Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[ElectricFetus]

I am personally pro-life. And I say personally because I can only be pro-life for my own body or the children I gave birth to and because I could never have an abortion. It was even suggested to me during my first pregnancy, when my health waned and there was a risk to my health and I couldn't do it. When I had my second child and nearly died in childbirth, my sole concern was to save my son and I remember begging the surgeon to do so and I remember sobbing incoherently when he told me that he would do what he could, but their priority was to save me, my son was secondary.

... what with the personal story? Does personal experience make an argument stronger? I've been abducted by aliens, repeated, if I provided anal details (pun intended) would that make for a strong argument for alien visitation? Could I tantrum about you denying the value of my traumatic experiences?

I would never impose my personal beliefs or feelings on another woman.

Another women is about to murder someone, you are the only one that can stop her, but wait, your not going to impose your beliefs on another women! By the way how do you feel about imposing your beliefs on men?

That decision should be hers.

Why? Provide an ethical argument.

So by that definition, I become pro-choice, because I believe every woman should have the right to determine and control their reproductive and sexual organs.

Technically a fetus is not part of women's reproductive/sexual organs, just leeching off it, just saying.

I made the choice to be pro-life. I would never ever force another to follow or believe as I do. And that is the thing with pro-choice. It is about having a choice.

Why? why should anyone have that choice? We don't have the "choice" to murder other people, for some reason that not a matter of personal preference as abortion is, why?

When life starts is one of personal belief, is it not?

Oh jeez, someone believes no one is truly alive, and he got a gun and is about to invoke his "choice"!

I guess what you should be asking is why my views should be imposed on other women? Shouldn't women have a right to determine and choose for themselves and for their own bodies?

Why should they? I personally could provide several ethical arguments for why they should but so far you haven't, so far you claim that mothers have this choice to murder an unborn baby for vague even circular logical reasons. Why can a mother murder their unborn baby (if they so choose) but not their born baby, or another person all together. Heck way can't a father? That baby was a product of his sexual organs too, why can't he exact control and choice of his "sexual organs"?

The very act of denying a woman freedom over her own body is inherently misogynistic. Once that becomes understood, then maybe we can get somewhere.

The very act of killing a fetus is consider murder by some, why is repressing women's rights worse then allowing the "murder" of millions, yearly? Frankly that a genocide, yet genocide is less wrong than misogyny?

Now don't get angry with me, I'm just playing the devils advocate here on account that no pro-lifers have come forth willing to do so. Oh by the way watch this movie it is so heart warming (personally I think it one of the best I've ever seen) and strangely prescient (either that or honestly that movie has mashed my brain, call it an emotional argument if you will).

Yes, they are. And since most women's egg supply vastly outnumbers their ability to have children, each abortion reduces the number of children, on average, they can have.

This statement makes no sense. A women is likely to go through 400-500 viable eggs in her lifetime, if she aborts one then is that not only 1 out of 400-500. Shit she going through and egg every month, heck keeping her pregnant all the time might give at most give ~20 of them life but no matter what those eggs die off ovulated or not. There is no way in hell she could conceive and birth even a good fraction of all of the viable eggs she will have, if she aborts one she could get another fertilized and growing that would have died off naturally during the pregnancy she choose to aborted. Many mothers do just that when they discovery their child has some horrific genetic defect, abort it and then try again to have a healthy one instead.

Agreed. Birth control is the best way to do that. Abortion is a very poor substitute.

I don't know if abortion is used generally as birth control, I would think it used generally as a last resort after "birth control" failed or was not available because of some special circumstance like rape, inebriation or stupidity, and if a women was too stupid to use birth control why not let her have an abortion, add less idiot to the world!

 

[Bells]

... what with the personal story? Does personal experience make an argument stronger? I've been abducted by aliens, repeated, if I provided anal details (pun intended) would that make for a strong argument for alien visitation? Could I tantrum about you denying the value of my traumatic experiences?

If you want to believe in alien abduction and anal probing, knock yourself out. Just so long as you don't impose your belief on others by way of law.

Another women is about to murder someone, you are the only one that can stop her, but wait, your not going to impose your beliefs on another women! By the way how do you feel about imposing your beliefs on men?

Because this argument and comparison is a valid one?

A grown woman is the same as a fertilised egg?

I don't impose what goes on in my womb on men either and they don't impose on my womb. What's your point?

One of the inherent hypocrisies of the pro-life group is they are quick to demand protection for the unborn. But when it comes to live children, they remain silent. How many of them are protesting in front of the Syrian embassy about the mass murder of children in Syria and demanding right to life for those children? I'll give you a hint. None. Are those children not worth protesting for?

So why are the children who are born worth less than the unborn?

I'll change your example. You see two women. One is 15 weeks pregnant and the other has already had her child, we'll say it is 15 weeks old. One plans to have an abortion and the other is about to murder her baby. Which one would you save? Which woman would you stop?

Why? Provide an ethical argument.

You want an ethical argument as to why women should have rights and freedom and choice over her sexual and reproductive organs?

Really?

Technically a fetus is not part of women's reproductive/sexual organs, just leeching off it, just saying.

But she should have a say, should she not?

Why? why should anyone have that choice? We don't have the "choice" to murder other people, for some reason that not a matter of personal preference as abortion is, why?

Once again, it comes down to whether you think or believe women should have the right to choose and have control over their reproductive and sexual organs.

Do you have control over your reproductive organs? Would you like it if society deemed that it should control your reproductive organs? Would you accept it? How about if you could be arrested for masturbating, because it is the loss of potential human life?

Why? why should anyone have that choice? We don't have the "choice" to murder other people, for some reason that not a matter of personal preference as abortion is, why?

Right.. Once again. You see one 15 week pregnant woman about to have an abortion and you see one woman about to murder her 15 week old child. Which one would you save? Which has more right to life?

Why should they?

Why shouldn't they?

Look at your female neighbour. Do you think you should have control over her womb?

I personally could provide several ethical arguments for why they should but so far you haven't, so far you claim that mothers have this choice to murder an unborn baby for vague even circular logical reasons.

If you value human rights and autonomy, then you need ethical arguments for why people should have control and rights over their own bodies?

Why can a mother murder their unborn baby (if they so choose) but not their born baby, or another person all together. Heck way can't a father? That baby was a product of his sexual organs too, why can't he exact control and choice of his "sexual organs"?

Why not indeed.

There are many who may feel that they should be allowed to kill their newborns. However if you are going to compare a newborn to a, say, 20 week old foetus, then you might hit a snag.

The very act of killing a fetus is consider murder by some,

Which is why some women are in prison for miscarrying. Because for some, even that is not allowed.

why is repressing women's rights worse then allowing the "murder" of millions, yearly?

What makes the rights of those being aborted more valuable than the woman's rights? If you view women as mere cattle, incubators for making babies, then sure, you could argue that they do not really have any rights and the rights of the potential children they are carrying is worth more.

Frankly that a genocide, yet genocide is less wrong than misogyny?

Perhaps you need to learn the definition of genocide.

Now don't get angry with me, I'm just playing the devils advocate here on account that no pro-lifers have come forth willing to do so. Oh by the way watch this movie it is so heart warming (personally I think it one of the best I've ever seen) and strangely prescient (either that or honestly that movie has mashed my brain, call it an emotional argument if you will).

I'm not angry with you. .. And I can't watch the movie. Youtube won't show it here in Australia, apparently.

 

[Syne]

When life/human life begins
There is no scientific uncertainty about when life begins. Whether unicellular or multicellular, as long as an object can "undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) it is alive. The defining characteristics of life are not somehow subjective in nature or open to belief or interpretation. There is also no scientific uncertainty about when human life begins, as a human's products of conception are necessary of the same species and, from zygote on, carry all the DNA necessary to begin human development. Nor are the human products of conception scientifically classified as parasites, as they are not a different species.

Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism​

At the very least, scientifically, we could make our consideration of life consistent with our consideration of death, where brainwaves (40 days after conception) are the same criteria whose absence determines death (at brain death).

So instead of relying on the science, some play semantic games with the decidedly non-scientific use of the term "parasite" and pretend that scientific facts are subjective belief:

Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?

A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates. - Barack Obama
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008​

Science has already come to a "firm resolution" that politicians nor the general public can rationally deny, and any attempt to do so can only be ignorance or rhetoric.


Right to life/personhood
Those who understand and acknowledge the scientific facts about human life, then digress into personhood. Where the science of human life (i.e. a human being) is not ambiguous in the least, the definition of personhood is controversial and vague enough to be fertile ground for evasion. These can all be characterized as attempts to render a human being a non-person, just like women, children, minorities, etc. have historically been. In the case of abortion, the human (as scientifically defined) is discriminated against not only to infringe upon its rights or to kill it (the act of causing the death of a living organism) but to murder it (one human killing another, or more accurately, several people conspiring to kill another human). People who engage in arguments of personhood are generally seeking to avoid the pale of murder, as it would weigh heavily against a woman's right to terminate.

The arguments utilized about personhood only exacerbate the moral dilemma. Full personhood is often arbitrarily defined as an adult capable of exercising their rights (constitutional protection), which would make any degree of filicide justifiable. Most often it is argued that birth (physical independence) is sufficient for personhood right to life, but birth does not discharge a significant physical dependence, only a physically direct one, which is again arbitrary and would justify infanticide. It could be argued that personhood develops over time, but that is only a way to avoid delineating where right to life begins. Ultimately, denying the personhood of a human being is discrimination, which is condemned by those who would discriminate against a burgeoning human as a non-person even while railing against gender or sexual orientation discrimination. Historically, arguments that some special set of humans (even by age or dependence) are non-persons has been exclusively used to justify doing harm.


Women's rights
If contraceptives, including the morning after pill, are available, the choice of motherhood is morally unambiguous at the decision to engage in sex. Risking the potential moral dilemma of murder is not justified when it can be otherwise avoided and would make abortion (outside of health risks, incest, rape, etc.) merely a resort of the irresponsible. Failure to take preemptive measures is tacit consent to the natural consequences that would follow. The argument from women's rights is then nothing more than an argument from woman's prerogative. The decidedly misogynistic notion that a woman cannot be expected to make an informed decision.

 

[lightgigantic]

Again, you missed the point, the whole thread has obvious misogynistic tones. What? You didn't notice it?

Then by all means explain what is precisely misogynistic about it since at the moment all you are doing (yet again) is inventing crap on the strength of your imagination.

IOW you have not explained how that post, coupled with that comment can be interpreted as supporting a misogynistic viewpoint.

Infact far from it being misogynistic, it is obviously declaring that the topic is weird and incoherent and inappropriate ... at least obviously to anyone with even remotely average skills of literacy.

LG, I have commented that your posts are tantamount to trolling and I think you are misogynistic, a view that many share on this site.

Yet for some funny reason you can't find a single clear misogynistic quote outside of your self-referential hysteria - this is why I have commented that you are a shithead.
If you don't like being called a shithead, then please don't call me a misogynist based on such puerile justifications as "everybody knows it".

Thus far, you have accused me of being like a dog of some sort, you have made spurious comments about my weight,

Actually I called you a troll, not a dog, and more specifically I requested you to go back to your cave.

of which you know nothing about, you have commented on whether I suffer from dementia or not, and now you have called me a shithead. Tell me, what gives you the right to speak to me that way? And why should I allow you or anyone else for that matter, to address others on this site this way?

Its pretty obvious to anyone that you have been trying to goad me with abusive terms in an effort to apply a ban.
The reason I have the right to call you such things is because you obviously feel you have the right to call me such things.
The only difference between what I say and what you say is that I am slightly more reserved and don't threaten to ban you.

:shrug:

The irony of your argument, of course, is that it follows the conservative discourse and further reiterates the misogyny of your ilk. That women are simply stupid or insane. You decided to add weight issues to the fray. Funny that, huh?

Now I think I understand why you think I am a misogynist.
If I call you stupid and insane its not because I think all women are stupid and insane.
I call you it because I think you are stupid and insane (although to be be fair, I only really think that you are acting like you are stupid and insane).

IOW as magnificent as you may be, there are no real grounds for you being the alpha to omega prototype for femininity, and thus any statements directed either for or against you are not intended as being typical for the wider body of women in general

 

[RussellCrawford]

No, they don't.

Scientifically speaking, yes they do. Perhaps that is not their intent, but it is undeniable that they have a choice, they can save one of the 7 billion people that are born and dying or they can save a fetus. They cannot save both because the supply of dying people far outpaces any person's ability to save life. An attempt to save a fetus will result in the death of a born person even though the fetus may be saved.

Yes, they are. And since most women's egg supply vastly outnumbers their ability to have children, each abortion reduces the number of children, on average, they can have.

Abortion wastes far fewer eggs than birth control or attempted pregnancy. Attempted pregnancy wastes 70 percent of eggs. Abortion wastes one egg.

Agreed. Birth control is the best way to do that. Abortion is a very poor substitute.

Abortion is birth control, both in a natural sense and in the case of induced abortion.

No, it's not.

Of course it is. Most women control the number of children they have. If they plan to have 2 children and one of the two children is forced to be born then the one they intended to give birth to is denied life. In effect the living egg that she wanted to be fertilized by the sperm of her chosen mate is denied life. A sperm is denied life and the egg is also denied life. In scientific terms a full set of 46 chromosomes is denied life.

"Of course if a baby is a human being with rights then a 35 week old fetus is a human being with rights." Just as valid and just as stupid. Such arguments are, IMO, asinine, and are what cause this subject to quickly descend into people making more and more untenable arguments based purely on language.

The key word here is "if". My statement is tongue in cheek. A zygote is not a baby and a sperm is not a baby.

Again - no. No one comes along to kill your kids if your wife refuses to have an abortion.

Please refrain from building straw men. I have never said that someone kills a person's kids. I have made the statement that a person has a choice, they may choose to save a born baby or they may choose to let it die and save a fetus instead. The fact is that without action, both die. And there is no duty to save either. If one wishes to step into the situation, then the choice is between born life and unborn life. Both cannot be saved. For example if you say that you will save 2 of the 7 billion born humans and 2 of the unborn fetuses, then you have given up the opportunity to save two additional born people and they die.

In effect a person has a choice they may save born life, in which case unborn life dies or they may save unborn life in which born life dies. But they have no moral obligation to save either because they are in effect saving their own lives simply by doing what is required to live.

That's another asinine argument. Are you really claiming that the justification for abortion comes from the fact that zygotes only have a 30% chance of survival?

Please don't build straw man arguments. I do not believe that a justification for abortion comes from the fact that a zygote has only a 30 percent chance of survival. I have a list of 6 laws that make clear that abortion is justified. That is not one of them.

If someone had a son, and he only had a 30% chance of survival due to a profound heart murmur, it would be equally acceptable for the mother to kill the child? If you (god forbid) found out you had cancer, and you only had a 30% chance of surviving, would it then be OK to kill you?

You are comparing born life with born life. The issue is a comparison of unborn life with born life. My personal opinion is that born life with a 30 percent chance of "continued life" is a better choice to save than an unborn fetus that has a 30 percent chance of "life." But that is all personal opinion, not scientific fact. There is a scientific method that can be used to determine which life to save. The fact is that a system of triage should be set up that makes the clarity of the issue more scientifically based. In such situations one can use triage to save more life.

There's a lot more to it than odds

.

Considering that we are speaking of human life, then it depends on your values. If one values a fetus with a 30 percent chance of life over a born baby with a 30 percent chance of life, then there is a lot more to it than odds. My opinion is that the baby should be saved because it is a born and loved human. But if one values the life of a fetus with a 30 percent chance of life over a baby with a 99 percent chance of life, then the odds are very important. Pro lifers choose to make laws that demand that a fetus be born but do not make laws that demand that a baby be kept alive. That is what defines the error of the pro life movement.

end

 

[RussellCrawford]

When life/human life begins

My assumption is that you mean there is not uncertainty as to "when the life of a fetus begins." Of course there is nothing but uncertainty as to when the life of a fetus begins. Human life evolved over a period of 3.5 billion years and has existed continuously from that period until today. Life does not begin, it continues.
It is certainly untrue that you know "when human life begins", that is not even possible.

There is no scientific uncertainty about when life begins.

Of course there is. You need to get away from Google and search a little deeper. There is no certainty as to when life begins. There is a guess that life began about 3.5 billion years ago.

Whether unicellular or multicellular, as long as an object can "undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations it is alive.

You understand that the statement above is a retrospective statement. The fact is that it is speaking of a situation of where life has already been proved and it is working backward from that point. If one were to move in a prospective sense one can not say the statement is true.
For example, one can say that a cell is alive but one cannot say that the constituent parts that make up a cell, before it is a cell, will produce a living cell. The information that is required to determine whether or not the cell will be alive is "trapped" in the DNA and must be "expressed" before knowledge about the possibility of life is ascertainable.

The defining characteristics of life are not somehow subjective in nature or open to belief or interpretation.

The characteristics are also not determinable until the product of conception "expresses" the correct phenotype. One cannot tell if there will be life until the life actually exists. In fact conception kills more life than it produces. The process of fertilization brings into it 100 possible living pairs of gametes and yields 30 living humans. Conception actually kills life, it does not create life.

There is also no scientific uncertainty about when human life begins, as a human's products of conception are necessary of the same species and, from zygote on, carry all the DNA necessary to begin human development.

That is a retrospective statement that claims to give a prospective argument. For that reason alone it fails. If the DNA is human and if the zygote is human then the baby will be human. However, we do not know prospectively that the product of conception will have enough human DNA to live as a human or if it will die for other reasons. And the answer as to whether it will be capable of living as a human is only available at birth. Why, because several processes must "express" the correct "phenotype" before it can be born. If it fails in birth, then it never had the correct phenotype or was incapable of life for other reasons.

Nor are the human products of conception scientifically classified as parasites, as they are not a different species.

Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. At the very least, scientifically, we could make our consideration of life consistent with our consideration of death, where brainwaves (40 days after conception) are the same criteria whose absence determines death (at brain death). ​

Of course that depends on your opinion of what constitutes a parasite. There is no certainty in science.

So instead of relying on the science, some play semantic games with the decidedly non-scientific use of the term "parasite" and pretend that scientific facts are subjective belief:

Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?​

The scientific fact is that until the DNA of the genotype "expresses" the correct phenotype one cannot tell if the life is human, will be born alive, or even if it is alive an instant after any tests. The scientific fact from a prospective view (which is the only valid view) is that life cannot be certain to exist until birth.

A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.

- Barack Obama
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008

Science has already come to a "firm resolution" that politicians nor the general public can rationally deny, and any attempt to do so can only be ignorance or rhetoric.

That is simply an ad hominem attack on Obama and is of no value in the debate.

Right to life/personhood
Those who understand and acknowledge the scientific facts about human life, then digress into personhood.

Personhood is not a scientific concept. Your guess is your guess and another person's guess is theirs.

Where the science of human life (i.e. a human being) is not ambiguous in the least,

Your definition of what is life is simply made up in a retrospective fashion and is of no value to the discussion. Life does not occur retrospectively, it occurs prospectively. Human life does not begin at conception simply because you cannot prove it exists and will be born. A fertile egg may never implant or may die a millisecond after fertilization.

the definition of personhood is controversial and vague enough to be fertile ground for evasion. These can all be characterized as attempts to render a human being a non-person, just like women, children, minorities, etc. have historically been. In the case of abortion, the human (as scientifically defined) is discriminated against not only to infringe upon its rights or to kill it (the act of causing the death of a living organism) but to murder it (one human killing another, or more accurately, several people conspiring to kill another human). People who engage in arguments of personhood are generally seeking to avoid the pale of murder, as it would weigh heavily against a woman's right to terminate.

The error here is that if a zygote is a baby, then a sperm/egg is a baby at an earlier stage and sperm or even cell in meiosis is also a baby. In such a case, killing a sperm would be murder.

The arguments utilized about personhood only exacerbate the moral dilemma. Full personhood is often arbitrarily defined as an adult capable of exercising their rights (constitutional protection), which would make any degree of filicide justifiable. Most often it is argued that birth (physical independence) is sufficient for personhood right to life, but birth does not discharge a significant physical dependence, only a physically direct one, which is again arbitrary and would justify infanticide. It could be argued that personhood develops over time, but that is only a way to avoid delineating where right to life begins. Ultimately, denying the personhood of a human being is discrimination, which is condemned by those who would discriminate against a burgeoning human as a non-person even while railing against gender or sexual orientation discrimination. Historically, arguments that some special set of humans (even by age or dependence) are non-persons has been exclusively used to justify doing harm.

Using your logic, a sperm could not be killed and doing so would be tantamount to infanticide.

Women's rights
If contraceptives, including the morning after pill, are available, the choice of motherhood is morally unambiguous at the decision to engage in sex. Risking the potential moral dilemma of murder is not justified when it can be otherwise avoided and would make abortion (outside of health risks, incest, rape, etc.) merely a resort of the irresponsible.

Any decision to engage in sex is a consent to abortion. Why, because 70 percent of conceptions end in natural abortion. Abortion is "THE" most natural outcome of intercourse and is not a moral dilemma. Any woman that chooses sex is in effect choosing abortion 70 percent of the time.

Failure to take preemptive measures is tacit consent to the natural consequences that would follow. The argument from women's rights is then nothing more than an argument from woman's prerogative. The decidedly misogynistic notion that a woman cannot be expected to make an informed decision.

The most important preemptive measure is abortion. Why, because all other measures fail on a regular basis for any number of reasons. And a woman consents to abortion when she consents to sex.

​

end​

 

[Bells]

Then by all means explain what is precisely misogynistic about it since at the moment all you are doing (yet again) is inventing crap on the strength of your imagination.

IOW you have not explained how that post, coupled with that comment can be interpreted as supporting a misogynistic viewpoint.

Infact far from it being misogynistic, it is obviously declaring that the topic is weird and incoherent and inappropriate ... at least obviously to anyone with even remotely average skills of literacy.

Why is it inappropriate LG?

Yet for some funny reason you can't find a single clear misogynistic quote outside of your self-referential hysteria - this is why I have commented that you are a shithead.
If you don't like being called a shithead, then please don't call me a misogynist based on such puerile justifications as "everybody knows it".

Ah shithead now.

Here LG, have a bit more rope.

You became a misogynist when you compared rape to car theft and declared women can simply prevent being raped. Remember your open rape prevention fiasco, LG?

Actually I called you a troll, not a dog, and more specifically I requested you to go back to your cave.

And a bit more rope again..

Its pretty obvious to anyone that you have been trying to goad me with abusive terms in an effort to apply a ban.

Have you been banned LG?

The reason I have the right to call you such things is because you obviously feel you have the right to call me such things.

Lets see. I say you are a troll when you openly troll to avoid answering any direct questions that would show you to be exactly what you are. I say you are the type to find no issues with denying a 14 year old pregnant rape victim because you would have no issues with it and why is that? Because you are religiously pro-life. I say you are a misogynist because your argument is very much misogynistic, I also commented on your obsession with Ms Jessen and your pathological need to parade her in every single abortion thread you post in. Your response to this is to make bizarre comments about my weight, accuse me of drooling and word it in such a way as to suggest I am a dog, etc.

Can you tell the difference between our style of insults? I insult your argument. You insult my weight for some bizarre reason and my apparent dementia. You want to go after my argument, knock yourself out. But comment about my weight, my looks.. but do that to anyone on this site? I'll nail your arse to the wall? Is that clear enough for you?

The only difference between what I say and what you say is that I am slightly more reserved and don't threaten to ban you.

You can say what you want about my argument LG and you are free to give back as well as you want in that regard. But the moment you attack people's weight, how they look, etc, then that's it. If I made such comments about your looks, your hygiene or anything else so personal like that, my colleagues would nail me to the wall. And rightly so. But do you notice that I haven't banned you? Funny that, huh? But you have a point, threatening to ban you for making comments about my weight, my looks and a plethora of other personal things you decided to go after was out of line. After all, this was the best you could come up with with when accused of being a misogynist.. Speaking of which..

Now I think I understand why you think I am a misogynist.
If I call you stupid and insane its not because I think all women are stupid and insane.
I call you it because I think you are stupid and insane (although to be be fair, I only really think that you are acting like you are stupid and insane).

I think you are a misogynist because you are one. Still think it is unrealistic to teach our sons to not rape and that women should just shoulder the burden to simply not be raped? What were the factors of being a rape victim that you linked and then stated that women can just prevent their own rapes if they adhere to such rules? Ah yes...

One of the most common forms of sexual violence around the world is that which is perpetrated by an intimate partner, leading to the conclusion that one of the most important risk factors for people in terms of their vulnerability to sexual assault is being married or cohabiting with a partner. Other factors influencing the risk of sexual violence include:

being young;
being a sex worker;
consuming alcohol or drugs;
having previously been raped or sexually abused;
having many sexual partners;
becoming more educated and economically empowered, at least where sexual violence perpetrated by an intimate partner is concerned;
poverty;
being incarcerated / institutionalised;
being mentally disabled.
​

The irony of your open ended rape prevention theory is that you completely ignored the facts of rape, that rapes are most often perpetrated by men and women the victims know and trust. When I sarcastically presented that in that case, if women were truly to prevent being raped, then they should avoid all contact with men, especially men they know or are intimate with, you found it offensive without offering a solution to what women should do if their husbands rape them aside from blathering about being prepared, citing car insurance terminology... The stupidity of your argument is why we nearly had a stampede of members baying for your blood.

I think you are a misogynist because you bent over backwards making excuses for rapists and tried to say that women should act in a certain way to not be raped and then tried to claim certain behaviours lead to being raped, such as a woman's nudity for example and apparently her catching a train in the red light district at 1am. And worst of all, when you tried your OH&S and risk assessment and applied it to women and rape.

But most of all, your misogyny stems from your inability to recognise women as people worthy of consideration... I mean hell, you even compared women to a car. Or have forgotten that was what you argued earlier on in this thread, which led Tiassa to question your ridiculous idealogy.

IOW as magnificent as you may be, there are no real grounds for you being the alpha to omega prototype for femininity, and thus any statements directed either for or against you are not intended as being typical for the wider body of women in general

Still waiting for you to answer those questions by the way. Or do you have some more dodging to do?

 

[billvon]

Scientifically speaking, yes they do. Perhaps that is not their intent, but it is undeniable that they have a choice, they can save one of the 7 billion people that are born and dying or they can save a fetus. They cannot save both because the supply of dying people far outpaces any person's ability to save life.

If you truly believe that for every person born we must kill (or not save) someone else - you're not inhabiting reality.

 

[Syne]

If you truly believe that for every person born we must kill (or not save) someone else - you're not inhabiting reality.

I agree. He does not even seem to understand that "when life begins" in an abortion debate is about life in uterus.

 

[RussellCrawford]

If you truly believe that for every person born we must kill (or not save) someone else - you're not inhabiting reality.

Please do not construct straw men and false analogies. I do not believe ----that for every person born we must kill (or not save) someone else. There is no logical way you could even imply such a thing.

I am dealing with forced abortion by people that claim to be saving life. I am not dealing with every born person. If a person is born no one is killed.


So when is a person killed? If a pro lifer (a person obligated to save life due to the claim that they do in fact save life) chooses to save a fetus they must do so by not saving a born baby. In that instant they have chosen to let a born baby that they could have saved, die. I explain the process very clearly above, there is no excuse for you to build straw men.

Once again, there is no set of circumstances, in any thing I have written, that could even suggest that one must kill a born person for every person born.

 

[RussellCrawford]

I agree. He does not even seem to understand that "when life begins" in an abortion debate is about life in uterus.

I have never said that for every born person we must kill someone. You need to re-read what I posted.

Regardless:

The abortion debate is broad. It covers life at all points. My answer covers life in utero as well as life before. For example, the pro life movement claims that there is life at conception. At conception one cannot prove there is life or if the life is human if it does exist. The pro life movement claims the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human with human rights. I prove it is not. The pro life movement claims that the life begins in the uterus, I prove it does not.

 

[lightgigantic]

Why is it inappropriate LG?

your lack of appropriate explanation of course

Ah shithead now.

Here LG, have a bit more rope.

You became a misogynist when you compared rape to car theft and declared women can simply prevent being raped. Remember your open rape prevention fiasco, LG?

another fine example of your selective intelligence as you fail to draw reasonable conclusions from relevant points

And a bit more rope again..

fine.
If you don't like being called these things, don't call others a troll.

Have you been banned LG?

Have you ever issued a ban that has later been revoked due to it being obvious you are goading and harassing a member?

Lets see. I say you are a troll when you openly troll to avoid answering any direct questions that would show you to be exactly what you are.

and I explain you are a troll when you openly refuse to take up discussion from the point where I explain your questions are loaded and are not capable of being answered in a yes/no manner in any meaningful manner.

However if we want to talk about individuals adopting trollish behavior by not answering questions, we could talk about how took a dead ended detour trying to discredit the notion that gianna being actually an abortion survivor when it was brought up how her very existence problematizes your notion of being bereft of rights until one is born.

I say you are the type to find no issues with denying a 14 year old pregnant rape victim because you would have no issues with it and why is that?

On the contrary, I repeatedly explain that a proper analysis depends of the problem incorporates 2 individuals (and I don't mean just the mother and the person performing the abortion) and that it is done through the medium of triage (ie limited resources brought to a complex problem). As such there is no clear red or green light on the problem and thus your insistence that it be thought of in such a manner is yet another example of you manufacturing diametric opposites for the sake of your political ideology.

Because you are religiously pro-life.

At this stage of the discussion, religion has nothing to do with it.
You are just throwing terms around to manufacture schisms for the sake of leverage.
This might work a gem in your atmosphere of work place politics but in discussions like this it just makes you sound hysterical.

I say you are a misogynist because your argument is very much misogynistic,

and as explained, this basically boils down to you saying "If you don't agree with me, namely that under no circumstances is life in the womb to be attributed any sort of rights, you are misogynist" ... as opposed to actually entering in to a discussion about the ethics of such a stance.

IOW rather than actually discuss the ethical framework you are trying to move a round in, you find it more convenient just to call people names, generate schisms and throw your weight around in moves of power play.

I also commented on your obsession with Ms Jessen and your pathological need to parade her in every single abortion thread you post in.

As I said, standard arguments warrant standard rebuttals.

If we wanted to talk about pathology however we could talk about you constantly trying to discredit the information that surrounds gianna every time she is brought up as a poignant challenge to the standard arguments you bring up
:shrug:

Your response to this is to make bizarre comments about my weight, accuse me of drooling and word it in such a way as to suggest I am a dog, etc.

and your response is to say I masturbate to women on the internet and make various derogatory comments about my genitals (BTW it wasn't about your weight, it was about being a troll and living in a cave ... I am just saying that it doesn't look good for you if you only vocally protest the notion of "waddling" as opposed to be a troll living in a cave).
Tit for Tat bells, if you want a more civilized standard in these discussions it might pay to display a bit more self control.

Can you tell the difference between our style of insults? I insult your argument. You insult my weight for some bizarre reason and my apparent dementia.

feel free to explain how accusing me of masturbating to some chick on the internet is an attack on my argument and not an attack on my person.

You want to go after my argument, knock yourself out. But comment about my weight, my looks.. but do that to anyone on this site?

If you really want to introduce this standard, it would behoove yourself to be obedient to it

I'll nail your arse to the wall? Is that clear enough for you?

I certainly do understand it.
That's why I only reciprocate with your ad homs at a slightly more reserved volume

You can say what you want about my argument LG and you are free to give back as well as you want in that regard. But the moment you attack people's weight, how they look, etc, then that's it. If I made such comments about your looks, your hygiene or anything else so personal like that, my colleagues would nail me to the wall.

Oh, you mean comments like this :

the moment there is a thread discussing women's rights, you're in there, scraping your backside on the ground like you have a rash on your genitals, itching to demand the removal of rights from women and trolling in the worst way possible.

If you are actually sore about using people's bodies as analogies for the weak point s in their arguments, don't bring them to the discussion.

Its as simple and as difficult as that.
:shrug:

And rightly so. But do you notice that I haven't banned you?

and i have also noticed you have been threatening to on the basis of behaviour that you are displaying.
Technically its called goading.

GTG now.
Get back to the rest of this later.

 

[RussellCrawford]

So far all I have seen on this site is a proclivity to build straw man arguments or to set up false analogies. There is also a tendency to use ad hominem attacks that have no value to the discussion. If there is anyone here that has a defense of the pro life movement, please make your argument.

Making false analogies, straw men and ad hominem fallacies are not valid arguments.

 

[Syne]

I have never said that for every born person we must kill someone. You need to re-read what I posted.

You have completely failed to explain how saving a fetus necessarily sacrifices another life. I am sure it makes sense to you, but it does not communicate to others.

Regardless:

The abortion debate is broad. It covers life at all points. My answer covers life in utero as well as life before. For example, the pro life movement claims that there is life at conception. At conception one cannot prove there is life or if the life is human if it does exist. The pro life movement claims the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human with human rights. I prove it is not. The pro life movement claims that the life begins in the uterus, I prove it does not.

Science has already proven that life (cellular life) exists very shortly after conception and that it is human life (as those cells only include human DNA). You have offered zero evidence and only proclamations of "proof".

 

[Syne]

Bravo, LG. Way to rise above the muck.

 

[RussellCrawford]

You have completely failed to explain how saving a fetus necessarily sacrifices another life. I am sure it makes sense to you, but it does not communicate to others.

No, I have completely explained how saving a fetus necessarily sacrifices another life.

I suggest you read the "Scientific Abortion Laws" by searching Google.

But lets go over it one more time. There are 7 billion people on earth. All are dying. They are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. There are more people dying than can be saved. Saving a fetus will cause the death of a born person. Why, because if you spend 1 second saving a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born people will die.
A person has a choice, they can save a born person in which case a fetus dies or they can save a fetus, in which case a born person dies. One cannot save both a born person and a fetus, why, because if a person attempts at any point to save a fetus, it will be at the cost of a born person.

Science has already proven that life (cellular life) exists very shortly after conception and that it is human life (as those cells only include human DNA). You have offered zero evidence and only proclamations of "proof".

Perhaps you did not see my explanation. Your statement above is a retrospective view and is correct from that viewpoint.

I agree that life exists shortly after conception, it exists because it existed before conception. Before conception life existed in the form of gametes and before that DNA that developed into the primordial gametes. Before that the DNA of our ancestors were programed to build our lives.

There is no proof that all conceptions are human life or that they contain human DNA exclusively. In fact if you will look up "teratoma" on Google Images you will see examples of life that does not have enough human DNA to make human life possible. Some are simply blobs of tissue, some are quite advanced in a stage of human life.

It is impossible to tell if the zygote is alive, human, or will live to birth. Why, because until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, one cannot tell anything of importance about the product of conception. I assume that you know what these terms mean. If you don't just let me know and I will explain what is going on. The process of "expression" is a time related process. By that I mean that the phenotypes encoded in the DNA must build one before the other and that until the second is built, one cannot tell if it is the correct phenotype. Please let me know if you don't understand what I am saying. Don't just build some straw man argument that is a waste of time.

end

 

[ElectricFetus]

If you want to believe in alien abduction and anal probing, knock yourself out. Just so long as you don't impose your belief on others by way of law.

Then what beleifs can be imposed by way of law? Wrongness of murder, theft and rape are just beliefs.

Because this argument and comparison is a valid one?

A grown woman is the same as a fertilised egg?

A fetus is a more then a fertilized egg. Your a fertilized egg, this is the problem of defining these things everyone be alluding to.

I don't impose what goes on in my womb on men either and they don't impose on my womb. What's your point?

ah so this is some golden rule standard, well back to the first point: what can we impose on others and why? for we need to impose some morals on others in order to have a functioning civilization. Taxes for example are imposed on us to provide for others, law impose inhibitions on my freedoms to increase the freedoms of others (like my freedom to murder is curtailed so others have freedom not to be murdered), why can't murder cover fetuses?

One of the inherent hypocrisies of the pro-life group is they are quick to demand protection for the unborn. But when it comes to live children, they remain silent. How many of them are protesting in front of the Syrian embassy about the mass murder of children in Syria and demanding right to life for those children? I'll give you a hint. None. Are those children not worth protesting for?

yeah, yeah so? I think this might be because of religious factors, to them a fetus is not yet "born with sin".

So why are the children who are born worth less than the unborn?

I don't know, but what you have done is divert the issue away from the fundamental question of why a mother right to choices trumps a fetus's right to life. You trying to avoid answering that question, last you were claiming a mother has the right to choose if a fetuses can live (even though you claim you never would harm a fetus of your own), why does she have that right though?

I'll change your example. You see two women. One is 15 weeks pregnant and the other has already had her child, we'll say it is 15 weeks old. One plans to have an abortion and the other is about to murder her baby. Which one would you save? Which woman would you stop?

Can the one I don't stop still be charged with murder?

You want an ethical argument as to why women should have rights and freedom and choice over her sexual and reproductive organs?

Again a fetus is not a reproductive organ, a fetus is a person, or at least a potential person. All I'm asking is for you to explain why a mother can murder her fetus but not her baby?

But she should have a say, should she not?

why?

Once again, it comes down to whether you think or believe women should have the right to choose and have control over their reproductive and sexual organs.

Again a fetus is not a reproductive organ. Let take a different angle, if a women has a teratoma growing off her that the doctors said will eventually pop off rather painfully and life threateningly as a independent human being, does she have a right to have it removed? Does the growth of said mass on her back verse her uterus change that answer? I don't think it does, nor would the answer change if the women was a man. The question you need to ask is does a person have full legal control over what goes on in their body (not in a specific organ or part) and does this right include the allowance to kill potential people?

How about if you could be arrested for masturbating, because it is the loss of potential human life?

Well I would first need to see the argument that semen is as valuable as a fetus is as valuable as a person first. Technically masturbation has been considered a sin off and on throughout human history.

Right.. Once again. You see one 15 week pregnant woman about to have an abortion and you see one woman about to murder her 15 week old child. Which one would you save? Which has more right to life?

Why stop there, you see a 15 week child and a 15 year old one, either is going to be murdered, which has more right to life and why? One of the weakness of my argument is that the value of a person is an age gradient, therefor a 15 year old is more valuable then a 15 week old, one might argue that a 15 week old has no chance of fighting back unlike the 15 year old so the value needs to be recalculated in favor of the infant, but that would go for the fetus as well.

Why shouldn't they?

Look at your female neighbour. Do you think you should have control over her womb?

If I was living in her womb, perhaps.

If you value human rights and autonomy, then you need ethical arguments for why people should have control and rights over their own bodies?

Precisely, can you provide any?

Why not indeed.

There are many who may feel that they should be allowed to kill their newborns. However if you are going to compare a newborn to a, say, 20 week old foetus, then you might hit a snag.

Why, what separates the two?

Which is why some women are in prison for miscarrying. Because for some, even that is not allowed.

Yep, so why is that wrong?

What makes the rights of those being aborted more valuable than the woman's rights?

Well I would think a right to live usually trumps others rights, has nothing to do with an outlook on women, women should have all the same rights as men, it just it could be argued that men nor women have the right to kill, and that killing a fetus is killing. The alternative is not to strip women of rights, of personhood, but to strip the rights of the unborn, of their personhood. Its a mean call to say that one person is not a person and that another has the right to kill that non-person, but making that call or not someone is going to get shafted: the mothers or the fetuses.

Perhaps you need to learn the definition of genocide.

Perhaps you need to explain why its not genocide. Mind you that not my argument, that common pro-lifer tripe, and you respond to it by merely implying they are ignorant and not disproving them upfront, that is pathetic!

I'm not angry with you. .. And I can't watch the movie. Youtube won't show it here in Australia, apparently.

Amazon Prime has it for streaming at HD or standard and you can of course *cough*torrent it*cough* I've seen it available to buy at stores (in the US). I truly recommend it as a family film, get the kids. I think there is a nip-slip once when Hama is breast feeding but that all I can think of that is not PG.

Anyways for some feminist analysis: The main character Hama, is either a bane or an ideal of feminism, take your pick. She has her points above even the girl-power feminist stereotype: the women in extremely tight leather in all the action movies that can kill a man 3 times before he hits the ground. Hama's advantage is that she is not laced in sexy tight lether or has some beyond masculine killing skillz, but that she overcomes though realistic hard work and determination every problem that she faces, including the fantastic problems of raising lupine children as a single mother. On the other hand Hama represents the stereotypical self-sacrificing mother: we are told that a mother's love is absolute, guaranteed, we could not imagine Hama aborting those kids even on account that they were accidents and lycanthropes (although there is a scene of her walking into a clinic, stopping in the doorway and changing her mind manically and walking out), or killing them off as pups, or abandoning them in the woods which would kind of make more sense than strictly human babies, etc. But outside of the media and fairytales some mothers do not love their children, some loth them, hate them even. Naiomi Wolf in her horrible self-aggrandizing book "Misconceptions: Truth, Lies, and the Unexpected on the Journey to Motherhood" admits that she and many of her friends have from now and then had the desire to murder their rugrats. I would think that not too uncommon, children have a tendency to get on ones nerves now and then to an unbelievable extent. It just few people ever act on such desires: love for a child in most people is greater then the selfish momentary desire of livid anger to shut the brat up permanently, egomaniacs like Naiomi Wolf though I think are closer to crossing that line.

Anyways why should we force such people to have children that they hate? A man can leave, maybe even get out of paying child support, but the women she got to spend 9 months growing something she despises, that she feels is completely running her life. Now not that all women who want abortions do so because they hate their unborn child, but I often get the impression from pro-lifers that as soon as that thing is born instinct will kick in and the mother will just love it unconditionally, or that as soon as they see the sonogram pictures, or hear it heart beat, that their desire to abort is fleeting because soon their "natural womanly nature" will kick in. I think that is a kind of sexism rarely counted against pro-lifer.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Then what beleifs can be imposed by way of law? Wrongness of murder, theft and rape are just beliefs.

One must not make a law that is based on false premises.

A fetus is a more then a fertilized egg. Your a fertilized egg, this is the problem of defining these things everyone be alluding to.

A fetus is not a baby, it is no more exotic than an egg or sperm.

ah so this is some golden rule standard, well back to the first point: what can we impose on others and why? for we need to impose some morals on others in order to have a functioning civilization.

We should not impose anything that is based on false premises and that actually causes death rather than saving life. Pro lifers actually cause death, they do not save life.

Taxes for example are imposed on us to provide for others, law impose inhibitions on my freedoms to increase the freedoms of others (like my freedom to murder is curtailed so others have freedom not to be murdered), why can't murder cover fetuses?

A fetus is not a human being any more than a sperm is a human being. If we give the fetus rights, we might as well give the sperm human rights.

I don't know, but what you have done is divert the issue away from the fundamental question of why a mother right to choices trumps a fetus's right to life.

The fetus should have no more rights than a sperm/egg. If the zygote is a baby, then the egg/sperm is a baby. Neither should have rights.

You trying to avoid answering that question, last you were claiming a mother has the right to choose if a fetuses can live (even though you claim you never would harm a fetus of your own), why does she have that right though?

The fetus is not a baby and has no more rights than a sperm or egg.

Again a fetus is not a reproductive organ, a fetus is a person, or at least a potential person. All I'm asking is for you to explain why a mother can murder her fetus but not her baby? why?

A woman is a born human with rights the fetus is not a person or a potential person with more rights than a sperm. If killing a sperm is murder then killing a fetus is murder. The claim is that because a fetus can become a person, it has the rights of a person. However, the primordial gametes will become a person and in such a situation, by your beliefs, killing it is killing a person.

Again a fetus is not a reproductive organ. Let take a different angle, if a women has a teratoma growing off her that the doctors said will eventually pop off rather painfully and life threateningly as a independent human being, does she have a right to have it removed?

Removing a teratoma is not the same as removing a baby.

Does the growth of said mass on her back verse her uterus change that answer? I don't think it does, nor would the answer change if the women was a man. The question you need to ask is does a person have full legal control over what goes on in their body (not in a specific organ or part) and does this right include the allowance to kill potential people?

Pro lifers kill born people every day. The step down to killing a potential person is an easy move.
Not only that but any consent to sex is consent to abortion. 70 percent of all conceptions die by abortion, therefore every woman that consents to sex is in fact consenting to abortion.

Well I would first need to see the argument that semen is as valuable as a fetus is as valuable as a person first. Technically masturbation has been considered a sin off and on throughout human history.

The argument that semen is as valuable as a fetus is based upon the fact that if the fetus is a baby at an earlier stage, then semen is a baby at an even earlier stage.

Why stop there, you see a 15 week child and a 15 year old one, either is going to be murdered, which has more right to life and why?

The 15 week fetus is not a child and cannot be proved to be human or alive. In fact until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, one cannot prove it will live. There are several procedures that must develop at birth, if they do not develop, the fetus was never human enough to live.

One of the weakness of my argument is that the value of a person is an age gradient, therefor a 15 year old is more valuable then a 15 week old, one might argue that a 15 week old has no chance of fighting back unlike the 15 year old so the value needs to be recalculated in favor of the infant, but that would go for the fetus as well.

In order to force the birth of the 15 week old, you must allow a 15 year old person to die. So attempting to save a fetus is not saving life, it is killing one life to attempt to save another that may not even be human.

Well I would think a right to live usually trumps others rights, has nothing to do with an outlook on women, women should have all the same rights as men, it just it could be argued that men nor women have the right to kill, and that killing a fetus is killing.

There is no right to live, only a right to die. In order for you to force the birth of a fetus, you must allow a born baby to die. That is where your idea fails.

The alternative is not to strip women of rights, of personhood, but to strip the rights of the unborn, of their personhood. Its a mean call to say that one person is not a person and that another has the right to kill that non-person, but making that call or not someone is going to get shafted: the mothers or the fetuses.

The fetus cannot have personhood because it cannot be proved to be human life until it is born.

Perhaps you need to explain why its not genocide. Mind you that not my argument, that common pro-lifer tripe, and you respond to it by merely implying they are ignorant and not disproving them upfront, that is pathetic!

The genocide is committed by the pro life movement that intentionally kill born babies in an effort to force the birth of fetuses that they cannot prove are alive or human.

end

 

[Syne]

First, Russell, learn how to quote already.

No, I have completely explained how saving a fetus necessarily sacrifices another life.

I suggest you read the "Scientific Abortion Laws" by searching Google.

But lets go over it one more time. There are 7 billion people on earth. All are dying. They are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. There are more people dying than can be saved. Saving a fetus will cause the death of a born person. Why, because if you spend 1 second saving a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born people will die.
A person has a choice, they can save a born person in which case a fetus dies or they can save a fetus, in which case a born person dies. One cannot save both a born person and a fetus, why, because if a person attempts at any point to save a fetus, it will be at the cost of a born person.

Complete twaddle speak. So you are trying to say that, since 1.8 people die per second, that if you save a fetus, in that second, one of those 1.8 people must have been displaced? Nonsense. That rate is an average that only has a mean value of 1.8 over time. IOW, it can be .9 one second and 2.3 the next, so long as the average is 1.8.

You are playing statistical numerology.

Perhaps you did not see my explanation. Your statement above is a retrospective view and is correct from that viewpoint.

I agree that life exists shortly after conception, it exists because it existed before conception. Before conception life existed in the form of gametes and before that DNA that developed into the primordial gametes. Before that the DNA of our ancestors were programed to build our lives.

There is no proof that all conceptions are human life or that they contain human DNA exclusively. In fact if you will look up "teratoma" on Google Images you will see examples of life that does not have enough human DNA to make human life possible. Some are simply blobs of tissue, some are quite advanced in a stage of human life.

It is impossible to tell if the zygote is alive, human, or will live to birth. Why, because until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, one cannot tell anything of importance about the product of conception. I assume that you know what these terms mean. If you don't just let me know and I will explain what is going on. The process of "expression" is a time related process. By that I mean that the phenotypes encoded in the DNA must build one before the other and that until the second is built, one cannot tell if it is the correct phenotype. Please let me know if you don't understand what I am saying. Don't just build some straw man argument that is a waste of time.

"Fetus in fetu" [highly developed teratoma] is estimated to occur in 1 in 500,000 live births. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu​

So just because there is some chance that the conception may not lead to a human is ample justification to destroy actual human life?

 

[RussellCrawford]

First, Russell, learn how to quote already.

I don't see any instructions on how to "quote" in the FAQ's. I will try another method this time. If anyone wants to give instructions on posting quotes, I am willing to listen.


"Complete twaddle speak."

That is simply an ad hominem and of no value in the discussion. If you have a valid comment, make it.

" So you are trying to say that, since 1.8 people die per second, that if you save a fetus, in that second, one of those 1.8 people must have been displaced?"

No, the 1.8 number is to explain what you don't seem to understand. You didn't "get it" before so I attempted to lower the level of complexity. There are 7 billion people dying. You can't save them all. It has nothing to do with displacement. Life that dies is not displaced, it is dead. You have a choice to save or not save that life, right? Once again I suggest you look up "Scientific Abortion Laws" on Google.


"Nonsense. That rate is an average that only has a mean value of 1.8 over time. IOW, it can be .9 one second and 2.3 the next, so long as the average is 1.8."

The confusion you exhibit seems to be fake. You really don't think that what you claim to think, do you? You realize that you have a choice to save a baby or to let it die and instead save a fetus, right. Or do you deny that you have a choice?


"You are playing statistical numerology. "

No, you are attempting to build another straw man argument and have failed.



"

"Fetus in fetu" [highly developed teratoma] is estimated to occur in 1 in 500,000 live births. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu​

|"

The percentage of conceptions that die before the first trimester is 70 percent, not 1 in 500,000 live births. of the 70 percent 60 percent are not human enough to live as a human. Look up pre implantation "miscarriages" on Google. I am not allowed to give you links. Or I would. Email me if you need a link.

"So just because there is some chance that the conception may not lead to a human is ample justification to destroy actual human life?"

I have already answered your question above. How many times before you understand? The "human life" you want to protect is of no more importance than a zygote or sperm. A zygote/embryo/fetus is not a baby and you must kill a baby to save them. And I do not claim that loss of a conceptus justifies destroying an actual human life. There is no "actual human life" as in a baby.

You are trying to build another straw man. The fact is that you have a choice, you may save a baby or you many choose to let it die. Pro lifers choose to let born babies die.

You do admit you have a choice on which life to save, right?

end