Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

>>320
A fetus isn't a person, and it doesn't have personhood. A fetus is only a shell of human life. A fetus isn't like you or me, it is only a potential life.

>>321
I disagree.  Would you say a human fetus isn't 'human' enough to be protected by law the day before it can be naturally born?

Life does not begin at birth.

>>322

You can't merely "disagree" without facts that refute hard earned fully-empirical scientific evidence. Ideas aren't facts.

>>323
You can't merely 'disagree' without proving to me that 'life' doesn't begin before birth, either.  I don't see what is so special about the act of being 'born' that makes a person a human being suddenly.  Is there really that much difference? Would it be OK with you to abort a baby the day before it could be born naturally? Clearly life does not begin at birth - it can and does begin before the mother simply gives birth.

>>324

Explain to me, how and why you think life begins before the development of the brain? I don't understand how you can confuse sperm, ovum and the act of conception for a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being.

Your line of thinking literally translates out into: "Every time you whack off or have your period- you're killing a human life."

Are you referring to their souls or something? Because that's the only way I can see you "logically" coming about this notion.

I mean, you do realize that the very notion of the soul is religious in nature, right?

You do realize that the idea of a soul's existence is completely subjective and unproven, right?

And you did say that you weren't religious, right?

AND you do understand that lying isn't a good way to win a debate or woo people over to your position, right?

RIGHT?

>>325
"Explain to me, how and why you think life begins before the development of the brain?"

Explain to me, how and why you think the brain doesn't develop until the second the baby happens to be squeezed out of the woman's body?

I'm not 'pro-life' as the dictionary's definition of 'pro-life' would lead you to believe.  'Pro-life', according to this dictionary I have here, says that 'pro-life' people simply believe that life begins at conception.  I do not believe life begins at conception, but I don't believe it doesn't begin until birth either, which seems to be the standpoint of many liberals.

Where I stand on abortion is somewhere in between.  In other words, I don't believe life begins at birth, but nor do I think it begins at conception.  Saying I am 'pro-life' might be quite a bit of an overstatement.

Conception is just a turning point at which the creation of life begins.  When the sperm and ovum are seperate, it obviously doesn't constitute a human being.  I don't think life begins RIGHT at conception, but I certainly don't agree with women's supposed 'right' to kill a human fetus at any time, between conception and birth, if they please. 

I DO want oversight (not an outright ban), and regulation into abortion.  At some points, it may be ok, and at others, it may not.  But this stand that many liberals have that:  'MY BODY, MY RIGHT, NO COMPROMISE' is complete horse shit to me, since once you have a developing human fetus on your hand, there is another human whose rights are to be considered.

I DO NOT WANT any kind of regulation on contracpetives (such as condoms, or any of the other standard methods of birth control), so long as 'abortion' isn't considered a 'contracpetive', which some liberals seem to think it should be.  (Yes, I realize that at this point conception has occurred, so it is kindof redundant to refer to abortion as a possible 'contracpetive', but I think you see what I mean.  If not, ask, and I'll clarify, if you like.)

"I don't understand how you can confuse sperm, ovum and the act of conception for a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being."

I don't confuse sperm, ovum, and the acto of conception for a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being.  I think you are confused if you think that I think that.

"Your line of thinking literally translates out into: "Every time you whack off or have your period- you're killing a human life."

See post/comment above.  In fact, see all my previous posts, since I have talked about this so many times before, and you apparently still have no idea what I'm talking about.

"I mean, you do realize that the very notion of the soul is religious in nature, right?"

I'm not religious, and I don't believe in 'souls'.  I'm a pretty materialist atheist.

"You do realize that the idea of a soul's existence is completely subjective and unproven, right?"

You do realize I don't believe in souls, right? Why are you bringing this up? I said I wasn't religious.  Religion or belief has nothing to do with my stand on abortion.

"And you did say that you weren't religious, right?"

Correct.

"AND you do understand that lying isn't a good way to win a debate or woo people over to your position, right?"

I'm not lying.

"RIGHT?"

Right.

Explain to me, how and why you think the brain doesn't develop until the second the baby happens to be squeezed out of the woman's body?"

That's irrelevant. We happen to think that the acceptability for abortion gets less and less as the fetus grows more sentient. The science of fetal development isn't "until the second the baby happens to be squeezed out"--- there's a limited window. We've been over this a million times already.

But this stand that many liberals have that:  'MY BODY, MY RIGHT, NO COMPROMISE' is complete horse shit to me, since once you have a developing human fetus on your hand, there is another human whose rights are to be considered.

The rights of a fetus do not come before the rights of the parents. Because in this case you are violating the rights of the already born (and voting) female and male, and more important, going against the premise of democracy and capitalism. You simply have to understand that the regulations and laws you wish to see in place can only apply in a country where capitalism and democracy aren't at the core of it's ideals.

Truth hurts.

>>327
"That's irrelevant."

No it isn't.  The liberal position seems to be:  'MY BODY, MY CHOICE, I HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION WHENEVER I WANT, NO MATTER HOW LATE IT IS', and that's something I just don't agree with.

"We happen to think that the acceptability for abortion gets less and less as the fetus grows more sentient."

Who is this 'we'? I haven't heard something this sensible from the liberal crowd my entire life.

"The rights of a fetus do not come before the rights of the parents."

I think this depends on how late in development the fetus is - at which time certain parental rights ARE to be subjugated before the right of the fetus to live - such as the right to abort unnecessarilly. 

Of course, the woman's life comes first - so abortion should be permitted at any time if NECESSARY for the woman to continue living - so long as it is done in the most humane manner possible. 

"Because in this case you are violating the rights of the already born (and voting) female and male, and more important, going against the premise of democracy and capitalism."

Capitalism is also founded around self-ownership, and american capitalism is based around limmited government.  The proper functions of this limmited government are to protect and defend LIFE, liberty, and property.  Depending on how old the fetus is, and when you consider it 'alive' is what your capitalistic-american justification for abortion legislation would rest upon. 

"You simply have to understand that the regulations and laws you wish to see in place can only apply in a country where capitalism and democracy aren't at the core of it's ideals."

Wrong.  Pure capitalism? Yes, in that case, you are right.  Limmited government american-style capitalism? You are wrong.  In this setup, we sacrifice some degree of property rights to form a government (though it is supposed to be small), for the sake of defending all the other rights from various threats, such as enemy governments, or threats from criminals.  The proper functions of government are to protect life, liberty, and property.  Passing regulating legislation on abortion activities could be very easilly justified depending on when you believe 'life' begins. 

If life begins at conception, the government would obviously be performing its proper duty in banning it entirely. 

If life begins sometime between conception, and birth, government would be performing its proper role in REGULATING abortion, to be sure that no human fetuses which could be considered 'lives' are destroyed.

If life begins after birth, no abortion legislation at all would be justified. 

Of these viewpoints, I think life begins somewhere between conception and birth.  Thus, I think it is entirely within reason for the government to protect human fetuses after a certain period of time, and in general, to look into this practice to see if it is morally sound, and if government regulation would be consistent or inconsistent with the values our country was founded upon (that government should defend life, liberty, and property). 

Women should certainly NOT have totally unrestricted access to abortions regardless of how long the human fetus has developed.  This is just reckless disregard for unborn life.

The only thing that distances a human from a lump of flesh is a level/faculty of sentience that only - I mean only- can be found in humans. When so few of abortions take place once this may be a possibility, I think pro-choicers have less to be ashamed of than pro-lifers, whose hard-assed, almost always diametrically opposed stance has made feminists et al. completely incpacitated to budge on theirs. I agree that abortions should not take place once a foetus has been developed to a limit I've defined now (human life has nothing on human being, of which human-only cerebral faculties are a prerequisite), but the outright ban most pro-lifers suggest tie my hands; that alternative is an attack on civilisation. The debate on abortions is so nebulous and incremental, so I think this is what should be reached; a ban on abortions after a certain time, coupled with complete lack of regulations before a certain duration. This is quid pro quo, a compromise through gritted teeth both for those completely espoused with ultra-feminist rethoric and religious/ethical snafu. However, education regarding intercourse and gestation must improve substantially, the cultural view of teenage sexuality, especially the difference in perception of male/female sexuality, must change. Birth control and morning after pills must improve in quality and accessability, and politicians on both sides should follow suit and welcome these changes.
This is what I want, but since you, dear Anon, are not representaive to your crowd, I can not approach it at all, because a mixture of acceptable/non-acceptable abortions is preferrable to no abortions at all, and that is what most of the pro-lifers want.

>>329
"The only thing that distances a human from a lump of flesh is a level/faculty of sentience that only - I mean only- can be found in humans."

If it is technically 'human', and it is alive, it is the proper function of government to protect it, regardless of whether or not that faculty is what distances a human from a lump of flesh. 

"When so few of abortions take place once this may be a possibility, I think pro-choicers have less to be ashamed of than pro-lifers, whose hard-assed, almost always diametrically opposed stance has made feminists et al. completely incpacitated to budge on theirs."

There's a lot more abortions happening than you think.  I think pro-lifers have quite a lot more reason to be angry than pro-choicers. 

As for stem-cell research, being a libertarian, I would obviously vote against any kind of government funding for it. 

Whether or not it should be legal or not for the private sector is something different entirely.

"I agree that abortions should not take place once a foetus has been developed to a limit I've defined now (human life has nothing on human being,"

That isn't relevant.  If it is the proper function of government to defend human life, then the government should do so.  If one human life is 'more important' than another, then all that means is that the life of lesser importance should be protected UNLESS a choice must be made between losing the one of lesser importance, or losing the one of greater importance (the woman's).  This means that abortion should be banned once the fetus can be seen as a separate life, unless necessary for the mother's health.

"but the outright ban most pro-lifers suggest tie my hands"

See comment above this one.

"I think this is what should be reached; a ban on abortions after a certain time, coupled with complete lack of regulations before a certain duration."

Quite a different tone taken than that which you took earlier.  I would agree with this - it is philosophically sound, so long as the turning point between the two starts at the time the fetus/embryo becomes a distinct 'life.'

"However, education regarding intercourse and gestation must improve substantially, the cultural view of teenage sexuality, especially the difference in perception of male/female sexuality, must change."

That education should be in voluntary, private situations.  Private education > public education.

"Birth control and morning after pills must improve in quality and accessability,"

They will improve faster if you let the free market run its course (support the libertarian party).

"This is what I want, but since you, dear Anon, are not representaive to your crowd, I can not approach it at all, because a mixture of acceptable/non-acceptable abortions is preferrable to no abortions at all, and that is what most of the pro-lifers want."

Err... I don't understand you.  If this is what you, AS WELL as what most of the pro-lifers want (as you say), what is stopping you from approaching this situation in this light?

BOOOORRRRIIINNNNGGGG

"The debate on abortions is so nebulous and incremental, so I think this is what should be reached; a ban on abortions after a certain time, coupled with complete lack of regulations before a certain duration."

holy fuck!

"If it is technically 'human', and it is alive, it is the proper function of government to protect it, regardless of whether or not that faculty is what distances a human from a lump of flesh." So you have the education to say when it is technically a human? Listen, I don't think I can set that limit just yet, but I will not budge when I say that the foetus is only a person when it's *mind* is as unique as its genetic code. Otherwise we would have to ban menstruations too. Its up to scientists to discern when this is the case. Human life =/= human being, since the former is nothing without auto-recognition from the latter. Who feels the organs take form and pulse? No one, before a certain time. Uptil then abortions are a-okay.
"There's a lot more abortions happening than you think.  I think pro-lifers have quite a lot more reason to be angry than pro-choicers." Number of abortions are irrelevant ethically. See above.
"That isn't relevant.  If it is the proper function of government to defend human life, then the government should do so.  If one human life is 'more important' than another, then all that means is that the life of lesser importance should be protected UNLESS a choice must be made between losing the one of lesser importance, or losing the one of greater importance (the woman's).  This means that abortion should be banned once the fetus can be seen as a separate life, unless necessary for the mother's health." Human life is nothing compared to the sanctity of the mind and the magnificence of cerebral processing. There is no life without a unique persona that can experience the existence.
"Quite a different tone taken than that which you took earlier.  I would agree with this - it is philosophically sound, so long as the turning point between the two starts at the time the fetus/embryo becomes a distinct 'life.'" Good, common ground. I think so too, but this is something that should take shape from a current situation, not a compromise that should be eked out of a situation where abortions are banned.
"That education should be in voluntary, private situations.  Private education > public education." I think that a sensible society makes sure that people are aware and comfortable with the most fundamental part of their persona. I wouldn't want my daughter to date a boy without any idea of gender equality who thinks that sex is 'filthy-dirty'. I think this is a cultural, not academical, problem.
"They will improve faster if you let the free market run its course (support the libertarian party)." It has not been the governments job so far, and the free market is very free in America already (it is not free enough).
"Err... I don't understand you.  If this is what you, AS WELL as what most of the pro-lifers want (as you say), what is stopping you from approaching this situation in this light?" Not making myself clear, I guess. The situation in South Dakota is not sound, not utilitarian, not ethically, not morally, not philosophically and not sociologically sound. Yet that is what most of the the pro-lifers want and I've established that a society can't have that. A mixture of abortions, ethical and unethical, are more acceptable than no abortions at all. Keep at it, Cecilia Fire Thunder. Fuck them up.

>>332
"Otherwise we would have to ban menstruations too."

We've been over this already.  There is a huge difference between an egg, a sperm, an embryo, and a developing human being (fetus).  We wouldn't need to do anything about menstruations. 

"Who feels the organs take form and pulse?"

Yes, human organs forming would be a huge step toward becoming 'human'. 

"Human life is nothing compared to the sanctity of the mind and the magnificence of cerebral processing."

This is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what 'human life is compared to...blah'  whatever human life is, it is the proper function of good government to defend it.  The only room for debate lies in the question 'when does life begin'.  At that point, that life gets government protection, period. 

"There is no life without a unique persona that can experience the existence."

I disagree.

"I think that a sensible society makes sure that people are aware and comfortable with the most fundamental part of their persona."

Sensible societies don't extort money from their neighbors at the point of government guns and bayonets for programs which are of debatable value.  The proper function of government is to defend life, liberty, and property.  If, for whatever reason, pro-lifers have moral qualms with these programs, as they aren't necessary for the furtherance of life, liberty, and property rights, it is not within the functions of a good government to have these programs.  This isn't to say said programs wouldn't exist - they would just be handled by the private sector. 

"I wouldn't want my daughter to date a boy without any idea of gender equality who thinks that sex is 'filthy-dirty'."

Were you talking about your daughter, or the boy?

If you were talking about your daughter, then send her to a private school so she gets a superior education, or you can always educate her yourself. 

And if you were talking about the boy...

It isn't right for you to determine what ideas are acceptable for others to hold.  The boy should be allowed to view sex as a filthy activity if he wants.

"It has not been the governments job so far, and the free market is very free in America already (it is not free enough)."

I agree.  The liberals won't help here.  Support the libertarians, if you really want this end, since they are the only party that supports it as well.  The market in the USA is only 'free' relative to other nations and countries of the world.  We are far, far from being 'libertarian', though we once were.. more or less.  Right now, the USA is a mixed economy at best, and a socialist economy at worst. 

"A mixture of abortions, ethical and unethical, are more acceptable than no abortions at all."

I guess this is where we disagree then.  If I had the choice of all abortions allowed or none, I'd take none in a heartbeat.  It isn't right to penalize the human fetuses involved in unethical abortions - sacrificing their right to live for the sake of allowing some other abortions that could have been prevented cheaply and easilly had certain preventative measures been taken.

"We've been over this already.  There is a huge difference between an egg, a sperm, an embryo, and a developing human being (fetus).  We wouldn't need to do anything about menstruations." Only difference is number of chromosomes.
"The only room for debate lies in the question 'when does life begin'.  At that point, that life gets government protection, period." But life lies not in the activity of organs, but in the mind.
"I disagree." Then we are currently irreconcilable.
"It isn't right for you to determine what ideas are acceptable for others to hold.  The boy should be allowed to view sex as a filthy activity if he wants." Good idea. I'll tell my daughter to shun such retards, and I'll fight tooth and nail to make the democrats give her the liberty to arm herself, despite their current position.
"I guess this is where we disagree then.  If I had the choice of all abortions allowed or none, I'd take none in a heartbeat.  It isn't right to penalize the human fetuses involved in unethical abortions - sacrificing their right to live for the sake of allowing some other abortions that could have been prevented cheaply and easilly had certain preventative measures been taken." But the only people that shun all abortions are those that make unwanted pregnancies more common and harm many liberties. That does not compute with me.
I guess it is my lot to try to reconcile the left with libertarianism in the future, but it will be a difficult transition.

>>334
"I'll tell my daughter to shun such retards, and I'll fight tooth and nail to make the democrats give her the liberty to arm herself, despite their current position."
OH GOD NO, DON'T BORE HER TO DEATH PLEASE, DON'T SPREAD THE HORROR

>>335 So telling my daughter to be wary of guys who don't have common sense about their dicks and trying to make the democrats better make me a shrill feminist evil manipulator who hate men or something? Get a grip.

>>334
"Only difference is number of chromosomes."

Are the chromosomes not different that come from men and women? Well, whatever, it is quite redundant, since it is not technically 'human' life, and thus it is not the duty to protect it.  Once joined, the debate over life begins.  This 'we should ban menstruation and scratching off skin cells' bit is just ridiculous.  Even if the difference WAS just number of chromosomes, it is clearly a significant difference, because the difference is enough to create a living, sentient, individual life.  Again, anyhow, since it isn't technically 'human' then it isn't the government's duty to 'ban menstruation' as you say. 

"But life lies not in the activity of organs, but in the mind."

Debatable.  This would depend on what your concept of 'life' is.

"Good idea. I'll tell my daughter to shun such retards, and I'll fight tooth and nail to make the democrats give her the liberty to arm herself, despite their current position."

And I'll back you 100%.

"But the only people that shun all abortions are those that make unwanted pregnancies more common and harm many liberties. That does not compute with me."

If you recall, the question was whether or not I would ban all abortions, or ban none, provided those were my only two options.    The right to life is just as essential and to be protected as the right to liberty. 

"I guess it is my lot to try to reconcile the left with libertarianism in the future, but it will be a difficult transition."

Voting for the libertarian party will encourage the liberals to adopt a more 'libertarian' outlook.  As soon as the liberals see that there is votes to be had in the ideas of liberty, they will change their party position on liberty, unless they don't care whether or not they get elected.

Doing so will also encourage the republican party to adopt a more 'libertarian' outlook.  Double win.

"Would it be OK with you to abort a baby the day before it could be born naturally?"

Your use situations that NEVER happen causes your own defeat. There is NO SUCH THING as an abortion occuring the day before the fetus is born. Abortions before the day it is born NEVER HAPPENS.

"Explain to me, how and why you think the brain doesn't develop until the second the baby happens to be squeezed out of the woman's body?"

It already has been scientifically proven that the cerebrum (the area of the brain responsible for thought and conscious) doesn't start developing until the seventh month in the third trimester (third trimester abortions count for less than 1% of abortions in America, and are only done under medical circumstances). Even then, it is only a VERY small fragment of a concious, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped. I'm not advocating my abortion position, I'm just laying out the cold, hard facts.

"there is another human whose rights are to be considered."

A fetus isn't an actual human 'being', potential life doesn't have rights. Rights pertain to what is already here, living and breathing. Like you or me. If you are going to give rights to the potential, then you are essentially giving sperm and ovums rights as well, as they have the ability to become potential fetuses when joined.

"at which time certain parental rights ARE to be subjugated before the right of the fetus to live"

A woman's rights superceed that of the fetus' - which has no rights.

"If it is technically 'human', and it is alive, it is the proper function of government to protect it, regardless of whether or not that faculty is what distances a human from a lump of flesh."

It still isn't an actual human 'being' or person like you or me. What separates those whom are already here, and potential fetuses is personhood. A fetus doesn't have personhood, it has no concious. It is a lump of flesh and tissue until it develops the necessary thought processes for personhood, which doesn't develop as I said until the seventh month in the third trimester when it even gets a fragment of a cerebrum.

"There's a lot more abortions happening than you think.  I think pro-lifers have quite a lot more reason to be angry than pro-choicers."

The vast majority (93%) of abortions occur during the embryo stage before it becomes a fetus (at 23 weeks). An embryo is indeed no more than a lump of flesh. Nothing to worry about.

>>276
>>277
Pro-lifers have a lot to worry about than what you think.

"The situation in South Dakota is not sound, not utilitarian, not ethically, not morally, not philosophically and not sociologically sound. Yet that is what most of the the pro-lifers want and I've established that a society can't have that. A mixture of abortions, ethical and unethical, are more acceptable than no abortions at all. Keep at it, Cecilia Fire Thunder. Fuck them up."

Cecilia Fire Thunder is an awesome name..

"If you recall, the question was whether or not I would ban all abortions, or ban none, provided those were my only two options.    The right to life is just as essential and to be protected as the right to liberty"

What about the woman's right to her own life? The woman's right-to-life superceeds that of the fetus', which again, has no rights since it isn't an actual person. Also it is the woman's right to her own life that allows her to have an abortion if she feels the need to. You are subjugating women to be nothing more than incubators and will let those with complications die. Killing a woman just for the sake of the fetus is utterly absurd. Then again, there's a great chance that the fetus will die along with the mother. So you'll have two deaths on your hands..not really 'pro-life' if I must say. Nulling abortion entirely fails.

"It already has been scientifically proven that the cerebrum (the area of the brain responsible for thought and conscious) doesn't start developing until the seventh month in the third trimester (third trimester abortions count for less than 1% of abortions in America, and are only done under medical circumstances). Even then, it is only a VERY small fragment of a concious, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped. I'm not advocating my abortion position, I'm just laying out the cold, hard facts." Well, then that is settled, and this shows that most pro-lifers value an uncommonly complicated and intricate facility of cells over a human with a MIND, that unfathomably intricate process and state that is required to experience the corporal, physical world, i.e. life.
"A fetus isn't an actual human 'being', potential life doesn't have rights. Rights pertain to what is already here, living and breathing. Like you or me. If you are going to give rights to the potential, then you are essentially giving sperm and ovums rights as well, as they have the ability to become potential fetuses when joined." My skin cells have the same genetical complexity of an entire foetus, so I would not be able to scratch myself if life begins at conception. However, if the foetus has gained a unique persona, neither I nor the mother can claim superiority. Saying that the foetus is a leech of nutrients, not giving anything to society or not having advanced faculties is not sufficient, because if you universalized that we would have to kill the mentally challenged and all hobos we can find.
"A woman's rights superceed that of the fetus' - which has no rights." Up until the foetus has a human mind. I know the woman is the one offering the nutrients, but then she shouldn't have waited that long. On the other hand, the politicians who are against abortions are usually the ones that make abortion clinics, sex education and birth control so scarce, so it's not surprising that there are so many poor single mothers. Maybe we could raise the minimum wages? Nah, then we'd all die and the muslims would win.
"The vast majority (93%) of abortions occur during the embryo stage before it becomes a fetus (at 23 weeks). An embryo is indeed no more than a lump of flesh. Nothing to worry about." Finally. Facts. 338 > me.
"Cecilia Fire Thunder is an awesome name..." So is Rebeykah. And Marlon. And Iesaiah. And Quentin. So many cool names to choose from. I actually want to get a kid just so I can give it a sweet name (kidding).
"What about the woman's right to her own life? The woman's right-to-life superceeds that of the fetus', which again, has no rights since it isn't an actual person. Also it is the woman's right to her own life that allows her to have an abortion if she feels the need to. You are subjugating women to be nothing more than incubators and will let those with complications die. Killing a woman just for the sake of the fetus is utterly absurd. Then again, there's a great chance that the fetus will die along with the mother. So you'll have two deaths on your hands..not really 'pro-life' if I must say. Nulling abortion entirely fails." I still think that if a woman waits until the seventh month she has to suit herself... But I too think that nulling it is vile and stupid, because that is collective punishment, an insult to liberty of equal immorality *but greater scope* of having some bad abortions along with the acceptable ones. 7 % of abortions killing unborn human beings is nothing comparable to half of America's population being dehumanized. Especially when these 7 % occur in a nation where men have the upper hand, and most conservatives make decisions that make pregnancies, getting an abortion at embryonic/pre-cerebrum stages and the task of motherhood harder.

>>336
NO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS INCREDIBLY BORING DISCUSSION, IT'S JUST SO FUCKING MIOSERABLY BORING SHE WOULD DIE OF BOREDOM AND BE LIKE ALL FUCKING GREY AND BORED TO DEATH OH MY GOD

>>338

"Your use situations that NEVER happen causes your own defeat."

It is a hypothetical situation which was used for the sake of driving home the point that life does indeed begin before the simple act of birth.  Whether or not it could happen or not is entirely beside the point, since it was a hypothetical situation used to exercise a point.

"There is NO SUCH THING as an abortion occuring the day before the fetus is born. Abortions before the day it is born NEVER HAPPENS."

Oh my god..

"It already has been scientifically proven that the cerebrum (the area of the brain responsible for thought and conscious) doesn't start developing until the seventh month in the third trimester"

Way to entirely dodge my question, yet make it seem like you answered it.

"Even then, it is only a VERY small fragment of a concious, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped. I'm not advocating my abortion position, I'm just laying out the cold, hard facts."

So, supposing 'life' was based on the brain to you, in these cases, it would only constitute partial-murder.  Well, I understand, that's not bad at all I guess.  Lets use 'em for crop fertilizer LOLOLOL!

"A fetus isn't an actual human 'being',"

It IS** an actual human 'life'.  It is the proper function of government to defend life**, liberty, and property.

"potential life doesn't have rights."

Whether or not it is a 'life' or not depends on what you define as 'life'.  The whole abortion debate stems from the question of when life begins. 

"Rights pertain to what is already here, living"

Human fetuses are already 'here'.  Unless to you life doesn't begin until the baby happens to be squeezed out of the woman's body? Get real.  Ok, so I guess fetuses/babies/whatever just suddenly come to life like a light turns on at the flick of a switch as soon as they are jettisoned from the woman's body.

"Like you or me. If you are going to give rights to the potential,"

I'm not giving rights to the potential.  I'm giving rights to the actual.

"then you are essentially giving sperm and ovums rights as well,"

Go read my previous posts.  Are you trolling, or just trying to make this discussion last longer than it has to? This has been discussed enough.  Sperm and ovums aren't human lives.  Fetuses, depending possibly on how late in development they are, are.

"A woman's rights superceed that of the fetus' - which has no rights."

As soon as the fetus becomes 'alive', it has the right to live, period.  It is the proper function of government to defend this right.  The only room for debate lies in the question of 'when does 'life' begin'?

"It still isn't an actual human 'being' or person like you or me."

Totally irrelevant.  If it is a human life, it is the proper function of government to protect it.

"it has no concious."

I'm fairly sure this depends on how late in development it is.

"Nulling abortion entirely fails."

No, you fail.  Read what I said again - it is only provided I was given the choice between all abortions legal and unrestricted or no abortions legal period.  I wasn't advocating banning abortion entirely.  I was saying that - given the choice between a completely pro-life situation, and a completely pro-choice situation, I would take the former.

>>339
"It already has been scientifically proven that the cerebrum (the area of the brain responsible for thought and conscious) doesn't start developing until the seventh month in the third trimester"

Whether or not an abortion at a given point in fetal/embryonic development should be allowed or not should be dependant upon when you think life begins.  If you think that life begins when it is 'conscious' then up until this point, abortions would possibly be reasonable.  If not, they wouldn't be.

"Even then, it is only a VERY small fragment of a concious, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped."

It is present, and consciousness has been attained.  What are you asking for now, the ability to kill already-born babies on the grounds that their brains are 'still highly undeveloped'? Considering the position of many liberals, this wouldn't surprise me.

"Well, then that is settled, and this shows that most pro-lifers value an uncommonly complicated and intricate facility of cells over a human with a MIND"

Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, by definition.  From this standpoint, banning abortion entirely is justified.

"A fetus isn't an actual human 'being',"

But if it is a human 'life', it is the proper function of government to protect it. 

"Rights pertain to what is already here, living and breathing. Like you or me."

The USA was founded upon a few principles and ideas; one of which was that the proper function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.  Those who advocate the government fullfills these roles in their entirely are advocating good government.  Whether or not the 'life' is inside, or outside of the woman, is completely redundant.

"My skin cells have the same genetical complexity of an entire foetus, so I would not be able to scratch myself if life begins at conception."

Irrelevant.  Skin cells don't = developing human lives with consciousness.

"Saying that the foetus is a leech of nutrients, not giving anything to society or not having advanced faculties is not sufficient, because if you universalized that we would have to kill the mentally challenged and all hobos we can find."

This has been discussed as well.  You are wrong.  The facts are that the actions of the woman put the fetus in the situation it is in in which it cannot be removed from her body without dieing.  Saying you can remove or abort it before it can survive on its own is like saying I should be able to drag a friend of mine onto a ship against his will, sail off into the ocean, and then throw him off my ship.

"Up until the foetus has a human mind. I know the woman is the one offering the nutrients, but then she shouldn't have waited that long."

Thank you!

"On the other hand, the politicians who are against abortions are usually the ones that make abortion clinics, sex education and birth control so scarce, so it's not surprising that there are so many poor single mothers."

Simply because they are scarce does not mean they are unattainable.  I don't care how scarce abortion clinics are.  There have been many opportunities to prevent this situation.  If handled in the first place with adequate contracpetion, it would be handled in the cheapest and most convenient manner.  If you were irresponsible enough to screw around and put yourself in jeopardy of becoming pregnant due to not using adequate contraceptives, you put yourself in that situation... and then to further suggest that there is any justification AT ALL in allowing women late-term abortions as they please even after the fetus has become sentient is just ridiculous to me.  They have been given so many opportunities to handle the situation up until that point, and if she didn't do it by then, tough shit.

"Maybe we could raise the minimum wages?"

Inconsistant with the ideas of proper government and liberty.

"The vast majority (93%) of abortions occur during the embryo stage before it becomes a fetus (at 23 weeks). An embryo is indeed no more than a lump of flesh."

This depends on when 'life' begins.

"I still think that if a woman waits until the seventh month she has to suit herself..."

Agreed.

"But I too think that nulling it is vile and stupid, because that is collective punishment,"

You offered the situation - all abortions or none, and in the same way collectively punishing women is wrong, collectively punishing live fetuses is wrong as well.  I went with the protection-of-fetuses route because the fetus had no choice whether to be there or not.  The woman did.  So thus, while collectively punishing the women is wrong as well, collectively punishing the fetuses by allowing all abortions is worse, since the fetuses had no say in their situation and the women did.  For clarity, I am not advocating this, nor is it my actual position on abortion.  This has been discussed already, and this is my response to a *hypothetical situation* offered me by Xel, unless I'm mistaken.

"7 % of abortions killing unborn human beings is nothing comparable to half of America's population being dehumanized."

I fail to see how you can say it is better to kill a huge number of human lives than to 'partially dehumanize' a segment of the US population.

"Especially when these 7 % occur in a nation where men have the upper hand,"

We have equal rights in the USA.

"and most conservatives make decisions that make pregnancies, getting an abortion at embryonic/pre-cerebrum stages and the task of motherhood harder."

Irrelevant.

>>342 Unique persona = Human being. I'll take that to some gestation specialist and try to figure out when that is possible. Some neuronic communication between flesh and the proprioceptive center of the brain is nothing compared to the sense of 'I', a cerebral appreciation of the corporal self. Until I got that down, I'll side with pro-life because a few dead humans isn't as horrible as the devaluation of half of American life. If you can't factualize something you go for what gives a net gain, even though it is crude. I've sprung roots on this position, I'm afraid.
"Irrelevant.  Skin cells don't = developing human lives with consciousness." So it's all about resemblance, or what? We can't let outward appearance dictate this. That can be classified as a tumor until there is a mind that has amassed a unique experience of the ovarian circumstances. Unique genotype is not enough, nor is the shape of the body. A unique mind, a sliver of 'I' must be protected.
Also, the decisions of politicians and the availability of birth control/sex ed/nearby clinics is NOT irrelevant, because no matter how much rightwingers demand that anyone can do anything in America with a little hard work it is gooblygook. You are less meritocratic than SWEDEN at the moment, who have above 50 % taxation and a gigantic public sector, for two. Equal rights is something women had to fight for against heavy opposition and demonizing, but that is nothing compared to the barriers in people's minds. Gender oppression is not only domestic abuse, gender oppression are innumerable, accumuluated problems that becomes very large the wider your scope. Legal equality did not suffice.

I've read that the factors that form the unique individual are interior and exterior in nature, proving that at some point before birth the organ of the mind receives input from the sensory apparati. Still far from enough.

>>343
"Until I got that down, I'll side with pro-life because a few dead humans isn't as horrible as the devaluation of half of American life."

I think you mean you side with '/pro-choice/', not with 'pro-life' as you said in your post.  Is this a typo?

Assuming it is, women wouldn't be dehumanized or devalued significantly by removing abortion alltogether.  Anyhow, if losing rights is your criteria for devaluization, I'd think that a handful of individuals losing their right to life would be of far greater significance in terms of 'dehumanization' or 'devaluization' than any insignificant losses on behalf of women for the sake of protecting unborn human lives.

"So it's all about resemblance, or what?"

No, not outward resemblance anyways.  I think abortion is morally questionable /at best/ if the fetus has even a sliver of consciousness or feeling, has a heartbeat & similar functions in other organs running properly, etc.

"Also, the decisions of politicians and the availability of birth control/sex ed/nearby clinics is NOT irrelevant,"

It is irrelevant.  If it is a human life, it has a right to live, and this has nothing to do with the outside world, and decisions made by those in it.

"because no matter how much rightwingers demand that anyone can do anything in America with a little hard work it is gooblygook."

Maybe not anything, but within reason, its true.  America is far better country than you seem to think.  I suppose this may have something to do with your belief that free-will is non-existant.  Most americans don't share this view. 

"You are less meritocratic than SWEDEN at the moment,"

Who cares if you are a meritocratic country or not if your /rights/ are up in the air, so to speak? I firmly disagree with sacrificing freedom and rights for the sake of becoming more meritocratic, since even those who take advantage of the meritocratic values of a country wouldn't have the rights to that which they had worked for afterwards.  Property rights (human rights) are what we should be after, and meritocratic values should come second to that.

"Equal rights is something women had to fight for against heavy opposition and demonizing, but that is nothing compared to the barriers in people's minds."

Equal rights are already here.  The feminism movement is old, outdated, and needs to die - or at least to move to countries where women are /actually/ oppressed (note:  the USA isn't one of them.)

"Gender oppression is not only domestic abuse, gender oppression are innumerable, accumuluated problems that becomes very large the wider your scope. Legal equality did not suffice."

Abortion regulation doesn't = gender oppression.  In asking for unlimmited abortion rights, you'd be asking for the right to violate the rights of others, which is something that goes against the fundamental principles of liberty and justice. 

Feminism is justified still. I do not sway a micron on this.

>>346
There's a thread specifically for that.  Go post it there.

>>347 Anonny started that, actually.

>>346
>Feminism is justified still. I do not sway a micron on this.

Unless you can back it up already, you're only making an idiot of yourself.

>>349 Why do the American official seats have 15 % women, and Rwanda has 49 %. What is this the result of? This is not a dodge, because the answer one reaches by looking into this situation - is my answer.

"So, supposing 'life' was based on the brain to you, in these cases, it would only constitute partial-murder.  Well, I understand, that's not bad at all I guess.  Lets use 'em for crop fertilizer LOLOLOL!"

More so than just a mere brain, it also takes a MIND and a unique persona.

"It IS** an actual human 'life'.  It is the proper function of government to defend life**, liberty, and property."

Just the same as my skin cells are human life, so they should be protected as well from the government. But my skin cells aren't a human 'being', just as a fetus isn't a human 'being'. Protection comes for 'beings' with unique personas.

"Whether or not it is a 'life' or not depends on what you define as 'life'.  The whole abortion debate stems from the question of when life begins."

Wrong, abortion stems from the question of when 'personhood' begins.

"Human fetuses are already 'here'.  Unless to you life doesn't begin until the baby happens to be squeezed out of the woman's body? Get real.  Ok, so I guess fetuses/babies/whatever just suddenly come to life like a light turns on at the flick of a switch as soon as they are jettisoned from the woman's body."

But a human fetus isn't a human 'being', like you or me. Aside from that, to me, 'personhood', NOT life, begins when the fetus starts to develop a unique persona and personhood in the third trimester when the cerebrum begins to develop for thought processes. But even then, that's a very tiny fragment, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped.

"I'm not giving rights to the potential.  I'm giving rights to the actual."

A fetus isn't an actual human 'being'. It's a potential human 'being'. You are giving rights to the potential.

""A woman's rights superceed that of the fetus' - which has no rights."

As soon as the fetus becomes 'alive', it has the right to live, period.  It is the proper function of government to defend this right.  The only room for debate lies in the question of 'when does 'life' begin'?"

If you are speaking in terms of when it develops a unique persona, then read what I said above. The government may protect it then, but it also may not cause endangerment to the woman, whose rights superceed that of the fetus. A living, breathing, voting, woman's right to her own life always superceed that of the potential. You can't sacifice the rights of the woman in favor of a fetus with no unique persona. Unlike a fetus, the woman has a MIND.

"No, you fail.  Read what I said again - it is only provided I was given the choice between all abortions legal and unrestricted or no abortions legal period.  I wasn't advocating banning abortion entirely.  I was saying that - given the choice between a completely pro-life situation, and a completely pro-choice situation, I would take the former."
>>333
"I guess this is where we disagree then.  If I had the choice of all abortions allowed or none, I'd take none in a heartbeat."

" I wasn't advocating banning abortion entirely."

Right. LOL.

"I was saying that - given the choice between a completely pro-life situation, and a completely pro-choice situation, I would take the former."

Being in favor of a fetus over the well-being of a woman is entirely absurd. You aren't for 'life' if you're willing to sacrifice a woman's right to her life in favor of a potential fetus, which isn't a human 'being' like the woman is.

"It is present, and consciousness has been attained.  What are you asking for now, the ability to kill already-born babies on the grounds that their brains are 'still highly undeveloped'? Considering the position of many liberals, this wouldn't surprise me."

You said that, not me. I never even thought of such a thing. Aside from that, a baby is a human 'being', it has rights, and it has a unique persona, and it has a MIND. It would be murder to kill a baby.

"Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, by definition.  From this standpoint, banning abortion entirely is justified."

Quite a fucking lame justification, to be in favor of a flawed ideological stance in place of a woman's right to her life. So I guess to you women are nothing more but mindless human incubators, which wouldn't surprise me from your position. So you're willing to let women and mothers die. LOL.

"Whether or not the 'life' is inside, or outside of the woman, is completely redundant."

This whole 'life' crap is getting redundant as well. What matters is personhood, a unique persona, and the mind and when it develops. Scientifically, this has already been solved, seventh month in the third trimester when fragments of the cerebrum finally starts to develop and emit genuine human brain waves.

"This has been discussed as well.  You are wrong.  The facts are that the actions of the woman put the fetus in the situation it is in in which it cannot be removed from her body without dieing.  Saying you can remove or abort it before it can survive on its own is like saying I should be able to drag a friend of mine onto a ship against his will, sail off into the ocean, and then throw him off my ship."

But the fetus doesn't have a will nor mind like the guy whom got thrown off the ship.

""Up until the foetus has a human mind. I know the woman is the one offering the nutrients, but then she shouldn't have waited that long."

Thank you!"

I have to agree here, unless the woman was having one hell of a time trying to find an abortion clinic, had to do lengthly travel, or had to face lengthly waiting periods that could've threw her into the next trimester. But from another standpoint, statistically, women who do have late abortions were expectant mothers, but whose fetuses developed a severe abnormality, or her health/life was in danger.

""On the other hand, the politicians who are against abortions are usually the ones that make abortion clinics, sex education and birth control so scarce, so it's not surprising that there are so many poor single mothers."

Simply because they are scarce does not mean they are unattainable.  I don't care how scarce abortion clinics are.  There have been many opportunities to prevent this situation.  If handled in the first place with adequate contracpetion, it would be handled in the cheapest and most convenient manner.  If you were irresponsible enough to screw around and put yourself in jeopardy of becoming pregnant due to not using adequate contraceptives, you put yourself in that situation... and then to further suggest that there is any justification AT ALL in allowing women late-term abortions as they please even after the fetus has become sentient is just ridiculous to me.  They have been given so many opportunities to handle the situation up until that point, and if she didn't do it by then, tough shit."

Thank you for admitting that your own 'pro-life' committee are the ones responsible making sex education and birth control so scarce. Thank you for admitting that your committee are also the ones responsible for making more unnecessary abortions due to the lack of availability of birth control and sex-ed.

"If handled in the first place with adequate contracpetion, it would be handled in the cheapest and most convenient manner."

Hard to find birth control in the when your own committee is making them so scarce and hard to obtain in the first place.

""I still think that if a woman waits until the seventh month she has to suit herself..."

Agreed."

Agreed as well, with input from above.

""7 % of abortions killing unborn human beings is nothing comparable to half of America's population being dehumanized."

I fail to see how you can say it is better to kill a huge number of human lives than to 'partially dehumanize' a segment of the US population."

52% is a rather large 'segment' if you ask me. A fetus isn't a human 'being' with a unique persona like a woman is. It would be slavery to dehumanize all women.

"We have equal rights in the USA."

By Federal level, yes. But there is still a lot more work to be done at the state level. Such as employers discriminating against expectant mothers.

"Assuming it is, women wouldn't be dehumanized or devalued significantly by removing abortion alltogether.  Anyhow, if losing rights is your criteria for devaluization, I'd think that a handful of individuals losing their right to life would be of far greater significance in terms of 'dehumanization' or 'devaluization' than any insignificant losses on behalf of women for the sake of protecting unborn human lives."

This guy just doesn't give a damn about women. I guess women aren't human beings but carriers by his standpoint.

""Also, the decisions of politicians and the availability of birth control/sex ed/nearby clinics is NOT irrelevant,"

It is irrelevant.  If it is a human life, it has a right to live, and this has nothing to do with the outside world, and decisions made by those in it."

It is relevant since your committee is making birth control and contraceptives harder to find and more expensive, thus in turn, there will be a rise in the number of unwanted pregnancies. Are you also saying that you're against contraceptives? Seems like it to me.
Also it is inside the woman, parasitically living off her nutrients and shitting in her bloodsteam. The women may decide what lives and what may not live inside her.

>>351 Seconded.

Oh, here are a bunch of pro-lifers who are infiltrating poor, black neighbourhoods with anti-condom, pro-abstinence propaganda. At the same time, they are trying to make sure the same black girls they are telling "Abortion is evul!!" don't have any institutions to help them in motherhood. That's nice for them and the kids. "Americans" like these make me even more pro-gun, because then there is a chance I'll meet them while carrying. And then I can murder them.

>>352 Oh fucks forgot link. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ABORTION_INNER_CITIES?SITE=MTBIL&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

>>350
I'm sorry, but you'll have to answer the question too. I'd say it's the result of women not having equal rights some decades ago and it will normalize over time, should women in the US be interested in becoming politicians, since they have equal rights now.

What's your answer?

Boring.

>>354 Today's girls are facing the same cultural and sociological borders, whether they are 45 or enrolling in high school. The problems decrease in size, but slowly and not in nature. Feminism should be very little about sweeping changes, because the situation calls for more specific, surgical alteration of culture. Shame many feminists don't follow that idea.

>>356
"Today's girls are facing the same cultural and sociological borders, whether they are 45 or enrolling in high school."

No they aren't.

"The problems decrease in size, but slowly and not in nature."

There aren't problems.  They have equal rights.

"Feminism should be very little about sweeping changes, because the situation calls for more specific, surgical alteration of culture."

There is nothing wrong with the situation we have now.  Women have equal rights.

"Shame many feminists don't follow that idea."

We have equal rights.  If they did, it would just be a whole lot of pointless bitching for nothing.

OH GOD THE BOREDOM, JUST STOP POSTING

>>358
I think a better solution would be for you to just stop reading it.

>>359
IM NOT SELFISH, I FEEL COMPASSION FOR THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE TYPING HUEG PARAGRAPHS LIKE XBOX ON THIS GAY DEAD SUBJECT THAT NO ONE CARES ABOUT