No, a simple reading shows that what you’re saying is not true. Why would you assert otherwise? There can absolutely be a medical reason that recommends a certain procedure, but that does NOT make it necessary (necessarily, eh?).
I am going to think that it is either inefficacious or there is an alternative. Easy, ain’t it?
Yes, yes, the glee. Only your interpretation can be the right one. No sober, thoughtful reactions possible.
World Net Daily is not a cite, it is an invitation to propaganda. Look in the dictionary under “running dog jackals of the ruling class”, you see their picture.
Offer one.
Whether or not the cite is valid, your response is a logical fallacy.
Oh, I am wounded. You have cast a bright light on the lunacy of my frothing, evil position. Forgive me.
Egotist te absolvo Go, and sin no more.
Latin scholar that I am, I am further offended by your translation.
Oh, tempura! Oh, morays!
Had enough? Or are you ready to fill out this MoveOn.org contribution form…
Yeah? In vino prairie grass. Top that, why dontcha?
I’m just quoting you back to yourself when you raised the whole “watching a child drown” issue (post #119) and then dismissed it as irrelevant (#130) after I questioned it (#129), then brought it up again (#134).
Are you a doctor? Have you done studies of D&X procedures and analyzed the reasons for them? There are lots of “viable options” for lots of medical procedures, but (for example) laparoscopic gall bladder removal has largely replaced more extensive “open” surgical procedures because it involves less risk and recovery time for the patient and yields an identical result. If a moral objection to laparoscopy existed (and it wouldn’t surprise me if somebody somewhere has one), would that person’s opinion that laparoscopy was not necessary be enough to outlaw it? Frankly, I’d expect a doctor who chose the riskier open procedure to have to justify the increased risk he’s subjecting his patient to.
As for the assumption that an abortion must take place… I’m assuming that assumption has been made and that an ethical doctor will present a live-birth option to his patient if it exists, and the decision be hers. Are you assuming doctors are lying to their patients about live-birth options?
I choose to chuckle at these testimonies. “Kelly” sounds delusional and it wouldn’t surprise me if she’d also accused some unnamed doctor of performing Satanic rituals while sacrificing babies on an unholy altar, though the reporter left that part out.
I don’t understand why you’re willing to duck responsibility for the enforcement of a law that you support. Suppose its illegal but is on the books as a misdemeanor with a five-cent fine? Would that satisfy a desire to have the procedure outlawed on paper but conveniently indifferent to actually having to go to the trouble of arresting, trying and imprisoning people? I assume you believe the people participating in a D&X are in some sense evil. What do you think is an appropriate legal remedy? If you lack the will to see it through, why should your opinion be considered at all?
I realize there must be some sort of standard here (which you and I obviously differ on). But judging based on potential future identity is untenable. Every single sperm and egg has a potential future. We don’t weep every time a woman menstruates or a man ejaculates outside of intercourse.
I don’t judge based upon futures (see above, there are trillions of possible futures and it’s futile to speculate). I judge based upon actualities. Once a creature reaches the point of development where it has a “soul” within it, then destroying that life form is murder. But destroying a life form that hasn’t reached that level yet is a different thing.
True, once someone is dead they can’t miss not being alive. But while I am alive, I have the desire to continue remaining alive and in seeing my friends and family remain alive as well. I thus enter into a social compact (The Law) in furtherance of this goal that seeks to prevent and punish murders because this social compact benefits us all.
Surely you acknowledge the linear unity of identity associated with a conceived child, something absent in an unfertilized egg. We needn’t try to ensure that every egg or sperm be used in a conception, an objective lost at the start. Once a unique entity is created, though, one who will inexorably progress to consciousness and a rich future–leave him alone, that’s all.
Wouldn’t this compact also benefit the unborn? Infants have no ability to agree to a social compact, but we extend protection to them. Your desire to remain alive is extinguished in a moment. Your past is beyond anyone’s reach; only your future can be stolen.
Be careful with that line of reasoning. We have no way of knowing when a “soul” develops. How can we?
n.b.: I’m in the camp which does not accept that such a thing even exists.
I shouldn’t be so heated about this, but I just don’t see the sense in talking about a few cells with no nervous system being a unity of anything. Things are what they are, and anything else is just magical thinking.
There is no moment of conception. There is no unitary individual being post-conception.
I don’t get it, to be honest. How can there be no “moment of conception,” at least from a biological perspective? Pre-conception, you have a sperm cell and an egg cell. Post-conception, you have one zygote. That moment where the two becomes one is the moment of conception.
What Stratocaster is referring to with the word “unity” is regarding the biological makeup of that product of conception. The entity created is at one stage of biological development, and the unity is with the person it will someday become. It won’t become anything but the specific person created in that moment. That is, it is something unique from the sperm and the egg cell it was made of, and contains within it the materials needed to become a live human being…something neither the egg or sperm by itself has. An egg by itself, before fertilization, has the potential to become only one of maybe a million possible people, depending on what specific sperm cell it happens to come across. On the other hand, what that zygote is now is what it will always be…once the zygote is created, there is destined to be a specific individual that develops. There is an inexorable progression of development. The zygote stage is just the very beginning.
Yep, that’s just what I meant. Well said.
Yes, but I don’t think an embryo should count as a “unique identity”. It has a unique DNA code (usually, assuming it’s not a clone or identical twin) but conciousness (and a sense of identity) are an emerging property and is difficult if not impossible to pointpoint when exactly that happens. I realize the temptation to draw the line at conception but identity is a much tougher philosophical problem.
What elevates humanity above all other species is our awareness of ourselves and our place in the universe. That is the only thing that makes us special. That shouldn’t give us license to abuse or mistreat animals (that’s a topic for another thread), but that’s the one thing that meaningfully differentiates us from other species. If an alien species from another planet or an Artificial Intelligence program emerged I’d want them offered the same rights as human beings. Not because of the hardware of their bodies (the DNA) but because of the software that’s on it (the “program” in their brains that gives them a unique identity).