OMG, am I to understand that you don’t know what age is more likely to support gay marriage, given that your answer was just :smack:?
That’s nice - you may have found (I don’t know anything about your source) a cite that says that more people than decades ago say they are against abortion for reasons other than religious BS. But, as is usual with you, this cite has nothing to do with the original request, which was “Someone give me a good pro-life argument that doesn’t require religious BS.” You say it is because the zygote is a human from conception on - since you cannot provide scientific proof of this and you are apparently trying to claim you do not believe this because of religion, where are you getting that idea?
Uh, no. You are trying to cram days of discussion onto one term. For one thing, I said no individual is being acted against - obviously, an individual is being acted upon in an abortion, as the woman is. But since she chose to abort, she isn’t being acted against. Also, by definition, the fetus isn’t an individual since it is still attached to the woman. And, I’m not going to go searching back thru all these posts, but I am quite sure I didn’t say anything about my definition of individual was scientifically correct.
What I have been saying all along is that your interpretations of very small parts of the cites you have provided are wrong. Like I said, your links don’t prove what you think they do
Do you honestly not see that those are two completely different statements? The first is an absolute - “Z is the same thing as H” - and that is the one that is unproven. The second is a statement of progression - “a human starts out as a zygote”, which is the same thing as saying that a plant starts out as a seed. Is a seed a plant? Is an egg a chicken? It’s all a progression; seeds, eggs and zygotes need to go thru transformations to become the end product and it isn’t until they are completely done transforming that a plant/chicken/human exists.
Okay, “everyone” might have been poorly chosen. How about “everyone with any sense of morality”?
This I don’t get. Does the case of Terry Schiavo ring any bells to you?
Err.. “Must Encapsulate”. I think you think this means something entirely different. I’m getting you reading it as “Is” when it’s meant as “is, but is not limited to”. There are people who would fail to include the newborn in their definition of “human person”. I wouldn’t. My personal definition would probably be something along the lines of “A biologically independent, living member of the species Homo Sapiens”. I’m still not 100% sure on my own definition, keep in mind – this is not an easy thing to define, and it’s something you really need to define carefully.
I don’t. Some people would, and I think they are justified in their definition.
So… Uh… In the violinist example, unhooking yourself would be the moral equivalent of murder, and as such completely unjustified? Is that what you’re saying? Because if yes, then I’m sorry, but we’re at kind of an impasse on that subject.
It’s just completely and utterly flawed in a myriad of ways. For example, the idea that the pro-life set the cut-off point earlier: they don’t; they set it at conception. That’s like saying “I’m just setting the limit on the number of times you can have sex before your penis explodes lower” and then lowering it to 0 – yeah, technically it’s correct, but somehow it’s not exactly right.
Occasionally they do, but not always.
Because when it comes to such social issues, it makes sense to look at what others are doing. Especially if you live in the USA.
Indeed, just like it doesn’t affect one’s ability to understand menstruation and childbirth. You’re still not going to ask a man about regulations on either of those, though.
You forget that the pro-choice side is perfectly happy to let you all decide whatever you want about a fetus, as long as you don’t try to force your opinion off on others who don’t agree. You also seem to think that my opinion of a fetus must be the same as every other pro-choice person, which is just silly. I’m quite sure there are many pro-choice people out there, probably even the majority, that care some or a lot about fetuses but they still see that the real live honest to god living breathing woman has more rights than a blob of cells.
That didn’t really seem to make sense but I’ll take a stab at responding. First, I asked you if you see any difference between a fetus and a newborn, because of what you had posted prior to that: “Newborn babies seem like little more than lumps of flesh, I don’t see how the act of birth makes them any more conscious.” As for trying to justify abortion at any time, I am not trying to justify it at all because I don’t think it needs it.
And the difference is?
Exactly. Those people who do not consider a fetus a person don’t think that it deserves consideration beyond what the woman carrying it wants.
I am amazed to see that anyone thinks that the 16th weeks is late term. No, that isn’t what I call late term; for me that is more along the lines of a fetus that is likely to be viable on it’s own.
Not any more - I had a computer crash a little over a year ago and lost everything. However, try logic - why else would a woman carry a pregnancy for 7 or 8 months and then abort if not because the fetus was killing her or it was already dead/going to die?
There are elements of porn that are highly controversial and illegal. Child-porn, snuff-porn for instance. However if you don’t find any of those examples of abortions I mentioned controversial, then you are so far out extremist that I doubt you’ll find a single country anywhere that have implemented abortion legislation to your satisfaction, let alone a single organization or institution fighting for it.
I gave you the response your question deserved. One would think you don’t even have access to the internet or something.
…Yeah…
Could you please change your political/ideological affiliation? You’re giving us conservatives a very bad name. You’ve been given multiple sources stating that the unborn at all stages are human beings, or that the life of every human being begins at conception/the end of fertilization. You’ve chosen to ignore them. Okay, fine. That’s your problem, not mine. But stamping your foot isn’t going to make them disappear.
There is no “days worth of discussion” unless you’re going to relegate your argument down to one of philosophy.
So what’s the difference between being acted upon and being acted against?
We’ve already been over this once and it’s false.
…Yeah… So here’s what we have.
Quote: “The life of every human being begins at conception.”
You: “It doesn’t say that zygotes are human beings!”
Quote: “The zygote is a human being.”
You: “That doesn’t say what you think it says!”
Quote: “To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.”
You: “That’s just his opinion!”
See the problem there?
1.) You were already given specific quotes which said “the zygote is a human being” but, unsurprisingly, you considered them void.
2.) So, making sure I understand this correctly, your contention is that if <Y> starts out as <X>, where <X> is a stage of development that <X> is not <Y> on account of insufficient developmental time? Okay. Let’s examine this.
curlcoat, who is a human now, once started out as a [neonate], but she wasn’t a human then.
Sounds like a specious argument, right? Of course it does. If you replace neonate with any stage of development occurring prior to now, it wouldn’t sound any less ridiculous.
No, the embryo is contained within the seed and germinates when conditions are favorable.
No. Chickens develop inside of eggs. You know, oviparity and all that.
The “end product” is, ultimately, sexual maturation. If you want to argue the “end product”, then neither are newborn, infants, toddlers or children are not humans much the same way the unborn are not. Unless, of course, you think the “end product” is being born/hatched/germinating.
I’m pretty sure this is a good example of “poisoning the well”.
Terry Schiavo was, for all intents and purposes, dead and had been in a PVS for around 15 years. She wasn’t coming back; that was more than a simple case of “not being sentient”.
So what exactly are you mentioning self-awareness for since you agree that being self-aware has no bearing on whether or not one is a person or not. It’s, at best, nothing more than a red herring because it doesn’t affect the actual issue.
Anyway, when you say “biologically independent”, I think you mean “able to live on its own” as the unborn are biologically independent of their mothers. So assuming the latter is what you meant, then your argument is nothing more than a function of presently available medical technology. If, for example, viability is pushed by a week next year, then an abortion which may have been legal this year becomes illegal next year. If in 20 years viability is pushed back to a week, then abortion becomes impermissible after a week. If, at some point in time in the future, humans develop some technology which makes it so that the unborn can always survive outside of the womb regardless of gestational age, then abortion is never permissible. In each of these cases, who is and isn’t a human person isn’t defined by the actual individual in question, but rather by some advancement. I can safely say that this is a proposition few pro-choicers would agree with.
(And, before it comes up, just because viability is pushed back would not mean that you could induce labor and hook the unborn up to whatever machine or something instead, as you cannot even do that now.)
So you’re going to allow such people to engage in infanticide then? Because I’m pretty sure you’re not going to allow them to do that.
I guess we’re at an impasse. Or, then again, maybe we’re not, since I’ve said on more than one occasion that I’m nothing if not pragmatic, and would gladly give up <.5% to get 90%.
…Yeah…
Let’s assume we have four individuals. The first one says “abortions whenever”. The second one says “abortions up until sixth months”. The third one says “abortions up until three months”. And, finally, the last one says “abortion never”. We’re also going to assume that the first three use the “her body, her choice” mantra, which isn’t that big of an assumption to make. The cut off point of the second is sooner than the first, the third sooner than the second and the fourth sooner than the third. Using the following mantra as a guide, only one of the three pro-choice individuals is really holding to it, and that’s the first who allows for abortions whenever. The other two, despite the fact they say “her body, her choice” use it only to the point where they consider that abortion is no longer acceptable. Once you hit three or six months, respectively, then the “choice” is no longer a choice and it does not matter whether it’s her body or not. The only difference, therefore, between them and the pro-lifer is that the pro-lifer always says this while they only say this after some stated period of time, after which they become uncomfortable with the idea of abortion.
Errr, no, it doesn’t. If tomorrow everyone European nation decided that animals now have the right to vote, that it’s slavery to own a pet and that eating meat is cannibalism, the fact that every European country thinks so would mean jack, as I-- and I’d say a majority of the U.S. population-- would not argue that we should follow suit simply because Europe has done so.
Why not? I’m really not understand any of your contentions. That’s akin to saying that only minorities can have an opinion on affirmative action or something similar. Just because you would be more immediately affected does not somehow make your opinion instantly more valid than someone who would be less, or minimally, affected.
I don’t understand - of course the examples you describe are controversial, in the sense that there is controversy about them. As an individual, I don’t “find” things to be controversial - I can support them, oppose them, or be neutral about them - and if there is controversy, it’s because of the existence of another person whose views are different from my own, or whose views are different from someone else’s views, creating conflict and argument, i.e. a controversy.
Possibly you’re defining “controversial” differently than I am.
Anyway, I’m fully satisfied with Canada’s take on the issue. I don’t know if that means Canada and I are far-out extreme together but, whatever.
Now, if you want to ask my own personal opinion on your examples and whether or not they should be regulated or outlawed, that’s another matter.
So, then, support for gay marriage isn’t just a function of age then? Looks like there is support from all age groups in that graph.
What do you think my political/ideological affiliation is?
Uh, no, I have specifically not ignored them. What I have done and what you choose to ignore is point out to you that you are laying your own, very biased, interpretation off on a word you pick out of an article. You can believe whatever you want, I don’t care, but you haven’t shown scientifically that a zygote is a human being.
Again, uh… This thread started two weeks ago. You know - days?
You really don’t know? Acted upon would be any act directed at someone, particularly a physical act. Acted against would be a negative act. Agreeing to surgery means one is acted upon; getting beat up in an alley means one was acted against.
That is your opinion. Since you have not been able to establish it as fact, merely continuing to repeat yourself isn’t going to change anything.
Because it doesn’t. Conception is the start of a human, but that doesn’t mean that it is human at conception.
I don’t recall seeing a scientific quote that specifically said “The zygote is a human being.”
Apparently these are cites you used on others as I don’t remember this one either. That one doesn’t sound very scientific tho.
It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want to hold on to the idea that a little blob made up of a couple/three cells is the same thing as a human being. OTOH, a newborn baby looks like a small version of a human, is self aware, is capable of pain and is able to live without being a parasite on a human.
Which doesn’t answer the question of “is a seed a plant?”.
Actually, the chick develops inside of the egg shell. And again, that doesn’t answer the question - do you think egg white and yolk with a spot of blood is the same thing as a chicken?
Not falling for that strawman - you know full well that sexual maturation has nothing to do with any of this.
That’s why I said what you didn’t copy - “as long as you don’t try to force your opinion off on others who don’t agree”. But I guess it is possible that things will get so bad here that the government will pass laws that turn women into brood sows. Thank god it won’t affect me any more.
I think you forgot to finish this sentence?
No, I meant why is it that you find it OK to “allow” an abortion in the first trimester, but not the third?
Oh please. How many abortions do you honestly think result because of things like that?
I guess what I am saying is that your arguments are not swaying the vast amjority of Americans who see abortion as a LIMITED right. A right that they would limit to the first and MAYBE second trimesters.
Forget “a blob of cells” what about a third trimester abortion. I’m not trying to limit abortions in the first trimester in any way. Put some pamphlets in teh waiting room if you like and don’t force doctors to perform abortions if they don’t want to but thats about it.
The fetus is more developed, I think that a third timester fetus is far along enough that we should recognize its right to life trumps the woman’s right to get rid of the damn thing. I’m gonna guess that you disagree.
Noone knows. The best info we have it that hundreds of third trimester abortions occur every year and anecdotal evidence tells us that at least SOME of those abortions are elective. If I said ONE, then why would you care so long as there is an exception for the life or physical health of the mother or profound disability of the fetus.
If it is true that a “vast majority” of the people here want abortion to be limited, it’s because they listen to the propaganda and not the facts. They believe, as apparently you do, that women go around having abortions on a whim, that they do it late in the pregnancy for no real reason, that late term abortions must result in suffering by the fetus.
This is the problem with the anti-choice lobby - they lie, they use emotion instead of facts to sway people to their opinions. And the average person is a twit - see HSUS/PETA, the Westboro church, the Republican candidates, etc.
Huh? The choice side isn’t forcing anyone to do anything.
I disagree that the number of times a woman has had an abortion in the third trimester just to “get rid of the damn thing” is anything but so small as to be not worth discussing. Third trimester abortions are done because the woman is dying (her right to life trumps that of the fetus) or the fetus is severely messed up in some way (humane considerations).
They are all elective - forced abortions don’t happen, and accidental abortions are miscarriages.
Because its a foot in the door. Once you make third trimester abortion illegal except for blah blah, you have taken away the woman’s right to control over her own body, and her doctor’s right to make the best medical decisions. You get the opportunity for others to interfere about whether or not she is “sick enough” or the fetus is “disabled enough” to qualify for abortion. If a woman is afraid that her pregnancy is going to kill or cripple her and she wants an abortion, she should not have to be at the mercy of some law.
C’mon, use logic. Women do not go thru the pain, discomfort and dangers of pregnancy just to abort in the 8th month. Doctors don’t give late term abortions on a whim. What “anecdotal evidence” have you seen that makes you think otherwise?
Only feminists are concerned about human rights violations against women in other countries?
The thing that RWs trample on when discussing social issues is civil liberties and consensual relationships. Women in Asia who are forced to terminate a pregnancy due to an oppressive cultural policy or as a result of a lack of rights based on gender is a violation of civil liberties.
The equality of same-sex marriage is (and has always been) about two consenting adults - end of story.
You are fine with the Canadian abortion regulation where these are already regulated or outlawed, so there is not need. It’s the OP’s assumption that it is a disgrace to make a fuss of anything but absolute and complete freedom of abortion, when pretty much everybody – including the OP presumable – agree that there are certain forms of abortions that should never be done. It’s just a matter of establishing where those limits should be set.
They’re anti-abortion not anti-choice, they are no more antichoice than you are anti-life.
I don’t believe women go around having abortions on a whim. I think women try to avoid getting pregnant but sometimes birth control doesn’t work so they have to choose between having the child or getting an abortion. I think the vast majority of the women who choose to get an abortion get their abortions in the first trimester or very early in the second trimester and their right to do so should be protected. I also think that some women have late term abortions that are purely elective, they are not driven by reason of the physical health of the mother or some profound disability in the fetus,.
Huh? The choice side isn’t forcing anyone to do anything.
I disagree that the number of times a woman has had an abortion in the third trimester just to “get rid of the damn thing” is anything but so small as to be not worth discussing. Third trimester abortions are done because the woman is dying (her right to life trumps that of the fetus) or the fetus is severely messed up in some way (humane considerations).
They are all elective - forced abortions don’t happen, and accidental abortions are miscarriages.
Because its a foot in the door. Once you make third trimester abortion illegal except for blah blah, you have taken away the woman’s right to control over her own body, and her doctor’s right to make the best medical decisions. You get the opportunity for others to interfere about whether or not she is “sick enough” or the fetus is “disabled enough” to qualify for abortion. If a woman is afraid that her pregnancy is going to kill or cripple her and she wants an abortion, she should not have to be at the mercy of some law.
C’mon, use logic. Women do not go thru the pain, discomfort and dangers of pregnancy just to abort in the 8th month. Doctors don’t give late term abortions on a whim. What “anecdotal evidence” have you seen that makes you think otherwise?
[/QUOTE]
Well, actually, abortion in Canada is not outlawed at any level. There are some minor provincial regulations here and there, but essentially Canada is a pro-choice utopia, and yet no social or demographic disaster has occurred, so… yes, it is not far-fetched to wonder why Americans continue to make a fuss about the issue.
And I’m not particularly upset about a woman aborting a fetus of a particular gender, or for any particular reason, even if the reason is silly (and there are some non-silly reasons to prefer fetuses of a particular gender, i.e. if the father is known to have a Y-chromosome defect that would be passed on to any sons).