Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

quote:

---

Final? Nope. The discrimination against animals is already a hot topic.

---

I meant amongst people and I thought I took pains to make that clear:

quote:

---

Having denied people the right to life on the basis of gender, ethnicity, cultural affiliation and religion, the final form of legalized discrimination to the right to live in the US is based upon their place in the lifecycle. Abortion and the "right to life" are the final frontier in the human struggle for the right to exist.

---

The AR movement wants to make the case that all members of the Kingdom Animalia (except maybe unborn human fetuses) have the same rights that people do. Not that animals are actually Homo sapiens sapiens. I make the case that fetuses are as human before birth as they are after and thus entitled to the rights already entitled to human beings that just happen to have been born. After all, the US Constitution makes no distinction there so why is abortion legal in the US?This message has been edited by gene90, 05-08-2004 04:22 PM

Sorry, I see the point about people. The AR folks don't.You may "make the case" but I don't see a single cell as a human. I don't see several hundred cells as human either. I don't know how that issue can be resolved. It comes down to a matter of opionion I guess. That is why it will, overtime, be resolved democratically.The whole debate is exactly about the definition of a human being.It is apparent that, in the US, there is some chance of abortions being more restricted. However, I'm now comfortable that in my country they will not again be restricted. I also think as the demographics of the US shifts and the next generations come along the restrictions will be removed there too.I notice that the FDA has "disapproved" Plan B. It seems that someone wants more full scale abortions. Odd that? That's the sort of behavior that will be perceived as a bit on the extreme side. It will cause the anti-choice movement to run into the wall of public opinion that is there.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-08-2004 04:36 PM

quote:

---

You may "make the case" but I don't see a single cell as a human.

---

I can respect that. In fact I'm not sure if I personally define the creation of a human being to be at conception or at implantation. The latter is a possible choice because it is a large natural hurdle in the reproductive process.

quote:

---

However, I'm now comfortable that in my country they will not again be restricted.

---

That's none of my business. As an American I only intend to argue what America "should" do.

quote:

---

I also think as the demographics of the US shifts and the next generations come along the restrictions will be removed there too.

---

History will tell. I keep hearing that the current, upcoming generation is looking more conservative than its predecessors--with a couple of important differences from previous forms of conservativism here.I find it more likely that political conservativism has some degree of cyclicity across generations, with revolutions and counter-revolutions over decades of time.

quote:

---

I notice that the FDA has "disapproved" Plan B.

---

The "morning after" pill.

quote:

---

That's the sort of behavior that will be perceived as a bit on the extreme side. It will cause the anti-choice movement to run into the wall of public opinion that is there.

---

Maybe. Or it could mean that Americans are more conservative on abortion than previously thought.

So then, if asked if the puddle of sperm on the shower floor, genetically identical to myself in every way, is human, you err on the side of "yes."

I didn't know that a puddle of your semen, when left completely alone, will produce a human being the same way an implanted, fertilized egg would. That's a special talent.But if so, then yes.This message has been edited by gene90, 05-08-2004 05:46 PM

If left completely alone in a vagina it will. Does that make a condom an abortion?Moreover, a fetus doesn't become a human all by itself. It requires the constant input of nutrients from the uterus. Left alone, the fetus doesn't become anything but dead.It's funny that whenever I point out the inconsistency in a genetic definition of humanity, you shist seamlessly over to a completely different definition. Is it really so hard for you to come up with one consistent definition of humanity? It sure seems to be.

quote:

---

The whole debate is exactly about the definition of a human being.

---

I disagree. If it were the crux of the debate, why would pro-choice people like us have so much trouble deciding where a human being begins to exist? We're sure a baby is human when it's born, but where it achieves its humanness since being merely a single-celled fertilized egg is a question that no one can answer with scientific precision.People like gene90 want to define a fertilized egg as a human being (though even they admit it will 'become' a human being) so they can accuse people who disagree with them of being Nazi racist eugenicists. They change the entire issue from women's reproductive rights to a matter of an oppressed human who happens to be struggling with uterus-bondage. Anyone opposed to protecting the rights of a fellow human being must be a cynical atheist Nazi racist eugenicist. Did I miss anything?I'd like to thank gene90 for thinking none of us here notice the glaring flaw in his logic, something called the mother. He tries to make it seem like the fact that a fetus is still inside of and fully dependent on its mother's body is simply a detail of its status in the 'life cycle.' Sure, pal, pull the other leg.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

Of course, the boy involved probably bears themost 'fault', as boys can be very coercive and forceful when it comes to sex.

---

I'd just like to point out the most of the pregnancies of underage girls are fathered by adult men.

Well, OK, gene.Are you prepared to send women who get these safe, yet still illegal abortions, and the doctors who perform them, and the medical staff who support and arrange the procedures, and perhaps the friends and parents and husbands and boyfriends of the women who get these abortions, to prison?Are you going to put cameras in every doctor's office, or interrogate gynecologists regularly? How are you going to enforce this without seriously slipping into facist behavior?It seems like you are saying that illegal abortions are just as safe, but they are still shady, illegal procedures in your ideal world.It's also access, gene, that you haven't considered. If a woman doesn't know that illegal, but safe, abortion is available, she won't get one, or might resort to unsafe methods.If abortion is illegal, then merely asking around to find out where to get the illegal abortion could get a woman or girl into serious troble with the law, right?Also, will it become illegal to teach the procedure at medical schools?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-09-2004 12:59 PM

quote:

---

How do I know you're a human?

​

Maybe you don't reach the maturity level of a "real" human being until you reach...say...60? Thus making you (literally) a non-person with no rights.

​

Deciding that a human being has no rights based upon his stage in the lifecycle is dangerous.

​

The Constitution doesn't say anything about this. If the Supreme Court can decide that a black man is only 3/5s of a white man, then I guess we shouldn't be surprised when they call a fetus a non-person. Come to think of it, they could declare you or I a non-person just as easily.

---

Just answer the question, gene.You obviously know exactly and precisely when a egg and sperm become human.When is it and how do you know this?

quote:

---

Are you conceding that abortion is the killing of a human being?

---

Not at all.It is YOUR position that the act of abortion is one human killing another human, and that this is morally wrong.In the past, you have expressed much support of all sorts of killing that the military does, including the support of the US using cluster bombs and land mines.I was simply logically concluding that you must now be a pacifist, because you think that all killing of one human by another human is morally wrong.Otherwise, your position would be very logically inconsistent.

OK, you're right, asking you how many unwanted babies you are planning to adopt was a personal question.I apologize.What are you doing to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

As much as I might enjoy bringing up ancient history, your personal attack on me simply distracts from the issues at hand, wouldn't you agree?Let's stick to the topic.What do you do to prevent unwanted pregnancy?When, exactly and precisely, does an agg and a sperm become human, and how can you tell?

Interesting that you didn't list "encourage contraception use among high-risk groups", "increase knowledge of human reproduction among high-risk groups", as things that can be done to prevent abortion.Mostly, you listed creepy, invasive, and punative actions to take after pregnancy has occurred.Punishing pregnant women is too late in the process. Prevention of the pregnancy in the first place is much cheaper and doesn't require any punishment.I dunno, maybe you like punishing people.

quote:

---

I also think late term abortion is murder (third trimester) and should be outlawed. Lines are drawn everywhere in society and this is a line that is reasonable.

---

What if the mother will likely die if she doesn't abort? What if the fetus doesn't have a brain, for example, and will be born dead?