|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 3, 2007 3:49:57 GMT -5
I have plenty of "firm objectives and consistent, rational basis" behind my reasons, the rudimentary point remains the same. I had a rebuttal to treehugger's post. That went down the way it was supposed to. Discourse is neither impossible or pointless, we simply weren't talking about this subject. Additionally, I don't need to justify it or have it taken seriously. This somewhat reminds me of a bit of dialog in The Matrix, where someone says, "Not everyone believes what you believe", and Morpheus says, "My beliefs do not require them to". It's the same with me. Also, it doesn't allow anyone to say anything for any reason, because there is plenty of reason, unlike your idea of "anyone anytime anything". And finally, you say this: Typically, using logic to analyze beliefs helps flush out how strong those ideas are.. And I'll leave you with this: My beliefs are anything but typical. “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14) Now, if I claim to view things differently than the level you're used to dealing with, how can I defend my beliefs using your rationale? I can't.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 3, 2007 3:55:50 GMT -5
I don't agree with your main point, Technocrat, but I will say something to back up part of your arguments:
A child does not have the same rights as adults. A retarded adult does not have the same rights as someone who is not retarded (for instance, someone who can barely move shouldn't be able to get behind the wheel of a car and drive)
A dog does not have the same rights as a person. Why? Because the dog cannot communicate in the same manner that we do, the dog cannot function in our society like a person. A fetus cannot even function as a child. A fetus cannot even function as a newborn baby. A fetus cannot function--currently at this time with our current technology--outside the mother.
Would abortions be more humane if they removed the baby from the mother and just let it die from not having what it needs?
I think abortions are wrong, let me say it again, but I think it is currently necessary to have them legal. I could live with them being illegal to use as blatant contraception, and I agree with the idea of very late-term partial-birth abotions (where the baby COULD survive outside the mother) completely illegal.
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Nov 9, 2007 17:38:29 GMT -5
I'm baaaack! ;D Sorry for the delay in response here. I've been super busy with my forum and although I've read everyone's responses, I have only now been able to make it back to reply. That all said, I'll start with ess2s2 (as he responded to my stuff first a couple weeks ago). Treehugger, I agree with 99% of your post in reference to me. The only thing I take issue with is your interpretation of the word 'attitude' which I meant in the neutral sense and you seemed to interpret in the accusatory sense. I am only clarifying, I do not wish to explore the matter--which is unrelated to this discussion--further. Point taken. I did indeed misinterpret your intent. Normally when someone tells me I have an attitude, it is in a negative sense. LOL My apologies on that one. I wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of a fetus. It is a 'someone' at the first sign of brain activity. Which is classically accepted to begin near the end of the embryonic stages of development. Who "classically accepts" that definition? Nobody I've heard of. In the medical field, a fetus and a baby are clearly two different things. A fetus is not a separate entity. Any medical bills for fetal abnormalities and conditions are billed on the mother's account (as the fetus is part of the mother's body at that stage of development). Medical coding describing a fetal condition is vastly different from medical coding regarding a newborn. Furthermore, a fetus is not included in any census. A fetus cannot obtain a Social Security number. A fetus is legally and medically not the same as a child. A fetus is no more a child than an egg is a chicken. Of course, the legal definition is after the point of viability, meaning after the point at which the fetus can be delivered and be able to survive and develop autonomously. From a medical standpoint, that's debatable, too. That said, 98.8% of women don't have abortions where the fetus is developed enough to be delivered and survive. And the remaining 1.2% of that statistic includes abortions of medical necessity. Needless to say, late-term abortions are a rarity and certainly no reason to initiate sweeping legislation over. Women are very good at making responsible and timely decisions regarding abortion. From the Alan Guttmacher Institute: By your definition given to Hackfest, a baby isn't someone until after it passes through the birth canal into this world. This rationale negates all the things that happen in the womb in the late stages of pregnancy such as fine and gross motor control, hiccups, urination, defecation, blinking, thought, pain response, and yes, emotion. Legally it's not. Please show me differently and I'll consider it. Medically, a fetus is treated differently than a newborn. That's a fact. A fetus has no legal status. Allow me to be absolutely clear: I do not disagree with a woman's right to choose. I may vehemently disagree with many of the reasons why a woman would get an abortion, but I still support the choice, as long as it is informed, and all other options have been carefully considered. I take serious issue with women getting abortions out of the sake of convenience, or as an afterthought to irresponsibility. This next sentiment constitutes a line unto itself. Abortion is not birth control. Ever. I don't believe that abortion is used as birth control in the vast majority of cases. And on the rare occasions in which it is......do you really want that person to be a parent? Our social services department is already underfunded and overburdened. It has no resources to police the homes of people who have been forced to bring unwanted children into this world. It can't even police the cases it has now. Abortion is not anything to celebrate. However, I'd much rather see an aborted fetus than a two-year-old admitted with cigarette burns all over it's body or a crushed skull from being thrown into a wall by a frustrated, under-educated parent. EVERY child should be a wanted child. Parenthood should be a choice. Statistics disagree. The CDC and the Alan Guttmacher Institute have reported the number of abortions have been on the decline for the last several years. Foolproof solution, granted. However, it goes against human nature. People have always had sex and likely always will. Because of that, I believe abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. "Rare" can be accomplished by: ---expanding educational opportunities. ---making contraceptives free and readily available. ---making the "morning after" pill available over-the-counter.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 9, 2007 17:46:10 GMT -5
That morning after pill is crucial. In fact, that is a type of abortion that I really have no qualms about whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Nov 10, 2007 15:53:02 GMT -5
Alright, here we go. First up, Treehugger, you said that you don't see a fetus as a "someone" but a "something." I see them as a someone based on several key things. My stance on that is more than valid, especially in the first 20 weeks of gestation. And, as I cited in my other post above, 98.8% of women make that choice within that time frame. 3 Weeks after Fertilization The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes. 4 Weeks after Fertilization The heart is beating. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified. <snip for space> What is your source on this, Hackfest? Just curious. Whatever the development of the fetus/baby, this does not give another entity the right to reside and feed off the bodily organs of another person who does not want that responsibility. Scenario: Let's say Terri Schiavo were still alive on life support today. And suppose medical technology had a way in which Terri could live a full life.....but that could only be accomplished by allowing her to feed off the bodily resources of one of her parents. Would you say a court of law has the authority to MANDATE that Terri's parents allow her to feed off their bodily resources, even against their will? If the answer is "no," why are you giving MORE rights to a fetus than an already-born person? Also, how do you feel about forced organ donation and forced blood donation in a life-or-death scenario? As I stated earlier in this thread, my stance on this is about freedom and bodily autonomy. Pregnancy isn't fun. When pregnant, a woman is at risk of developing many different conditions, many of which are debilitating (and some even life-threatening). www.who.int/reproductive-health/impac/diagnoses.htmlOpening oneself up to these risks should always be voluntary, I think. Ideally, I would like to see something like an 'artificial womb' become a reality. Then, the fetus could be transferred and gestated without terminating. However, at this point in time, that's not possible. Women own their bodies. Nothing/nobody has the right to use our bodies against our will. My hope is that modern science will someday provide us with better options. From all I've read, ectogenesis isn't far from becoming reality. But, until that happens, abortion needs to remain safe and legal. That, I'd support any sane plan to try to reduce abortions. But not at the expense of our right of say over our own bodies. Here's some pictures of the "something." Let's call a spade a spade. <snip bloody fetus pics> Bloody fetus pics? Dude, c'mon. Do you think I haven't seen stuff like this before? I work in the medical field. Do these (admittedly grotesque) pictures give the US court system the right to comandeer women's bodies and force them to give birth against their will? I say 'no,' they don't. Abortion's not pretty, I realize. However there needs to be more pragmatic solutions put in place to reduce unwanted pregnancies (which will, in turn, reduce abortions). Taking away a person's freedom of choice over their own body isn't an option. I post these because I CAN NOT stand it when people sugar-coat for convenience. I'm not "sugar coating," Hackfest. Far from it. Abortion is sad......and I'd love to work to find a way to reduce abortions. However, that doesn't give the court the right to impose forced gestation and forced childbirth. As I said before, we need to: ---Expand educational opportunities to those most at risk. ---Make contraceptives free and readily available. ---Make the "morning after" pill free and over-the-counter. These steps will make marked progress towards reducing unwanted pregnancies. You say that "women are human beings" and should not be forced based on that fact. These are human beings too. I disagree (legally and medically). But, regardless, nobody has the right to use a woman's body against their will. Modern science needs to create another way to gestate the fetus/baby aside from inside the uterus of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant. You also say that "Plus, outlawing abortion isn't going to stop abortion. It's only going to remove access to safe abortion." as if that were a true statement. Really?! It will ONLY REMOVE ACCESS TO SAFE ABORTION? It won't DRASTICALLY reduce it? Come now, that's silly. Not silly at all. The only thing criminalizing abortion will accomoplish is ensuring that women DIE in unsafe, illegal abortions or in dangerous attempts to self-abort. Here's a picture for you: This is a woman who was simply trying to retain her bodily autonomy, pre-Roe v Wade. This is what banning abortion would give us. Even though abortion's still techinically legal, this kind of thing is already happening in this country simply because of lack of money or limited access (i.e. the parental consent laws). Check out this article: www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/01/23/reproductive_regression.phpHere's what's happening in South America as a result of abortion being made illegal. Look, statistics from the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute already indicate a consistent and steady decline in the incidence of abortion. What we need to do is push education and availability of contraceptives (two things the evangelical right are still passionately opposing). These are the keys to the problem - NOT forcing unwanted children into this world.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 10, 2007 16:00:50 GMT -5
Your Terri Schiavo example was GREAT!
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 14, 2007 16:49:50 GMT -5
I'll need to answer your post one quote at a time, since I can't spend too much time on one post at once. I'll start by saying this. When you post, "Bloody fetus pics? Dude, c'mon. Do you think I haven't seen stuff like this before?" this shows that you either A) didn't read my post, since you fail to address WHY the pics were posted, or B) you choose to ignore why I posted them and only wish to make points and not address points others have made. Either way, not cool. So I'll be answering your post, a little at a time, at my convenience, in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 14, 2007 16:58:48 GMT -5
This should be interesting. I look forward to it.
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Nov 14, 2007 19:45:41 GMT -5
I'll need to answer your post one quote at a time, since I can't spend too much time on one post at once. I'll start by saying this. When you post, "Bloody fetus pics? Dude, c'mon. Do you think I haven't seen stuff like this before?" this shows that you either A) didn't read my post, since you fail to address WHY the pics were posted, or B) you choose to ignore why I posted them and only wish to make points and not address points others have made. No, I addressed why you said you posted them: I maintain pictures like this are simply sensationalizing the debate, nothing more. I mean, what do I counter that with? I never "sugar-coated" anything. Abortion is a difficult and intensely personal decision. It's not to be taken lightly. And, fortunately, judging from statistics, it's NOT taken lightly by the majority of women who choose take this route. I disagree that a fetus, at that stage of development, is the exact same thing as an infant. But, that aside, that doesn't change the fact that nobody/nothing has the right to use another person's bodily organs against their will. I wasn't trying to be cool. And, as I said above, I believe I did address your stated reason for posting the bloody fetus pics. It was not my intent to be nasty (it's not my way), but do you have any idea how many times pictures like that are used in debates? It's exactly the appeal to emotion that has turned the abortion debate (not here, but in general) into a sensationalistic, unwavering battle instead of a debate based on hard facts and sensible solutions and alternatives. That's certainly fine. I'll keep checking in.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 14, 2007 20:06:47 GMT -5
I agree that a fetus is not the same as an infant. Again, if you were reading my posts, it would make sense to address things in that post in the purpose they were there for, instead of listing invented reasons why or negating the reasons. It helps to break down the barrier of the limitations caused by communicating in text form, as opposed to a conversation. Obviously, you do mean for it to be taken lightly enough, in that there should be zero accountability for irresponsible actions. That's pretty light. "Abort, protect yourself at ANY COST" is what you seem to be saying, even though the number of abortions done to protect the mother are minute. "Place the rights of the irresponsible idiot above ALL ELSE!" is what you are in the end, offering. When I said "not cool", it wasn't meant in the way of your social graces, just bad form. I don't really care how many times they've been used in debates that aren't this particular debate. I imagine that they are used quite a bit to guilt trip people, but again, I couldn't care less about your defense of that, since that's NOT why I posted them. You say that you did address that, but in reality your response was that grotesque pictures don't change it. I said that I put them there for the purpose of pointing out that the fetuses are people. If you want to talk hard facts, as you say, then don't say things like "The only thing criminalizing abortion will accomplish is ensuring that women DIE in unsafe, illegal abortions or in dangerous attempts to self-abort.", since that is ridiculous to claim and completely ignores reality in that the amount of abortions done would drastically drop as well as the point you made happening, however rare. All that being said, I'm completely with you on the ectogenesis idea. More later.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 14, 2007 22:03:36 GMT -5
Fetus are not people. People are thinking, feeling humans. Fetuses in the first trimester can neither think, nor can they feel prior to 6 weeks. Higher level thought doesn't develop until the second trimester. Try again. You are conflating "person" and "human." They aren't the same philosophically. Personhood is a philosophical concept of the self, of a thinking, rational human.
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Nov 14, 2007 22:39:51 GMT -5
I agree that a fetus is not the same as an infant. Again, if you were reading my posts, it would make sense to address things in that post in the purpose they were there for, instead of listing invented reasons why or negating the reasons. I assure you I read your posts, although I did misinterpret your words in some parts in a couple places. It happens. I agree. It can't be all that obvious because I DON'T take it lightly. Not at all. What I'm trying to articulate is that the judicial branch should have the right to make critical medical decisions for women. It's none of my business what another woman does with her body. It's also none of the judicial branch's business....or anyone else's, for that matter. The decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy is a deeply personal decision to be made by a pregnant woman and her physician(s). Statistics show that very few people "take abortion lightly." I just showed in one of my posts where the number of abortions has been steadily declining for years now. I also cited sources from the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute that showed where 98.8% of women who have abortions, have them early in their pregnancy. You misinterpreted my words. What I'm saying is " You have the right to abort if you aren't ready for the risks and responsibilities that come with pregnancy. Your medical decisions shouldn't be the jurisdiction of the courts." I would never tell anyone to abort (or not to abort). That's not my call. Nor is it yours. Let's see.....you prefaced the pics with and ended the pics with I responded to your clearly-stated reason for posting them (highlighted in red), not the "Here, take that!"-toned preface. OK, I concede that. Bad wording on my part. Abortions would decrease.....but, seriously, at what cost? And I do know for a fact that there already exists an entire network out there preparing for the overturning of Roe v Wade, should it ever happen. There will still be plenty of access to abortion. The rich women would travel to a choice-friendly state (or to another country) and the poorer women would take their chances with the back-alley quacks. It would be a sad state of affairs, imo, for a country that claims that their citizens are "free." I hope ectogensis becomes a reality one day. But I think we all know it would have to weather a lengthy storm from the evangelical right, much like embryotic stem cell research and the "morning after" pill has.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 14, 2007 23:06:18 GMT -5
Well said. There is much to ponder here. I think that the biggest difference here is how you and I think in the terms of what a fetus is. And yes,you're right - it does happen. I like when it gets worked out and everyone understands each other. I shouldn't have told you what you meant by saying "obviously", when what I meant is that it was obvious to my perspective. Technocrat, you could learn a lot here. Treehugger and I disagree on a major issue. We debate that issue. I respect my fellow Kizzume posters, they respect me, erego we can have great discussion and learn other points of view. 15 of your last 20 posts have been so ignorant and brash that I didn't even bother to read whatever you wrote on this particular thread. I would feel ashamed if I got my stuff moved to "Mean Spirited" and you should be as well.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 14, 2007 23:17:39 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I'm a late comer to this debate, but when two respectable debaters like Hackfest and treehugger are hashing it out, I've gotta get in on it. It makes me a better debater and thus a stronger intellectual just conversing with the two of you though I might vehemently disagree with your positions. Now I haven't read all of the posts, but let me see if I'm on the same page.
1) No one WANTS to have an abortion, they simply deem it necessary. 2) People have strong moral/social aversions to abortion.
Have we addressed the root issues? I mean, why abortions occur in the first place and how we can limit the number of abortions each year by limiting the factors that contribute to a woman finding abortion necessary?
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 15, 2007 0:52:38 GMT -5
Not everyone has a strong moral aversion to abortion. I see nothing wrong with killing a mindless fetus if it's in the interests of the mother. It bothers me no more to kill it and an embryo than it does to kill the chicken for dinner.
|
|