Poll

Pick the view that most closely resembles your own.

Pro-Choice (no exceptions)
Pro-Choice (exceptions: late term, other)
Pro-Choice for thee, but not for me (Would not personally do)
Pro-Choice (Purely pragmatic. Collision of three rights. Chose winner)
Pro-Life (Purely pragmatic.  Collision of three rights.  Chose winner)
Pro-Life for me, but not for thee (same as #3, just different label)
Pro-Life (exceptions: rape, incest, other)
Pro-Life (no exceptions)

Author Topic: IssueTalk: Abortion  (Read 5551 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #210 on: April 12, 2016, 11:21:34 AM »
I think there's potential for some serious mental trauma as well.

I had a girlfriend of two years back in my early 20's who had an abortion from a relationship before me. I didn't know that until a few months into our relationship. She was severely traumatized. She'd cry about it all the time....get wasted and just say over and over while crying "I'm so sorry sweet baby".....it was brutal on her. She'd ask me all the time..."will you have a baby with me?"....meaning like, then....but I was like 24. It was tough to watch her go through.

Turns out that the dudes parents found out she was pregnant and basically held her hostage one afternoon for hours telling her how she couldn't have the baby....that it'd ruin their sons life and that they were too young...etc etc. They basically forced her to do it.....took her to the clinic and paid for it, the whole nine yards. She was severely mentally traumatized....I often think of her and wonder how she's doing now days.

That's so messed up.   >:(  (the parents heavily influencing her decision)

"influence" my ASS!! You need to call this exactly what it IS: short of holding a GUN to her head, or threatening her life in some OTHER way, they FORCED this girl to have an abortion! Doesn't sound very "pro-choice" to ME!!! At the very least these sick fucks should have been prosecuted for kidnapping and unlawful detainment!
Calm down.  All of your ALL CAPS posting and exclamation points tend to take away the effect of your argument, regardless of its content.  It's not a school yard, you don't have to yell to be heard.  Let's discuss these topics like adults.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16185
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #211 on: April 12, 2016, 11:25:53 AM »
The biggest issue I have with the image below is that if left in isolation, the cake ingredients aren't going to magically become a cake and the yarn won't magically become a sweater, the lump of cells at the top will continue to grow and develop into a person. This is where the disconnect is. We can't seem to agree where the threshold is between something just being a lump of cells and something that can qualify as a human. It's a discussion I'd love to have, but forming your question or argument in the shape of this meme isn't trying to accomplish that.

If left in isolation it would die, not magically form into a baby, still needs the womb of the mother.  This is exactly what I meant yesterday when saying it's a "grey area" because at what point does the cells/fetus qualify as a human?  It's very debatable.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19303
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #212 on: April 12, 2016, 12:01:43 PM »
The biggest issue I have with the image below is that if left in isolation, the cake ingredients aren't going to magically become a cake and the yarn won't magically become a sweater, the lump of cells at the top will continue to grow and develop into a person. This is where the disconnect is. We can't seem to agree where the threshold is between something just being a lump of cells and something that can qualify as a human. It's a discussion I'd love to have, but forming your question or argument in the shape of this meme isn't trying to accomplish that.

If left in isolation it would die, not magically form into a baby, still needs the womb of the mother.  This is exactly what I meant yesterday when saying it's a "grey area" because at what point does the cells/fetus qualify as a human?  It's very debatable.

This is all discussion (one that I'm enjoying) and I'm not trying to come off as an asshole here. Sorry if I am.

Maybe isolation wasn't the right word, the blob of cells needs a womb just like the cake would need an oven, but it's still not an accurate comparison. All the ingredients for the cake are out on the table, separate and in no way a cake, just like the sperm and the egg before contraception. Once they are combined, they are something else. 

Once combined and put into the oven, at what point is the cake mix considered a cake? If the recipe says cook for 20 minutes, and you pull it out at 10 minutes, what is it? Cake mix with some newly formed cake-like pieces in it, an unfinished cake, a cake in development, or does it in no way resemble a cake at all? If I pull it out 2 minutes early and there's a golf ball-sized bit in the middle still a little gooey, is it still not considered a cake?

You asked "at what point does the cells/fetus qualify as a human?". Would you consider a creature with the genetic sequence of a homo sapien and a detectable heartbeat to be qualified as a human? I think that would be the deciding factor for most people (not implying there's anything wrong if you don't). A fetus develops a detectable heartbeat between three and four weeks (and it's as the genetic signature at moment of conception).

The way I look at it, the sperm and egg are not people. They only have half of the chromosomes required by the human genome. Once combined, they form an entirely new creature, one that didn't exist prior to the contraception. It has a its own genetic signature, human DNA, different and unique when compared to the mother and father. It's a living organism, that isn't up for debate. So we as a society need to at least acknowledge that we are killing something when an abortion is performed. Whether or not you consider it a human is one thing, but pretending you aren't killing something that is alive is just trying to justify the act of abortion in some way.

I might be judging here, but I think a lot of people when looking at abortion (at least the ones a few weeks into development) believe/acknowledge they are killing a human, but it's easy to write it off. I eat chicken almost every day, but if I had to look one in the eyes and slit its throat, I wouldn't be able to. Never seeing the chicken before taking its life makes eating it super easy. I believe a large element to getting an abortion is an out of sight, out of mind mentality. Even if you know there's a baby in you, if you never saw it, held it, or had a chance to fall in love with it, letting it go is significantly easier.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 12:17:05 PM by Chino »

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16185
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #213 on: April 12, 2016, 12:18:02 PM »
Interesting discussion and thoughts.  Since we are comparing baking a cake to a human baby, I will add the same warning in that this is purely discussion and not meant to come off as unsympathetic or asshole like.

Once combined and put into the oven, at what point is the cake mix considered a cake? If the recipe says cook for 20 minutes, and you pull it out at 10 minutes, what is it? Cake mix with some newly formed cake-like pieces in it, an unfinished cake, a cake in development, or does it in no way resemble a cake at all?

You asked "at what point does the cells/fetus qualify as a human?". Would you consider a creature with the genetic sequence of a homo sapien and a detectable heartbeat to be qualified as a human? I think that would be the deciding factor for most people (not implying there's anything wrong if you don't). A fetus develops a detectable heartbeat between three and four weeks.

The way I look at it, the sperm and egg are not people. They only have half of the chromosomes required by the human genome. Once combined, they form an entirely new creature, one that didn't exist prior to the contraception. It has a its own genetic signature, human DNA, different and unique when compared to the mother and father. It's a living organism, that isn't up for debate. So we as a society need to at least acknowledge that we are killing something when an abortion is performed. Whether or not you consider it a human is one thing, but pretending you aren't killing something that is alive is just trying to justify the act of abortion in some way.

I might be judging here, but I think a lot of people when looking at abortion are believe they are killing a human, but it's easy to write off. I eat chicken almost every day, but if I had to look one in the eyes and slit it's throat, I wouldn't be able to. Never seeing the chicken before taking its life makes eating it super easy. I believe a large element to getting an abortion is an out of sight, out of mind mentality. Even if you know there's a baby in you, if you never saw it, held it, or had a chance to fall in love with it, letting it go is significantly easier.

So the half baked cake is not a cake, but the half formed baby is a human?  The cake has all the ingredients and make up of the cake, just needs more time just like the fetus.  I agree that after conception, the new cell formed from the egg and sperm is a living creature.  I'm not sure that is even debatable.  Killing this is definitely killing something that is "alive" but is it really a human yet?  At what point does it become human?  I know some believe it does at conception, some say second or third trimester, some say when it comes out of the womb.  I honestly don't know what the answer is here, but an abortion is 100% the death of "something" I do believe that even if I am not ready to call that a human just yet.  I also agree with the thought that because you don't see it, it is easier to do.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #214 on: April 12, 2016, 12:29:23 PM »
I might be judging here, but I think a lot of people when looking at abortion (at least the ones a few weeks into development) believe/acknowledge they are killing a human, but it's easy to write it off. I eat chicken almost every day, but if I had to look one in the eyes and slit its throat, I wouldn't be able to. Never seeing the chicken before taking its life makes eating it super easy. I believe a large element to getting an abortion is an out of sight, out of mind mentality. Even if you know there's a baby in you, if you never saw it, held it, or had a chance to fall in love with it, letting it go is significantly easier.

Here's why I asked (and will keep asking) the question I've asked about the yearning to tell others what to think. 

I think the debate as to whether it's a "human" or not is really a red herring in this regard.  I happen to believe that it is "life" once the two cells join.   I can understand - even if I disagree - that there is an argument that perhaps "life" doesn't start until viability or birth.  But why does my determination matter to you?  We talk about "killing humans" all the time.   Every day.   Death penalty.   "Bombing the shit out of towelheads".   We don't have a problem in selling t-shirts that show George Bush with a gun sight over his face, but we're going to debate two cells that most women don't even know exist inside them until weeks later? 

I mean, I get it, I'm not dumb; there comes a point where we have to have a meaningful dialogue abuot this if we are going to set rules for implementation and funding.   But doesn't this issue really boil down to the discussion that seems to be trending lately where we feel this entitlement to tell others what they think is right?  Isn't this really not that different from the sanctimonious ass that feels entitled to tell us that "one gun is okay, but five is TOO MANY!" or that "well, $100,000 a year is a generous salary, and everything after that, well, you can't be expected to spend all that money!" or "well, I feel like 'retard' is a poor choice of word, so we're going to shame you into using the words that WE want you to use!"

But here's the thing:  I tend to really shun the "left/right", "all Democrats/all Republicans" arguments, but if you'll indulge me for a moment, aren't the left supposedly the ones that want to tell us what to do?  So why is the Right getting involved in the personal politics of a woman's body?   It just seems like such an outlier issue for that reason. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19303
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #215 on: April 12, 2016, 12:43:12 PM »
I might be judging here, but I think a lot of people when looking at abortion (at least the ones a few weeks into development) believe/acknowledge they are killing a human, but it's easy to write it off. I eat chicken almost every day, but if I had to look one in the eyes and slit its throat, I wouldn't be able to. Never seeing the chicken before taking its life makes eating it super easy. I believe a large element to getting an abortion is an out of sight, out of mind mentality. Even if you know there's a baby in you, if you never saw it, held it, or had a chance to fall in love with it, letting it go is significantly easier.

Here's why I asked (and will keep asking) the question I've asked about the yearning to tell others what to think. 

I think the debate as to whether it's a "human" or not is really a red herring in this regard.  I happen to believe that it is "life" once the two cells join.  I can understand - even if I disagree - that there is an argument that perhaps "life" doesn't start until viability or birth.  But why does my determination matter to you? We talk about "killing humans" all the time.   Every day.   Death penalty.   "Bombing the shit out of towelheads".   We don't have a problem in selling t-shirts that show George Bush with a gun sight over his face, but we're going to debate two cells that most women don't even know exist inside them until weeks later? 


It doesn't. That's why I personally would try to convince my girlfriend to not have an abortion while at the same time donate $500 a year to Planned Parenthood  :lol

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2628
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #216 on: April 12, 2016, 12:55:58 PM »
I might be judging here, but I think a lot of people when looking at abortion (at least the ones a few weeks into development) believe/acknowledge they are killing a human, but it's easy to write it off. I eat chicken almost every day, but if I had to look one in the eyes and slit its throat, I wouldn't be able to. Never seeing the chicken before taking its life makes eating it super easy. I believe a large element to getting an abortion is an out of sight, out of mind mentality. Even if you know there's a baby in you, if you never saw it, held it, or had a chance to fall in love with it, letting it go is significantly easier.

Here's why I asked (and will keep asking) the question I've asked about the yearning to tell others what to think. 

I think the debate as to whether it's a "human" or not is really a red herring in this regard.  I happen to believe that it is "life" once the two cells join.   I can understand - even if I disagree - that there is an argument that perhaps "life" doesn't start until viability or birth.  But why does my determination matter to you?  We talk about "killing humans" all the time.   Every day.   Death penalty.   "Bombing the shit out of towelheads".   We don't have a problem in selling t-shirts that show George Bush with a gun sight over his face, but we're going to debate two cells that most women don't even know exist inside them until weeks later? 

I mean, I get it, I'm not dumb; there comes a point where we have to have a meaningful dialogue abuot this if we are going to set rules for implementation and funding.   But doesn't this issue really boil down to the discussion that seems to be trending lately where we feel this entitlement to tell others what they think is right?  Isn't this really not that different from the sanctimonious ass that feels entitled to tell us that "one gun is okay, but five is TOO MANY!" or that "well, $100,000 a year is a generous salary, and everything after that, well, you can't be expected to spend all that money!" or "well, I feel like 'retard' is a poor choice of word, so we're going to shame you into using the words that WE want you to use!"

But here's the thing:  I tend to really shun the "left/right", "all Democrats/all Republicans" arguments, but if you'll indulge me for a moment, aren't the left supposedly the ones that want to tell us what to do?  So why is the Right getting involved in the personal politics of a woman's body?   It just seems like such an outlier issue for that reason. 

I still don't understand the question.  Since when is taking a position on an issue "telling others what to think?"  I haven't weighed in because your question makes no sense to me.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #217 on: April 12, 2016, 01:07:05 PM »
I'm probably one of the more tame PRO LIFE people out there. I believe it's a baby...I do. But, as it stands....it's not illegal to have an abortion and I'm not down with trying to tell people what to do with their lives. We all get to make our choices, and have to live with the results of those decisions.

 I wish there would be more education for women, especially the younger crowd who are getting these abortions. Not only to the state of the baby when they are aborting it but the psychological impact it'll have on them. You can't discount the negative impact of the physical and mental trauma that a woman goes through....



I apologize for repeating what I've already said, but I wish there was a way to get the truth out to everybody. I know a lot of people hate the idea of putting out "gory pictures and films" for others to be forced to watch, but there has GOT to be a way to make the father AND the mother aware of what they're doing and what they're killing in these situations. It often has a traumatic effect on the fathers as well, and one of the worst things about the current law is that even if they're married, the mother can have the baby killed without even informing her husband that she was pregnant.
So as far as "not being down with telling people what to do with their lives" is concerned, that only "works" if ALL abortions were done in secret, and NO one who would EVER be effected by the "choice" finds out about it at ANY time after it happens. Otherwise at least one other person WILL be affected by the death of the baby.

Where is the "truth" in this?   There's no "truth" here, just what you believe to be true.   

Again, I'm going to ask: what is it about this topic that makes people think they have a right to make moral and factual decisions for someone else?   If I think it's a fetus - or not - why does that impact you?    If it traumatizes someone, why does that impact you?  Aren't those consequences that I (meaning, the decision-maker, not "Stadler") have to live with? 

My therapist has said repeatedly that short of the premature death of a parent, "divorce" is the most traumatizing thing that can happen to a child under a certain age, and yet there were something like 1,000,000 divorces in 2015.   So honestly, we - as a society - are not that interested in avoiding "trauma".

So you're telling me that everything I said there is just my OPINION, and that that opinion is WRONG. According  to YOUR way of thinking, abortions DO happen in a vacuum, where nothing else EXISTS! If a guy's wife has an abortion, it won't really affect HIM, and even if does, who gives a shit, because it's none of his business anyway, RIGHT?? If a young girl gets pregnant and has an abortion without even bothering to find out if her parents WANTED to have a grandchild, and are or would be very hurt by that decision, it doesn't matter because the most important thing is that she got to exercise her right to freedom of choice, and the abortion clinic made it's money, right? And just because YOU THINK people aren't trying to avoid trauma, that makes all of this all right, right? Those are some of the most absurd arguments I've ever HEARD!!
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #218 on: April 12, 2016, 01:10:11 PM »
I saw someone the other day refer to pro-choice people as "anti-life".  There's a reason I've hidden this person from my Facebook timeline.  I think that's inappropriate, no matter what you believe.

I've also heard pro-life protesters being referred to as "anti-choice terrorists!" So what would be your POINT?
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2628
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #219 on: April 12, 2016, 01:11:25 PM »
Goodbye, Chaossytem.  You have been warned repeatedly on this forum and refuse to comply with those warnings.  Your posting privileges have been revoked.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5440
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #220 on: April 12, 2016, 01:25:10 PM »
Oh.... well I was going to respond, but I guess I'll just say this.

If a young girl gets pregnant and has an abortion without even bothering to find out if her parents WANTED to have a grandchild, and are or would be very hurt by that decision, it doesn't matter because the most important thing is that she got to exercise her right to freedom of choice, and the abortion clinic made it's money, right?

The grandparents' thoughts should never hold more weight than the parents' decision. The possible children aren't even theirs. I realize that many parents really look forward to having grandkids, but this really struck me because I know many people whose parents are hounding them to hurry up and get married so they can get their grandkids. I know they don't mean to be this way, but sometimes it comes across as rather selfish.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19084
  • Bad Craziness
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #221 on: April 12, 2016, 01:47:29 PM »
I'm probably one of the more tame PRO LIFE people out there. I believe it's a baby...I do. But, as it stands....it's not illegal to have an abortion and I'm not down with trying to tell people what to do with their lives. We all get to make our choices, and have to live with the results of those decisions.

 I wish there would be more education for women, especially the younger crowd who are getting these abortions. Not only to the state of the baby when they are aborting it but the psychological impact it'll have on them. You can't discount the negative impact of the physical and mental trauma that a woman goes through....
That's a somewhat dicey thing. While it's undeniable that some people are traumatized, it's also the case that some people aren't the slightest be phased by it (I can cite several from my own circle of friends). In trying to deal with the folk who might be negatively affected, you run the risk of traumatizing women who were otherwise emotionally healthy and making necessary, if perhaps unpalatable, decisions regarding their future well-being. Suffice it to say, I'm no fan of compulsory "education."

That said, there are certainly a lot of emotionally fragile people out there and I'm not at all unsympathetic to them. I'd just prefer that their inability to cope not be the basis for deciding policy for the rest of the world.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #222 on: April 12, 2016, 02:28:05 PM »
I might be judging here, but I think a lot of people when looking at abortion (at least the ones a few weeks into development) believe/acknowledge they are killing a human, but it's easy to write it off. I eat chicken almost every day, but if I had to look one in the eyes and slit its throat, I wouldn't be able to. Never seeing the chicken before taking its life makes eating it super easy. I believe a large element to getting an abortion is an out of sight, out of mind mentality. Even if you know there's a baby in you, if you never saw it, held it, or had a chance to fall in love with it, letting it go is significantly easier.

Here's why I asked (and will keep asking) the question I've asked about the yearning to tell others what to think. 

I think the debate as to whether it's a "human" or not is really a red herring in this regard.  I happen to believe that it is "life" once the two cells join.  I can understand - even if I disagree - that there is an argument that perhaps "life" doesn't start until viability or birth.  But why does my determination matter to you? We talk about "killing humans" all the time.   Every day.   Death penalty.   "Bombing the shit out of towelheads".   We don't have a problem in selling t-shirts that show George Bush with a gun sight over his face, but we're going to debate two cells that most women don't even know exist inside them until weeks later? 


It doesn't. That's why I personally would try to convince my girlfriend to not have an abortion while at the same time donate $500 a year to Planned Parenthood  :lol

But your reason, logic, rationality and humility (haha, I'm trying to weasel a beer out of you in a weeks time!) seems to be the exception not the rule today. 

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2628
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #223 on: April 12, 2016, 02:29:30 PM »
Coincidentally, there is a demonstration planned tomorrow outside my building.  An email went around saying there was a planned demonstration in support of Planned Parenthood, and then a correction email a few minutes later saying it is a "pro-life demonstration."  I just thought the timing was funny, given the discussion here.  :lol
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #224 on: April 12, 2016, 02:39:51 PM »
I still don't understand the question.  Since when is taking a position on an issue "telling others what to think?"  I haven't weighed in because your question makes no sense to me.

I am not a woman, but for arguments sake, let's say I find myself in a position to make the call to abort (and let's assume that we can ever make a decision such as this without actually being in the moment).  TO ME, life begins when the sperm and the egg combine.   So FOR ME, I don't ever see the situation where I would do that.   BUT... even if it was my daughter (whom I might nominally have sway over, minor, consent, etc.) that is HER decision.   HER call as to whether she believes it to be just or not.  I literally do not have a vote.

More importantly, when it comes to the law of this country, I don't feel like I have standing to call for a law that contradicts that point.  Why do so many people feel entitled to not only tell others what their belief is, but also - via the law - what they can and cannot do with their body?  Chaos wants to shame people into his way of thinking by showing horrific videos that would never pass muster in a court of law by virtue of being prejudicial.   Why here?

This isn't like a robbery statute, where we're not telling people not to steal because we want to control them, we are telling them that others will not tolerate their shit being taken.   It's not about the thief, it's about protecting the rights of property owners. 

(And no, the "it's a baby, it has rights to be protected" is not a suitable answer, because there is no consent for that entity; we deal with this every day in terms of minors and it isn't a problem to have the parents make custodial calls up to the age of consent.  Part of the question here is the individual determination as to whether that line has been crossed.  Isn't that up to the individual carrying the child?  It is, after all, an extension of their being at that point?)

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2628
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #225 on: April 12, 2016, 02:47:55 PM »
I can't speak for others, but as for my opinion, I addressed it earlier in my post.  There are two people's rights at stake:  (1) the mother's right to make choices about her body (not to mention her future); and (2) the child's right to live.  To me, as important and vital as the other rights are, the right to live trumps.  Sorry if you don't find it a suitable answer, but I see no reason why it is not.  We make laws all the time to protect those who are unable to protect themselves.  To me, this is an extension of that.  If the baby is a person and has a life, it is unable to protect itself.  Yes, parents are able in some situations to make decisions impacting the lives of their children.  But we have a number of laws in place in the various states that do not permit parents to abuse their children, kill them, etc.  This is really not much different to me. 

So, again, given that your question is coming from someone who understands that law and policy decisions are made all the time that have to decide which rights win out when rights of different individuals come into conflict, I have a hard time understanding where your question is coming from. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16185
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #226 on: April 12, 2016, 03:26:26 PM »
To me, as important and vital as the other rights are, the right to live trumps.  Sorry if you don't find it a suitable answer, but I see no reason why it is not.

But why do we value life so much?  It's because we are alive!

No one seems to care about the life a a tumor, or the life of those pesky ants you just stomped on.  We pick and choose what "life" is important to us.

That was summarizing George Carlin on this (which I linked to at some other point in this thread).  Which is funny, but it's a legit thought on "life".  I'm not arguing you, just throwing that thought out there for conversation because it comes into my mind whenever people talk about the right to life.  We constantly deny the right to life to many things, including humans.

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 541
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #227 on: April 12, 2016, 03:42:43 PM »
Cram brings up a good angle to this. I don't have a strong opinion on the abortion issue, but I do find myself 'troubled' in some way by statements like (from Stadler's post) "I believe life begins when sperm meets egg". If it's going to be written in that way then the word "life" matters here and needs further explanation. What kind of life? Because after all the sperm is life, the egg is life, and everything that surrounds them is life. What is the nature of this life that "begins" when sperm meets egg, a nature not shared with an unfertilized egg, and what does it mean to describe this life as having begun? What is it (in "life" terms) that didn't exist moments before the conception that did exist after it?   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19084
  • Bad Craziness
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #228 on: April 12, 2016, 04:02:15 PM »
Presumably a unique, human person. Some here will undoubtedly call it a soul. I would call it something more physical and less spiritual. Of course all of this is something nobody has ever actually been able to figure out (claims of knowledge from on high not withstanding).
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline ronnibran

  • Posts: 485
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #229 on: April 12, 2016, 04:37:51 PM »
Yay, first post in P/R forum!  Wasn't sure I had been granted permission.  I voted "pro life with exceptions (rape, incest, etc)".  I personally view the fetus as a human, and that view is coming from a religious background (there's some Bible verse about God loving you while you were in the womb or something - obviously I'm not super zealous and am probably misquoting, but you get the jist). 

Another thought process I have, is that partial birth abortion just seems obviously wrong to me, you may as well be killing a baby that has come out already.  So since many see the "gray area" of "when do you assume the fetus is a human", I guess I just trace the "almost born" backwards I can't distinguish anything other than conception.  Side note: a lot of people get so caught up on the baby not being human until it's born, but if a murderer kills a pregnant woman he can be charged with two murders.  That baffles me.  I can understand an additional charge, but you get what I'm getting at.

Just posting my personal view.  I am not a debater and have a hard time defending my view other than it being my own personal opinion.  I know personally someone who has had an abortion and don't judge them for it, nor do I find it easy to justifiably argue that abortion should be illegal (let alone a possibility anymore so I would never vote based on this issue alone, unlike my folks and how I was raised, that are pretty much Republican lifers just on the pro life thing alone).

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16185
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #230 on: April 12, 2016, 05:40:07 PM »
It doesn't take much to appreciate life.  Rats, lizards, dogs, etc. 

And if we want to go down the plant life route, invasive species are usually undesirable because they destroy (kill) the *innocent* plant life.  You can view that as "death penalty" or those plants not getting adopted at the nursery.

The human embryo is not going to be born as a wookie, despite the Chewbacca-Leia affair rumors.  So some of this seems a bit of a stretch.  Especially when others do in fact hold non-human life as life.

Tumor seems like a stretch.  Are we using that to compare a baby as being invasive to a host?

"Save the tumor" I paraphrased from George Carlin which is meant to be funny but also thought provoking.  Tumor is definitely a stretch, but a tumor is also technically "life" so that's kind of the point of the importance of life is selective by humans, and it mostly seems, humans alone.

Presumably a unique, human person. Some here will undoubtedly call it a soul. I would call it something more physical and less spiritual. Of course all of this is something nobody has ever actually been able to figure out (claims of knowledge from on high not withstanding).

This is a really good point

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19303
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #231 on: April 13, 2016, 06:38:38 AM »
Cram brings up a good angle to this. I don't have a strong opinion on the abortion issue, but I do find myself 'troubled' in some way by statements like (from Stadler's post) "I believe life begins when sperm meets egg". If it's going to be written in that way then the word "life" matters here and needs further explanation. What kind of life? Because after all the sperm is life, the egg is life, and everything that surrounds them is life. What is the nature of this life that "begins" when sperm meets egg, a nature not shared with an unfertilized egg, and what does it mean to describe this life as having begun? What is it (in "life" terms) that didn't exist moments before the conception that did exist after it?

Not disagreeing with your post as a whole, but I'd like to address the bolded part.

For starters, like you said, the sperm and the egg are both living cells. They are organisms with 23 chromosomes. When combined, they form a new creature, one with a 46 chromosomes. This alone already distinguishes it from 99%+ of the animal kingdom (fun fact, a potato has 48 chromosomes). Now, there are dozens of known species that have 46 chromosomes, so I guess you could say a newly combined egg and sperm could be one of many creatures, not necessarily a human. Until it forms, it might be a human, it might not. We'll call it Schrodinger's Zygote.

That's an acceptable position until you test the genetics of this zygote. While it does share its 46 chromosome makeup with many species, it has one genetic signature. One that is distinguishable throughout all of nature and biological history. A signature that belongs only to that of a human. Even before organs and shapes develop, that signature is loud in clear.

Below is the genetic family tree tracing back to the center and the earliest form of life we know of. There are some 2.3 million species on it. The genetic signature found in the zygote, the one that's created when human sperm meets human egg, is only found in one place. In my mind, that means a human life has begun.


« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 06:48:42 AM by Chino »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #232 on: April 13, 2016, 10:05:21 AM »
Cram brings up a good angle to this. I don't have a strong opinion on the abortion issue, but I do find myself 'troubled' in some way by statements like (from Stadler's post) "I believe life begins when sperm meets egg". If it's going to be written in that way then the word "life" matters here and needs further explanation. What kind of life? Because after all the sperm is life, the egg is life, and everything that surrounds them is life. What is the nature of this life that "begins" when sperm meets egg, a nature not shared with an unfertilized egg, and what does it mean to describe this life as having begun? What is it (in "life" terms) that didn't exist moments before the conception that did exist after it?

This feeds to what I was asking.

TO ME, this is when there is a transformational change as opposed to an incremental change.   I think I can differentiate a tumor from a zygote (at least in my head) rather easily.  But the important point is that I can separate this from what others might think.  If you say life starts at viability, or at birth, I get that from a conceptual standpoint.   I don't know what the right answer is, and there are people that hold each of these (and there are others) as the "right" answer, so by definition there IS no right answer.   So why not let the mother make that decision?  It's not the same as infanticide, because there are fundamental differences between a, say, 4 year old and a 4 month old fetus.   

I get the emphasis on "life" first; that's why the penalty for "murder" is more egregious than perhaps other laws that protect the rights of individuals. 

I guess the problem for me is that in most other cases the lines are clear, and the policy reflects those lines, and whether you disagree with the lines or not, it's not like one doesn't know where that line is.   Here, not so much.   How can you emphasize "life" if you don't agree on what "life" is?   When you have disagreement, generally we ask the stakeholders for their input.  Who has more input than the mother when it comes to being the stakeholder for an unborn entity?

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #233 on: April 13, 2016, 11:18:56 AM »
For me, it isn't "when we can see that living processes are taking place."  That happens as soon as the egg is fertilized.  But living processes are also happening in every one of my organs.  "Life" is happening.  Cells are subdividing, creating new cells.  They are taking in oxygen, and expelling waste.

But my lower intestine is not a person, any more than a zygote is a person.  My spleen is not a "life" any more than a zygote is a "life".

Now eventually, the zygote becomes an embryo, and later still it becomes a fetus.  To me, the fetus stage is where things get tricky.  But that's just me.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 11:26:26 AM by hefdaddy42 »
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 815
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #234 on: April 13, 2016, 11:24:02 AM »
I tend to agree with that hef.


Chino, what are your thoughts on stem cells?

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19303
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #235 on: April 13, 2016, 11:39:40 AM »
Chino, what are your thoughts on stem cells?

Love em'

I'm completely fine with harvesting stem cells from abortions. I wouldn't like to see a program in place where we purposefully were creating fetuses just to abort them for the cells, but when a baby is aborted, I think it would pretty wasteful to not take the stem cells.

Also, we've found we don't need an embryo to obtain embryonic stem cells. We've have a lot of luck with birth material that comes out during pregnancy. A lot of parents are freezing these objects in the event their offspring needs stem cells down the line. 

Not pursuing the benefits of stem cells because of the touchy subject of abortion would be a huge slap in the face to humanity.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 12:08:34 PM by Chino »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #236 on: April 13, 2016, 11:46:39 AM »
For me, it isn't "when we can see that living processes are taking place."  That happens as soon as the egg is fertilized.  But living processes are also happening in every one of my organs.  "Life" is happening.  Cells are subdividing, creating new cells.  They are taking in oxygen, and expelling waste.

But my lower intestine is not a person, any more than a zygote is a person.  My spleen is not a "life" any more than a zygote is a "life".

Now eventually, the zygote becomes an embryo, and later still it becomes a fetus.  To me, the fetus stage is where things get tricky.  But that's just me.

But  - and this is what I was alluding to when I said I could differentiate between a zygote and a tumor - a zygote isn't JUST a life process.   There is no zygote without a fundamental first step that doesn't happen with your intestine or spleen or a tumor, and that is the combination of chromosomes to form what is, from a DNA perspective, a different entity.

Bosk, do you ever have difficulty explaining to people the significance of different legal entities?  I do a lot and this really feels like a similar discussion.   The zygote is NOT the same thing - on a DNA or cellular level - as the placenta it is attached to.   I know this is gross, but if you found a zygote and a fully formed kidney (which couldn't come from the zygote, by definition) and extracted one cell from each, you would clearly be able to tell the difference between them, to a fantastical degree. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #237 on: April 13, 2016, 01:06:15 PM »
For me, it isn't "when we can see that living processes are taking place."  That happens as soon as the egg is fertilized.  But living processes are also happening in every one of my organs.  "Life" is happening.  Cells are subdividing, creating new cells.  They are taking in oxygen, and expelling waste.

But my lower intestine is not a person, any more than a zygote is a person.  My spleen is not a "life" any more than a zygote is a "life".

Now eventually, the zygote becomes an embryo, and later still it becomes a fetus.  To me, the fetus stage is where things get tricky.  But that's just me.

But  - and this is what I was alluding to when I said I could differentiate between a zygote and a tumor - a zygote isn't JUST a life process.   There is no zygote without a fundamental first step that doesn't happen with your intestine or spleen or a tumor, and that is the combination of chromosomes to form what is, from a DNA perspective, a different entity.
Yes, I understand all of that. 

Makes no difference to me.  For me, the zygote is, in fact, a result of another life process (sexual intercourse/otherwise fertilized egg), and is certainly the first link in the chain that leads to a person.  But it is not a person in and of itself.  A piece of wood may become a piece of art, in the hands of a craftsman, but it isn't a piece of art until it's a piece of art.  Until then, it's just a piece of wood.

But that doesn't mean that I think you have to look at it the same way.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16185
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #238 on: April 13, 2016, 01:52:51 PM »
So since many see the "gray area" of "when do you assume the fetus is a human", I guess I just trace the "almost born" backwards I can't distinguish anything other than conception.

I thought this was an interesting point of view.

One could also trace back to when the heart beats, or when the baby is born, or when the head forms, there are so many spots to think "maybe now it is a human" and that's very much undefined as far as I know and anyone's view on this is fair game IMO.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19084
  • Bad Craziness
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #239 on: April 13, 2016, 02:07:46 PM »
So since many see the "gray area" of "when do you assume the fetus is a human", I guess I just trace the "almost born" backwards I can't distinguish anything other than conception.

I thought this was an interesting point of view.

One could also trace back to when the heart beats, or when the baby is born, or when the head forms, there are so many spots to think "maybe now it is a human" and that's very much undefined as far as I know and anyone's view on this is fair game IMO.
Cogito ergo sum.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #240 on: April 13, 2016, 02:21:58 PM »
And so back to my question;  if no one has an answer (or conversely, if everyone has an answer) why not just let the mother decide?  No matter what the answer, there is going to be SOMEONE who is up in arms, and given all that, why not make the one person who is likely to bear the emotional, physical, and economic burdens of that decision? 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19084
  • Bad Craziness
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #241 on: April 13, 2016, 02:25:32 PM »
Somebody posted this on another forum, albeit in a completely different context. It was a facebook thing from some nimrod. "I am upset with my parents for making me exist. You just decided to make a person one day? Who's going to pay my bills? Me? I didn't ask for this." I personally don't resent my parents for my existence (nationality is a different story). However I always found this an interesting point of view and one that I fully get on a philosophical level. None of us were consulted about the nature of our creation. As George Carlin, and later Cram, suggested, we value life because we're alive. That doesn't mean that every other person should share that affinity. Each of our parents decided, either deliberately or negligently, to provide us a life we have limited control over. It could be one of unimaginable wealth and ease, or one of hunger and misery until the buzzards get their dinner. That's a unilateral decision made by others with consequences greater than, well, anything I can conjure up.

I'm not really throwing this out there to change somebody's opinion; this is an abortion thread, after all. However I do find it interesting that people will defend so vehemently the right for an unborn somethingoranother to live, when it is in fact not actually a right at all. It is a consequence, which can be either great or terrible.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16185
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: IssueTalk: Abortion
« Reply #242 on: April 13, 2016, 05:16:32 PM »
I think that is another interesting view point on this subject.  Somewhat similar to the idea of an abortion might be best if the parents cannot properly raise a child.