Horrible

[delilahmused]

You can't have it both ways, you can't say it's a life after a particular week and abortion shouldn't be allowed then turn around and say it can be allowed in this this and that week. It's really easy, either it's murder or it isn't, there's no in between, and if it's murder after say week 22 then it's murder after week 1.

That's what was thinking. A baby is a mere brainless puddle of cells at 21 weeks 6 days but at 22 weeks (the next day) it becomes a baby. That seems arbitrary and a tad irrational. It's kind of like the bumper sticker that says "Everyone who is pro abortion has already been born". And it's disgusting to be told we're misguided, ignorant, or whatever is the name du jour because we believe that ALL life has value. That's sanctimonious bullshit.

You can rationalize all you want but it's still murder. It's not even a question of religion. It's about respect for human life, protecting the most innocent, and compassion. It says quite a lot about a society that allows, even celebrates a woman's right to kill her baby for arbitrary reasons. If you don't think they celebrate it just look at planned parenthood...they made t-shirts that women actually WORE declaring to the world they had an abortion. And then there's their yearly Christmas cards. Tis the season to celebrate pro-choice. Might want to suck that baby out of the womb before you get the tree. Who wants to be saddled with a mistake when they've got parties to attend, turkey to cook, and presents to open.

Cindie

[Alpha Mare]

That's horribly misleading.   Its rather unimportant whether pain signals are fired along nerve pathways - it matters whether there's any hardware to perceive it.  And that doesnt happen till the cortex.  

Till there's a cortex, pain signals are trees falling in a forest, with no one around.

 You are the poster-twit for Mind Numbing Stupidity. 

[vesta111]

Since I am a real nut, let me try here to debate Wilber.

OK, Wilber, we can now with science grow, clone and do all kinds of interesting things to humans, animals and plants.

How  does  one sperm navigate its way inside a females body break through the surface of her egg while fighting 200,000 or so other sperm.

Each sperm is different you know and who ever wins the race is the WINNER.

The fastest, the strongest sperm out of hundreds of thousands of sperm gets the prize.  At times a female will release 2 or more eggs and they, the other sperm have a chance to grab the other eggs.  Each child will be different not identical.

Then at times for some reason we do not know an egg will split into 2-3-4 pieces all carrying the DNA from one sperm. All will be identical except for their finger and toe prints.

Now by some unbelievable reason the eggs begin to grow, at first they are all female, the males develop when a hormone is released into them or the sperm is programed to produce males, the sperm determines we believe at this time, the sex of the being.

This goes on for most animals and all humans.

This tissue that is growing will Allways take on the beings that produced it. The DNA has to fit.

What is growing inside the female human cannot be cross bread.   A Moose cannot give birth to a pig and a female human cannot give birth to a rabbit.  While there are some animals that can be cross bread, the results are usually sterile.

Comes down to if your dog is pregnant, it will birth puppy's not cats or humans.

When the sperm makes its entry into the egg, a human begins to developer, at that second there is Life as the egg begins to grow. The 9 or so months of growth for this being lasts until it can live on its own, sort of like a tad pole growing into a frog.

So much goes on in the body of the host animal or human to insure the life with in them grows that the life will fight for survival even if it has to kill the host.

To equate life with a tumor or growth is absurd, the tumor will all ways be a tumor, may spread but never live on its own, or be anything but a tumor.

Once the birthing is done the living human, kitten or puppy is helpless, although it has been born it is still for a few weeks or a month totally helpless, they do not think or reason, they just demand food and comfort.  All they know is instinct at this point.
 
So are these baby's not yet human or a cat or a dog.???  They need time in their development to physically and mentally grow out side the womb.----Same as they did inside the womb.

By the thinking of the pro-choice folk, it is easy to see how they may someday believe a human is not a human until it acts like one,  abortion can now be extended to 2-3 week old living baby's.   Children with severe autism, or in the case of a child born blind, deaf or missing an arm or a leg.

I believe that when that strong sperm breaks down the door to the egg, something miraculous happens, LIFE.   What is that spark that creates life.   That spark stays with the being until death and if you have ever lived on a farm or seen a living being die, that spark then leaves the body.   Watch a human being born, it has that spark at birth,Had it from the time of conception otherwise it would not continue to grow.

Next time you see a woman in late pregnancy try to realise that once you began living in the body of a woman, you floated there for months growing you body, kicked and punched to get comfortable in there.  Once you were born it was weeks or a month or more until you no longer acted on instinct and became aware of your Surroundings.    


So my dear Wilber, can you pin point the exact time you became a Human???

[rubliw]

Not to get too much into a pro-eugenics argument, but I am opposed to too much interference in what little bit of natural selection still operates on us. Save all those miscarriages and you'll likely be preserving so many bad recessives that no one could guess at the consequences for the whole species. If a high percentage of 5-year-olds were dropping dead all around us, and had been since as long as we can remember (that is, we're talking about a constant in human history, not some new disease or syndrome), as is the case with miscarrriages, then there'd likely be a really good genetic reason for it, either in the mother's developmental apparatus or the child or both.

Well, OK, that's an interesting take.   So you're saying that if 30-50% of 5 year olds just dropped dead for no reason that we were able to discern, we wouldn't care because we'd just be desensitized to it.   Not sure that really helps the pro-life position any.

But in any case, remember that embryos are no less than human children according to pro-life.  So what you're saying, in pro-life terms, is that there is an entire class of human children who are unusually afflicted with a whole host of severe genetic disorders and are rewarded with our complete indifference and tragically early deaths.   Well, this state of affairs should earn the disgust of every single pro-lifer who has the courage of his/her convictions and should only increases our moral obligation to this segment of the human population.  We should be compelled to feel even more urgency towards the plight of our fragile, dying embryos... err, I mean children.  

You speak of our genetic fitness.  Well again, I repeat: Human embryos are no less than children according to pro-life - members of the human species - so how could they remain consistent with their principles, decry eugenics in one breath, and then disregard the untimely deaths of millions of (what they believe to be) human children for the sake of the genetic fitness of the human population in another?   They can't.

Thinking of microscopic embryos as children simply leads to absurdity.

[rubliw]

That's what was thinking. A baby is a mere brainless puddle of cells at 21 weeks 6 days but at 22 weeks (the next day) it becomes a baby. That seems arbitrary and a tad irrational.

Conception is not an instant in time - its a process that occurs over several hours and literally consists of millions of chemical reactions.   Millions of them even happen before DNA is combined or even before the sperm cell dissolves inside the egg.   So at which precise reaction out those millions does the egg and sperm transition to a distinct living member of the human species?  There really isnt one.  Just like there is no exact moment we can really point to in time to determine when a mind exists and when it doesnt.

So what do we do?  We choose the latest point in development where we can be sure there is no mind... and 20-22 weeks is a nice conservative estimate, in that regard.

[rubliw]

By the thinking of the pro-choice folk, it is easy to see how they may someday believe a human is not a human until it acts like one,  abortion can now be extended to 2-3 week old living baby's.   Children with severe autism, or in the case of a child born blind, deaf or missing an arm or a leg.

Actually - you aren't dealing with MY claim - which is that things with minds, not merely things human, are the members of the moral realm.  The term "human" is completely amoral.  So its irrelevant to me whether fetuses or embryos are human, for the purposes of this discussion.  They certainly are human.  But they don't have minds.  So I don't think we have any real moral obligations towards them.

So my dear Wilber, can you pin point the exact time you became a Human???

No.  I don't even think the question makes sense.  Sperm cells and egg cells are human.  Maybe you mean "distinct member of the human species".  Even then its not clear cut - as I articulate below, conception is a process, not an intant in time.  But even if we could pin down a reasonable exact moment in time - given my claims above - who cares?  "Human" is amoral.

[Alpha Mare]

Human or not?

[Godot showed up]

Well, OK, that's an interesting take.   So you're saying that if 30-50% of 5 year olds just dropped dead for no reason that we were able to discern, we wouldn't care because we'd just be desensitized to it.   Not sure that really helps the pro-life position any.

But in any case, remember that embryos are no less than human children according to pro-life.  So what you're saying, in pro-life terms, is that there is an entire class of human children who are unusually afflicted with a whole host of severe genetic disorders and are rewarded with our complete indifference and tragically early deaths.   Well, this state of affairs should earn the disgust of every single pro-lifer who has the courage of his/her convictions and should only increases our moral obligation to this segment of the human population.  We should be compelled to feel even more urgency towards the plight of our fragile, dying embryos... err, I mean children.   

You speak of our genetic fitness.  Well again, I repeat: Human embryos are no less than children according to pro-life - members of the human species - so how could they remain consistent with their principles, decry eugenics in one breath, and then disregard the untimely deaths of millions of (what they believe to be) human children for the sake of the genetic fitness of the human population in another?   They can't.

Thinking of microscopic embryos as children simply leads to absurdity.

Rubliw, I’m afraid you’ve made an incorrect assumption here, although I’ll grant that it’s not an unreasonable assumption, given the majority of CC’s member’s positions and my own position vis-à-vis your analogy. I’m not, as you usually think of it, pro-life. Or rather, I’m not a pro-life absolutist. I am, though, anti-Roe—the judicially set clock needs to be turned back for determination of when abortion is acceptable. So your observation that my concern over countering too much of non-human-created environmental factors to the detriment of natural selection doesn’t reinforce a pro-life argument is correct. I was just making a point about the dangers of preserving too many unfit alleles, and then pointing out that your analogy doesn’t work. Abortion in your comparison would be analogous to mothers killing their 5-year-old children, not 5-year-olds just inexplicably dropping dead—from a pro-life stance, or, even, from simply a sensibly rational stance. Granted, miscarriage would be analogous in your comparison to 5-year-olds inexplicably dropping dead, but then, miscarriages are hardly abortions, are they? Whatever one’s position on abortion/choice, there is no question that it is killing. The question has always been, is it murder?

I did not write that we should automatically abort the badly genetically unfit, if such is confirmable by amniocentesis or sonogram, although I’m by no means the first one to question how our eradication of so many dangerous environmental factors and preservation of so many unfit alleles to reproductive adulthood may be affecting our future as a species. Childhood vaccination alone may be having far-reaching consequences. Frankly, I don’t see how there’s any “may” about it, anyway. We HAVE to be altering our genetic fitness as a species through modern medicine—such wholesale interventions cannot fail to have consequences.

Your argument with my strongly pro-life friends at this point seems to me to boil down to that, if they are vehemently opposed to all abortion, then by their own moral precepts they are required to actively prevent, as much as they can and with all the political will they can muster, miscarriages. But by their lights, abortion is murder, and by any lights, miscarriages are accidental deaths. One need not  embark on a crusade to prevent all accidental deaths to remain morally consistent with opposition to deliberate murder!

[Airwolf]

We need a 15 day waiting period for turdballs to post.

[dandi]

The term "human" is completely amoral.

"Human" is amoral.

No, simpleton, it's not. 

a human being.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human

a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human+being

1.  not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

2.  having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amoral

You have zero understanding of the words you are using.

So its irrelevant to me whether fetuses or embryos are human, for the purposes of this discussion.  They certainly are human.  But they don't have minds.  So I don't think we have any real moral obligations towards them.

Keep talking, wilbur.  A bright light needs to stay shined upon "humans" like you.

Sperm cells and egg cells are human.

No, simpleton, they're not.  They are separate cells that, when combined (ie conception), make a human life.

[ConservativeMobster]

OMG! I finally "see the light" wilbur.  It's amazing that after all my years on this earth, the 2 beautiful children I birthed, myriad forum conversations, untold books I've read, politicians I've admired, ad nauseum, YOU finally made me cognizant of the fact that I was wrong in my belief that conception meant life.  How could I have been so ignorant?  I must re-think this whole GOD thing.

    

I hate how these trolls think they can wander into a conservative site and school us on the issue of "life begins....abortion" debate. 

[BEG]

Well most women that I know that have had fertilized eggs frozen will not discard them.  They have either donated them to a couple that can not conceive or they keep them frozen forever.

There isn't a way to stop a miscarriage once it starts so it would not make sense to throw money at the problem.  The only thing you can do is try to figure out the problem and be proactive the next time.  I am a habitual aborter (medical term)   imagine my surprise when I heard that description of me.  Felt like someone was calling me the most vile name.

When I had three miscarriages in a two year timeframe they called them spontaneous abortions. I was very emotional during that time and it bothered me greatly. Also the time I passed the "products of conception" in my pants I could make out the head, arms and legs. That time I had to bring "the flakes of skin" with me to the doctor so he could make sure I passed everything. Imagine my horror of having to put it in a tupperware container then place it in a paper bag so that no one in the waiting room could see my "clump of cells" I brought with me. I wonder why pro-choice people always say it's a very emotional choice that women make. If they think like Wilbur then it should be easy peasy, like getting a wart frozen off.

[dandi]

I hate how these trolls think they can wander into a conservative site and school us on the issue of "life begins....abortion" debate. 

Not me, I love it. 

With every word that falls out of wilbur's sewer and onto his keyboard, he further validates how morally bankrupt and devoid of humanity the pro-death position really is.  Saved for posterity on the interwebz.

[Splashdown]

OMG! I finally "see the light" wilbur.  It's amazing that after all my years on this earth, the 2 beautiful children I birthed, myriad forum conversations, untold books I've read, politicians I've admired, ad nauseum, YOU finally made me cognizant of the fact that I was wrong in my belief that conception meant life.  How could I have been so ignorant?  I must re-think this whole GOD thing.

    

I hate how these trolls think they can wander into a conservative site and school us on the issue of "life begins....abortion" debate. 

Especially when they're so obviously young and have so few miles on the odometer. I love how they have everything figured out.

[ConservativeMobster]

Especially when they're so obviously young and have so few miles on the odometer. I love how they have everything figured out.

And they are generally childless.  wasp, you are correct, they are morally bankrupt and totally lacking in personal responsibility.

[rubliw]

And they are generally childless.  wasp, you are correct, they are morally bankrupt and totally lacking in personal responsibility.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, women who already have at least one child account for a modest majority of women who obtain abortions, if the stats are to be believed.  So it's doubtful whether the "wisdom" that comes from having a kid is likely to change one's views or make one better informed about abortion.

In fact, in some cases, I think children might actually do harm to one's ability to think clearly on the issue.   One's views may become inextricably bound to interpersonal subjective feelings and highly emotional experiences surrounding their own children and family.    Throw a few abortion gore pictures at some mothers, not in such a way as to aid in understanding of course (you need context for that), but so as to invite them to imagine the picture as their own baby - and you've got a recipe for one who will potentially never have a rational, well considered thought on the topic again.  

Of coure, in other cases, having a child might actually cause some women to be pro-choice, given that they have been through pregnancy, childbirth and have some understanding of what that all entails.

All possibilities.  In any case, the "conventional wisdom" floating around here is completely unsubstantiated.

[Splashdown]

In fact, in some cases, I think children might actually do harm to one's ability to think clearly on the issue.   One's views may become inextricably bound to interpersonal subjective feelings and highly emotional experiences surrounding their own children and family.    Throw a few abortion gore pictures at some mothers, not in such a way as to aid in understanding of course (you need context for that), but so as to invite them to imagine the picture as their own baby - and you've got a recipe for one who will potentially never have a rational, well considered thought on the topic again. 

Of coure, in other cases, having a child might actually cause some women to be pro-choice, given that they have been through pregnancy, childbirth and have some understanding of what that all entails.

Yeah. Actually experiencing childbirth would definitely "harm" the ability to see the unborn child as a lump of sloughed-off cells. So would an ultrasound.

I was going to put a laughing smiley at the ignorance of this post, but upon a re-read, I'm saddened.

[ConservativeMobster]

I was speaking to the "childless" posters that cannot relate to this discussion from experience.  Such as yourself.  My point is not that you have an opinion merely that I loathe discussing this issue with a person that seems only to speak as one more knowledgable than a mother. For most of us, this topic is not a science related one, it's personal.

Have you addressed the photo posted by Alpha Mare?

[rubliw]

Yeah. Actually experiencing childbirth would definitely "harm" the ability to see the unborn child as a lump of sloughed-off cells. So would an ultrasound.

I was going to put a laughing smiley at the ignorance of this post, but upon a re-read, I'm saddened.

By "ignorance of this post" are you referring to your own words?  Because we've already been over the fact that most women who procure abortions have at least one child.   

[rubliw]

I was speaking to the "childless" posters that cannot relate to this discussion from experience.  Such as yourself.  My point is not that you have an opinion merely that I loathe discussing this issue with a person that seems only to speak as one more knowledgable than a mother. For most of us, this topic is not a science related one, it's personal.

Well, I fully acknowledge that the emotional experience of child birth and child rearing is something I do not know.  But there are certain facts of the matter that, no matter how emotional one is, one cannot deny or change.  Fetuses don't have minds till late into pregnancy.  And despite the attachement that you and many other women may feel to your own developing children, not all women feel the same.

Have you addressed the photo posted by Alpha Mare?

There's little to address.  No context at all was provided.  The relevant question for me is: in that picture, was there a mind present?

[rubliw]

No, simpleton, it's not.  

You have zero understanding of the words you are using.

The quoted definitions do nothing to aid your case (or detract from mine).

The designation "human" (ie, belonging to the homo-sapien species) is amoral (ie, neither immoral nor moral).   And moral value is not brought about the string of letters with which we choose to associate with things, but by real relevant facts about the nature of those things.  

Now, the term 'human' is actually bound to real relevant facts about things that exist in this world.    In other words, we can't just call anything human (or else the word would cease to have ANY useful meaning).  If something is 'human', it must posses certain features.   Well, what are the features something needs in order to be called human?  And are they they kind of features that bring about moral value?

So - lets get to the bottom of it - what specifically are the features that make humans (or any other living creature) morally relevant?  I've articulated my belief on the matter... its the mind.  You, so far, have simply relied on vicious circularity... "humans are valuable because they are humans"..  you need to do much much better even to get your case to the point of being intelligible.

Just as aside, as I've repeated a few times, the designation "homo-sapien" is a purely a scientific categorization (morality has nothing to do with it, period).  Its meant to be scientifically useful, not morally useful.  So by relying so heavily on the term 'homo-sapien', you've essentially made the biologist into your moral dictator, whether you realize it or not.  And I would find it VERY hard to believe that you are OK with that, or would grant any science such overreaching authority to any scientists, in defining your moral realm.

[dandi]

So it's doubtful whether the "wisdom" that comes from having a kid is likely to change one's views or make one better informed about abortion.

So says the individual who has none.

In fact, in some cases, I think children might actually do harm to one's ability to think clearly on the issue.   One's views may become inextricably bound to interpersonal subjective feelings and highly emotional experiences surrounding their own children and family.

Oh, that is classic!  You have no children and no moral grounding ("amoral" as it were), yet you try to present some sort of expertise in the matter.

 

Throw a few abortion gore pictures at some mothers, not in such a way as to aid in understanding of course (you need context for that), but so as to invite them to imagine the picture as their own baby - and you've got a recipe for one who will potentially never have a rational, well considered thought on the topic again.

No, with pictures you have perspective and context, simpleton.  I'm sure you would rather those who support your pro-death position without having children of their own not see those images.

Seeing those images would give the ignorant some perspective and context, wilbur.  Two sides so they could make a choice, as it were.

Of coure, in other cases, having a child might actually cause some women to be pro-choice, given that they have been through pregnancy, childbirth and have some understanding of what that all entails.

Please give your mother our best regards.

All possibilities.  In any case, the "conventional wisdom" floating around here is completely unsubstantiated.

You are wrong, simpleton.  The "conventional wisdom floating around here" comes from a love of life, a grounding in humanity, and practical experience. 

Practical experience gives one a perspective and context from which to guide.  Apparently, it's a perspective and context you are sadly lacking; the more you type, the more it shines through.

[dandi]

Have you addressed the photo posted by Alpha Mare?

There's little to address.  No context at all was provided.  The relevant question for me is: in that picture, was there a mind present?

 

Holy crap, you're pathetic!

[BEG]

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, women who already have at least one child account for a modest majority of women who obtain abortions, if the stats are to be believed.  So it's doubtful whether the "wisdom" that comes from having a kid is likely to change one's views or make one better informed about abortion.

In fact, in some cases, I think children might actually do harm to one's ability to think clearly on the issue.   One's views may become inextricably bound to interpersonal subjective feelings and highly emotional experiences surrounding their own children and family.    Throw a few abortion gore pictures at some mothers, not in such a way as to aid in understanding of course (you need context for that), but so as to invite them to imagine the picture as their own baby - and you've got a recipe for one who will potentially never have a rational, well considered thought on the topic again.  

Of coure, in other cases, having a child might actually cause some women to be pro-choice, given that they have been through pregnancy, childbirth and have some understanding of what that all entails.

All possibilities.  In any case, the "conventional wisdom" floating around here is completely unsubstantiated.

WTF?  My last pregnancy I got pregnant while taking methotrexate (look it up). I was scared shitless, my rheumatologist told me to abort. I refused, went to a see a genetics specialist who said she couldn't say if I got off the mexthotrexate in time. Because I had had a stroke about 10 years prior (I have an auto immune disease called takayasu arteritis) my doctor was also afraid I could have another stroke during the pregnancy or delivery. I had to give myself heparin (blood thinner) shots twice a day in my stomach (try doing that when you are 9 months pregnant) and take 20 mg of prednisone a day (I looked like a fat fatty during my pregnancy because of the moon face steroids give you). I also had to see the doctor weekly in the beginning, every other week during about 18-26 weeks, monthly for awhile then back to weekly until I delivered.  Oh I also got gestational diabetes from the prednisone.  

I thought about the health of my clump of cells every waking moment.  There were many nights I cried because I was so very worried. When it came time to deliver her my doctor didn't want me to push, try having a baby come out of you without pushing......  

Anyway, during that time I never entertained the thought of aborting her. Today she is a perfectly healthy 12 year old who is in an advanced program in her school and is also a very talented artist.

So that non aware non thinking clump of cells that you would easily stop the heart of and throw in the trash would never be allowed to mature into a wonderful child like my daughter. Thankfully you don't have a vagina and can't go around having abortions when it isn't convenient to have a baby.

I would do it over again in a heartbeat, you don't have the balls to go through everything I had to do.  You are a wimpy liberal who isn't man enough to do what it takes.  
  
 

[Godot showed up]

rubliw, have you ever asked yourself why so many people feel so strongly that abortion is murder at any stage of development of the fetus, from zygote to near birth? You know it can't simply be religious upbringing; organized religion teaches that many things are sins or wrong that people regularly ignore, and I don't mean criminals, just ordinary, everyday people. Why does so large a segment of the American population not see it your way?

I have had similar thoughts, that of course the brain is the seat of our humanity and that until it's up and running to some reasonable degree, we're talking about human life in potentia and not actualized human life. I have in later years tried to make myself look beyond that easy conclusion, without, as I must as a nobeliever, the other easy benefit to the answering of this question--believing in the existence of a soul.

I can't escape the nagging feeling that we're missing something with the easy answer of active brain = fully fledged human being. One tentative thought I've had is that, at all stages, we're more than our brains and any other parts of our bodies, even without a soul in the equation. Another thought I've had has been about worldlines, and the path of a decisionmaking entity as it makes its way in spacetime. Maybe it's the path we should be considering, and not the entity. In which case the state of the brain or body would be irrelevant to considerations of abortion, and the zugote would be just as important as the late-term fetus. But I've never gotten much further than that.