Is Abortion Murder?

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

. I prefer to view it as a battle to recognize the infant life and its rights

and i think Joe put a much clearer point up that you should consider

Well the issue here is sentience. A clump of cells isn't sentient, a human being is.

I happen to think that this is a major point, BTW. -Thanks Joe

It's not that we don't recognize the woman, but rather, we also recognize the person she carries

it also appears that you are willing to subjugate the woman for the sake of potential which, statistically speaking, will in no way reach the heights you are claiming are within it's grasp (so to speak)
the statistics bear this out by simple observation of the populace alone: there are very few "Einsteins" or "Feynman's" in the world...

you are willing to completely violate the rights of the host (woman) for the sake of a statistical anomaly that is almost guaranteed to not exist just because you want it. Isn't that a mite tyrannical? Isn't that directly against freedom of choice? Isn't that a bit narcissistic and a whole-lot of Dunning-Kruger to boot?

what makes you think you can beat the statistics?

This is what bothers me about this issue, since it's encapsulated within a woman, it has no rights of its own--much less the right to life.

and again, this is more about sentience and viability than "rights"... would you also assign rights to the same level of development in any other fetus regardless of species? what about (again) other cellular constructs that are far, far more able to survive, or are more important to the ecosystem?
can't you see the hypocrisy of your argument?

Some people disagree with abortion but won't give it more than a frown; whereas, others will actually protest and write their elected, trying to bring about change. It's the same with any issue that has two extreme sides of view. This one, though, involves life in the balance.

I disagree: this is not about balance at all!
this is about forcing opinions and a religious like tenacity to proselytize a perspective using emotional tactics and other strawman arguments.

You might remember sixteen or so months of discussion about the implications of asserting equal protection from inside another person.

Look, I'm glad you all are finally getting around to even trying to wrap your heads around the issue, but quit with the bullshit reframing.

I agree.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

It's an honest reply. I've attacked nobody, though I did ask a question. Life is HUGE. Whether you take it away from a person independent of the womb or take it away from a fetus within the body, you will have cheated them of something that is, really, amazing.

Bowser
some would take offense to your more outlandish comments re: murder/killing
see previous responses i've sent re: above

but besides that: when you say "life is huge"... you are referring specifically only to human life
this is like saying: "All cars are small. i know this because my 1979 Corolla is small, and i've seen most other '70's model Toyota, so i can thus conclude all cars are small because the evidence i experienced demonstrates this"
This is the reason anecdotal evidence is not logical and not used in the scientific method, BTW.

but what value would you place on your own life?

red herring and irrelevant. comparing apples to Seawater.

B.S. Most would trade all they have for another minute of life. Life is frivolous only in the minds of those who have it.

this is not only assumption, but might i also point out that there is a difference between the survival instinct and intentional choice?
case in point: Firefighters or Cops.
Both regularly put their lives on the line (and risk immanent and probable death) for the sake of people they do not know.
Soldiers are the very same, BTW... they routinely sacrifice self for others.
how do you know the argument is not legit?
i can't speak for Daecon, but i can for myself: i agree with D. (I am also a retired Firefighter [Truck Captain-hence the name] and Soldier)

More like give them an opportunity that they otherwise would not have.

how can you equate a struggle etc with "opportunity"?
are you trolling ?

Horrible because I would choose life over death?

i can't speak for spider, but i think it is horrible that you would choose to deny the rights of one person and subjugate them into some kind of test tube just because of a belief that is hypocritical
especially given your intentional irrational selectivity (called prejudice) and refusal to accept or review data

but that is just me...

 

[joepistole]

This article in he Scientific American is a good read;

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/?page=2

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I did say that I was an atheist, didn’t I? But it’s a myth, Captain. We don’t really eat babies.

i have enjoyed the occasional bovine youths (before being weaned, and various other types), and numerous avian and aquatic zygote... especially with youthful porcine flesh and certain youthful "new"starchy tubers (although, sometimes i like them grated and fried)...
LOL

humour is great, when recognized

The living PEOPLE involved.

Bowser
so now you are saying that all humans, from the point of conception, should have the same rights, regardless of age, in the eyes of the law?
Wouldn't that put you in quite a pickle if (say) your toddler got pissed about your "house rules" and decided to litigate?

As established, you don't actually believe an early fetus is a person; and as demonstrated, you have no respect whatsoever for the woman's life.

Good point

If anything, I've been arguing for the preservation of life

no, you've been arguing to preserve "human fetus", regardless of developmental stage.
there is a HUGE difference... i thought you would get that considering the previous posts!

I value life

again, see above. you only value "human" life. And i am not so sure you value "women" and their life at all... i can see you don't value their rights!
but that is just me.

That's what we're arguing here, the value of human life. And I believe to my very core that everyone participating in this thread values their own life, so much so they wouldn't throw it away--at least not as readily as they would that of a fetus.

you do NOT know everyone in this thread. stick with what you think you DO know, please

and you are not arguing the value of a human life: you are arguing the value of a fetus life.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Who said anything about intimidation or threats?

tali89
i sure didn't. PROTIP- that is a definition (- you know, those entries in dictionaries that define a word? -sarc/satire)
or are you simply cherry picking data to feel better about your position? Guilty? please either continue on from the words "intimidation or threats" and you will find the following "or some other form of pressure or force". this is not my wording. it is a definition and there is a reference link supporting my quote if you choose to read it (which, apparently you refused to do)
lets continue... hopefully there will be an improvement in reading and comprehension

You're reaching when you attempt to daisy chain a bunch of questionable propositions together in an attempt to demonstrate that urging someone to do something amounts to coercing them into doing something.

well... one could only hope.
Anyway...
Actually, i was demonstrating the following:
1- there is a huge difference between "Urging" and "informing" (there really was more after that quoted part... didn't you read it?)
and
2-... [i should just quote the part you didn't read] ...

This means, by your action of "urging", you are trying to use your authority over your child (or authority of age, gender, information, whatever you want to call it, it is argument from authority): you are establishing that you are an authority and "technically" bullying to make a decision. IOW- coercion

So...????
perhaps you should have continued further into the post and read the rest?
informing?
the last parts?
ring a bell at all?

Nobody in this thread has demonstrated how arguing in favor of a particular action reduces the choices available to anyone.

can you quote where anyone actually said that? can you link where someone was "arguing in favor of a particular action reduces the choices available to anyone"
that is not the point i was making... i was making a point based upon your posts... shall i quote them from beginning so you have a better idea of the reason i posted?

from what it appears to me, they are arguing that "urging" is not only different from "informing", but it is pretty much a nice way of saying "coercion" ... which you refused to accept, but i think i did a good job of demonstrating above (that post you didn't read the whole thing of, but quoted from)

All of this faux righteous indignation is just another attempt to hate on Capracus.

not on my part
i am not being emotional at all. although it appears you are...
are you?

What's ironic is that he considers himself a liberal, yet his own kind are more than willing to devour him when he disagrees in the slightest with the party line.

1- i hate party lines
2- i am neither liberal nor conservative. PERIOD. i consider myself a Truck Captain (RET) and Veteran. and i personally despise politics and religion (not a faith: there is a difference)
that doesn't mean i don't obey laws or that i want a socialist government, nor does it mean i am a dedicated xtian, creationist, republican, democrat, green, tea, or evil tyrannical overlord searching for the perfect way to rule the world (although, to tell the truth, i am considering the last one... i consider chocolate to be a fundamental right and my grocer doesn't seem to agree... but that is something for me to work out with the cops and psychiatrist - hyperbole and satire intended, just in case you lost your sense of humour as well)
3- what party line are you specifically referring to? a reference would be nice, so that i may be forewarned in the future.
4- there is a huge difference between arguing a point and devouring people who are not in agreement with the status quo, or party line.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

This article in he Scientific American is a good read;

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/?page=2

Thanks Joe...
interesting article.
i'll be trying to read the studies suggested in the (Further Reading) section.

 

[iceaura]

Where it magically becomes a person during a ribbon cutting ceremony.

Which would at least make sense - hence the US Census policies, immigration law, public health and insurance policies, etc. A lot changes when that umbilical cord is cut.

But as we know from the common medical practice and legalities and so forth, from induced labor to Caesarean section, from comparison with other cultures and various religions, and also from burial and death registries and the like, personhood is in fact gradually acquired over a span of about twelve weeks toward the end of gestation.

Or is reality somehow irrelevant here?

I prefer to view it as a battle to recognize the infant life and its rights

I'm sure you would prefer that view - it's much more comfortable for you than the one the rest of us have, in which you are battling to deny the pregnant woman life and rights.

So which view has support in evidence and argument? Do you have, say, any examples of you and yours battling to recognize the infant life and its rights as denied by polluting industry, State policies, the behavior of the father, the medical or religious institutions that deal with it, or anything whatsoever except the life and rights of the pregnant woman in the context of abortion?

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

​

Where it magically becomes a person during a ribbon cutting ceremony.

You know ...

So having it visible and outside the womb has nothing to do with aesthetics and emotion. A turkey, duck, or chicken in the process of hatching can be considered a non-bird until it exits the shell according to Dry Foot. Does this sound rational?

... I would have presumed, just from the number of posts you've spent on this question, that you were actually paying attention.

Then again, you're Capracus, so it really was a dangerous presumption.

Thank you for resolving the question; I shan't make that silly mistake again.

Yes, what kind of doctor would throw established medical ethics out the window for their own self interest?

Your point being?

Oh:

And I’m sure you feel that there aren’t enough ethically compromised cops and soldiers to warrant restrictions imposed on their conduct either.

There are enough ethically compromised cops in the U.S. right now that it should probably be illegal to be a police officer. Really, they're trained into corruption.

According to government standards, simply leaving it up to women and doctors is out of the question. So where does that leave your Dry Foot Policy?

The same place it's always been, which isn't hard to discern for anyone actually paying attention.

† † †​

Tiassa, (correct me if I’m wrong) feels that the right to life begins at birth. Any time prior to birth the fetus can be killed inside the uterus, but to kill a viable fetus, (let's say of 24 weeks) outside the uterus is considered murder. It’s odd to me. It doesn’t seem right to me that a being’s right to life should depend on its location.

To be honest, this point is kind of annoying because it seems to not matter that I've been through this repeatedly, before.

If you really think the dryfoot standard is merely about "location", you're not paying attention. Indeed, you even quoted a post from this thread↑ in which I reiterated previous discussions↑ about the dryfoot assertion. Here's an interesting fact: "To wit, from a thread Caparcus participated in, but a post he never responded to, though perhaps because it specifically addressed someone else ...."; the other person referred to in that sentence is you.

Admittedly, that post refers back to a different discussion with more about dryfoot, and isn't as explicit as prior iterations, but that's the thing; if I'm going to keep repeating myself, it would be helpful to know that the people asking are actually paying attention.

And, quite honestly, inasmuch as I can tell from their inquiries, no, they're not paying attention. Rather, it seems they're just aiming to be obnoxious for lack of any better ideas about what to say next.

 

[Secular Sanity]

K.I.S.S.-K.I.S.S.

Should there be limits on abortions? Yes.

And, quite honestly, inasmuch as I can tell from their inquiries, no, they're not paying attention.

No offense, but it's probably your forked tongue, and verbosity.

 

[Tiassa]

No offense, but it's probably your forked tongue, and verbosity.

None taken.

I mean, no offense, but when a dishonest, egocentric hatemonger like yourself complains of my forked tongue and verbosity, I take it as a compliment.

Look, I know you like to put up pretenses of "tough questions", but even setting aside your apparent lack of critical reading skills, your sloth belies any pretense of a tough question.

That is to say, sometimes tough questions require some effort to resolve.

Asking questions is easy. Calling them "tough" even more so. Actually putting in some effort? We recognize that is too much to ask of you.

And please do blow your kisses from a distance. I no more wish to smell your filthy mouth than kiss it.

 

[tali89]

tali said:
tali89 said: Who said anything about intimidation or threats?
"Truck Captain Stumpy: i sure didn't. PROTIP- that is a definition (- you know, those entries in dictionaries that define a word? -sarc/satire)

Huh? Did you just say that you didn't mention those words in your post, but you did when you posted the definition? Actually, you know what, never mind. I've already devoted an inordinate amount of time trying to sort through the inconsistencies of another poster on this thread, so I'll just let this one slide so we can get to the meat of the issue.

Actually, i was demonstrating the following:
1- there is a huge difference between "Urging" and "informing" (there really was more after that quoted part... didn't you read it?)

There can be. However, the two aren't always mutually exclusive. I can argue with a certain bias, but still put forward data or facts you weren't previously aware of. And even if I had no data, you'd still be exposed to a different perspective, which is a form of information.

can you quote where anyone actually said that? can you link where someone was "arguing in favor of a particular action reduces the choices available to anyone"

You (and a number of other outraged individuals on this thread) have argued that urging a woman to have an abortion is anti-choice. I want someone, anyone, to demonstrate to me how arguing in favor of a particular action reduces the choices available to the audience. I've put forward this simple request what must be 4 times now, and people keep skirting around the issue. They natter on about influence and coercion, or ask me to clarify how I feel about abortion (as if that has any relevance to the claim they made), but they can't support what is a very clear-cut statement.

that is not the point i was making... i was making a point based upon your posts... shall i quote them from beginning so you have a better idea of the reason i posted?

If you want to, although I don't see how that would be productive. Just show me how arguing in favor of a particular choice reduces the choices available to the audience.

 

[wellwisher]

Why is abortion needed in the first place, if there are so many precautions available that can preempt the need? It has to do with unconsciousness.

Should we be catering and paying for unconsciousness, when conscious choices, are possible that can preempt the need for an abortion? Going against abortion is an attempt to regulate unconscious behavior in favor of will power and choice, since there are preemptive choices available.

Why do liberals think unconsciousness should be catered to? Do liberals assume women are weak? Men are not given say in the abortion of their child. Are men assumed more rational?

 

[iceaura]

Men are not given say in the abortion of their child. Are men assumed more rational?

They are assumed to be less pregnant.

 

[Daecon]

Why is abortion needed in the first place, if there are so many precautions available that can preempt the need? It has to do with unconsciousness.

Should we be catering and paying for unconsciousness, when conscious choices, are possible that can preempt the need for an abortion? Going against abortion is an attempt to regulate unconscious behavior in favor of will power and choice, since there are preemptive choices available.

Why do liberals think unconsciousness should be catered to? Do liberals assume women are weak? Men are not given say in the abortion of their child. Are men assumed more rational?

What does this have to do with "liberals"?

You sound like tali.

 

[pjdude1219]

Huh? Did you just say that you didn't mention those words in your post, but you did when you posted the definition? Actually, you know what, never mind. I've already devoted an inordinate amount of time trying to sort through the inconsistencies of another poster on this thread, so I'll just let this one slide so we can get to the meat of the issue.

the only inconsistencies were your own. your ignorance and inability to read don't make inconsistencies in other arguments. sounds like another one of your temper tantrums is getting ready to come one.

There can be. However, the two aren't always mutually exclusive. I can argue with a certain bias, but still put forward data or facts you weren't previously aware of. And even if I had no data, you'd still be exposed to a different perspective, which is a form of information.

are you stoned?

You (and a number of other outraged individuals on this thread) have argued that urging a woman to have an abortion is anti-choice. I want someone, anyone, to demonstrate to me how arguing in favor of a particular action reduces the choices available to the audience. I've put forward this simple request what must be 4 times now, and people keep skirting around the issue. They natter on about influence and coercion, or ask me to clarify how I feel about abortion (as if that has any relevance to the claim they made), but they can't support what is a very clear-cut statement.

and its been explained to you 4 times. that you lack the wit to understand is not our problem.

If you want to, although I don't see how that would be productive. Just show me how arguing in favor of a particular choice reduces the choices available to the audience.

we have you just don't understand. i would hate to question your intellectual abilities but at this junction we must assume your not equipped with the most stellar of intellects.

 

[joepistole]

What does this have to do with "liberals"?

Everything in Wellwisher's world is an evil liberal conspiracy.

 

[joepistole]

Why is abortion needed in the first place, if there are so many precautions available that can preempt the need? It has to do with unconsciousness.

What precautions are available to victims of rape? You folks don't even want to allow women access to the morning after pill as antiabortionists feel that constitutes an abortion. What precautions do you suggest for women with medical diseases which only become evident after pregnancy and sometimes very late in pregnancy (e.g. preeclampsia)? Preeclampsia for example only becomes diagnosable in the third trimester, and preeclampsia a very direct threat to the woman's life. So your belief that all reasons for an abortion are preventable is another example of the magical thinking we find on both ends of the political spectrum and unfortunately is very common in American mainstream conservatism.

Should we be catering and paying for unconsciousness, when conscious choices, are possible that can preempt the need for an abortion? Going against abortion is an attempt to regulate unconscious behavior in favor of will power and choice, since there are preemptive choices available.

Why do liberals think unconsciousness should be catered to? Do liberals assume women are weak? Men are not given say in the abortion of their child. Are men assumed more rational?

Actually, and ironically, the only people advocating unconscious and mindless adherence to myths, ideological dogma, and ignorance are folks like you. Here is the real question, should we continue to cater to ignorance? For so called conservative leaders, the answer is a clear yes. Were it not for ignorance they would have no devotees, no one to execute their orders. The so called conservative base is so mired in ignorance they can't even understand the question, as evidenced by you post.

 

[billvon]

What does this have to do with "liberals"? You sound like tali.

Wellwisher has a bit of liberal derangement syndrome. It's a Tourettes-like condition common among far-right conservatives. It manifests itself by an uncontrollable compulsion to insert attacks on liberals into their speech and/or writing. (It is also common to see it manifest itself as uncontrollable attacks against Obama, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton etc) These interjections often appear in places that make no sense, such as a discussion on abortion.

 

[spidergoat]

Why is abortion needed in the first place, if there are so many precautions available that can preempt the need? It has to do with unconsciousness.

Should we be catering and paying for unconsciousness, when conscious choices, are possible that can preempt the need for an abortion? Going against abortion is an attempt to regulate unconscious behavior in favor of will power and choice, since there are preemptive choices available.

Why do liberals think unconsciousness should be catered to? Do liberals assume women are weak? Men are not given say in the abortion of their child. Are men assumed more rational?

You don't actually pay for it.

 

[Bowser]

You don't actually pay for it.

Planned Parenthood received $363.2 million in "Government Grants and Contracts." in 2008-2009.