  To protect ourselves from someone that murders people.  To keep it from happening again.  HOWEVER, this horrid example you have listed, the woman 8 months pregnant who kills her baby with a cleft palate, she is not a threat to society, just future children, as it were.  At best, you have a case for fining her and preventing her from having any future children (you can't abort in the future if you can't get pregnant).  If she used a doctor, you might have a case for fining him and revoking his medical license.  But prison time isn't going to help these people get right with your morals, it isn't that kind of offense.  And lethal injection?  There's no need.  Again, you're not seeking justice, you want vengeance.  Blood for blood, if you can get it.  So I think that perhaps you should rethink that part of your platform.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"cyberateos, there's a reason why you're running up against so much resistance. It also happens to be why your views aren't law: they're extreme, unnecessary and antagonistic.

Here in Latin America, YOUR views would be considered extreme.

Quote from: "PipeBox"You know why we imprison or lethally inject murderers and serial killers?  To protect ourselves from someone that murders people.  To keep it from happening again.  HOWEVER, this horrid example you have listed, the woman 8 months pregnant who kills her baby with a cleft palate, she is not a threat to society, just future children, as it were.

If that women were killed, OTHER women would have fear to kill their children.

Intrauterine minors ARE a part of society, and their fathers too.

Both, babies and their fathers, should be protected.

Also, I repeat: despite all you get angry, abortion is an attack against minor exactly as rape of babies, kidnapping and other acts are. Then, if we are weak in one of that points, we would be indirectly reinforcing the other attacks against minors.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Intrauterine minors ARE a part of society, and their fathers too.

A fetus is not part of society.

Quotesoâ‹...ciâ‹...eâ‹...ty
â€, â€,/səˈsaɪɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [suh-sahy-i-tee]  plural -ties, adjective
â€"noun
1.    an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
2.    a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.
3.    the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.
4.    a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.
5.    such a system characterized by its dominant economic class or form: middle-class society; industrial society.
6.    those with whom one has companionship.
7.    companionship; company: to enjoy one's society.
8.    the social life of wealthy, prominent, or fashionable persons.
9.    the social class that comprises such persons.
10.    the condition of those living in companionship with others, or in a community, rather than in isolation.

A fetus has absolutely no association with anyone or anything other than the mother. I know you're going to say that it does through the mother, but that's not true, either. Pregnancy is a condition that people are reacting to. "Companionship" with someone's fetus is wishful thinking, too, so don't bother with that one, either. You can no more have companionship with a fetus than you can a stuffed animal. Companionship (and, likewise, being part of a society) requires reciprocation. Fetuses cannot reciprocate.

The thing that makes people people is autonomy.

Quoteauâ‹...tonâ‹...oâ‹...my
â€, â€,/É"ˈtÉ'nÉ™mi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [aw-ton-uh-mee]
â€"noun, plural -mies.
1.    independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual.
2.    the condition of being autonomous; self-government, or the right of self-government; independence: The rebels demanded autonomy from Spain.
3.    a self-governing community.

A fetus has no autonomy. It has no freedom or self-governance. In the most basic sense, it is a parasite solely relying on its mother.

QuoteAlso, I repeat: despite all you get angry, abortion is an attack against minor exactly as rape of babies, kidnapping and other acts are. Then, if we are weak in one of that points, we would be indirectly reinforcing the other attacks against minors.

No, it's not. Something "exactly as rape" is... rape. You can euphemize all you like, but at the end of the day you cannot draw a direct connection between abortions and the raping of babies (a silly thing to even discuss; is this rampant where you're from? is there a baby-raping epidemic?). Even your attempt to do so is uninformed and, frankly, disturbing.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Here in Latin America, YOUR views would be considered extreme.

Which views would those be, exactly?

Curiosity:

If you use your google and search for "fetal psychology", you will find that is is not logical to say that a newborn is a part of society and a full term fetus is not.

Regarding pederastia against babies, unfortunately some relevant cases have arisen in France, Spain and other sites.

Quote from: "cyberateos"If you use your google and search for "fetal psychology", you will find that is is not logical to say that a newborn is a part of society and a full term fetus is not.

What part of that is "not logical"? I checked that search. "Nothing neurologically significant occurs after the birthing process." Point being? It doesn't matter what's going on neurologically, what matters is its ability to interact with others in a meaningful way. Before birth, this simply does not happen. According to the article, fetuses in utero spend 90-95% of their time unconscious. Hiccups, kicking, etc., are simply motor functions. They no more denote autonomy and inclusion in society than the movement of a Venus Flytrap means it's got higher brain function.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

Quote from: "Psychology Today, 1998"Fetuses react sharply to their mother's actions. "When we're watching the fetus on ultrasound and the mother starts to laugh, we can see the fetus, floating upside down in the womb, bounce up and down on its head, bum-bum-bum, like it's bouncing on a trampoline," says DiPietro. "When mothers watch this on the screen, they laugh harder, and the fetus goes up and down even faster. We've wondered whether this is why people grow up liking roller coasters."

Seriously? I mean, seriously?  :|

Curious:

Quotewhat matters is its ability to interact with others in a meaningful way. Before birth, this simply does not happen.

And after birth it occurs?  :D

You're not reading what I'm typing.

"what matters is its ability to interact with others in a meaningful way. Before birth, this simply does not happen."

Robinson Crusoe or a hermit have the ability to interact with others in a meaningful way, but do not (through circumstance or decision). A fetus does not have the ability to interact with others in a meaningful way.

Curios:

QuoteA fetus does not have the ability to interact with others in a meaningful way.

Are you sure that a 8 mont fetus has not a similar "ability to interact with others" as a 8 month premature infant who was delivered five days ago and rests into an incubator?

Quote from: "cyberateos"Are you sure that a 8 mont fetus has not a similar "ability to interact with others" as a 8 month premature infant who was delivered five days ago and rests into an incubator?

Nope. Nothing even remotely alike. Refer back to my statement about agency.

And I'll preempt you: you're going to argue that the mother and the incubator are the same thing and it shouldn't matter about the baby's location. Not true. Similar function, different condition. A spoon and a fork are both utensils, but only one is worth a damn if you're eating soup. If the fetus is inside the mother, it is still parasitic on the mother. One cannot be parasitic toward a machine.

You're also likely to say that the premature newborn doesn't really have agency because he is completely at the whim of the doctors, nurses, etc., but I would remind you that helplessness and lack of agency are two different things entirely.

Curios:

QuoteIf the fetus is inside the mother, it is still parasitic on the mother. One cannot be parasitic toward a machine.

A newborn is a social parasite, as well as an oldman who suffers Alzheimer is.

Even unempoyeed adults are parasites, as well as stealers or gangs.

Really, I consider that abortionist women and doctors are social parasites that are harming intrauterine and extraterine persons, and that should be killed as dangerous worms are.

Remember: pro abortion arguments may be easily reverted.

QuoteYou're also likely to say that the premature newborn doesn't really have agency because he is completely at the whim of the doctors, nurses, etc., but I would remind you that helplessness and lack of agency are two different things entirely.

I don`t understand your differentiation. A fetus may listen sounds and react to them. It can even detect light trough its eyelids. A newborn can`s see beyond 20 cm. Both, newborn and fetus, are similar and Law should treat them in a similar way.

Also, to be highly dependent is an aggravating circumstance when a person is attacked. Both, newborn and fetus, are highly dependent, and those who attack them should be severely punished, even with death penalty.

Quote from: "cyberateos"A newborn is a social parasite, as well as an oldman who suffers Alzheimer is.

Even unempoyeed adults are parasites, as well as stealers or gangs.

I said biological, not interpersonal. Don't twist my words.

QuoteReally, I consider that abortionist women and doctors are social parasites that are harming intrauterine and extraterine persons, and that should be killed as dangerous worms are.

Not arguing that.

QuoteRemember: pro abortion arguments may be easily reverted.

Nobody is pro abortion. "Pro abortion" would be mandatory abortions for everyone. That's stupid. Also, saying "X kind of argument is easily reverted" doesn't mean anything until the argument is refuted. Any argument can be turned upside to make the opposite point. That's kind of the nature of arguments.

QuoteI don`t understand your differentiation. A fetus may listen sounds and react to them. It can even detect light trough its eyelids. A newborn can`s see beyond 20 cm. Both, newborn and fetus, are similar and Law should treat them in a similar way.

Also, to be highly dependent is an aggravating circumstance when a person is attacked. Both, newborn and fetus, are highly dependent, and those who attack them should be severely punished, even with death penalty.

Okay, a few things. First, studies have shown that plants react to music. Second, a healthy 20 year old male is similar to a comatose, brain-dead 20 year old male.

Also, you never addressed my earlier question. You said "Here in Latin America, YOUR views would be considered extreme." Which views are those?

Curios:

QuoteI said biological, not interpersonal. Don't twist my words.

I am not twisting your words, but adding my own words.

You feel that a fetal baby is a parasite that may be destroyed.

I feel that abortionist women and doctors are parasites that may be destroyed.

You are concerned for biological parasitism. I am concerned for social parasitism.

QuoteNobody is pro abortion.

False. I am pro abortion in some sense. I promote the use of IUD`s, condoms, forced sterilization, etc.

Quote"Pro abortion" would be mandatory abortions for everyone.

False. Pro abortion implies that abortion could be unpunished, promoted or even mandatory, as it occurs in China. There is a broad spectrum of possibilities.

QuoteThat's stupid.

Why? In Colombia, teenagers were forced to carry condoms.

QuoteAlso, saying "X kind of argument is easily reverted" doesn't mean anything until the argument is refuted. Any argument can be turned upside to make the opposite point. That's kind of the nature of arguments.

Abortionist should consider carefully that all their arguments may be used against them. :D

QuoteAlso, you never addressed my earlier question. You said "Here in Latin America, YOUR views would be considered extreme." Which views are those?

You, UK, American and European people have an extremist point of view of some rights: reproductive rights, women`s rights, parental rights, health rights, etc.

That rights exist, but your approach of them seems extremist for other cultures.

Deleted by poster

Cyberateos,

I am curious, what do you propose we do with all of these unwanted babies that are born because the mother is not allowed to abort it?

Quote from: "cyberateos"I am not twisting your words, but adding my own words.
You feel that a fetal baby is a parasite that may be destroyed.
I feel that abortionist women and doctors are parasites that may be destroyed.
You are concerned for biological parasitism. I am concerned for social parasitism.

I feel that a fetus falls into the category of parasite (albeit one many prospective mothers are happy to carry around) and thus has different rights than an individual with agency in society.

Just want you to understand that, in as far as the argument you are making (that a fetus in utero should have the same rights as a baby that's been delivered), a woman or doctor's strain on society (societal parasitism) is completely pointless.

Quote from: "cyberateos"False. I am pro abortion in some sense. I promote the use of IUD`s, condoms, forced sterilization, etc.

That's contraception. Not abortion. You can't abort a fetus that doesn't exist. You can't say that it's preemptive abortion, either. Can you cancel a television show that's never even been written?

Quote from: "cyberateos"False. Pro abortion implies that abortion could be unpunished, promoted or even mandatory, as it occurs in China. There is a broad spectrum of possibilities.

In China, abortion has been used to enforce a single-child policy, this is true. However, this topic is much more complex than a simple "China promotes abortion." Half my family is Chinese. Don't get me started on this or I'll go for days.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Why? In Colombia, teenagers were forced to carry condoms.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but okay, good for them. Educating them on how to use them is more important than forcing them to carry, however. Still, I'm okay with that.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Abortionist should consider carefully that all their arguments may be used against them.

Abortionist... is that like a Darwinist? Is someone who likes bananas a Bananaist? I'm eating a Jimmy Johns sub right now, does that make me a Jimmy Johnist? I like Coke more than Pepsi (but Mountain Dew more than both), so does that make me a Cokist? Anyone's argument may be used against him or her. As I said, stating that fact is meaningless. Doing it is useful, though argumentatively boring.

Quote from: "cyberateos"A healthy fetus is similar to an anencephalic fetus, but their differences make one of them ethically killable and the other a person who deserves protection.

No, their difference makes killing one easier to deal with on an empathetic level.

Quote from: "cyberateos"You, UK, American and European people have an extremist point of view of some rights: reproductive rights, women`s rights, parental rights, health rights, etc.

That rights exist, but your approach of them seems extremist for other cultures.

You're generalizing. Be specific or what you just said is meaningless.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"You're not reading what I'm typing.

"what matters is its ability to interact with others in a meaningful way. Before birth, this simply does not happen."

Robinson Crusoe or a hermit have the ability to interact with others in a meaningful way, but do not (through circumstance or decision). A fetus does not have the ability to interact with others in a meaningful way.

You admitted nothing significant happens at birth, and a premature baby has the ability to interact.. If a newborn has the ability to interact, so does the fetus. The fetus has the ability to interact, but does not through circumstance.

Quote from: "Nulono"You admitted nothing significant happens at birth, and a premature baby has the ability to interact.. If a newborn has the ability to interact, so does the fetus. The fetus has the ability to interact, but does not through circumstance.

To be honest, I'm playing devil's advocate and have no interest in staking a claim in that position, or spending time and effort defending it. It's simply my reaction to his reaction to my reaction to his reaction to my reaction to his....

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Nulono"You admitted nothing significant happens at birth, and a premature baby has the ability to interact.. If a newborn has the ability to interact, so does the fetus. The fetus has the ability to interact, but does not through circumstance.

To be honest, I'm playing devil's advocate and have no interest in staking a claim in that position, or spending time and effort defending it. It's simply my reaction to his reaction to my reaction to his reaction to my reaction to his....

Aye, when you get right down to it, there's one thing cyberateos doesn't want to admit.  Society makes the laws.
He won't win any followers by calling his opposition baby rapers, either, except for the religious pickets.
He also overlooks the very real cost of society being in line with his morals.  The cost of doctors and morticians to investigate every dead fetus, the cost of checkups to verify the baby hasn't been aborted, the cost of driving out to every small country in the world and keeping a close eye on their pregnant women.  And what of this international law that he wants?  The countries that don't sign will surely not extradite their women for breaking international law.  He conveniently overlooks the cost of not aborting, as well, to the individual and the government.  How many more families would be on welfare, how much more state assistance would be required?  It's a mess, a utopia only for his dreams.

DIY

Quote1 What is abortion, in your opinion? Your last post makes it very enigmatic.

I believe that the word "abortion" should dissapear in the next year, to be sustituted by other words such as: spermaticide, blastocistide, embryocide, feticide, etc.

Quote2 At what point does a fetus need to be registered using your system?

In a first period, all 13 week fetuses should be registered and considered "legally born" worldwide. A country who would refuse to establish that registration, would suffer punishments.

Quote3 When does the life of the fetus become more important that the life of the mother?

Really, both lives are equally important, but  don`t forget the mother has parental duties toward her offspring (intrauterine or extrauterine).

Quote4 Do Doctors in latin america have a board (college of physicians and surgeons) to which they must answer?

Here, abortion is being discussed. Then, different colleges have different opinions according to the political parties that have paid to them to hold an idea.

Quote5 Do Doctors in latin america need to consult an ethics board before performing a late term abortion?

No. Law normally requires two medical opinions, but, for example, in Argentina, those cases become so popular, that virtually the entire country is a "ethics board".

Quote6 How does your proposed registry force reluctant (fearful) mothers to register their fetus?

If a mother who has delivered a baby refuses to register it, she is punished. Is not she? Also, a man who refuses to pay money after a divorce is punished.

But really doctors who care for the mother would have the duty to report the existence of that fetus. Signing a document would be an aditional step for the supposed father and the supposed mother.

Quote7 What allowances do you make for the hormonal changes, sleep deprivation, post partum depression women can suffer?

Ha, ha... Post partum depression has been used as a "crime of psychiatry" to support the feminazi lobby to get impunity. Both, feminazis and Mengeles psychiatrists should be sent to a penal colony.

Quote8 How do you expect that by making an example of a mother that aborts her baby, you're going to influence the decisions that
are made by any other woman in such an emotionally fragile state (considering the abortion of her baby)? (Have you ever been a father?(I have to conclude you're male
based on your stance on this issue)).

Murderers use to be coward people. If potential abortionist mothers and doctors are sure that they will go to an electric chair if they kill a fetal baby, they won`t kill even a fly.

Quote9 Are you an atheist? How does this relate to your post?

A true atheist should not make any distinction between intrauterine minors and extrauterine minors, because that differentiation is based on magical beliefs, not on science.

Quote from: "VanReal"Cyberateos,

I am curious, what do you propose we do with all of these unwanted babies that are born because the mother is not allowed to abort it?

She may give them to State to canalize them to abortion.

But that woman should be forced to pay money to help the adopter, exactly as a divorced man is forced to pay money to rise his children.

Curiosity:

QuoteI feel that a fetus falls into the category of parasite (albeit one many prospective mothers are happy to carry around) and thus has different rights than an individual with agency in society.

Your argument is not logical because lots of people are parasites, perhaps even Lady Di or other kings and queens.

And "biological parasitism" is not very different to "social parasitism". Your argumente is weak, very, very weak. :D

QuoteJust want you to understand that, in as far as the argument you are making (that a fetus in utero should have the same rights as a baby that's been delivered), a woman or doctor's strain on society (societal parasitism) is completely pointless.

No. I am being empathetic with you. Really, you and me are the same: both feel that some human beings should be killed cruely, as worms.

 The difference is that you want to kill innocent children, and I want to kill those who murder innocent children.

But despite that difference, you and me, both, are murderers because we promote legal murders. ;)

QuoteIn China, abortion has been used to enforce a single-child policy, this is true. However, this topic is much more complex than a simple "China promotes abortion." Half my family is Chinese. Don't get me started on this or I'll go for days.

Is it true that in China a newborn is considered one year old?    

QuoteNot sure what that has to do with anything, but okay, good for them. Educating them on how to use them is more important than forcing them to carry, however.

I support thas spermaticide be forced. I would support even that surgical sterilisation be forced. Reproductive rights should de limited.

Pipebox:

QuoteAye, when you get right down to it, there's one thing cyberateos doesn't want to admit. Society makes the laws.
He won't win any followers by calling his opposition baby rapers, either, except for the religious pickets.
He also overlooks the very real cost of society being in line with his morals. The cost of doctors and morticians to investigate every dead fetus, the cost of checkups to verify the baby hasn't been aborted, the cost of driving out to every small country in the world and keeping a close eye on their pregnant women. And what of this international law that he wants? The countries that don't sign will surely not extradite their women for breaking international law. He conveniently overlooks the cost of not aborting, as well, to the individual and the government. How many more families would be on welfare, how much more state assistance would be required? It's a mess, a utopia only for his dreams.

Really, society has spent much money in an extremist protection for women.

In some countries, several guys have been locked in jail only because they were drunk and slapped the butt of a girl.

If feminazi laws were stopped, that resources could be employed to antiabortion and other anti-feminazi laws.

The real problem is the inferiority complex of men of our Western society, that is a "reverted Taliban", a real matriarcal society.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Really, society has spent much money in an extremist protection for women.

In some countries, several guys have been locked in jail only because they were drunk and slapped the butt of a girl.

If feminazi laws were stopped, that resources could be employed to antiabortion and other anti-feminazi laws.

The real problem is the inferiority complex of men of our Western society, that is a "reverted Taliban", a real matriarcal society.

We don't call in doctors and morticians to inspect the woman's butt to determine if it was hit.  There is not an international registration for women's butts that might be slapped.  The person we jail for the night doesn't incur a big cost to the state.  He will likely be fined if it was in a place of business, or will be freed the next day if the state does not press charges.  A woman does not require regular checkups for her butt that must be financed by the state.  International law does not demand extradition men who slap women on the butt.

The cost isn't remotely on the same scale.  500,000 women got pregnant today.  Did 500,000 women also get slapped on the butt and report it to the authorities?

As to all your "feminazi" BS, well, I'm hoping Hitsumei comes in here and rips you a new ass, but suffice it to say I think you're sexist.

Quote from: "cyberateos"I believe that the word "abortion" should dissapear in the next year, to be sustituted by other words such as: spermaticide, blastocistide, embryocide, feticide, etc.

Why would it disappear?  Because of your registry plan?  Did abortions disappear when they were illegal?

QuoteA country who would refuse to establish that registration, would suffer punishments.

And this would be policed by whom?

QuoteReally, both lives are equally important, but  don`t forget the mother has parental duties toward her offspring (intrauterine or extrauterine).

The fact that you can say they are equally important is absolutely ridiculous.  A fetus lives off of the mother, it can not live outside of her body and doesn’t have any inherent rights or qualities while doing so.  You feel that someone killing your mother should be punished the same as someone that aborts a fetus?  

QuoteIf a mother who has delivered a baby refuses to register it, she is punished. Is not she? Also, a man who refuses to pay money after a divorce is punished.

No, actually that is not true and they are not punished as committing a felonious criminal act.

QuoteBut really doctors who care for the mother would have the duty to report the existence of that fetus. Signing a document would be an additional step for the supposed father and the supposed mother.

So you are advocating that people choose to go without prenatal care and birth at home alone to avoid your registry.  This is what would happen.  Much like women received dangerous back alley abortions before they were legal, they would simply not seek the prenatal care and birth at home and dumpster the baby.  This would be a massive step backwards.

QuoteHa, ha... Post partum depression has been used as a "crime of psychiatry" to support the feminazi lobby to get impunity. Both, feminazis and Mengeles psychiatrists should be sent to a penal colony.

You are very misinformed.  Post partum depression is real and was around long before it arrived in court for a defense for bad acts committed from those suffering from it.  You don’t have to be a feminist or a woman to understand that hormones and chemical interactions cause deficiencies and emotional disorders in the brain.  

QuoteMurderers use to be coward people. If potential abortionist mothers and doctors are sure that they will go to an electric chair if they kill a fetal baby, they won’t kill even a fly.

Absolutely false.  You are relying on the deterrence factor and assuming that it works (and apparently assuming it works 100% of the time).  In general deterrence does not work, people tend to have the “it won’t happen to me”  mentality and will weigh the potential risk against the immediate emotional need.  This is why the Minimum Mandatory Sentencing legislation imposed in the states has not worked at reducing the illegal sale of drugs (although prisons are full of drug dealers) and why people still commit murder in states with capital punishment.  It’s also why bootlegging was in full swing during prohibition and why the black market exists in just about every country.  Deterrence doesn’t work….well, unless you are the Dog Whisperer.

QuoteA true atheist should not make any distinction between intrauterine minors and extrauterine minors, because that differentiation is based on magical beliefs, not on science.

There is nothing magical about thinking that an abortion, while it’s not the ideal form of birth control, is justifiably okay.  There is nothing scientific nor magical about this issue, it’s a social issue and a moral issue for some but neither magical nor scientific.

Likewise, atheists do not need to be worshippers of everything science.

Quote from: "cyberateos"She may give them to State to canalize them to abortion.

? So the state can abort them after they are born…or am I not understanding this statement?  :unsure:

Do you have another more intelligent argument to justify your fetusphobia? ;) [/quote]

Yes, these are the same people running through Africa telling everyone using a condom is a sin.  However, you have used this before and stated that this word, among others, will replace abortion in the near future, so assume you are in agreement even though you state you are not.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Really, society has spent much money in an extremist protection for women.

You are very anti-women’s rights, but understandably it is different in Latin America where the male machismo still reins supreme.  Please provide data, statistics, scholarly source, etc., for the “much money” that has been spent on the protection of women by society so I can refute that with the blood, sweat and tears that have been spent by women to attain even moderate rights, starting with suffrage.

QuoteIn some countries, several guys have been locked in jail only because they were drunk and slapped the butt of a girl.

Source please.  And he should keep his freakin’ hands to himself!  

QuoteIf feminazi laws were stopped, that resources could be employed to antiabortion and other anti-feminazi laws.

Please stop with the feminazi shit.  We get it, you don’t like it.  But, your view on this particular issue is WAY more attributable to nazi philosophy/thinking than anything feminists' attempt of social or legal change.

QuoteThe real problem is the inferiority complex of men of our Western society, that is a "reverted Taliban", a real matriarcal society.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.  Why did we have to go through all of this to get here.  Please start the thread you actually wanted to.  â€œMen have been replaced by women and the women are emasculating us.  Let’s strike back and convict them of murder for having abortions”!!

deleted by poster

Quote from: "PipeBox"As to all your "feminazi" BS, well, I'm hoping Hitsumei comes in here and rips you a new ass, but suffice it to say I think you're sexist.

You noticed that too did you?  Hmmm, he's mentioned that (1) fathers would be off the hook on this, (2) women would have to pay for the adoptions, (3) "just like men who pay for things after divorce" (several times on this one), (4) women's rights have cost countless dollars bill footed by society, (5) women are equal to floting fetuses, (6) and we have the nerve to complain about drunks slapping us on the ass!! (Many more but I am recalling the last few posts alone.)

It took a while to get to the meat and potatoes of this one, yikes, I really feel like I must now go outside and find a man to berate and then call the cops on him.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbastardlogic.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F01%2Fwest-doormat.jpg&hash=2e53e9c32fbe3b114aede5e66d7d605a1857c168)

Pipe:

QuoteWe don't call in doctors and morticians to inspect the woman's butt to determine if it was hit. There is not an international registration for women's butts that might be slapped. The person we jail for the night doesn't incur a big cost to the state. He will likely be fined if it was in a place of business, or will be freed the next day if the state does not press charges. A woman does not require regular checkups for her butt that must be financed by the state. International law does not demand extradition men who slap women on the butt.

The cost isn't remotely on the same scale. 500,000 women got pregnant today. Did 500,000 women also get slapped on the butt and report it to the authorities?

As to all your "feminazi" BS, well, I'm hoping Hitsumei comes in here and rips you a new ass, but suffice it to say I think you're sexist.

In Mexico City, left wing political party has the Reclusorio Oriente jail fulled of men accused for butt touching in the subway. Thas accusations use to be a feminazi dirty trick to get money from the man who was accused.

That political party also maid abortions legal. Would not it be more logical to use that jail space and expenses in punishing abortionist women instead of virtually innocent men?

Quote from: "cyberateos"In Mexico City, left wing political party has the Reclusorio Oriente jail fulled of men accused for butt touching in the subway. Thas accusations use to be a feminazi dirty trick to get money from the man who was accused.

That political party also maid abortions legal. Would not it be more logical to use that jail space and expenses in punishing abortionist women instead of virtually innocent men? :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  

I'm done with this misogynistic bullshit. You want reproductive rights curbed. You want "Abortionists" thrown in jail and executed. You cannot understand that the rights and wellbeing of the actual come before the rights and wellbeing of the potential.

I'm done.

Quote from: "cyberateos"In Mexico City, left wing political party has the Reclusorio Oriente jail fulled of men accused for butt touching in the subway. Thas accusations use to be a feminazi dirty trick to get money from the man who was accused.

Funny when I search for news articles on this phenomena I can't find anything but when I google this I do find you on another forum using this same bit of information with a short YouTube video.  So, can you provide us with dollar amounts of verifiable information that this is a major issue and is costing so much money....I figured you would be able to since you appear to be the internet authority on this issue.  I will keep looking though.

Van Real:

QuoteWhy would it disappear? Because of your registry plan? Did abortions disappear when they were illegal?

Read carefully what I wrote:

I believe that the word "abortion" should dissapear in the next year, to be sustituted by other words such as: spermaticide, blastocistide, embryocide, feticide, etc.

Read it CAREFULLY. You misunderstood me. I did NOT say that abortions will dissapear but that the WORD abortion will dissapear because it is imprecise.

QuoteAnd this would be policed by whom?

An Intrauterine Life Department of a Institute for the Defense of Minors would follow the cases.

QuoteThe fact that you can say they are equally important is absolutely ridiculous. A fetus lives off of the mother, it can not live outside of her body and doesn’t have any inherent rights or qualities while doing so. You feel that someone killing your mother should be punished the same as someone that aborts a fetus?

I feel that a person who has killed my mother or my intrauterine daughter should be shot equally.

QuoteNo, actually that is not true and they are not punished as committing a felonious criminal act.

Here in Latin America, a divorced man who refuses pay for his children may be locked into jail.

QuoteSo you are advocating that people choose to go without prenatal care and birth at home alone to avoid your registry. This is what would happen. Much like women received dangerous back alley abortions before they were legal, they would simply not seek the prenatal care and birth at home and dumpster the baby. This would be a massive step backwards.

Precisely to avoid it, during an initial period, fetuses would be registered only in the 13th week. Then, abortionist would continue killing embryos during that initial period, but registered fetuses would not be easy to kill because a full murder sentence would be applied.

QuoteYou are very misinformed. Post partum depression is real and was around long before it arrived in court for a defense for bad acts committed from those suffering from it. You don’t have to be a feminist or a woman to understand that hormones and chemical interactions cause deficiencies and emotional disorders in the brain.

Ha, ha, ha... Lots drunk men have killed their wives while they were in a "no normal" physical state, but regardless it, they were punished. ;)
Punishment is not 100% effective, but is HIGHLY effective.

QuoteThere is nothing magical about thinking that an abortion, while it’s not the ideal form of birth control, is justifiably okay. There is nothing scientific nor magical about this issue, it’s a social issue and a moral issue for some but neither magical nor scientific.

False. Only a magical background leads to discriminate intrauterine population. :rant:

QuoteAnd let’s assume she is indigent, which is why she didn’t want the baby in the first place.

QuoteAlso, do you have any idea how many children are currently waiting for adoption and end up aging out of the state systems? This thinking is economically and socially irresponsible, as you are not even remotely considering the quality of life these children have.

If the mother is indigent, a surgical sterilization would be offered to her, and she would be forced to pay at least one dollar for year. That money would not help at all, but would have an educational goal: women and society should begin to consider that women have parental duties, just as men have. :brick:

QuoteYes, these are the same people running through Africa telling everyone using a condom is a sin. However, you have used this before and stated that this word, among others, will replace abortion in the near future, so assume you are in agreement even though you state you are not.

???? I don`t understand you, but I feel you did not understand me. ;)

QuoteSource please. And he should keep his freakin’ hands to himself!

In Colombia, Mexico and Argentina, several cases have occured, and even in Egypt and Italia:


http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/334152.html (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/334152.html)
http://www.elperiodicoextremadura.com/n ... kid=328949 (http://www.elperiodicoextremadura.com/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=328949)

QuotePlease stop with the feminazi shit. We get it, you don’t like it. But, your view on this particular issue is WAY more attributable to nazi philosophy/thinking than anything feminists' attempt of social or legal change.

Look at this link:

http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/2005 ... hetto.html (http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/2005/03/neo-nazi-advises-invest-in-ghetto.html)

QuoteAh, now we are getting somewhere. Why did we have to go through all of this to get here. Please start the thread you actually wanted to. “Men have been replaced by women and the women are emasculating us. Let’s strike back and convict them of murder for having abortions”!!

Abortion is not always linked to feminazism. In China and India it occurs the opposite.

DIY138:

Canada is NOT an example of the defense of rights. Remember the massive murder of seals.

Dou you know who are Morgentaler and Linda Gibbons?

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "PipeBox"As to all your "feminazi" BS, well, I'm hoping Hitsumei comes in here and rips you a new ass, but suffice it to say I think you're sexist.

You noticed that too did you?  Hmmm, he's mentioned that (1) fathers would be off the hook on this, (2) women would have to pay for the adoptions, (3) "just like men who pay for things after divorce" (several times on this one), (4) women's rights have cost countless dollars bill footed by society, (5) women are equal to floting fetuses, (6) and we have the nerve to complain about drunks slapping us on the ass!! (Many more but I am recalling the last few posts alone.)

It took a while to get to the meat and potatoes of this one, yikes, I really feel like I must now go outside and find a man to berate and then call the cops on him.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbastardlogic.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F01%2Fwest-doormat.jpg&hash=2e53e9c32fbe3b114aede5e66d7d605a1857c168)

VanReal:

Have you listened about Mandefender?

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "cyberateos"In Mexico City, left wing political party has the Reclusorio Oriente jail fulled of men accused for butt touching in the subway. Thas accusations use to be a feminazi dirty trick to get money from the man who was accused.

That political party also maid abortions legal. Would not it be more logical to use that jail space and expenses in punishing abortionist women instead of virtually innocent men? :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  :brick:  

I'm done with this misogynistic bullshit. You want reproductive rights curbed. You want "Abortionists" thrown in jail and executed. You cannot understand that the rights and wellbeing of the actual come before the rights and wellbeing of the potential.

I'm done.

To say that intrauterine persons are "POTENTIAL" life is a religion-based theory.

I am an atheist and my religion is SCIENCE.

Here is an interesting link:




http://antimisandry.com/ (http://antimisandry.com/)

http://antimisandry.com/

Quote from: "cyberateos"Van Real:

Read carefully what I wrote:

I believe that the word "abortion" should dissapear in the next year, to be sustituted by other words such as: spermaticide, blastocistide, embryocide, feticide, etc.

Read it CAREFULLY. You misunderstood me. I did NOT say that abortions will dissapear but that the WORD abortion will dissapear because it is imprecise.

I understood exactly, I don't think you do.  You say you think the word abortion should disappear and be replaced by those other words.  Why would/should that word dissapear?  What would make something as specific as an abortion merge in with these other propogranda inflamed words?

Quote from: "VanReal"And this would be policed by whom?

Quote from: "cyberateos"An Intrauterine Life Department of a Institute for the Defense of Minors would follow the cases.

Where are they obtaining their authority?  Who are the members of this organization?  What makes them have international authority over something like abortion?

QuoteHere in Latin America, a divorced man who refuses pay for his children may be locked into jail.

Yes, a divorced man is still responsible for his children, sorry.  If this is wrong, as you have used it as an example in serveral posts, maybe the couple should have had an abortion to avoid this.

QuotePrecisely to avoid it, during an initial period, fetuses would be registered only in the 13th week. Then, abortionist would continue killing embryos during that initial period, but registered fetuses would not be easy to kill because a full murder sentence would be applied.

No, you don't understand.  If a regulation on registering a fetus was inacted and a woman did not want to have the baby, and of course she can't have an abortion, she is going to forgoe prenatal care altogether and will not have medical care so there will be no doctor to enforce the registery.  Hidden pregnancies like this occurred in China.  Hidden pregnancies like this occurred in North America, Europe and Latin America for that matter. History repeats itself.  This "registry" would simply drive women back underground to handle things under the radar and perpetuate the problem.

QuoteHa, ha, ha... Lots drunk men have killed their wives while they were in a "no normal" physical state, but regardless it, they were punished. ;)
Punishment is not 100% effective, but is HIGHLY effective.

No, millions of people would not rob banks. The fact that it's illegal has nothing to do with that. If a person wants to commit a crime they are going to regardless of it being against the law and possibly landing them in jail.  Um, why do you think jails are full of criminals?  

Punishment simply punishes after a crime has been committed.  It does not deter future crimes from occurring by other people.  You specifically said that this would keep other women and "abortionists" from killing a fly.  That is simply not true and I want you to provide a statistic that shows that deterrence works.  (Pull up the population of the number of people in prison and that is evidence that it's not effective.)

QuoteFalse. Only a magical background leads to discriminate intrauterine population. :rant:

First, I don't know what a true atheist is.  Second, the fact that there is no soul only makes abortion make more sense and easier to stomach.  There is no "essence" or inherent value in a fetus, it is a fantastic and interesting, amaing even, division of cells that grows and matures into a human being if born.  So, as an atheist I absolutely can discriminate against fetuses in the womb, they are not a person until born.

QuoteIf the mother is indigent, a surgical sterilization would be offered to her, and she would be forced to pay at least one dollar for year. That money would not help at all, but would have an educational goal: women and society should begin to consider that women have parental duties, just as men have. :brick:

What the hell does folic acid have to do with any of this?  

Quote???? I don`t understand you, but I feel you did not understand me. ;)

This has nothing to do with what I said.

QuoteIn Colombia, Mexico and Argentina, several cases have occured, and even in Egypt and Italia:


http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/334152.html (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/334152.html)
http://www.elperiodicoextremadura.com/n ... kid=328949 (http://www.elperiodicoextremadura.com/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=328949)

The first was useless and from 2006 and the second was from 2007 and talked about a whopping 6 people.  Not at all convincing of any horrible "men being thrown in jail for but grabbing" epidemic occuring.  I would suggest that men keep their hands to themselves.  

QuoteLook at this link:

http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/2005 ... hetto.html (http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/2005/03/neo-nazi-advises-invest-in-ghetto.html)

Again, totally unrelated to the topic.  This is about Nazi's wanting abortion clinics in minority areas.  This has nothing to do with feminism or any correlation between feminism and the nazi thinking.  

QuoteAbortion is not always linked to feminazism. In China and India it occurs the opposite.

I know that it is not.  You however are getting your views from being against women wanting rights over their bodies and decisions and imasculating men by doing so.  It is so obvious in your posts that you have an issue with women, and that your views on abortion are less about the rights of the fetus as a person and more about getting even with women and punishing them for their evil ways.

I've seen cyberateos make no actual points, or argue a case. All I have seen is appeals to emotion, the use of emotive language, and false analogies; and most recently venomous misogyny. Nothing has been actually argued for, I'd like some points to rip apart, but I don't see any. I don't see anything worthy of addressing, and even if I did before the OP's misogynistic leanings were made explicit, I certainly am not willing to have a civil discussion with someone who considers me less of a person than themselves. Having my rights placed on par with a being emotionally and intellectual inferior to an adult cow is bad enough.

Abortion is an emotionally charged subject, and it is hard to discuss it without becoming emotional, but there is no excuse for this behaviour.

He has to be a troll.  

I'm with Curio, the rights of the actual outweigh those of the potential.  I'm with VanReal, you're a sexist bigot.  I'm with Hitsumei, you've no point to offer.  I'm with what I said earlier: your sense of justice is a joke, killing anyone who breaks your unjustified law.

I'm out of here.

Deleted by poster

VanReal:

Quoteunderstood exactly, I don't think you do. You say you think the word abortion should disappear and be replaced by those other words. Why would/should that word dissapear? What would make something as specific as an abortion merge in with these other propogranda inflamed words?

Current scientifical knwoledge is doing obsolete lots words.

For example, the word "fetus" is imprecise, because a baby who can`t survive without medical aids, but who can survive into an artifitial incubator is really a kind of fetus.

Blastocysts and full term fetuses could not be killed 40 years ago.

Morullas could not be killed in vitro 30 years ago. :lol:

QuotePunishment simply punishes after a crime has been committed. It does not deter future crimes from occurring by other people.

False. If punishment would not exist, I and other antiabortionists personally would have killed lots of abortionist doctors and politicians. :eek:

QuoteDear silly boy, women are very responsible for their children, take a look around at all of the women raising their kids alone. Are you insinuating that women are running rampant and not taking care of their babies?

Women have lots of facilities to avoid their duties. Is Belgica and USA they have even the right to leave an undesired baby in special baskets.

QuoteThere is nothing biological in that. This is a societal difference. Jains believe that all life is equal, including insects, and that killing even an insect by breathing would be the same as killing a human being. (Thus they wear thick cloth over their nose and mouth.) The fly and the fetus are more similar that the fetus and your neighbor.

I would send to jail a guy who enjoys ripping the wings of a butterfly. :(  ;)

Hitsumei:

QuoteI certainly am not willing to have a civil discussion with someone who considers me less of a person than themselves.

Strawman`s fallacy.

PipeBox:

QuoteI'm with VanReal, you're a sexist bigot.

Strawman`s fallacy

Quote from: "cyberateos"PipeBox:

QuoteI'm with VanReal, you're a sexist bigot.

Strawman`s fallacy

Ah hem...pot, meet kettle:

Quote from: "cyberateos"otherwise, you would need psychiatric help if you really don`t make any differentiantion between a minor into a cradle and a minor into a womb, and you counfound the latter with a "division of cells that grows".

The only difference is that the kettle isn't nearly as black*  

*(Pot calling kettle black reference)

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "cyberateos"PipeBox:

QuoteI'm with VanReal, you're a sexist bigot.

Strawman`s fallacy

Ah hem...pot, meet kettle:

Quote from: "cyberateos"otherwise, you would need psychiatric help if you really don`t make any differentiantion between a minor into a cradle and a minor into a womb, and you counfound the latter with a "division of cells that grows".

The only difference is that the kettle isn't nearly as black*  ;)

Quote from: "cyberateos"VanReal said:

QuoteThere is no "essence" or inherent value in a fetus, it is a fantastic and interesting, amaing even, division of cells that grows and matures into a human being if born.

QuoteNothing remotely humorous about comparing a person with a mental disorder or mood disorder to a self-induced alcohol rage.

Of course, she is doing comparisons that help her to hold her stance, but that comparisons are often schizoid.

She is avoiding the correct comparisons:

A fetal minor and a newborn are members of a family, and if they are killed by another member of that family, as their mother, she should be punished exactly as a man who has killed his wife is.

I was doing a response to the previous post, but it's pointless.  As far as this one is concerned:

I am not doing comparisons, YOU are.  I am stating point blank and in plain language that a FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING.

And I will not post on this thread again because all of my responses are a direct result of your statements and comparisons and you are flippant and either very ill-informed or seriously deficient in the ability to comprehend information.

If you are real all I can say is thankfully your voice and opinion would never have an impact on any policy, law, or social contract because there is no useful material in it, and the hidden agenda is in the open.

VanReal:

QuoteI am stating point blank and in plain language that a FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING

.

A fetus is "a human being who is lodged into a womb".

Period.

Here, after more than one hundred messages, I will repeat my original message:



Science has not demonstrated that an only inmaterial soul exists.

Really, brain is the only "soul" that exists.

A human brain is similar one day before delivery and the day after delivery.

Then, delivery should not be considered birthday anymore.

For that reason, a Fetal Civil Registration should be established and abortionist mothers should be sent to jail.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Here, after more than one hundred messages, I will repeat my original message:



Science has not demonstrated that an only inmaterial soul exists.

Really, brain is the only "soul" that exists.

A human brain is similar one day before delivery and the day after delivery.

Then, delivery should not be considered birthday anymore.

For that reason, a Fetal Civil Registration should be established and abortionist mothers should be sent to jail.

And in just restating what you already said you are ignoring that over half of us did not necessarily support third trimester abortions.  In other words, you haven't been paying attention to anything we have said!  Your Fetal Civil Registration plan is extreme for numerous reasons and would take away the right of women to choose the type of medical care they receive while pregnant.  For instance, those who prefer natural birth away from a hospital would not have that choice.  Those who are able to get all the vitamins they need from quality food would have folic acid pills shoved down their throats.  Those who think it is immoral to not abort a severely physically or mentally damaged fetus would be forced to carry to term.  In essence, you'd be making women into baby making machines who have no individual rights until they deliver.  But, you don't seem to care much for women so I guess you think us being baby making machines is our purpose.  Barefoot, pregnant, and cooking....right?  

Let's take your idea to where it leads us.  Men, sorry you can't masturbate anymore.  Remember, every tiny sperm is a potential life and we can't destroy one tiny potential life.  What, a sperm can't become life without meeting an egg?  We know that, but it's still potential life and must be protected.  The sperm can't have any thoughts?  Doesn't matter, it's still potential life and needs protection.  If you know a woman is ovulating it is your social duty transfer your potential life giving sperm to her so that they may develop as nature intended.  Men and women who refuse these transfers will be charged with the murder of humans since potentiality has now been defined as "human" by fascist Fetal Civil Registration police.  Within 10 years we are so overpopulated that the majority of people are homeless due to the construction industry not being able to build houses to meet the every increasing population.

Case in point, even if your ideas were philosophically sound (which they are not) they are not practical solutions.  They would cause much more suffering than you think they prevent.

Whitney:

QuoteAnd in just restating what you already said you are ignoring that over half of us did not necessarily support third trimester abortions.

Would you believe that a woman and doctor who have done a third trimester aborion should be punished as murderers? :D

QuoteYour Fetal Civil Registration plan is extreme for numerous reasons and would take away the right of women to choose the type of medical care they receive while pregnant. For instance, those who prefer natural birth away from a hospital would not have that choice.

Why not? On the countrary: persons who practice natural deliveries would be closely monitored. :|

Remember: to be intellectualy dishonest is not only offensive for both you and the other person, but it makes difficult to debate.

I suggest you to avoid all kind of fallacies.

QuoteBut, you don't seem to care much for women so I guess you think us being baby making machines is our purpose. Barefoot, pregnant, and cooking....right?  

Strawman`s fallacy.

Newly, I will say: please be intellectualy honest.

I could say that "surely you want that abortion be legal because you are a part of a maffia who traficks with fetal organs", but that paranoid affirmation would be to descend to your level.

We are person with a brain. Are not we? Let`s use it. :brick:


 

QuoteWhat, a sperm can't become life without meeting an egg? We know that, but it's still potential life and must be protected. The sperm can't have any thoughts? Doesn't matter, it's still potential life and needs protection. If you know a woman is ovulating it is your social duty transfer your potential life giving sperm to her so that they may develop as nature intended.

A seven month fetus is more similar to a premature 7 month newborn than to a sperm or ovum. Your comparisons are wrong. My comparisons are right. :D    :D     :D    

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fduty_calls.png&hash=b7375376f17d6d846063de7f89f87b7a574519a9)

Deleted by poster

Quote from: "cyberateos"Remember: pro abortion arguments may be easily reverted.

NO ONE is PRO-abortion.  NO ONE.  That implies that we WANT women to have abortions, that we are escorting them to the abortion clinics.

We are PRO-choice.  Please refrain from deceptive and inflammatory statements.

Quote from: "DIY 1138"Whitney,
 May I point out that cyberateos has a history of being a troll?
 A search of cyberateos yeilded two results: cyberateos.org that appears to be on the up and up.
 Cyberateos.com directed me to another atheist forum where he initiated a topic titled, you guessed it,
 I am antiabortion because I am an atheist. The sumary lists him as one of the worst trolls
 they have ever had. Just wondering if you knew. I don't think this guy is ever going to stop.

I met Whitney in another forum, "Thinkthank".

If all you don`t want to continue this debate, let`s declare it finished.
 
No problem. Nobody is forcing you tu participate.

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "cyberateos"Remember: pro abortion arguments may be easily reverted.

NO ONE is PRO-abortion.  NO ONE.  That implies that we WANT women to have abortions, that we are escorting them to the abortion clinics.

We are PRO-choice.  Please refrain from deceptive and inflammatory statements.

a) If abortion is not murder, why not to be pro abortion? (it helps to reduce overpopulation)  :D

Those are the questions... TO BE OR NOT TO BE...

Quote from: "cyberateos"I believe that the word "abortion" should dissapear in the next year, to be sustituted by other words such as: spermaticide, blastocistide, embryocide, feticide, etc.

So it would be illegal to masturbate?  That is technically spermaticide as the sperm cannot live outside the body.  YOu're taking this way too far.  Why does a blastocyte have more rights than the mother?

Quote from: "cyberateos"In a first period, all 13 week fetuses should be registered and considered "legally born" worldwide. A country who would refuse to establish that registration, would suffer punishments.

Have you been pregnant?  Have you gotten a woman pregnant?  Why are you so involved in the life of fetuses?  If a country refuses to be so repressive as this, they would suffer punishments?  What, put to death the leaders or something?  Wow.  You'll also have to come up with some publically-funded birth control program... more than just teens with condoms.  If you are going to mandate what women can and cannot do with their reproductive organs, will you mandate sterility for those who abort or indicate they might abort?

Quote from: "cyberateos"Really, both lives are equally important, but  don`t forget the mother has parental duties toward her offspring (intrauterine or extrauterine).

True... and if she determines that for whatever reason, she cannot be a mother, she has the right to do something about it, hopefully before week 21.  

Quote from: "cyberateos"No. Law normally requires two medical opinions, but, for example, in Argentina, those cases become so popular, that virtually the entire country is a "ethics board".

While I'm not happy with the business of the medical profession here in America, I do NOT want the general public acting as an ethics board either.  With the reglious repression here, it would be horrible.

Quote from: "cyberateos"If a mother who has delivered a baby refuses to register it, she is punished. Is not she? Also, a man who refuses to pay money after a divorce is punished.

But really doctors who care for the mother would have the duty to report the existence of that fetus. Signing a document would be an aditional step for the supposed father and the supposed mother.

I don't think that the lack of a birth certificate for a baby born in America is cause for punishment, no.  If a man refuses to pay his wife money after a divorce, if such an agreement was reached (which is not the case at all for ALL divorces), then yes, he is pursued for the money, but I don't know about punishment except in longterm lack of payment.  

Doctor's should report the existence of a child, especially if he thinks the child is in danger due to mistreatment by the caregiver, but before birth?  Nope.  This would lead to horrible trauma should the mother lose the fetus at some point.  IT's hard enough to lose a child due to spontaneous abortion without a stack of legal paperwork, etc.  Also, insurance companies don't see the fetus as a person until after it's born.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Ha, ha... Post partum depression has been used as a "crime of psychiatry" to support the feminazi lobby to get impunity. Both, feminazis and Mengeles psychiatrists should be sent to a penal colony.

So... you don't believe that women actually suffer from postpartum depression?  It's a "crime of psychiatry"?  I'm not surprised, coming from a man from a Latin country where men rule with an iron fist and women are subservient.  I suffered from postpartum depression, though mine wasn't very bad.  It's a clinical thing, my friend... hormones are at an all-time high when a woman is pregnant... wild hormone shifts commonplace during pregnancy.  After birth, as the hormones re-adjust, emotions are a roller-coaster of up and downs.  Most women handle them just fine, with only a little teariness.  But others are affected horribly by the shift.  Were you a woman who could conceive and carry a fetus to birth, you might understand this.  The fact that you refer to "feminazis" shows what little empathy you have for women and conception and their resultant issues.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Murderers use to be coward people. If potential abortionist mothers and doctors are sure that they will go to an electric chair if they kill a fetal baby, they won`t kill even a fly.

Again, why does the fetus have more rights than the mother?  What if carrying the fetus to birth would put her life in danger?  And that example I gave of the 8yo girl who was carrying twins which were aborted (and the mother was excommunicated from the Church for)?  Would THAT be an exceptable abortion?  And spontaneous abortion... you'd want an autopsy to ensure there was no curretage or scissor marks?

Quote from: "cyberateos"She may give them to State to canalize them to abortion.

But that woman should be forced to pay money to help the adopter, exactly as a divorced man is forced to pay money to rise his children.

Wow... in Cyperateosland, no one will ever have sex again.

QuoteSo it would be illegal to masturbate? That is technically spermaticide as the sperm cannot live outside the body. YOu're taking this way too far. Why does a blastocyte have more rights than the mother?

You have had two mistakes:

a) To say that I want spermaticide punished

b) To say that I want blastocystide punished

Really, I promote spermaticide and balstocystide. Those are two points that make my stance very different of that of the Pope. :upset:

QuoteHave you been pregnant? Have you gotten a woman pregnant? Why are you so involved in the life of fetuses?

Excuse me. My private life is my private life.

 

QuoteIf a country refuses to be so repressive as this, they would suffer punishments? What, put to death the leaders or something? Wow.

Probably echonomical punishment could be applied. Remember Iraq.

QuoteYou'll also have to come up with some publically-funded birth control program... more than just teens with condoms. If you are going to mandate what women can and cannot do with their reproductive organs, will you mandate sterility for those who abort or indicate they might abort?

Right. Forced surgical sterilisation could be applied instead of a jail period, just as it is done with rapists in some countries.

QuoteTrue... and if she determines that for whatever reason, she cannot be a mother, she has the right to do something about it, hopefully before week 21.

Why are not you direct? Your words "to do SOMETHING about it" instead of "commit a cruel murder against her baby" are not from a valiant person.

QuoteWhile I'm not happy with the business of the medical profession here in America, I do NOT want the general public acting as an ethics board either. With the reglious repression here, it would be horrible.

You refuse democracy when it is not convenient for you, ha, ha... ;)

QuoteDoctor's should report the existence of a child, especially if he thinks the child is in danger due to mistreatment by the caregiver, but before birth? Nope.

It is wrong. Let`s extend that protection to intrauterine stage.

QuoteThis would lead to horrible trauma should the mother lose the fetus at some point. IT's hard enough to lose a child due to spontaneous abortion without a stack of legal paperwork, etc.

If an extrauterine child dies, the mother and the father are forced to support that circumstances. Let`s do the same when an intrauterine child is dead.

QuoteAlso, insurance companies don't see the fetus as a person until after it's born.

Let`s promote that they begin to include fetal persons.

QuoteSo... you don't believe that women actually suffer from postpartum depression? It's a "crime of psychiatry"?

Lots criminal men were depressed when they commited their crimes, but they have been punished.

QuoteI'm not surprised, coming from a man from a Latin country where men rule with an iron fist and women are subservient

Strawman`s fallacy; argumentum ad hominem fallacy...

QuoteI suffered from postpartum depression, though mine wasn't very bad. It's a clinical thing, my friend... hormones are at an all-time high when a woman is pregnant... wild hormone shifts commonplace during pregnancy. After birth, as the hormones re-adjust, emotions are a roller-coaster of up and downs. Most women handle them just fine, with only a little teariness. But others are affected horribly by the shift. Were you a woman who could conceive and carry a fetus to birth, you might understand this.

Rapiests and serial killers use to have much testosterone, but they are punished. Remember the Boston`s Strangulator. :D

QuoteWhat if carrying the fetus to birth would put her life in danger?

What if providing chemotherapy to the baby carrier puts the life of the baby in danger?

 

QuoteAnd that example I gave of the 8yo girl who was carrying twins which were aborted (and the mother was excommunicated from the Church for)? Would THAT be an exceptable
abortion?

8yo girl? Surely you misunderstood. Probably a 12 year girl was raped and could be aided in her pregnancy. Some of my neighbors have been pregnant while being virtually children and they have delivered their babies.

QuoteAnd spontaneous abortion... you'd want an autopsy to ensure there was no curretage or scissor marks?

Exactly. If we, adult persons, have post mortem rights, why should not a fetal person have its own?

For the most part, I am truly done with this thread.  I can't stand the crap being posted.  However, I am going to respond to this one issue:

Quote from: "cyberateos"

Quote from: "rlrose328"And that example I gave of the 8yo girl who was carrying twins which were aborted (and the mother was excommunicated from the Church for)? Would THAT be an exceptable
abortion?

8yo girl? Surely you misunderstood. Probably a 12 year girl was raped and could be aided in her pregnancy. Some of my neighbors have been pregnant while being virtually children and they have delivered their babies.

No, I meant 8yo girl, but it turns out I was wrong.  She was 9 years old, and her stepfather admitted to abusing her for 3 years. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0306/1224242373838.html)  She was pregnant with twins and every medical professional who commented on the case stated that the pregnancy could kill her due to her age and the fact that her body and frame cannot physically support a single pregnancy much less a multiple pregnancy.  In Brazil, where the case happened, abortion is illegal except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is threatened.  The doctors believed both applied in this case.  

How like religion to condemn the doctors and the girl's mother (but NOT the stepfather) for having the fetuses aborted because a) the pregnancy was not her choice or fault and 2) she could die if the fetuses were allowed to grow.  

Would you REALLY condemn the doctors, the girl's mother and the girl for this abortion?

(I'll read your answer, but I'll no longer be replying here... I just can't do this anymore.)

I agree that physiologically speaking, a 13 week fetus, and 13 week baby are the same, but there is more to consider.

A fetus is part of the mother, it is a ball of cells inside her, that gains all nutrition directly from her blood stream. By telling her when she can and cannot have abortions, you are telling her what she can and cannot do with her body, and her body alone. This is the difference. Once seperated, they are two seperate people, when together, there is only one person.

Further to your argument, that a fetus one day before, and one day after birth is the same, a fetus 12 weeks and 6 days old is the same a fetus 13 weeks old, why does one get protection and the other not?

This thread reminds me of something Will said a while ago, anti abortion supporters don't really care about babies, they just want to punish promiscuity. The massive misogynist bent of this thread pays testamanet to that.


(For the record, I think deterrence does work, and the high prison population is not a refutation, becuase we dont know how many of those people outside of prison would have committed crimes were it not for the law. Just like when your momma hit you for doing stuff wrong )

Quote from: "cyberateos"False. I have been laughing while reading your arguments.

So much for honest intellectualism.

[youtube:3ipvackz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8[/youtube:3ipvackz]

Quote from: "DIY 1138"Whitney,
 May I point out that cyberateos has a history of being a troll?
 A search of cyberateos yeilded two results: cyberateos.org that appears to be on the up and up.
 Cyberateos.com directed me to another atheist forum where he initiated a topic titled, you guessed it,
 I am antiabortion because I am an atheist. The sumary lists him as one of the worst trolls
 they have ever had. Just wondering if you knew. I don't think this guy is ever going to stop.

ya, I know.  I already had this discussion with him on another forum.  For some reason I felt compelled to post again.  I'm about to give him another warning for not being civil.

rose:

QuoteHow like religion to condemn the doctors and the girl's mother (but NOT the stepfather) for having the fetuses aborted because a) the pregnancy was not her choice or fault and 2) she could die if the fetuses were allowed to grow.

Would you REALLY condemn the doctors, the girl's mother and the girl for this abortion?

In the first time, it is not honest to use hard, very exceptional cases to make a general rule.

But despite it, the twins were 15 week old. Here, some questions arise:

Why not await one month and intend a Cesarean section?

Why not kill only a fetus and let the other live?

The stepfather abused of his penis; why to induce the girl to abuse of her womb?

At least, she should be permited to decide.

SSY:

QuoteA fetus is part of the mother, it is a ball of cells inside her,

No. On the countrary: the carrier mother is a part of the fetal person. She is a vital organ of that fetal person. ;)

QuoteBy telling her when she can and cannot have abortions, you are telling her what she can and cannot do with her body, and her body alone. This is the difference.
Once seperated, they are two seperate people, when together, there is only one person.

No. By telling the fetal person that his/her body should be ripped, you are telling him/her what he/she should do with his/her body. Once being 18 year old, that minor could decide an assisted suicide. :crazy:

QuoteThis thread reminds me of something Will said a while ago, anti abortion supporters don't really care about babies, they just want to punish promiscuity.

Really, pro lifers often only want to punish sex and to be empowered, but I am an atheist and my point of view is different.

QuoteThe massive misogynist bent of this thread pays testamanet to that.

Misoginy is a word often use to hide misandry and fetusphobia.

QuoteFor the record, I think deterrence does work, and the high prison population is not a refutation, becuase we dont know how many of those people outside of prison would have committed crimes were it not for the law.

Of course. Let`s establish an "intrauterine birth" certificate and DNA tests mandatory, and potential murderers will not kill anymore.

Quote from: "cyberateos"No. On the countrary: the carrier mother is a part of the fetal person. She is a vital organ of that fetal person. :)

Anybody have any doubts anymore that this is a troll?  

I actually feel like my points were deliberatley misinterpretted, how strange.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjenden.us%2Fstorage%2FJD%2Fimg%2Fmust_not_feed_the_troll.jpg&hash=4ee01c2ad45d73c6fbb1c4a8844e9ec078bc7255)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "cyberateos"No. On the countrary: the carrier mother is a part of the fetal person. She is a vital organ of that fetal person. :)

Anybody have any doubts anymore that this is a troll?  

Unfortunately, I don't think so.  A deranged lunatic, maybe... but I don't think this is a troll.  Either way, especially after that last answer, I'm ignoring them and getting on with my life.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "cyberateos"No. On the countrary: the carrier mother is a part of the fetal person. She is a vital organ of that fetal person. :)

Anybody have any doubts anymore that this is a troll?  

I go away for a weekend and come back to...this...

I say, poke the troll with a stick. See what it does.

If all you are so much anger, why do you continue debating with me? :unsure:

Remember:

IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY, INTRAUTERINE CHILDREN ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT

Folks, I'd like to present you with a prime example of what "civilized society" calls an opinion.

Quote from: "cyberateos"IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY, INTRAUTERINE CHILDREN ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT

This ends your public service announcement.

Well, if anyone want to discuss this in a more calm tone (not sure if we have any other anti-abortion atheists here), cyperateos has taken a non-elective leave of absence for the next 7 days.

I'm available, but the first time I'm called a misogynist or abortion is compared to killing gametes or other cells, I'm out.

Wow, this train really went off its tracks pretty wildly, huh? :(

Oh well, might as well put my two-cents in. I'm against all acts of cruelty, and I think life-for-the-sake-of-life is meaningless. I'm fairly certain that fetuses don't "suffer", so I don't see anything actually cruel about abortion. In fact, as a misanthrope, I think humanity is Sisyphean and pointless, though I don't mean that in a bitter way. But really, life is painful in general and then we die, so it could be argued that abortion is an act of mercy. And it's not like anyone asks us before we're born if we want to exist, so why should we distinguish between forcing a human to live or forcing a pre-natal human to die, in a way it's just splitting hairs and the stigma surrounding the latter only exists because we instinctually revile "death" and hold life up on a pedestal. OK, I'm kind of rambling, I guess what I'm saying is that it's too complex for me to say that I'm for or against abortion or find it right or wrong. Of course, abortion is not something I'll ever have to decide on, so it's moot to me, it's up to humanity to decide what it wants to do, and I can only really judge a person's personal beleifs and actions based on whether or not they conflict. Congnitive disonance often surrounds these types of issues, for example: Let's say I'm driving a car with some passengers, one of whom is pregnant. She is pro-choice. I'm driving a bit wrecklessly, and the woman, who ordinarily doesn't care if I drive a bit haphazardly and fast, scolds me for not considering the life of her unborn baby, i.e. she is ascribing human life to the child while it is prenatal. That woman would be a hypocrite, since her beliefs imply that by being pro-choice she condones murder.

I have to agree with some of what cybertheos says about the conflict between saying that one is not "for" abortion, but is pro-choice; it does imply a moral conflict. I guess that kind of points to a good way to explain my position: If society in general decides that abortion (not counting situations in which the mother's life is in danger and the baby will die anyway) is OK to choose but still projects an immoral stigma upon it, then society is condoning murder, in which case I would be against the ethics of society. However, personally and from a rational standpoint, I am for abortion as it A)keeps the population down and B)is possibly an act of mercy since it prevents a human from (most likely inevitable) suffering and actually having to consciously deal with death.

Quote from: "rlrose328"I am not in favor of abortion at all, but I will not protest it nor will I vote to ban it. It's not my place to say what a woman can and can't do with her body. In a perfect world, the father would be involved in the process and women would carry babies to term and give them to other families to raise if they don't want them.  Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.  It's messy and sometimes people have to do desperate acts to survive.

I apologize, I tend to try and stay quietly lurking most of the time, but I felt compelled to respond to something I read here.

I'm curious why people on this forum talk about the body rights of women.  When a woman gets pregnant, can she not realize that the decision of her body is no longer just about her wants/desires?  Who speaks for the unborn child?  Why are they allowed to decide the fate of an entire life?  We've propped up our government to intervene all the time to prevent abuse to children already born, why do we not extend this to the unborn, who don't even have the ability to speak for themselves?

I just find it to be contradictory.  One thread speaks about the mother of a dying child going on the lam because her religious beliefs compel her to prevent the child from having chemotherapy.  In this thread, the majority of people talk about the rights of the child being protected by the state and how this woman is a vicious murderer.  Yet at least the 13-year-old does have a voice, and is not physically incapable of defending himself.  Unborn children are indefensible in every way imaginable, yet no one is wanting the government to speak up on their behalf.

I really just don't get it.

Agency. Agency. Agency. Agency. Agency.  

Miss:

QuoteHowever, personally and from a rational standpoint, I am for abortion as it A)keeps the population down and B)is possibly an act of mercy since it prevents a human from (most likely inevitable) suffering and actually having to consciously deal with death.

If you are so much concerned for keeping the population down, let`s apply death penalty to abortionist mothers and doctros.

Quote from: "rlrose328"I am not in favor of abortion at all, but I will not protest it nor will I vote to ban it. It's not my place to say what a woman can and can't do with her body. In a perfect world, the father would be involved in the process and women would carry babies to term and give them to other families to raise if they don't want them.  Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.  It's messy and sometimes people have to do desperate acts to survive.

Quote from: "newblueradio"I'm curious why people on this forum talk about the body rights of women.  When a woman gets pregnant, can she not realize that the decision of her body is no longer just about her wants/desires?  Who speaks for the unborn child?  Why are they allowed to decide the fate of an entire life?  We've propped up our government to intervene all the time to prevent abuse to children already born, why do we not extend this to the unborn, who don't even have the ability to speak for themselves?

Why does the fetus/unborn child/collection of cells have more rights than the existing living/breathing individual with a functioning brain and life?  By all means, the fetus should have a chance to complete it's growth cycle... but it's not my place to say she HAS to let it happen within her own body.  Why don't YOU see that??  I am not a baby machine that can be turned on and turned off as the general public sees fit.  This is a MASSIVE grey area all the way around.  I support a woman's right to choose how she conducts business within her womb.  If she wishes to be paid to have sex with it, I support that.  If she wishes to sew it shut, I support that, too.  (NOTE I said if SHE wishes to do so... not the involuntary genital mutilation done in some countries... I chose that scenario to make a point, nothing more.)  I would also appreciate the same choice afforded me were I to choose to do something, too.  Having the government dictate what I can and can't do with my body is much the same as having the Christians tell me I'll go to hell for having sex before I marry.  Not their business what I do in my bedroom.  Not their business what choices I make in the privacy of my doctor's office.

Quote from: "newblueradio"I just find it to be contradictory.  One thread speaks about the mother of a dying child going on the lam because her religious beliefs compel her to prevent the child from having chemotherapy.  In this thread, the majority of people talk about the rights of the child being protected by the state and how this woman is a vicious murderer.  Yet at least the 13-year-old does have a voice, and is not physically incapable of defending himself.  Unborn children are indefensible in every way imaginable, yet no one is wanting the government to speak up on their behalf.

I really just don't get it.

That 13-year-old is making a choice to skip chemo based on what his whackjob mother and the religions whackjobs she's aligned with tell him.... apparently, he cannot read and thus, cannot make informed choices for himself.  So while he may be physical capable of defending himself, he's doing so with the equivalent of a Dr. Seuss book, not medical accurate information.  That 13-year-old is a viable thinking, breathing, living human being whose life is already underway, not a fetus that is not viable and does not have a life and thus, is at the mercy of the decisions of its host (mother).

Please understand... I would be happy if no abortions were ever performed again.  But it's not my choice nor my decision to enforce that preference upon other people.  I also don't tell them what car to buy or how to cut their hair or when to put their loved one in a nursing home or when to pull the plug on a braindead family member.  Do you see what I'm saying?  Personal choice/personal freedom, as long another living, breathing person is not harmed.  And I don't consider a fetus to fall into that category.  It HAS no choice or personal freedom.

If a woman decides to use her genitalia to get pleasure from a minor, she is punished, because her right on her body has limits to protect a minor. If a woman decides to use her womb as an electric chair to kill a fetal minor, she has to be punished for that abuse too.

Quote from: "cyberateos"If a woman decides to use her genitalia to get pleasure from a minor, she is punished, because her right on her body has limits to protect a minor. If a woman decides to use her womb as an electric chair to kill a fetal minor, she has to be punished for that abuse too.

??

Umm.. I don't know for sure, but it seems like most elective abortions aren't about wantonly killing/ending/stopping anything out of spite or anger.  

Now I can understand taking the personal stance of "I think elective abortions are wrong and I would not want to have an abortion" but I'm not so sure that it makes much sense to force that on anybody else.  Now you can counter with the "but your forcing that decision on a fetus/blastocyst/fertilized egg as yet unattached to the uterine wall, but that logic would mean that every nocturnal emission ( for us boys) or period (for girls) would be considered an elective abortion wouldn't it?

With cloning, technically its possible (though not probable) that every cell on your body can serve the purpose of sperm.  So what then? Am I committing an elective abortion by the millions every time I scratch my bum?

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "newblueradio"I'm curious why people on this forum talk about the body rights of women.  When a woman gets pregnant, can she not realize that the decision of her body is no longer just about her wants/desires?  Who speaks for the unborn child?  Why are they allowed to decide the fate of an entire life?  We've propped up our government to intervene all the time to prevent abuse to children already born, why do we not extend this to the unborn, who don't even have the ability to speak for themselves?

Why does the fetus/unborn child/collection of cells have more rights than the existing living/breathing individual with a functioning brain and life?  By all means, the fetus should have a chance to complete it's growth cycle... but it's not my place to say she HAS to let it happen within her own body.  Why don't YOU see that??  I am not a baby machine that can be turned on and turned off as the general public sees fit.  This is a MASSIVE grey area all the way around.  I support a woman's right to choose how she conducts business within her womb.  If she wishes to be paid to have sex with it, I support that.  If she wishes to sew it shut, I support that, too.  (NOTE I said if SHE wishes to do so... not the involuntary genital mutilation done in some countries... I chose that scenario to make a point, nothing more.)  I would also appreciate the same choice afforded me were I to choose to do something, too.  Having the government dictate what I can and can't do with my body is much the same as having the Christians tell me I'll go to hell for having sex before I marry.  Not their business what I do in my bedroom.  Not their business what choices I make in the privacy of my doctor's office.

Quote from: "newblueradio"I just find it to be contradictory.  One thread speaks about the mother of a dying child going on the lam because her religious beliefs compel her to prevent the child from having chemotherapy.  In this thread, the majority of people talk about the rights of the child being protected by the state and how this woman is a vicious murderer.  Yet at least the 13-year-old does have a voice, and is not physically incapable of defending himself.  Unborn children are indefensible in every way imaginable, yet no one is wanting the government to speak up on their behalf.

I really just don't get it.

That 13-year-old is making a choice to skip chemo based on what his whackjob mother and the religions whackjobs she's aligned with tell him.... apparently, he cannot read and thus, cannot make informed choices for himself.  So while he may be physical capable of defending himself, he's doing so with the equivalent of a Dr. Seuss book, not medical accurate information.  That 13-year-old is a viable thinking, breathing, living human being whose life is already underway, not a fetus that is not viable and does not have a life and thus, is at the mercy of the decisions of its host (mother).

Please understand... I would be happy if no abortions were ever performed again.  But it's not my choice nor my decision to enforce that preference upon other people.  I also don't tell them what car to buy or how to cut their hair or when to put their loved one in a nursing home or when to pull the plug on a braindead family member.  Do you see what I'm saying?  Personal choice/personal freedom, as long another living, breathing person is not harmed.  And I don't consider a fetus to fall into that category.  It HAS no choice or personal freedom.

To why they have more rights:  I don't see that they would have any more rights than the right to be allowed to live.  By giving all of the unborn child's rights to the mother to do as they see fit, that child no longer has any rights whatsoever.  I'm simply saying, if we exercise the defense of rights for born children, the ones who do have a voice and physical capacity to defend themselves to at least some extent (even if that defense is nothing more than crying out), then it seems oddly imbalanced to ignore the rights of the unborn child which is completely physically dependent.  That child was not asked to be born, nor was it asked to be terminated.  The people who scream so strongly for the body (see: collection of cells) rights of a woman tend to ignore the body (see: much smaller collection of cells) rights of the unborn child, or the fetus, as you so technically put it.

They wouldn't have more rights.  They would be afforded the right to live, which the mother exercises freely by being alive and conceiving the child in the first place.  There are many of those on this board who speak about personal responsibilities but when it comes to this one issue, it seems they take the back seat.  Why is this no less wrong than the Octomom who continually pumps out unwanted/unneeded babies?  Far more often than not, it isn't rape or life-threatening conditions that leads to abortions, so suggesting that these extremely rare circumstances should set the standard for thinking is intellectual dishonesty.

To the comment about being a baby machine:  I'm not sure where I suggested that you were any such thing, but any woman that continually gets pregnant just to end the pregnancies in abortion -- to me, would be no different than a serial killer.  Call it morals, call it ethics, call it whatever you like.  And if that's not what you're saying, then this comment seems out of place.

As to the rest, in one breath you suggest that this child doesn't have the capacity to make choices of his own yet you say that he is a thinking, breathing human being.  What is the criteria for survival, then?

The fact that they are on life-support (the womb)?  Should we slay all living beings in clinics/hospitals that are on life support?
The fact that they don't think for themselves (the neuron situation you keep referring to)?  Should we slay the brain-dead, the mentally retarded, people who suffer from crippling mental deficiencies?  All children below age 3?

Yes, unfortunately I fear that I do see what you are saying.  You are saying that because of some arbitrary definition, you do not account unborn children as having the right to exist.  You have plainly and rather coldly laid out terms for depriving human rights from a specific segment of the population.  You've chosen buzz words and scientific data to back up your claims as to why they are lesser forms of life and do not have the right to exist and, therefore, are not worthy of consideration.  That, my good friend, is called "elitism", and via other means of action in our world's history was also known as "racism" and "sexism".

It is a shame to see that any human being would willingly devalue another life, but ultimately that is your choice.  I just hope that your worldview in this particular instance never becomes the norm.

Edit:  One last thing.  Quoting you:  "I also don't tell them what car to buy or how to cut their hair or when to put their loved one in a nursing home or when to pull the plug on a braindead family member."

With the exception of the last two, these "decisions" do not involve or harm other people.  These comparisons are extremely dubious.  In addition -- #1 -- in the case of the nursing home, said loved one would most likely be consulted about this decision, something an unborn child could never be granted -- and #2 -- in the case of the braindead family member, at least they likely already had at least somewhat of a chance at life and are likely not going to survive, whereas an unborn child likely has a great chance for survival were they not being terminated.  These comparisons sadden me greatly.

Newblueradio, so your argument is that because a fertilized egg has the potential to grow up into a human it should have the right to no be aborted correct?

What happens when the life of the fertilized egg causes the woman who carries it to be killed?  How do we try and sentence a mass of cells?  Would it be murder or just manslaughter?

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"Newblueradio, so your argument is that because a fertilized egg has the potential to grow up into a human it should have the right to no be aborted correct?

What happens when the life of the fertilized egg causes the woman who carries it to be killed?  How do we try and sentence a mass of cells?  Would it be murder or just manslaughter?

I'm very much willing to have an honest conversation about this topic, but I really don't appreciate the flame bait.  I know you may be on the defensive due to the original poster's behavior, but I'd appreciate being treated with dignity and respect until I give you reason not to do so.  And even then, I'm sure a quick slap to the back of my head will get me back on track in no time.  

Quote from: "newblueradio"

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"Newblueradio, so your argument is that because a fertilized egg has the potential to grow up into a human it should have the right to no be aborted correct?

What happens when the life of the fertilized egg causes the woman who carries it to be killed?  How do we try and sentence a mass of cells?  Would it be murder or just manslaughter?

I'm very much willing to have an honest conversation about this topic, but I really don't appreciate the flame bait.  I know you may be on the defensive due to the original poster's behavior, but I'd appreciate being treated with dignity and respect until I give you reason not to do so.  And even then, I'm sure a quick slap to the back of my head will get me back on track in no time.  

No seriously, this isn't trying to be flame bait.  If we're going to be giving a mass of cell rights to protect them from harm (because they cannot protect themselves), what legal rights does the woman get to protect herself from harm from everything from a fertilized egg to a fetus?

Or to take the opposite track, if abortion is something that should be illegal (and we are talking about illegal outright, not just restricted) because it harms a potential human being why not expand the legal protections of potential human beings to cover toxins emitted by factories, consumer/industrial products, or other accidents that might befall the potential human being or that potential human being's mother?

1:  I made the comment about being a baby machine as an example.  Never said you suggested it... I apologize if you feel I was suggesting you did.  It totally fits the discussion at hand.  

2.  And I never said that rape/mother's life endangered set the standard... they are the only instances in which I believe abortion should be completely and unquestionably legal.  For the record, I'm against abortion as a means of birth control.  I've said it before and I'll say it again when asked.  But that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.  My OPINION does not form LAW... it's merely MY OPINION.

3.  You are resorting to twisting my words, just like cyberateos did.  For the record, I do believe that Octomom has abused her right to bear children but ONLY because she has no means to pay for their existence and lied tremendously to the general public about her motives and her actions in order to gain sympathy.

4.  I am a mother.  I know what it was like to have a fetus inside, feel it grow, birth the resulting infant.  Yes, a fetus is a living thing, a human being in embryo form.  It doesn't think, however.  And I don't see where I said that a fetus is a "thinking, breathing, living human being."  I said that about the 13-year-old and I said that another "living, breathing person" should not be harmed.  I also followed that up by saying I don't believe that a fetus falls into that category.

5.  Just like cyberateos before you, you insist on bringing up the taking living beings off of life support and slaying braindead, mentally retarded people, etc.  You, my friend, are disgusting for even mentioning those things.  It is a sensationalistic method of debate.  YOu know damned well that I don't believe in doing ANY of those things.  And that's the last time I will comment on that here.  Let's keep to decent debate.

5.  I do account unborn children the right to exist.  I do not believe in depriving human rights from any segment of the population.  I really detest the sensational lengths to which anti-choice people will go in their arguments.  Elitist?  HAHA!  

6.  Finally, again, you sensationalize my statements, turning them into something they are not.  I was listing things that I wouldn't want to tell someone else to do.  That's all.  Period.  My POINT is that I'm not in the position to tell people what to think or what to believe or what to DO with their lives, bodies, or possessions.  And I find it frighteningly "1984" that you (and others LIKE you) DO want to tell people what to do in those respects.  

So now, please feel free to twist around all of this, sensationalize it and twist it into something demeaning and horrible.  Why is it that I can respect your argument (because on some level, we DO agree) but you insist on making me out to be a monster?

Quote from: "newblueradio"

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"Newblueradio, so your argument is that because a fertilized egg has the potential to grow up into a human it should have the right to no be aborted correct?

What happens when the life of the fertilized egg causes the woman who carries it to be killed?  How do we try and sentence a mass of cells?  Would it be murder or just manslaughter?

I'm very much willing to have an honest conversation about this topic, but I really don't appreciate the flame bait.  I know you may be on the defensive due to the original poster's behavior, but I'd appreciate being treated with dignity and respect until I give you reason not to do so.  And even then, I'm sure a quick slap to the back of my head will get me back on track in no time.  :brick:  

Jolly:

Why do you refer to a "fertilized egg" but not to a full term fetus?

Why do you menction cases of threat to mother`s life, but not to elective abortions?

Why don`t you talk about a partial birth abortion due to a cleft palate?

I feel that you are desesperately searching cases with ATTENUANTING CIRCUMSTANCES and avoiding cases with AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Jolly:

Why do you refer to a "fertilized egg" but not to a full term fetus?

Why do you menction cases of threat to mother`s life, but not to elective abortions?

Why don`t you talk about a partial birth abortion due to a cleft palate?

I feel that you are desesperately searching cases with ATTENUANTING CIRCUMSTANCES and avoiding cases with AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

These are your attenuating circumstances.  Partial birth abortions due to cleft palates are not common.  No one here is trying to legalize 3rd trimester abortions, though some may be indifferent to them.  When you originally came here, we thought you were going to debate against abortion as it currently legally stands.  That's the only kind I'm defending, I know that much.  I'm not defending whatever strawmen you try to force on me.  I do not support baby rape, or 3rd trimester abortions or whatever else you can think of, unless I say otherwise.  My lines are clearly drawn.

I only think the law should legally allow the destruction of individuals who cannot think and are unresponsive to stimuli if and only if the person holding their medical power of attorney approves it.  This means that early term fetuses and terminally brain dead individuals could be terminated at the behest of their guardian.  For what it's worth, I also think suicide, that is, the termination of oneself, should be legalized, but that's a matter apart from this.

Pipebox:

QuoteThese are your attenuating circumstances. Partial birth abortions due to cleft palates are not common.

So what? Cases of 9 year old raped girls with an anencephalic fetus are even less common, but are often menctioned as a dirty trick of abortionists.

QuoteNo one here is trying to legalize 3rd trimester abortions, though some may be indifferent to them.

Let`s establish severe punishment for those cases.

QuoteWhen you originally came here, we thought you were going to debate against abortion as it currently legally stands. That's the only kind I'm defending, I know that much. I'm not defending whatever strawmen you try to force on me. I do not support baby rape, or 3rd trimester abortions or whatever else you can think of, unless I say otherwise. My lines are clearly drawn.

Why not to establish an International Civil Fetal Registration in the week 13?

QuoteI only think the law should legally allow the destruction of individuals who cannot think and are unresponsive to stimuli if and only if the person holding their medical power of attorney approves it. This means that early term fetuses and terminally brain dead individuals could be terminated at the behest of their guardian.

What if Terry Schiavo were easily recoverable, but her husband would order to kill her to get her house and her money to live with another woman?

QuoteFor what it's worth, I also think suicide, that is, the termination of oneself, should be legalized, but that's a matter apart from this.

Are you saying that if a 13 year old boy has troubles with Mathematics, and wants to kill himself, I should let him be instead of helping him? Would not it be correct to give him psychological support?

Quote from: "cyberateos"Jolly:

Why do you refer to a "fertilized egg" but not to a full term fetus?  

Because full term fetuses do not get aborted - something which you've been told many, many times in this thread. Stop trolling and actually read the responses to your highly suspect posts.

No even sure why i bothered to respond. You obviously won't read it.

By the way, should i be sent to jail for scratching my chin? Afterall, i am killing collections of cells by doing so.

I want to know what makes the fetus an "unborn child". What is so special about this ball of cells as compared to a liver for instance?

The assertions of the anti-choice people in this thread all seem to be based on the fact that these balls of cells are people, define people, and how they meet this definition of people, then, maybe we can get somewhere in this discussion.


Edit; I'm going to help.  

Wiktionary says

person=A human being; an individual.

A human being=A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.

Do the people in this thread agree with these definitions so we can get somewhere with this? ( come to think of it, expecting a conclusion or even a reasoned debate might be a tall ask in this case. . .)

Quote from: "PipeBox"

Quote from: "cyberateos"Jolly:

Why do you refer to a "fertilized egg" but not to a full term fetus?

Why do you menction cases of threat to mother`s life, but not to elective abortions?

Why don`t you talk about a partial birth abortion due to a cleft palate?

I feel that you are desesperately searching cases with ATTENUANTING CIRCUMSTANCES and avoiding cases with AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

These are your attenuating circumstances.  Partial birth abortions due to cleft palates are not common.  No one here is trying to legalize 3rd trimester abortions, though some may be indifferent to them.  When you originally came here, we thought you were going to debate against abortion as it currently legally stands.  That's the only kind I'm defending, I know that much.  I'm not defending whatever strawmen you try to force on me.  I do not support baby rape, or 3rd trimester abortions or whatever else you can think of, unless I say otherwise.  My lines are clearly drawn.

I only think the law should legally allow the destruction of individuals who cannot think and are unresponsive to stimuli if and only if the person holding their medical power of attorney approves it.  This means that early term fetuses and terminally brain dead individuals could be terminated at the behest of their guardian.  For what it's worth, I also think suicide, that is, the termination of oneself, should be legalized, but that's a matter apart from this.

You said all of that in a LOT fewer words than I could or would have.  Kudos.      This is my stance exactly.

First off, your "dirty tricks" are no better, but without them you lose almost all support to your argument.  Mine don't suffer this, as a fetus prior to week 26 is no more intelligent than a ring worm, is unresponsive to stimuli, and falls doubly under the pregnant woman's power of medical attorney, medical attorney for herself and for the inactive human-to-be.  Still, I'll address your other points.

Week 13 is too soon in my opinion, end of the second trimester gets my vote for where the cut off should remain.  Women aborting after the 3rd trimester are already punished where it is illegal, like where I live.  We don't kill them in return, though, because it solves bugger all.  You want vengeance, not protection, though you will gladly state that this will decrease abortions.  You're right, and I bet fewer kids would steal candy from stores if we killed them, and fewer people would drive drunk if the cops came up to a scene where a person got hit by the driver and the cops shot the driver then and there.  It's not about plainly reducing it, you've a poor understanding of why we have law, it isn't for vain retribution, but protection.  The irony is palpable.  Now, there will always be people for whom the law does not offer a harsh enough penalty.  Kids still steal candy, people still drink and drive, and even under your system, women would still have abortions.

Terry Schiavo was not easily recoverable, if she was, she'd still be alive.  Your hypothetical question has little bearing on our conversation, and I'm not sure what you were getting at.  Do you mean to say we should keep people in persistent vegetative states on life support indefinitely?

No, I do not think a 13 year old should commit suicide over math.  But the law doesn't have much arresting effect on the dead, and I was quite aware of this when I almost killed myself.  Children should be taken care of, if they seem suicidal, people should try to intervene, same for adults that care about them.  There is, and never will be, any law against trying help people through rough spots in their lives.  Any 13 year old that wants to die so badly that they aren't afraid to is beyond the possibility of being put off by a trivial federal law, though.  I just think it is a waste of resources to litigate attempted suicides, and I also think it's a police report no one wants tied to them or their loved ones.  Law or no law, people will continue killing themselves, 13 year olds included.  Do you really think someone about to kill themselves stops when they think "Oh, but it would be against the law"?

I happen to think it's outside the purview of the law to enforce self-protection.  It should be something educated people do.  I wear helmets and seat belts and I'm careful about how much alcohol I drink, but I don't think the law should have authority to fine or arrest people for only imposing risks on themselves.  So when it comes to you trying to outlaw what a woman does with her body while it's occupied by the equivalent of a parasite, I consider you to be oppressive.  And when you want to impose punishment disproportionate to crimes, I consider you to be vengeful.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Jolly:

Why do you refer to a "fertilized egg" but not to a full term fetus?

Why do you menction cases of threat to mother`s life, but not to elective abortions?

Why don`t you talk about a partial birth abortion due to a cleft palate?

I feel that you are desesperately searching cases with ATTENUANTING CIRCUMSTANCES and avoiding cases with AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

off topic Could you explain what you mean by attenuating and aggravating circumstances (feel free to PM me). I may have missed your definition of these in earlier posts.  Are these legal or medical terms?  Attenuating means to make things smaller or less and aggravating means to make things more or worse. back on topic

If you take the absolutist stance that abortion, in any form, is morally wrong and should therefore be made illegal it doesn't matter what the circumstance is.  If abortion is completely 100% illegal, a woman who accidentally stands too close to a microwave oven is just as guilty of a crime as a woman who would decide to use abortions as birth control, both are endangering the live of a potential human being correct?

FYI, cyperateos has been put on permanent vacation and therefore won't be responding to any more posts here.

Quote from: "Whitney"FYI, cyperateos has been put on permanent vacation and therefore won't be responding to any more posts here.

oops, totally missed that.

The worst thing is, it is just going to fuel his rabid anti abortion zeal. Now he is going to feel all persecuted, and come off that people here are hypocritical censors, so that the next person he harangs about this are subjected to even more drivel.

Quote from: "SSY"The worst thing is, it is just going to fuel his rabid anti abortion zeal. Now he is going to feel all persecuted, and come off that people here are hypocritical censors, so that the next person he harangs about this are subjected to even more drivel.

Eh...I think he's already been banned from a lot of forums.  He probably got here from following the link in my sig on the last forum he got banned from.

So, the guy's been permanently banned. I guess we can stop talking about this now...  

Quote from: "DIY 1138"Deleted by poster

wtf?  DIY, if you ever decide to come back you are going to have to explain to me why you deleted ALL of your posts.  

QuoteI only think the law should legally allow the destruction of individuals who cannot think and are unresponsive to stimuli if and only if the person holding their medical power of attorney approves it.

+1

I'm too lazy to try to extrapolate on that.

Not following your line of logic there,sports fan.
The abortion itself is only in part about the potential life...
It has primarily to do w/ the health and well-being of the mother.
And her rights.

If the mother chooses not bring to term a creation from her own body who is in a position to tell her that she has to?
While nobody's is "pro-abortion" (as has been stated here many times)..a large number of us are for women have rights over there own bodies and people minding their own business.
 I see,nothing in your argument that addresses either of those crucial issues,my friend.