NationStates

Tokos wrote:It's not as if the majority of pregnant women are forced to be shackled up to this hypothetical life support machine. Takes two to tango as they say. Refraining from committing murder is more important than being inconvenienced for nine months in any case - this is what I mean by balancing people's rights, which is done in law all the time.

I somehow overlooked this post before. You're an idiot for thinking abortion is murder.

What do you call an abortion in Prague? A cancelled Czech!

Those are my thoughts on abortion!

its typical, pro lifers (the majority of them) ran off half cocked using a basic misunderstanding of biology then try to argue their wrong ideas of biology/justify their stance because of their wrongly understood grasp of biology.
Like
Fetus and baby are not interchangeable.
short of DNA testing, its impossible to tell a human embryo from a chicken embryo without DNA tests.
Before 23 weeks, a fetus can not survive outside the womb

Bunyippie wrote:its typical, pro lifers (the majority of them) ran off half cocked using a basic misunderstanding of biology then try to argue their wrong ideas of biology/justify their stance because of their wrongly understood grasp of biology.
Like
Fetus and baby are not interchangeable.

Right, I forgot. The magical vagina changes the fetus into an entirely new substance.

short of DNA testing, its impossible to tell a human embryo from a chicken embryo without DNA tests.

Source?

Before 23 weeks, a fetus can not survive outside the womb

Viability is based on technology, though. A viable baby today was not a viable one 50 or 60 years ago. Is the right to life contingent on technology?

Acadzia wrote:

Bunyippie wrote:its typical, pro lifers (the majority of them) ran off half cocked using a basic misunderstanding of biology then try to argue their wrong ideas of biology/justify their stance because of their wrongly understood grasp of biology.
Like
Fetus and baby are not interchangeable.

Right, I forgot. The magical vagina changes the fetus into an entirely new substance.

short of DNA testing, its impossible to tell a human embryo from a chicken embryo without DNA tests.

Source?

Before 23 weeks, a fetus can not survive outside the womb

Viability is based on technology, though. A viable baby today was not a viable one 50 or 60 years ago. Is the right to life contingent on technology?

1. it changes the definition. like how a magical Y chromosome changes a girl into a boy!
2. please tell me which is which http://www.takdangaralin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/9week.jpg http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/5143648/258556-main_Full.jpg one is a chicken, one is a human

3. actually, it is. a mother who gives birth to a baby before 23 weeks will have a stillborn/nonviable fetus. As long as the fetus can not survive outside the womb, it is a fetus and therefore, not a human with full rights.

Bunyippie wrote:its typical, pro lifers (the majority of them) ran off half cocked using a basic misunderstanding of biology then try to argue their wrong ideas of biology/justify their stance because of their wrongly understood grasp of biology.
Like
Fetus and baby are not interchangeable.

ba⋅by
–noun
1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby

Square and rectangle aren't interchangeable, doesn't mean a square isn't a rectangle.

EDIT: What characteristic of life does a fetus not meet (or pro-lifers misunderstand)?

Bunyippie wrote:

Acadzia wrote:

Bunyippie wrote:its typical, pro lifers (the majority of them) ran off half cocked using a basic misunderstanding of biology then try to argue their wrong ideas of biology/justify their stance because of their wrongly understood grasp of biology.
Like
Fetus and baby are not interchangeable.

Right, I forgot. The magical vagina changes the fetus into an entirely new substance.

short of DNA testing, its impossible to tell a human embryo from a chicken embryo without DNA tests.

Source?

Before 23 weeks, a fetus can not survive outside the womb

Viability is based on technology, though. A viable baby today was not a viable one 50 or 60 years ago. Is the right to life contingent on technology?

1. it changes the definition. like how a magical Y chromosome changes a girl into a boy!
2. please tell me which is which http://www.takdangaralin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/9week.jpg http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/5143648/258556-main_Full.jpg one is a chicken, one is a human

3. actually, it is. a mother who gives birth to a baby before 23 weeks will have a stillborn/nonviable fetus. As long as the fetus can not survive outside the womb, it is a fetus and therefore, not a human with full rights.

1. Did you seriously compare the joining of a gamete with a y-chromosome to one with an x to a fetus exiting a vagina? And pro-lifers are the ones that fail at biology? So let me get this straight. Let's say a 23-week old baby (er, fetus, I mean!) is inside its mother. This is not human? After labour and birth, the baby exits the vagina. Suddenly, it's human? Really? Let's say one woman kills or aborts her 23-week old fetus. Another shoots her premature 23-week old baby in the head. Please, tell me the difference, besides the location of the baby?

2. I'm going to hazard a guess and suggest the first link you posted (takdanaralin or whatever it is) is human. The obviously hominid hands are a help!

3. This doesn't answer my question. Viability of a fetus is based highly on technology and luck more than anything. James Elgin Gill was born in the late 80s at 21 weeks old in Ottawa, Canada. Guess he wasn't a human though, right? So what was Mr. Elgin (now a young, 22 year old man)? He wasn't human, by your standards.

Oh, and fun fact! Johannes Kepler, Winston Churchill, and Isaac Newton were all born prematurely. Damn, they're pretty cool guys, I'm so glad that their mothers' magic vaginas turned them into humans.

What about this cutie? Human?

Verzia wrote:It shouldn't be legal, unless:

Raped

In danger of dieing

The baby has a defect[/list]

Since all babies are parasites until not attached to the host does that mean all the time?

“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it,“ said Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.“

WTF?

How do pro-choicers feel about this?

Thomas's violinist
"we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.
However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so. The parallel with the abortion case is evident. The thought experiment is effective in distinguishing two concepts that had previously been run together: “right to life” and “right to what is needed to sustain life.” The fetus and the violinist may each have the former, but it is not evident that either has the latter. The upshot is that even if the fetus has a right to life (which Thomson does not believe but allows for the sake of the argument), it may still be morally permissible to abort."

"In Philippa Foot’s “Killing and Letting Die”, Thomson’s thought experiment is directly criticized. Foot discredits the suggested mirror-situation between the violinist and abortion by applying and weighing negative and positive rights.

First, Foot derives the moral difference between killing and letting die:
…There are rights to noninterference, which form one class of rights; and there are also rights to goods or services, which are different. And corresponding to these two types of rights are, on the one hand, the duty not to interfere, called a ‘negative duty’, and on the other the duty to provide the goods or services, called a ‘positive duty’.[3]

The rights to noninterference constitute ‘negative rights’ and the rights to goods or services constitute ‘positive rights’.

Important to note is Foot’s claim that, “Typically, it takes more to justify an interference than to justify the withholding of goods or services…”[4]. In other words, ceteris paribus, a negative right holds greater moral weight than a positive right, and so it is harder to morally justify overriding a negative right than a positive right. Foot builds on this by specifying, “So if, in any circumstances, the right to noninterference is the only right that exists, or if it is the only right special circumstances have not overridden, then it may not be permissible to initiate a fatal sequence, but it may be permissible to withhold aid”[4]. Notably, Foot classifies initiating a fatal sequence as a morally objectionable act, while legitimizing the morality of not aiding.

This holds substantial implications for Thomson’s violinist experiment. Whereas Thomson requests the reader to draw a moral parallel between unhooking oneself from the violinist and a woman aborting her fetus, Foot seeks a deeper explanation of why this should be the case. But, in Foot’s opinion, under her framework, things are not as Thomson would like. Foot notes, “According to my thesis, the two cases must be treated quite differently because one involves the initiation of a fatal sequence and the other the refusal to save a life”[5].

The distinction arises from the rights due to the violinist and fetus, and the duty one holds not to violate them. In the case of Thomson’s experiment, the violinist holds only a positive right to be saved: he requires the service of being hooked up to another’s body. Now, as the argument will go, if you find yourself hooked up to the dying violinist, you have an obligation to not ‘kill him’ by separating yourself from him. However, it is important not to allocate rights to which the violinist is not entitled. You, the person to whom he is attached, did not bring about the sequence of his death, and so cannot be burdened with, say, the negative duty ‘not to kill the violinist’ – since, ultimately, it is the ailment that is killing the violinist. Consequently, the only right to which the violinist has a claim is a positive right. And, Foot explains, “…although charity or duties of care could have dictated that the help be given, it seems perfectly reasonable to treat this as a case in which such presumptions are overridden by other rights—those belonging to the person whose body would be used.”[5] Thus, in this case one may unhook from the violinist, since his positive right does not hold enough weight to justify disregarding another’s right to his or her own body.

Foot gives an account of the other case, abortion:
The case of abortion is of course completely different. The fetus is not in jeopardy because it is in its mother’s womb; it is merely dependent on her in the way children are dependent on their parents for food. An abortion, therefore, originates the sequence which ends in the death of the fetus, and the destruction comes about “through the agency” of the mother who seeks the abortion.[5]

Abortion is uniquely different from the violinist case, since the fetus holds a negative right not to be killed (since it holds a full right to life, as granted to it by Thomson). The woman, by having an abortion administered, directly initiates the event which takes the fetus’s life, completely violating its negative right. For this reason, in any normal circumstances a woman cannot morally legitimize having an abortion."

I can copy and paste shit from wiki too
And her name isn't thomas...

Acadzia wrote:“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it,“ said Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.“

WTF?

How do pro-choicers feel about this?

That is so obviously fake. They just made the story up to try to show how abortion is bad.

well, in virginia,
"There is a state law prohibiting “corrupt practices of bribery by any person other than candidates."
"Not only is it illegal to have sex with the lights on, one may not have sex in any position other than missionary."
"Children are not to go trick-or-treating on Halloween."
and in the state's capital
"It is illegal to flip a coin in a restaurant to see who pays for a coffee."
In the city of Waynesboro
"It is illegal for a woman to drive a car up Main Street unless her husband is walking in front of the car waving a red flag."
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/virginia?page=20
its called fucking loopholes and dumbass laws that haven't been corrected because the state senate has more important things to do then reverse a law on coin flipping or the like

Wiztopia wrote:

Acadzia wrote:“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it,“ said Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.“

WTF?

How do pro-choicers feel about this?

That is so obviously fake. They just made the story up to try to show how abortion is bad.

I pray to God you're right. Interesting comments, though. So you're not down with this kind of thing? Good to know. How is a late-term abortion any different, pray tell?

ChainedReactors wrote:The case of abortion is of course completely different. The fetus is not in jeopardy because it is in its mother’s womb; it is merely dependent on her in the way children are dependent on their parents for food.

Children draw their nutrients from their parent's bloodstream by living within them and being physically attached to said bloodstream?

Acadzia wrote:I pray to God you're right. Interesting comments, though. So you're not down with this kind of thing? Good to know. How is a late-term abortion any different, pray tell?

A late-term abortion is carried out because of a health issue, either with the mother or the fetus. Such possibilities include the fetus having already died, the mother suffering from a condition which makes it dangerous for her to continue the pregnancy, anencephaly (the fetus is missing the majority of the brain and will not survive) severe hydroencephaly (the fetus has too much fluid in the head and will not survive - this can also cause delivery to be extremely dangerous), and other severe physical and chromosomal defects.

None of that has anything at all to do with someone who gives birth to a healthy baby and then kills it.

Dempublicents1 wrote:

Acadzia wrote:I pray to God you're right. Interesting comments, though. So you're not down with this kind of thing? Good to know. How is a late-term abortion any different, pray tell?

A late-term abortion is carried out because of a health issue, either with the mother or the fetus. Such possibilities include the fetus having already died, the mother suffering from a condition which makes it dangerous for her to continue the pregnancy, anencephaly (the fetus is missing the majority of the brain and will not survive) severe hydroencephaly (the fetus has too much fluid in the head and will not survive - this can also cause delivery to be extremely dangerous), and other severe physical and chromosomal defects.

None of that has anything at all to do with someone who gives birth to a healthy baby and then kills it.

I'm drunk and unfamiliar with American law. But here in the Dominion of Canada, late-term abortion is perfectly legal, and there need not be a physical health condition in either mother or baby... Call my crazy, but I'm quite positive that some states have similar laws to Canada?

"None of that has anything at all to do with someone who gives birth to a healthy baby and then kills it.

It has a lot to do with it if the link I posted checks out, and pro-abortion laws are preventing infanticide from being properly punished. We'll see, I gues.s I know Ill be watchin this story.

Acadzia wrote:

Dempublicents1 wrote:

Acadzia wrote:I pray to God you're right. Interesting comments, though. So you're not down with this kind of thing? Good to know. How is a late-term abortion any different, pray tell?

A late-term abortion is carried out because of a health issue, either with the mother or the fetus. Such possibilities include the fetus having already died, the mother suffering from a condition which makes it dangerous for her to continue the pregnancy, anencephaly (the fetus is missing the majority of the brain and will not survive) severe hydroencephaly (the fetus has too much fluid in the head and will not survive - this can also cause delivery to be extremely dangerous), and other severe physical and chromosomal defects.

None of that has anything at all to do with someone who gives birth to a healthy baby and then kills it.

I'm drunk and unfamiliar with American law. But here in the Dominion of Canada, late-term abortion is perfectly legal, and there need not be a physical health condition in either mother or baby... Call my crazy, but I'm quite positive that some states have similar laws to Canada?

Interestingly enough, "perfectly legal" doesn't mean it happens. When they actually track these things, they find that, even without a law requiring those sorts of reasons, they are still the reasons such abortions are performed. Because healthy women don't carry a pregnancy nearly to term, then go, "Guess it's time to kill the fetus now!" and gleefully run out to have abortions.

(And I'm pretty sure there isn't a US state that has no restrictions on late term abortions, but I'm not absolutely certain).

"None of that has anything at all to do with someone who gives birth to a healthy baby and then kills it.

It has a lot to do with it if the link I posted checks out, and pro-abortion laws are preventing infanticide from being properly punished. We'll see, I gues.s I know Ill be watchin this story.

There is no "pro-abortion law" in the US. In order to be "pro-abortion", the law would have to require or, at the very least, encourage an abortion.

If someone was trying to not restrict abortion, and somehow made it legal to kill a born child, it's only because the legislature in question was full of idiots. It has nothing to do with the realities of abortion.

Terraliberty wrote:What do you call an abortion in Prague?

Jedna potrat.

NEXT!

Wiztopia wrote:

Tokos wrote:It's not as if the majority of pregnant women are forced to be shackled up to this hypothetical life support machine. Takes two to tango as they say. Refraining from committing murder is more important than being inconvenienced for nine months in any case - this is what I mean by balancing people's rights, which is done in law all the time.

I somehow overlooked this post before. You're an idiot for thinking abortion is murder.

How so? How would you define murdur? How would you define life?

As a female friend of mine put it:

Abortions are fun. I get knocked up as often as I can so I can get an abortion!

Bunyippie wrote:its typical, pro lifers (the majority of them) ran off half cocked using a basic misunderstanding of biology then try to argue their wrong ideas of biology/justify their stance because of their wrongly understood grasp of biology.
Like
Fetus and baby are not interchangeable.
short of DNA testing, its impossible to tell a human embryo from a chicken embryo without DNA tests.
Before 23 weeks, a fetus can not survive outside the womb

Correct. A foetus is not a baby.

Irelevant. Many thinks at those stages of developement look similar. Does apperance change what something is? If so, then we could solve the world hunger problem by shiping the third world our wax fruit.

Irelevant. So you would argue that it does not have a right to existance if it is not able to survive on its own? Is it not true that, for the U.S. at least, 18 years 9 months after conception the embryo would have become a fully functioning, voting member of socioty, asumeing all goes well?

Terraliberty wrote:What do you call an abortion in Prague? A cancelled Czech!

Those are my thoughts on abortion!

I love you now.

...Dangit, how in the world do I put that into my signature? Cause yeah, that's where it's going, soon as I figure out how to do it!

Bunyippie wrote:

Acadzia wrote:

Bunyippie wrote:its typical, pro lifers (the majority of them) ran off half cocked using a basic misunderstanding of biology then try to argue their wrong ideas of biology/justify their stance because of their wrongly understood grasp of biology.
Like
Fetus and baby are not interchangeable.

Right, I forgot. The magical vagina changes the fetus into an entirely new substance.

short of DNA testing, its impossible to tell a human embryo from a chicken embryo without DNA tests.

Source?

Before 23 weeks, a fetus can not survive outside the womb

Viability is based on technology, though. A viable baby today was not a viable one 50 or 60 years ago. Is the right to life contingent on technology?

1. it changes the definition. like how a magical Y chromosome changes a girl into a boy!
2. please tell me which is which http://www.takdangaralin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/9week.jpg http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/5143648/258556-main_Full.jpg one is a chicken, one is a human

3. actually, it is. a mother who gives birth to a baby before 23 weeks will have a stillborn/nonviable fetus. As long as the fetus can not survive outside the womb, it is a fetus and therefore, not a human with full rights.

I emboldend what I felt was important there. Is this saying it is human, but you would deny it certain rights?

Omnicracy wrote:Irelevant. Many thinks at those stages of developement look similar. Does apperance change what something is? If so, then we could solve the world hunger problem by shiping the third world our wax fruit.

Appearance is also irrelevant. A foetus, during the earliest stages of development, has all of the intelligence of a kidney. It's a simple fact. The brain does not develop functions resembling consciousness until well into the pregnancy. (An exact time of which escapes my currently sleep-deprived mind)

Omnicracy wrote:Irrelevant. So you would argue that it does not have a right to existence if it is not able to survive on its own? Is it not true that, for the U.S. at least, 18 years 9 months after conception the embryo would have become a fully functioning, voting member of society, assuming all goes well?

Also irrelevant. I could become the next Grand Poobah of the World and control the United Nations with an iron fist in the next 18 years, 9 months, it doesn't mean I will.