Utah guv: Give anesthesia to babies during abortions

[musterion]

He knows the baby is genetically distinct from both mother and father. So why should the mother's personhood trump the baby's? He'll have no answer to that except "it isn't a person," which he just admitted he can't know one way or the other.

 

[ok doser]

Also, why should the 'personhood' of a fetus take precedent over the autonomous personhood of the woman upon whom it depends as it's host?

is this newborn dependent upon its mother?

do you believe that if the mother desires autonomy, she should be allowed to discard it?

why or why not?

 

[Jonahdog]

He knows the baby is genetically distinct from both mother and father.

correct, is that what makes it a person?

 

[Crucible]

Here's my opinion- I think abortion should be legal, but not be able to be performed professionally. If a woman wants an abortion, let the blood stain her own hands- let her take the risk of harm.

There's this big, popular argument that it's 'unsafe' and that a woman could die from an abortion- this is supposed to be the defense to clinical abortion.

But
Think about it.

 

[musterion]

correct, is that what makes it a person?

No. That's but one indicator of personhood which by definition implies a being of unique identity from conception onward.

 

[Dialogos]

A powerless human what?

A powerless human being.

See, you're trying to use vagueness and imprecision to avoid the actual issue behind the disagreement over abortion.

There is no vagueness or imprecision in the word human that isn't injected into the term by those with an agenda to do so.

A fourth-grade reading book can use the term human and virtually everyone in the room understands what is meant.

You, on the other hand, appear to wince quizzically as if the word human were a foreign word.

You've already stated that it's a human fetus.

Actually, you have already stated that it is a human fetus.

And the answer to your question is that we don't know if it's "inhumane" or not to abort a human fetus, and at what stage in its development.

First, I think this that there isn't any logical reason to conclude that it isn't.
Second, let us assume there is some ambiguity, why would anyone err on the side of doing something "inhumane?"

What kind of person does that?

If someone handed you a baseball bat and told you that it was possible that there was an infant kitten asleep in a paper bag, would you beat the paper bag with the baseball bat until someone made you certain there was a kitten inside or would you err on the side of caution and leave well enough alone?

Hmmm?

Or if it is "inhumane", that it matters, significantly. As it's equally "inhumane" to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

That's asinine and you know it.

A woman carrying her own child to term sustains life. Abortion ends it, how in the world can you call the sustenance of life just as inhumane as ending life?

The only answer is that you have become so blind to the truth that you love darkness and so killing a human now seems "humane" to you.

The problem here is that you don't recognize the difference between a human fetus; essentially, a parasite living inside an autonomous human being's body,

Not only is this a profoundly ignorant statement, it is morally offensive and ought to get you banned.

Furthermore, I am positive you can't argue this stupid point consistently. Let us try, a drunk driver T-bones a vehicle and causes the pregnant woman driving to miscarry. She and her husband are grief stricken because this is their first and they were very excited about the new addition to their family. The lawyer for the drunk driver urges his client to plea "not guilty" to the charge of vehicular manslaughter on the basis that the baby was a "parasite" and there is no crime against ridding a woman of parasites.

You are on the jury, DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS ARGUMENT?

I'll stop and give you a chance to answer.....

 

[PureX]

As soon as the discussion enters an area of complexity that your absurdly simplistic bias can't contend with, you resort to insults and name-calling, because you have nothing else to offer.

This is the behavior of an ignoramus. And it's a waste of everyone's time.

 

[ok doser]

... you resort to insects....

:freak:

dude


you have got to stop smoking crack before you post

 

[ok doser]

As soon as the discussion ...

discuss this:

Also, why should the 'personhood' of a fetus take precedent over the autonomous personhood of the woman upon whom it depends as it's host?

is this newborn dependent upon its mother?

do you believe that if the mother desires autonomy, she should be allowed to discard it?

why or why not?

 

[Dialogos]

As soon as the discussion enters an area of complexity that your absurdly simplistic bias can't contend with, you resort to insults and name-calling, because you have nothing else to offer.

Stop your whining and moaning, hypocrite.

You started your comments in this thread off with insults and name calling.

Remember this?

:readthis:

Well, for one, the option that it's all a political stunt with no intended outcome but to gain votes. For another, it's an intelligence test for the anti-abortion crowd … which they will fail, miserably.

You don't get to start a snowball fight and then cry like a pathetic wuss when you get hit with one.

Your idea of complexity is really just running, like a coward, from clarity. As long as you don't have to answer any questions about the logical inconsistencies of your stance you are just fine walking around with your fat nose in the air pretending to be "smarter" than the rest of us "anti-abortionists" who you insultingly claimed failed your "intelligence test."

So, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

If you are going to go around flaunting your so-called intelligence, then have the guts to answer intelligent questions.

The alternative is keeping your thoughts to yourself, which would be a real blessing to others in this thread as you have pretty well proved yourself to be a fool flaunting his folly.

 

[patrick jane]

:freak:

dude


you have got to stop smoking crack before you post

I love crack

 

[Crucible]

:freak:

dude


you have got to stop smoking crack before you post

I love crack

:rotfl:

 

[The Horn]

Musterion, fetuses are not "agonizingly ripped apart ." This is not what abortion is like . In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is just surgically removed, period ,not "ripped apart ". This is nothing but a emotion-laden and manipulative rhetoric invented by the anti-choice movement .

 

[ok doser]

In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is just surgically removed....

... and left to die

you forgot that part

 

[Crucible]

Musterion, fetuses are not "agonizingly ripped apart ." This is not what abortion is like . In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is just surgically removed, period ,not "ripped apart ". This is nothing but a emotion-laden and manipulative rhetoric invented by the anti-choice movement .

Pro-choice advocates simply rationalize, just like how alcoholics rationalize their problem as not being one.

 

[brewmama]

Musterion, fetuses are not "agonizingly ripped apart ." This is not what abortion is like . In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is just surgically removed, period ,not "ripped apart ". This is nothing but a emotion-laden and manipulative rhetoric invented by the anti-choice movement .

Oh my God. You are so ignorant. You and your euphemism "surgically removed". Talk about manipulation!

 

[PureX]

I have answered your silly questions several times. You're just to willfully ignorant to understand that. So to try further is just a waste of time.

Are you asking because you really want to know? Of course not! So why bother?

 

[brewmama]

Just as aside, Dynel Lane just found GUILTY on all counts:


http://wgntv.com/2016/02/23/woman-a...y-from-womb-found-guilty-of-attempted-murder/

But not of murder of course, since the baby she killed wasn't a PERSON in Colorado.

 

[Dialogos]

I have answered your silly questions several times.

No, but I am sure you have avoided it many times.

You're just to willfully ignorant to understand that. So to try further is just a waste of time.

In much the same way, if you are going to simply assert an opinion without any willingness to substantiate that opinion with facts or logic, then reading your opinion is a waste of time.

Are you asking because you really want to know?

Yes, either you have a logically consistent argument or you don't.

 

[PureX]

Yes, either you have a logically consistent argument or you don't.

There are logical arguments to be made on both sides. And they are both valid. (Consistency is irrelevant.) This is why the debate has never been resolved, and why it will not likely be resolved in the near future.

There are things both sides can agree on, however: that abortion is not a desirable solution to an unwanted pregnancy.