Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by zoloft
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
[more

In my eyes the women are not thinking or feeling any more than the child, so let them go to allies and die.

This is logically inconsistent. A fetuses brain is not developed enough to feel emotion, you can disagree all you like but the science is very clear. A woman on the other hand has fully developed higher brain function and therefore her life takes priority over an underdeveloped fetus This is the problem, peoples lack of scientific knowledge mixed with religious or emotional reponse instead of looking at something objectively.

Maybe, but then it has been established that they do respond to stimuli and most likely feel pain.


MayPresident Reagan´s Quote on Abortion
And Fetal Pain and Various Doctors Confirmations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing."
President Ronald Reagan
to National Religious Broadcasters,
New York Times, Jan. 31, 1984

"The ability to feel pain and respond to it is clearly not a phenomenon that develops de novo at birth. Indeed, much of enlightened modern obstetrical practice and procedure seeks to minimize sensory deprivation of, and sensory insult to, the fetus during, at, and after birth. Over the last 18 years, real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG (electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound. That the fetus responds to changes in light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold, and to taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by the fetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering work of the late Sir William Liley -- the father of fetology.
Observations of the fetal electrocardiogram and the increase in fetal movements in saline abortions indicate that the fetus experiences discomfort as it dies. Indeed, one doctor who, the New York Times wrote, "conscientiously performs" saline abortions stated, "When you inject the saline, you often see an increase in fetal movements, it´s horrible."

www.mpomerle.com...

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

I've had my tubes tied, and I'm here to tell ya, it is very invasive surgery. I was out of work for 4 weeks.

That must have been some time ago, before arthroscopic surgery. My Wife had her Gall Bladder removed in a day surgery and was fit within five days to return to light duty. She was only in the hospital for five hours total. Things have changed. A Vasectomy is now done in an office visit. Having your tubes clipped should have been a day surgery at worst if it was recently done. Unless your not in the US or had a inept Surgeon. Or was there more to this surgery?

I don't know why we all keep having these debates anyway. I believe it is murder and I can not condone a person murdering their own children for convenience. Asking me to want my tax dollars used to pay for murder is totally unreasonable. It is legal and I don't protest it or want to be violent about it; all I ask is those who do not believe it is murder pay for it themselves.

Originally posted by MindSpin
You may want to stop proclaiming your logic

You might want to stop the ad homs

Originally posted by MindSpin

Really? At what week? You have scientific studies that show fetuses don't feel emotion???

Links and sources would be fine for those claims you are making....that would be the "logical" thing for you to do.

There is no evidence they feel emotion, their brains are too small. At 24 weeks the fetus is around 20cm in length, it's brain is like a walnut. We know that an adult human that has their brain cut away to the size of a walnut doesn't have much feeling so it seems perfectly logical that a baby wouldn't feel at that point.

Originally posted by MindSpin

I never realized that higer brain function determined life priority. Those poor alzhemiers patients...I guess their life isn't as prioritized as a fully funcitoning middle age person.

Your "logic" scares me.

The person with alzeimers once had the brain function and so we look after them, this is not comparable to a baby that hasn't yet developed higher brain function. Furthermore people with alzeimers often have emotion and periods of clarity, the two situations are not at all comparable.

Originally posted by MindSpin

You may want to brush up on your "scientific knowledge" as well...just because you look at something coldly and without feeling doesn't mean it is scientifically or ethically correct.

Actually looking at it coldly makes it very scientific, ethically i look at the bigger picture which involves increased rates of abuse, child murder and botched abortions leading to death in countries that ban abortion.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Let me leave with another note. Nobody here can define where life begins and where it ends. I've seen many claims, specifically from pro-lifers, regardling life beginning at conception. This is just your own assumption and nothing more. For all we know, life can begin the minute sperm is produced, now we all know the idea of outlawing masturbation is beyond insane, but we can go as far as that when insisting upon preserving all life and the natural process of reproduction. I don't think you are qualified to make that judgement buddy.

Does sperm contain fully formed human DNA?

If sperm is left to natural processes will it develop into a fully formed human?



Now let's look at a fertilized egg.

Does a fertilized egg contain fully formed human DNA?

If left to natural processes will a fertilized egg develop into a fully formed human?




My definition is quite simple...life begins when an egg gets fertilized, forms complete DNA, and cells begin to divide. If left to natural processes and everything goes as planned...it will form a fully formed human being. It will never form a dog, a cat, or anything else besides a human being.

Please show me a flaw in that description.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


A bacteria also responds to external stimuli and it's far smaller than the fetus, this doesn't mean it's a concious being, these are simply autonomic reactions. When someone sticks a pin in you then you move before you actually think about moving, this is the nervous system reacting, it doesn't require intelligence or conciousness.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by MindSpin
Is it logical to force taxpayers to pay for the murder of a fetus???

Oh ok, so if a womans life is in danger, and she needs to abort the fetus, and the government has to a fund it, you propose we let her die? I agree with the notion that abortion should not be publically funded, unless in extreme cases. There is no way you can completely remove public cost from abortion though, even if it was illegal. The costs would come about one way or another.

I will agree to that point. When the womens life is in danger because of malformed pregnancy...I have no problem with government funding.

Originally posted by MindSpin

Deciding to have an abortion because it is financially in ones best interests...that is something completely different. I like to call it being selfish.

Erm no, making a decision that having a child would mean you don't have the funds to raise it well is not selfish, it is thinking of the childs future. I would say that's compassionate.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

You might want to stop the ad homs

It would only be an ad hom if it wasn't true...otherwise it is friendly advice

There is no evidence they feel emotion, their brains are too small. At 24 weeks the fetus is around 20cm in length, it's brain is like a walnut. We know that an adult human that has their brain cut away to the size of a walnut doesn't have much feeling so it seems perfectly logical that a baby wouldn't feel at that point.

So where are those sources??? I like facts and sources. Forgive me if I don't just trust you.

You made a claim...you have the burden of proof. I'm sure you know this, because you are so "logical".

The person with alzeimers once had the brain function and so we look after them, this is not comparable to a baby that hasn't yet developed higher brain function. Furthermore people with alzeimers often have emotion and periods of clarity, the two situations are not at all comparable.

LOL...ok...let me find the goalposts again since you keep moving the darn things.

So now as long as someone has had high brain function at some point of their life...then they are ok.

I think you might know what is coming....

What about children born brain damage that never have very high brian function??? Are their lives not as important as people with fully functioning brains???

Do you see what happens when you make silly illogical claims??? I'm just trying to help you out.

Actually looking at it coldly makes it very scientific, ethically i look at the bigger picture which involves increased rates of abuse, child murder and botched abortions leading to death in countries that ban abortion.

No...looking at it coldy doesn't MAKE it very scientific. Looking at it scientifically MAKES it very scientific...which you have not done at all.

I truly believe that you THINK you are making perfectly logical and "scientific" statments...but you have yet to provide proof, sources, or any facts for any of them.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

A bacteria also responds to external stimuli and it's far smaller than the fetus, this doesn't mean it's a concious being, these are simply autonomic reactions. When someone sticks a pin in you then you move before you actually think about moving, this is the nervous system reacting, it doesn't require intelligence or conciousness.

Are you saying bacteria aren't alive???

Come on Mr Science...you should at least know this.

And now I see you are trying to move the discussion to "intelligence" or "conciousness"...which are NOT purely scientific concepts. Let's just stick with biology and the biological process of life...which IS purely scientific.

Can we agree on that? That "intelligence" and "conciousness" aren't purely scientific concepts? There is a lot of philosophy and psychology involved in those concepts.

So why not just stick to the basic biological process of life.


Is a plant "intelligent" or "conscious"??? Is a plant "alive"??? Can you "kill" a plant???

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by MindSpin

Deciding to have an abortion because it is financially in ones best interests...that is something completely different. I like to call it being selfish.

Erm no, making a decision that having a child would mean you don't have the funds to raise it well is not selfish, it is thinking of the childs future. I would say that's compassionate.

You have got to be kidding me.

Killing the child is thinking of the childs future???

Like I said before....your "logic" scares the hell out of me.

Originally posted by AsimpleAbstraction You people are pathetic. An unborn fetus is a pre-born adult human being. Don't get this confused.

What about sperm? Is this a pre-born adult human being? Shall we move the goal posts? Shall we move on to discuss as to what worth humans are compared to animals? Are you the supreme decider of all this? Since when did life official start "here" and "there"? Seems to be, pro-lifers hold no qualifications over that decision beyond talk. I certainly cannot say when life begins, what I do know is that we can apply the idea of life and the natural cycle of reproduction in so many ways.

You are obviously a fool. Your rights against the Child's rights.

So you consider a fetus a child, ok, so what about the rights of a pregnant woman? Do you intend to put force upon pregnant woman in this country? Do you intend to make them products of the state because you have personal views as to when life begins? Are you force woman to eat and care for these children? You support increased tax payer funds on investigations on all pregnant woman?

You are the fool here because you and others propose here is beyond reality.

Originally posted by MindSpin
So where are those sources??? I like facts and sources. Forgive me if I don't just trust you.

You made a claim...you have the burden of proof. I'm sure you know this, because you are so "logical".

Excuse me, are you saying that if you cut away someones brain to the size of a wallnut they will have all of the functioning, emotions, feelings of a normal person? This is basic deductive reasoning, i doubt anyone has written a paper on it but if you can't see how obvious that one is then it simply shows your bias is getting in the way.

All i have stated is that a brain the size of a wallnut isn't enough to feel emotion, if it were enough then a bullet to the head wouldn't be such a big deal would it.

Originally posted by MindSpin

LOL...ok...let me find the goalposts again since you keep moving the darn things.

So now as long as someone has had high brain function at some point of their life...then they are ok.

I think you might know what is coming....

What about children born brain damage that never have very high brian function??? Are their lives not as important as people with fully functioning brains???

Do you see what happens when you make silly illogical claims??? I'm just trying to help you out.

The children born with such conditions are alive and functioning, they are developed beings and actually they often do have some form of emotional function responding with smiles and the like. I'm afraid it is yourself that is moving the goalposts here by comparing a fully developed being to a fetus. Even if they're brain damaged they are still fully formed a fetus is not.

I started by saying higher brain function is important however i never stated it is the only important thing, but nice try slipping that one through

Originally posted by MindSpin
No...looking at it coldy doesn't MAKE it very scientific. Looking at it scientifically MAKES it very scientific...which you have not done at all.

Again you are twisting words. You claimed looking at something coldly doesn't make it scientific, i stated looking at it coldly does, what i meant by this is that science is absent emotion, it looks at facts and figures, evidence. Trying to twist what i meant is a disgraceful tactic. I would have thought it obvious when we were talking about science you would know i would look at it scientifically lol.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I truly believe that you THINK you are making perfectly logical and "scientific" statments...but you have yet to provide proof, sources, or any facts for any of them.

I have provided perfectly sound reasoning. If you believe a being can have full emotion with a walnut sized brain then that's fine, i doubt there are any papers to prove that one way or another because it's so obvious it's pretty much accepted. Otherwise we would consider the mousetrap a weapon of mass murder, because that's the size of brain we're dealing with.

You honestly need a factual document to back that one up? Sorry but i'm being quite logical, you are not.

Originally posted by MindSpin
You have got to be kidding me.

Killing the child is thinking of the childs future???

Like I said before....your "logic" scares the hell out of me.

And your inability to recognise logic makes me laugh. When someone is considering an abortion they often think about the life the child will have, can they provide the things it will need. This is looking into the future, well speculating into the future on known factors. If they think the child will have a bad life it is another reason to abort the child. So yes it is thinking of the child future and the life they might have and being unhappy with the life it will have.

This is very basic stuff and you keep trying to twist it but it won't work and you make yourself look silly.

reply to post by kevinunknown


The bible says you can kill your children if they act up.

What about the baby!
What about the mother!
What about the baby!
What about the mother!

I personally am against abortion and also pro-life (Mostly) I think that there is first of all no justifiable reason for abortion but I honestly don't think it should be 'illegal' to do so. Only because I think that no mother, no sane, healthy, able to think for herself, in her right mind, mother, in her RIGHT MIND should even begin to EVER even think of considering to destroy their own flesh in blood. Whether it be from the mothers white trash condom hating or gang banging boyfriend, or that guy in the ski mask that sexually assaulted her, it is still her own flesh and blood. If my girlfriend or future wife ever even mentioned anything like that, I don't know WHAT I would do. I think that if it was from lack of birth control then well, actions come with consequences. As for whether the girl was raped, well, there is ALWAYS another solution besides killing an innocent child. I mean I really don't know how something like this is even an EVENLY SPLIT argument. I agree with some people yes it probably is the overall human loss of morals over the generation, maybe it's just a selfish mother, maybe it's those parents that are to afraid of being awkward to simply explain to their kid to wear a damn glove, maybe it's just being scared and not knowing what to do, but there is always a better solution than destroying your own flesh and blood. It shouldn't be illegal to abort a human because there shouldn't even remotely be an argument too even do it. Abortion doesn't make you 'not a mother', it just makes you the mother of a dead child. Yes of course this is also mostly up to people to use protection in the first place, but accidents happen and an innocent child, (one that could have grown up, met his/her own significant other, could have had a job and a spouse and kids, could have enjoyed, well, life) shouldn't have to suffer for some scared preteen mothers actions, or some horrible mans lustful crime.
I also hate people who automatically associate pro-life with religion because it creates completely bias "well that's what RELIGIOUS people think so I disagree" opinions, I mean to the point where the person who posted this thread even has to warn everyone "just so you know! This has nothing to do with my religion!" I mean people, think for yourself. If we are people who have the will and guts and mindset to kill our own young, well then we're no better than the animals in my opinion. Well there we go, just another "life douche" opinion but hey just staying my opinion.
-Peace, or something like that idk what the hell people do to make their arguments sound more official on forums these days
-Sincerl- no
-love- no
-to whom it may concernnnnnnn
-the end
-what ever eff it thers my post BYE

I figured as much that the creator of this thread would be from Europe and more specifically Great Britain. Scottish folks, Ireland folks...they tend to take a dramatic crying stance to many things. They crave deep pain. They find suffrage in many things just so they can feel pain. There is something mysterious about Scottish/Irish folk. They are a very impassioned people but there direction is all wrong.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Are you saying bacteria aren't alive???

Come on Mr Science...you should at least know this.

Oh dear you are twisting words again. Bacteria are very much alive but i was pointing out that responding to stimuli doesn't mean you have thoughts or emotions. I used the bacteria as an example of an organism that is alive but not concious.

Originally posted by MindSpin
And now I see you are trying to move the discussion to "intelligence" or "conciousness"...which are NOT purely scientific concepts. Let's just stick with biology and the biological process of life...which IS purely scientific.

Actually i moved it nowhere, i was responding to what someone said. However i'm afraid there are certain scientific facts we know are required for what we call conciousness and a certain brain size is most certainly one of them.

Again do you think a bee is fully concious? What about a mouse?

Originally posted by MindSpin
Can we agree on that? That "intelligence" and "conciousness" aren't purely scientific concepts? There is a lot of philosophy and psychology involved in those concepts.

Yes other things are involved but i'm afraid a basic brain size is required from what we know and i don't think it's wrong to bring that one up.

Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
I figured as much that the creator of this thread would be from Europe and more specifically Great Britain. Scottish folks, Ireland folks...they tend to take a dramatic crying stance to many things. They crave deep pain. They find suffrage in many things just so they can feel pain. There is something mysterious about Scottish/Irish folk. They are a very impassioned people but there direction is all wrong.

Excuse me? Don't be fooled by my location on the left. I am Irish. And I find your comment deeply DEEPLY hurtful.....
Seriously though, I really am Irish but that has nothing to do with thinking that your comment was a little bit silly. Not to mention nothing to do with the thread....

reply to post by MindSpin

We were discussing when the biological process of life began...NOTHING about sentience was discussed until I pointed out that you seem to be getting the two confused.

1. What did you think I was talking about when I was discussing the human brain?

2. It seems that I have to be excessively clear to you and draw you a picture.

3. A sizeable quantity of the contents of all your posts have been ad-hominem attacks followed by "I worry where you logic is heading" not just to me but to everyone else, maybe its time to step down from your holier than thou pedestal, yes?

4. I have answered your questions in paragraph format after every post, yet you still continue stating that I have not, even when others say that I have.

5. You twist my words.

Finally, I distinctly remember someone stating that many use this website as a method of ego masturbation, this is perhaps one event. I am done being your stimulant, Enjoy

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Excuse me, are you saying that if you cut away someones brain to the size of a wallnut they will have all of the functioning, emotions, feelings of a normal person? This is basic deductive reasoning, i doubt anyone has written a paper on it but if you can't see how obvious that one is then it simply shows your bias is getting in the way.

ALL functioning...nah..probably not. But you didn't say ALL...you said NONE.

It's not basic deductive reasoning...which is why I am continuing to suggest you brush up on your knowledge of logic.

You should know, being the logical master that you are, that when you make a claim...you have the burden of proving it. Saying "it's obvious" isn't proving it. Show me some proof please.

All i have stated is that a brain the size of a wallnut isn't enough to feel emotion, if it were enough then a bullet to the head wouldn't be such a big deal would it.

Prove it.

And your bullet to the head comparison...lol. Wow. So are you saying infants...with smaller brains than adults...or even pre-schoolers...are incapable of "feeling" because if an adult gets shot in the head by a tiny bullet that it does damage????

LOL...too funny.

The children born with such conditions are alive and functioning, they are developed beings and actually they often do have some form of emotional function responding with smiles and the like. I'm afraid it is yourself that is moving the goalposts here by comparing a fully developed being to a fetus. Even if they're brain damaged they are still fully formed a fetus is not.

How am I moving the goal posts when I haven't even made a claim???

You keep making ridiculous claims...and keep having to backpeddle, redefine what you meant, or just completely change what you were saying.

It's ok to admit you are wrong...really...it doesn't hurt.

I started by saying higher brain function is important however i never stated it is the only important thing, but nice try slipping that one through

OH...you have other random criteria???

I'd love to hear what they are...please entertain me???

Again you are twisting words. You claimed looking at something coldly doesn't make it scientific, i stated looking at it coldly does, what i meant by this is that science is absent emotion, it looks at facts and figures, evidence. Trying to twist what i meant is a disgraceful tactic. I would have thought it obvious when we were talking about science you would know i would look at it scientifically

Yeah...I'm twisting words

I have provided perfectly sound reasoning. If you believe a being can have full emotion with a walnut sized brain then that's fine

You didn't say "have full emotion"...let me quote you.

A fetuses brain is not developed enough to feel emotion, you can disagree all you like but the science is very clear.

So...let's look at the CLAIMS you are making.

1) A fetuses brain is not developed enough to feel emotion. You don't say "full emotion"...you say "emotion"...period. Prove it. It should be easy considering your second claim of...

2) The science if VERY CLEAR. If the science is SO VERY CLEAR...please provide some sources on it.

That is all I am asking...provide sources to your VERY CLEAR science that fetuses feel NO EMOTION.

This is what you claimed...back it up.

This is the problem, peoples lack of scientific knowledge mixed with religious or emotional reponse instead of looking at something objectively.

Let's see that "scientific knowledge" there buddy...let's see you prove your "scientific" claims. And who said anything about religion??? Trying to inject controversy I see...sad sad sad.

Let's just stick to proving the claims you are making.