You mean aborting a fetus

1/27/2013 9:23:52 AM

Quote :

"Nine states allow killing a baby that is more than 25 weeks old"

wut?

1/27/2013 12:59:22 PM

^read the sentences around it.

^^ The law may play word games (like co-opting the latin word for young or offspring, and giving a new definition because we didn't even have the vocabulary to support child-slaughter), but I don't. We've had to redefine the language to support our atrocities.

It's a baby in the incubator in the NICU, and it's a baby inside the mother. CO pretends they aren't the same level of person, and so that is why I call it inconsistent and arbitrary.

The word 'homicide' itself means the killing of same by the same. By calling it fetal homicide, the latin is as clear as can be - the killing of young humans by humans.

1/27/2013 1:19:51 PM

It's a fetus inside the mother

1/27/2013 1:22:48 PM

After we change the definition of a word just to call a baby by another name (which, itself, just meant 'baby' anyway), so we don't feel bad about killing it.

1/27/2013 1:27:17 PM

Lets just incorrectly use another word so we can guilt women who make a very difficult medical decision that should be between them and their doctor

Because, you know, fuck women

1/27/2013 1:29:14 PM

Actually, how about this trade off:

I'll call it killing a baby when you admit the death penalty is murder

1/27/2013 1:30:13 PM

So would you care to explain how CO is anything but schizophrenic by protecting a baby in the NICU, but allowing the killing of a baby 2 months older who is still in the mother?

Whether to kill the baby in the NICU isn't between a woman and her doctor, and neither should it be if the baby is in a different location.

1/27/2013 1:41:01 PM

When the fetus is inside the host, the host decides what happens to it

1/27/2013 1:42:24 PM

Quote :

"because we didn't even have the vocabulary to support child-slaughter"

infanticide. I'm sorry your education didn't equip you such vocabulary, but seriously, it's not our problem.

Quote :

"So would you care to explain how CO is anything but schizophrenic by protecting a baby in the NICU, but allowing the killing of a baby 2 months older who is still in the mother?"

Semantically, there's the obvious difference of the thing being inside the mother.

If you would like to set up an organization to life-support and adopt babies aborted in the 3rd trimester, then I don't think anyone would protest.

1/27/2013 1:47:16 PM

Quote :

"Semantically, there's the obvious difference of the thing being inside the mother."

Well, at least you recognize that it is not actually the mother's body, nor merely a part of it, but is actually something fundamentally different that is living inside her.

You gotta start somewhere.

Quote :

"infanticide. I'm sorry your education didn't equip you such vocabulary, but seriously, it's not our problem."

You people obviously have no respect for root words, so I substituted something whose meaning you couldn't change.

Though, if it helped keep abortion alive, you'd find a way.

[Edited on January 27, 2013 at 1:54 PM. Reason : a]

1/27/2013 1:51:27 PM

You could start by recognizing that women have rights.

That's a good place to start, too.

----

You may not be aware, but Colorado is part of the United States and is subject to rulings of the Supreme Court. Viability is a factor in Colorado's abortion laws.

1/27/2013 1:53:28 PM

Right to live > right to convenience, career, etc.

1/27/2013 1:56:12 PM

Quote :

"Right to live > right to convenience, career, etc."

I noticed you left the mother's health, well-being, life, etc. out. Why is that?

1/27/2013 1:58:14 PM

Because those are also secondary to the baby's right to live, and they are a minority of abortion cases.

In the case of a genuine threat to the mother's life (extraordinarily, exceedingly rare), abortion should still be illegal. One does not kill an innocent in order to save themselves.

I'll throw them in there if it makes you happy.

And I hope you people are passionate about letting pregnant women know when their language encroaches on the rights of abortion. You'd better decline all baby shower invitations with a note that says, "Until your language respects the rights of women over babies, I will decline. Invite me to a fetus shower, and I'm in."

[Edited on January 27, 2013 at 2:04 PM. Reason : a]

1/27/2013 2:02:13 PM

Quote :

"Well, at least you recognize that it is not actually the mother's body, nor merely a part of it, but is actually something fundamentally different that is living inside her."

Of course it's different. Our body has a lot of different stuff. The bacteria in our gut hosts 1000s of times as much DNA information than our own bodily DNA because they're an entire community of organisms.

A fertilized egg has patently different DNA from the mother (with a possible future exception for cloning). Science has actually shown the ability to sequence the fetus DNA by taking blood samples from the mother because apparently its blood just mixes in her bloodstream. If she was a surrogate mother, this would mean that she has completely foreign human DNA as if she had a blood transfusion.

I can rant on this tangent plenty, but nothing here establishes relevance. Why should any of it matter? We know it's something fundamentally different.

The only reasons I can think of for this "personhood" stuff is:

- the cognition level of the fetus
- the fact that the possesses full human DNA

The first point is indistinguishable from the food processing industry. I've already caused the death of several animals this weekend due to my eating habits, but you're not a vegan crusader, you're a anti-abortion crusader. In order to explain this, I have to default to the second reason, which represents some kind of human-ness supremacy - that the ability to become an adult human is somehow sacred. I don't see why.

Quote :

"In the case of a genuine threat to the mother's life (extraordinarily, exceedingly rare), abortion should still be illegal."

Although I think it's clear without me saying this, I think it needs to be clearly stated at least once...

This statement is absolutely psychopathic.

[Edited on January 27, 2013 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2013 2:07:09 PM

Quote :

"In the case of a genuine threat to the mother's life (extraordinarily, exceedingly rare), abortion should still be illegal. One does not kill an innocent in order to save themselves."

Women have no rights whatsoever.

You're so big on language, why don't you call it what it is, instead of trying to gussy it up with talk of killing the innocent?

Also please, please, please, PLEASE tell me you spend your free time handing out contraceptives to any and all.

---

PS: What does it mean for a fetus (or baby) to be innocent?

1/27/2013 2:13:04 PM

[insert famous pianist analogy]

If you wake up with a famous pianist stitched to you, your body keeping it alive, it's a great service to continue to do so but it's your choice if you have them removes.

Giving birth is a service to the fetus, but its is the woman's choice to do so and she should not be forcibly compelled.

1/27/2013 2:21:36 PM

^^ It's cool, just some babies without moms

women are just baby vehicles anyway, so who gives a shit about them?

[Edited on January 28, 2013 at 6:15 PM. Reason : it's amusing you guys are still trying to reason with 100% pro lifers: it's basically impossible]

1/28/2013 6:13:02 PM

Quote :

"Giving birth is a service to the fetus, but its is the woman's choice to do so and she should not be forcibly compelled."

That's an argument against rape, not for abortion.

1/28/2013 6:16:44 PM

Quote :

"So would you care to explain how CO is anything but schizophrenic by protecting a baby in the NICU, but allowing the killing of a baby 2 months older who is still in the mother? Whether to kill the baby in the NICU isn't between a woman and her doctor, and neither should it be if the baby is in a different location. "

Are you suggesting the cut-off line for abortion should be whether medical science is able to sustain a baby/fetus outside a womb?

1/28/2013 6:20:10 PM

No, and I haven't implied anything of the kind.

Under a different username, you might understand that I was speaking of the internal contradictions of the law.

1/28/2013 7:22:39 PM

You were implying that, you were saying that abortion laws wouldn't be contradictory if it was the legal only when our current technology can support a fetus. This is actually a politically viable, non-religious based position.

1/28/2013 7:54:48 PM

If it were only legal before viability, then the law wouldn't contradict itself when it protects NICU babies.

I would still, of course, see legal abortion before viability as immoral and something that we ought to make illegal. But at least the law would be consistent with itself. Now, it treats the same person two different ways, depending on location.

That would solve the problem of inconsistency in the law. But it wouldn't solve the murder rate of the unborn.

[Edited on January 28, 2013 at 9:20 PM. Reason : a]

1/28/2013 9:18:49 PM

morals?

rofl

1/28/2013 9:27:53 PM

^^

Wouldn't the law still be inconsistent though?

If it's absolutely wrong to kill an innocent fetus, why wouldn't it also be wrong to kill an innocent civilian as collateral damage in war, or execute a person wrongly convicted?

The law would still be inconsistent, unless all we put into place laws to stop all of those things.

1/29/2013 12:07:46 AM

Quote :

"Now, it treats the same person two different ways, depending on location."

I love how your argument revolves around a complete failure to recognize there's a woman in there somewhere.

1/29/2013 1:38:30 AM

Quote :

"If it's absolutely wrong to kill an innocent fetus, why wouldn't it also be wrong to kill an innocent civilian as collateral damage in war, or execute a person wrongly convicted? The law would still be inconsistent, unless all we put into place laws to stop all of those things."

No, you would be calling it wrong, not inconsistent. There is nothing inherently contradictory about those existing simultaneously. There are moral frameworks that harmonize and attempt to justify them, without violating its own principles. Those frameworks might be wrong, but they are consistent.

When you have two babies of the same age and development, and you call one a person and one a non-person, that can't be reconciled.

Quote :

"I love how your argument revolves around a complete failure to recognize there's a woman in there somewhere."

Everyone recognizes there is a woman in there somewhere. The question is whether there is another person in her or not.

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 6:25 AM. Reason : a]

1/29/2013 6:25:01 AM

pregnancy is punishment, if a women has sex she deserves to be pregnant

1/29/2013 6:41:43 AM

Quote :

"The question is whether there is another person in her or not."

Even if they're both people, you're allowed to choose your own life over someone else's in a life or death situation.

We've already beat this point into the ground earlier in the thread, but it seems like it didn't matter. You couldn't possibly be against abortion when the mother's life is at risk, that would be giving a fetus more rights than humans! But taking your statements at face value means you would.

1/29/2013 8:55:20 AM

Quote :

"No, you would be calling it wrong, not inconsistent. There is nothing inherently contradictory about those existing simultaneously. There are moral frameworks that harmonize and attempt to justify them, without violating its own principles. Those frameworks might be wrong, but they are consistent."

Lol, right.

1/29/2013 9:47:47 AM

"Because God said so (well if you ignore the parts he said not to)!"

1/29/2013 10:03:21 AM

I'm still waiting to see someone defend pro-lifers valuing a fetus' life higher than that of an adult.

2/2/2013 1:24:17 PM

Where has any pro-lifer done that?

2/2/2013 1:56:39 PM

If you believe that the baby can't be killed in a mother's-life or its-life situation, then that's going further than what we do for grown people.

A woman can murder you in order to save her own life. Why not her fetus?

2/2/2013 2:30:08 PM

it would be in line with fetus self defense/stand your ground laws..

2/2/2013 3:05:13 PM

So why should a fetus have more rights than a grownup?

2/3/2013 12:28:31 PM

Quote :

"The question is whether there is another person in her or not."

I love how you give lip service to there being a "question" about this but then beg the shit out of it every time you call abortion murder or "killing a baby".

2/4/2013 9:36:19 AM

To be fair, some of them think the life of an adult is worth more than a fetus's (abortion when it threatens the mother's life), just not that the freedom and self-ownership of an adult (all other cases).

[Edited on February 4, 2013 at 12:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/4/2013 12:27:52 PM

^^I'm sorry for using "question" in a way that is used only by people who read. I forgot that not all of you are included in that. It refers to the object under consideration, or the main point of contention or dispute.

Quote :

"A woman can murder you in order to save her own life. Why not her fetus?"

A woman can kill you to save her own life....if you are attacking her..

A woman cannot kill you to save her own life if you are both caught in a situation outside of the control of either of you.

The fetus is not attacking the mother, and the mother is not engaging in self-defense. They are both caught in a perilous, but natural, situation that threatens both of their lives.

You cannot kill an innocent person in order to save yourself, regardless of how dire the situation is, if you are not the victim of a crime in progress.

I am not granting the baby more rights than the mother. I am granting the baby the same rights as any other person.

2/4/2013 4:10:29 PM

fetus/embryo/blastocyst != baby by any reasonable definition.

2/4/2013 4:59:38 PM

I thought this was pretty great.

2/7/2013 7:26:48 PM

Cool, I'm making one with a death row inmate! Fuck those coexist hippies, coexisting is for communists!

2/7/2013 7:32:25 PM

Quote :

"The fetus is not attacking the mother, and the mother is not engaging in self-defense."

If the mother cannot choose to not assist the fetus in living, then it's enslaving her. You either believe in an individual right to self-ownership and support abortion rights...or you don't, and you don't. It has jack shit to do with whether what's inside her is a fetus or a baby or a peanut, her body is hers alone and it's entirely her right to control what goes on inside it. You have no authority whatsoever over what goes on inside there.

[Edited on February 11, 2013 at 10:06 AM. Reason : .]

2/11/2013 10:03:54 AM

Yeah, that's not a false dichotomy at all.

2/11/2013 10:06:20 AM

Alright. Would you say you own your house if the government can force you to keep a guest in it?

2/11/2013 10:07:56 AM

Not an analogous situation and you know it.

2/11/2013 10:10:54 AM

I mean, please, point me to another example of self-ownership having an "exception." As far as I can tell, the only "exception" granted thus far is "women who are pregnant." Can you name an exception that applies to, say, men? Is there any condition where you think a man can reasonably be denied control over his own bodily functions?

Quote :

"Not an analogous situation and you know it."

It's not identical, but it is indeed analogous. You don't own something, be it a house or a body, if you ultimately answer to somebody else on the issue of who has access to it. That is literally the definition of ownership: the authority to grant and restrict access. If you explore every possible facet of the analogy you'll find some difference, absolutely, that doesn't mean it's not demonstrative of the point I'm making about ownership and what it means to own something.

[Edited on February 11, 2013 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

2/11/2013 10:11:33 AM

I think you'll find that it's neither moral, nor legal to say, push a stowaway off your boat while in the middle of the ocean.

The real debate is when does personhood/life begin. Prior to a fetus being a person I think most rational people are okay with abortion. I don't think a woman who takes the morning after pill or who has a miscarriage is a murderer. I also don't think that an early term abortion is an issue. I also don't think you can sit there and say it's okay to abort at month 8.5. If you can I'd love to hear the logic behind it.

[Edited on February 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM. Reason : asfs]

2/11/2013 10:21:51 AM

The real issue to whom is when personhood begins? To Christians, this isn't the issue at all. Abortion is just wrong.

This is the main demographic behind the prolife movement. You'll never drive a wedge in them trying to argue biology, or science, or sociology.

If you acknowledge their belief structure their position is valid, but it doesn't resolve why their passion for stopping abortion doesn't match their passion for stopping other senseless killing.

2/11/2013 11:00:56 AM