"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[WizardofOz]

WHAT is legal abortion in your country?

Abortion in the United States

The Alan Guttmacher Institute (a special affiliate to Planned Parenthood), which actively collects the abortion data directly from providers. All numbers reported are voluntary; there are no laws requiring abortionists to report to any national agency the numbers of abortions they perform. 2009-2011 are estimates of 1,212,400 annually. source

more than half of the 6 million pregnancies occurring each year in the United States are considered unplanned by the women who are pregnant. Of these pregnancies, approximately half end in elective terminations. source

What country do you live in?

 

[StanJ53]

Abortion in the United States

The Alan Guttmacher Institute (a special affiliate to Planned Parenthood), which actively collects the abortion data directly from providers. All numbers reported are voluntary; there are no laws requiring abortionists to report to any national agency the numbers of abortions they perform. 2009-2011 are estimates of 1,212,400 annually. source

more than half of the 6 million pregnancies occurring each year in the United States are considered unplanned by the women who are pregnant. Of these pregnancies, approximately half end in elective terminations. source

What country do you live in?

Thought so...same as mine. Look left.

 

[Angel4Truth]

What a woman is pregnant with at one week, isn't a fetus.



This isn't a fetus, it isn't a baby either. Claiming it is one over and over won't make it true.


Worse, it demeans actual babies, including the 32 week old you posted.

Calling a pregnancy a fetus, demans actual babies, but killing them doesnt?
:think:

 

[Yorzhik]

What a woman is pregnant with at one week, isn't a fetus.

In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization.

This isn't a fetus, it isn't a baby either. Claiming it is one over and over won't make it true.

Worse, it demeans actual babies, including the 32 week old you posted.

Human development

"Human prenatal development is divided into an embryonic period and a fetal period. The embryonic period begins with fertilization and ends eight weeks later."

Cute. And funny how http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/ doesn't realize they can't tell the difference between a human and a skin cell.

 

[StanJ53]

"Human prenatal development is divided into an embryonic period and a fetal period. The embryonic period begins with fertilization and ends eight weeks later."

Cute. And funny how http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/ doesn't realize they can't tell the difference between a human and a skin cell.

Viability has to do with scientific knowledge and ability. What can be viable today, wasn't 30, 20 or even 10 years ago.
Life is life no matter what stage it is at. Deliberately interfering is wrong, no matter what stage.

 

[WizardofOz]

You misread what I wrote. I say that you can't murder something that is not a person. A foetus that has not developed a nervous system capable of supporting the features of personhood cannot be a person. One feature which was brought up (not by me, I think) was pain, which is well studied and understood by biologists. NO foetus feels pain when aborted, guaranteed due to the general anaesthetic that is used, so the argument is not about the pain of the abortion, but whether the early foetus can be considered a person.

This is a terrible argument.

Then, you state the following:

As opposed to the arbitrary line YOU draw? At least I have used some actual evidence to support my argument, whereas you just assert, again and again.

However, just a few posts later....

The only thing going for the 'at conception' line is it is easy to judge.

Do you then concede that your position is much more arbitrary? Your "line" is not at all easy to judge.

I understand that a foetus can the capability of becoming a person, but capability to become something is not a common standard for deciding what is or isn't a think.

Is your arbitrary definition of "person" based on science, philosophy, etymology, all of the above?

Your decision has only simplicity going for it. It is simplistic, however, and does not take into account any developments in knowledge gained in the last five thousand years. Taking the easiest route is not taking the best one.

I find this last statement quite ironic. Getting an elective abortion is the epitome of taking the "easiest route".

When is it taking the best one? Please explain that to me.

 

[Stripe]

Is your arbitrary definition of "person" based on science, philosophy, etymology, all of the above?

What we've found is the evolutionists have all a different line, all of them avoid clearly defining that line and how they justify it and all of them have exceptions even after they would confess personhood.

Personhood means nothing to them.

 

[Memento Mori]

What we've found is the evolutionists have all a different line, all of them avoid clearly defining that line and how they justify it and all of them have exceptions even after they would confess personhood.

Personhood means nothing to them.

We also have color vision (mostly because the world is not so starkly black and white).

 

[WizardofOz]

Personhood means nothing

It is largely a deflective debate to engage in. Anyone can make up their own definition, as if it actually defines what we're discussing.

All innocent human life should be protected by law. It amazes me that people line up to argue against this.

 

[Lighthouse]

My one and only ban here on TOL was when I called you a blithering idiot LH so I'll not repeat it now.

As much as I enjoy conversing with you LH, no really I do , there's nothing at all sensible or rational from you here (or anywhere else?)for me to comment on, so maybe another time perhaps. :wave:

:think:

Never mind.

What we've found is the evolutionists have all a different line, all of them avoid clearly defining that line and how they justify it and all of them have exceptions even after they would confess personhood.

Personhood means nothing to them.

Bingo!

 

[gcthomas]

What we've found is the evolutionists have all a different line, all of them avoid clearly defining that line

Except that we ALL agree that there is no reason for 0 weeks, and that the real date should not be before 18 weeks. :up:

It is largely a deflective debate to engage in. Anyone can make up their own definition, as if it actually defines what we're discussing.

As opposed to you not wanting to define anything, so you can continue to assert one view without evidence or reason?

All innocent human life should be protected by law. It amazes me that people line up to argue against this.

If you don't understand why quite so many people, including an awful lot of medics and legislators, disagree with you, even after all the explanations, then that says more about you then me.

 

[Stripe]

Except that we ALL agree...

You all agree that mothers should be allowed to murder their unborn children. And when push comes to shove, there are no atheists doing anything about abortion when even they confess personhood.

As opposed to you not wanting to define anything, so you can continue to assert one view without evidence or reason?

You want to read the evidence I presented again? OK

At conception what we have is the formation of a new human. Before conception what we have are two parts, one from the mother and one from the father. At conception the two parts fuse and we have a new entity that is not his father and is not his mother. He has his own gender and has everything he needs to grow into adulthood save nutrition.

Facts.

Facts that you keep saying are absent from my declaration that personhood starts at conception.

If you don't understand why quite so many people, including an awful lot of medics and legislators, disagree with you, even after all the explanations, then that says more about you then me.

I know why people disagree with me. :idunno:

Did you have a point to make?

 

[alwight]

At conception what we have is the formation of a new human. Before conception what we have are two parts, one from the mother and one from the father. At conception the two parts fuse and we have a new entity that is not his father and is not his mother. He has his own gender and has everything he needs to grow into adulthood save nutrition.

Facts.

At conception what we have is the formation of a probably unique human DNA but it is not "a new human". Most of these new DNAs are destined to fail naturally which is fact. It really shouldn't cause too much concern or grief to us extant human persons because the apparent material facts are clearly that no actual "person" could physically operate whithin the material confines of a zygote, any more than a person could exist in a flake of skin.
If you believe instead that "persons" have perhaps a dual existence somehow beyond the zygote's obviously very restricted physical limitations, perhaps supernaturally, then that is your business which has no basis in material fact and afaic clearly no place in secular laws.

 

[gcthomas]

And when push comes to shove, there are no atheists doing anything about abortion when even they confess personhood.

alwight answered most of that for me. But this part?

The abortion laws in my country match my demands quite well. The population and our elected representatives are mostly content with the rules as set out now, so why would I have any need to do "anything about abortion"?

There is periodically a debate in parliament about where the exact line should be drawn for legal abortions, but there is no great demand to ban it completely. In a secular country, that is exactly what I'd expect and it is what we get. The US is officially secular, and it seems that your laws are about the same as ours, and for the same reasons.

As I said, if you can't understand, as opposed to don't agree with, that position, then that is a cognitive failure on your part. If you do understand the POV, then that is not clear from your rhetoric.

 

[Stripe]

The abortion laws in my country match my demands quite well.

So you're comfortable with the number of babies that are murdered each year.

 

[gcthomas]

So you're comfortable with the number of babies that are murdered each year.

Baby murderers get put in prison. Medical practitioners get their salary and the gratitude they deserve for putting up with the unreasoned bile they get from people like you.

That is as it should be.

 

[Stripe]

Baby murderers get put in prison.

Not according to you. You say babies become people at about 20 weeks. Babies killed after that time you care nothing for.

The arbitrary line you draw makes no difference to your actions.

 

[quip]

But the opposing view isn't a matter of which might makes right, but if might makes makes right or if right and wrong exist because of God.

Might makes right by evoking God (and enforcement by government)...writ large. Kettle/pot once again.

I'll only continued spending time on your posts if you show improved ability to comprehend what is being said.

Perhaps, if you'd write more comprehensible.........

Ok. Let's look at your reasons:


This isn't a reason.

You're right...they're "counts". (What were you going on about comprehension? hmmmm.....:think

This can only be a reason if you support universal human rights.

Figure out which one is true, and stick with it.

non sequitur. Try it again.

Ok. Which abortions are wrong? The ones where it isn't an option for females?

That's up to the female in question. (hint: It's none of our biz!)

 

[WizardofOz]

As opposed to you not wanting to define anything, so you can continue to assert one view without evidence or reason?

"Personhood" is a philosophical term not a scientific one.

How you personally choose to arbitrarily define "personhood" proves what?

If you don't understand why quite so many people, including an awful lot of medics and legislators, disagree with you, even after all the explanations, then that says more about you then me.

Your fallacious statement (appeal to authority / bandwagon fallacy) aside, why not explain it to me?

I've made two factual statements. Can you dispute them?

1) A zygote is the beginning of new human life.
2) The lives of innocent humans should be protected by law.

 

[gcthomas]

You say babies become people at about 20 weeks.

Nope. Wrong again. Try reading: it helps the flow of a discussion if you pay attention to what has been written.

(If you think otherwise, I'd be pleased if you would link to my offending post)