For or against abortion?

mulp · #81 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

I believe the mother should have chosen sooner and more wisely, rather than putting herself in the position of having to murder her unborn child.

Let's see, you are saying that the woman...

Should not have chosen to be forcibly raped?

Should not have chosen to concieve of a fatally flawed child, such as a child with anencephaly or Tay-Sachs?

Should not have chosen to have a life theatening medical condition like cancer when pregnant?

mulp · #82 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

It is essential to continue throwing up the smoke screen. If they ever admit that they are actually advocating killing living human beings, then most of the pro choice support would evaporate nearly overnight.

If the unborn is a human being, then I say, take it from the mother who doesn't want it and give it someone else immediately.

Why isn't that the solution?

mulp · #83 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Right. There are those who accept the scientific fact, and then there are the flat earthers who beleive that just because they say a thing that somehow it becomes true even when there are mountains of credible science that prove that they are just lying to themselves.

Yes, you fall in the category of the flat earthers.

No scientific basis exists for declaring an embryo or fetus as a "human being" or a "person" or an "individual".

If you disagree, please cite the scientific source, taking into account that in the case of embryos, scientists have in conjunction with ethicists deemed embryos something that can be experimented on, manipulated, and discarded as deemed appropriate by a reproductive lab tech.

PaleRider · #84 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

If the unborn is a human being, then I say, take it from the mother who doesn't want it and give it someone else immediately.

Why isn't that the solution?

Are you really this stupid or do you think being obtuse is cute?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

Yes, you fall in the category of the flat earthers.

No scientific basis exists for declaring an embryo or fetus as a "human being" or a "person" or an "individual".

Hell, maybe you are that stupid. But sure, I will provide you some scientific basis for my position.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, )

"Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human being from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."E. Bleschmidt, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company), 2-18.

These are medical textbooks used in med schools around the world to teach the subjects of embryology, developmental biology, fetology, and OB/Gyn, in addition to reference to the peer reviewed medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine.

Now do feel free to provide some credible science that supports your position or do the pro choice shuck and jive and pretend that you can substantiate your position even though we both know you can't. And you call me a flat earther.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

If you disagree, please cite the scientific source, taking into account that in the case of embryos, scientists have in conjunction with ethicists deemed embryos something that can be experimented on, manipulated, and discarded as deemed appropriate by a reproductive lab tech.

As evidenced by my ability to provide credible science that states explicitly that unborns are living human beings from the time they are concieved and you are unable to provide equally credible material suggesting that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being, there is no real dispute in the medical/scientific community as to what unborns are. The disupte arises over whether it is OK to kill them in exactly the same manner as a dispute arose over whether it was OK to own and work human beings in the fields like animals just because the law said that they were not human beings.

George O Well · #85 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wow

babies have civil rights also

>>>Babies have civil rights, true. But you'll have to show me where it says that fetuses have civil rights that subordinate a woman's civil rights.

frycat101 · #86 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 01:10 PM

I am Pro-life!!! and proud i am a woman and the reason i am pro-life is not because i am a republican, which i am not, it is due to the fact that when i was in the womb, doctors told my mother that something was wrong with me. My head was weirdly shaped etc etc.. so they basically told her i might be "special" and asked if she wanted an abortion. She said no and look now i am not "special" by any means, am at the top of my class, and got a 34 on my ACT.

i belive taking the chance on maybe giving birth to the next "hitler" or mass murder is no reason to not take the chance on giving birth to the next doctor to cure cancer, the next scientist who will save the enviroment or come up with a new fuel, or the next and greatest president of all time.

Many people out there want a child, give the baby to them, let them raise it.
Who cares about the way her body will be ruined etc etc.. you can always work your way back to how you used to be. It all depends on her strength of mind.

PRO LIFE!!!

mulp · #87 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Are you really this stupid or do you think being obtuse is cute?

Hell, maybe you are that stupid. But sure, I will provide you some scientific basis for my position.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, )

"Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human being from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."E. Bleschmidt, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company), 2-18.

These are medical textbooks used in med schools around the world to teach the subjects of embryology, developmental biology, fetology, and OB/Gyn, in addition to reference to the peer reviewed medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine.

Now do feel free to provide some credible science that supports your position or do the pro choice shuck and jive and pretend that you can substantiate your position even though we both know you can't. And you call me a flat earther.

As evidenced by my ability to provide credible science that states explicitly that unborns are living human beings from the time they are concieved and you are unable to provide equally credible material suggesting that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being, there is no real dispute in the medical/scientific community as to what unborns are. The disupte arises over whether it is OK to kill them in exactly the same manner as a dispute arose over whether it was OK to own and work human beings in the fields like animals just because the law said that they were not human beings.

So, you take the position that human fertility clinics are the scientific equivalent of crimes against humanity, and that almost all scientists, lawyers, and ethicists are the equivalent of Josep Mengele?

In fact, one would need to suspect the texts that you cite as being the work of the likes of Josep Mengele's, or at least the fruit of the experimentation on and murder of human beings for scientific research. Right?

Until a fetus breaths its first breath, it is at best an aspirational or potential human being, but until that occurs its fate is totally dependent on the willingness and ability of one individual human being providing everything it needs for life. Eliminate that human being, and the embryo or fetus or zygote dies, something that is not true for any human being.

The embryo, fetus, or zygote is no different than an appendix, a human cancer tumor, an arm or leg. And I can only conclude from your comments that you consider the death of a fetus from any cause to be worse than the removal of someone's arm, which might be done by doctors to save the human being from being killed by the arm, or might be done by a crazy sword wielding slasher, or might be done by the human being purposely placing their arm in machine that shears off the arm.

Let me hasten to note that anyone harming the woman against her will by forcing an abortion is just as guilty of a crime as they would be if they chopped off her arm, but society by way of common law places a lower price on the harm done by removing a fetus than by removing an arm. Clearly society sees the woman as a human being who has been harmed in both cases, but does not consider the fetus to be a human being.

mulp · #88 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, )

So, if we take the above to be the authority on the subject, then the embryo created in the fertility lab does not need to be placed in a woman, because left alone it will remain alive.

In fact, the embryo created in the woman by way of sex doesn't need anything to happen to live, according to your source, when it is clear that a significant number of embryos never make because they never successfully form the blastocyst on its own, and then successfully attach itself to the woman. Most birth control pills ensure that any blastocyst that forms does not attach itself, which as stated in your source means that the embryo will not die, which is clearly absurd.

Inelpaso · #89 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmeth

I agree fully. I think that an abortion should have to be agreed upon by both the mother and the father and not just the mother...

The father, family and everyone need to be very supportive of the mother during a difficult time, regardless of her choice.

mulp · #90 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmeth

I agree fully. I think that an abortion should have to be agreed upon by both the mother and the father and not just the mother...

Presumably you see the embryo through fetus as property in taking that point of view? If not property, than what is the basis for argung that the father, lets say he's a rapist, should have any say in the matter?

Common law operates on the basis of taking a given dispute or conflict and drawing comparisons to existing case law and finding either an existing case that is essentially identical, or a set of cases that can by way of compare and contrast find the dividing line in a conflict and then find a reasoned and logical resolution to the new conflict, establishing additional case law for future situations.