News, Abortion clinic cited for improper disposal.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by camping!

Tumors and parasites don't have brainwaves, yet you try to compare a fetus to them.

Cows and chickens have brainwaves, and those are far more organized than the ones that are detectable in an 8-week old fetus. What did you have for dinner last night? The point here is that you are trying to turn something that is very plainly not a "human being" into, not just an equivalent to a quite obvious "female human being", but into her absolute superior. You are not going to come up with any convincing secular argument for that. None exists. To reach any such conclusion, you are going to have to fall back on faith. Faith is relevant to the particular believer only.

Originally Posted by camping!

As far as pain, my experience tells me otherwise.

Like faith, your experience is relevant only to you. Science (the actual kind) tells us that your interpretation of your experience is not just incorrect, but impossible.

Originally Posted by camping!

Plus, science -- especially neonatal science -- is fluid, and what was standard twenty years ago, hell five years ago has changed a lot. For instance, saline abortions used to be considered a safe and humane way to practice second and third trimester abortions. Now, it is not. Would you agree that this would be science in motion? A baby born born prior to 28 weeks gestation had not a prayer, now the youngest to survive was 20 weeks.

Science is cumulative. It moves forward, not backward. Saline induction was once the only technique available for late-term abortions. In countries with skilled medical professionals, techniques such as D&E and D&X were developed and quickly replaced induction because they were cheaper, safer, more comfortable, and more effective. Technology has slowly pushed the point of viability slightly backward, but the youngest preemie to survive (Amillia Taylor) was born at 22 weeks, not 20. She beat staggering odds in part because her cardio-pulmonary systems had developed more quickly than most. Statistical survival rates for 22-week and 23-week fetuses are meanwhile unchanged over a decade, standing at 0% and 15% respectively. Survival rates for 24-week and 25-week fetuses have improved over that time, standing now at nearly 50%. Unfortunately follow-up visits on these survivors at 18 months of age show that more than 60% had either died by that time or were profoundly impaired.

Originally Posted by camping!

There are many secular people who are against abortion. Do you really believe that the only ones who could possibly be against must be evangelical christians?

All people, secular or religious, come to their own terms with abortion. The pro-choice view has no problem with that. The anti-choice view does. What I have repeatedly said is that the are no convincing secular arguments against abortion. That is different from saying that no secular person would choose to deal with an unwanted pregnancy via a means other than abortion.

Originally Posted by camping!

As to my secular arguments against abortion it really boils down to this --- the fetus is an individual which is dependent upon its mother for a time, but nonetheless is wholly a seperate entity. If there is even the possibility of pain being felt during an abortion, then the abortion ought not to take place.

Such generalities and assumptions are valid as the basis for a personal standard, but when you begin talking about applying that standard to others, you are talking a whole different ballgame. Others will have valid personal standards that are in stark disagreement with yours. All else being equal, you are obligated to provide as much respect to those standards as you claim for your own. In order to compel your standard onto others, you will need strong secular arguments that establish the superiority of your positions. You do not have such arguments available to make. It is meanwhile debatable whether the possibility of pain should be given the weight that you attach to it, but the question is moot in any case, as there is no evidence from actual science to suggest the possibility of pain, and a great deal to suggest its impossibility.

Originally Posted by camping!

As far as a fetus breaking and entering into a uterus, well have you ever heard of a law that is commonly known as an attractive nuisance? See, if you have a pool and you don't keep the gate to your pool locked and someone went into your pool and drowned, the relatives of the dead person could sue you for wrongful death.

It isn't actually a law, but a principle of tort law that applies to any forseeable risk of injury, not just swimming pools. An excuse from liability is automatic for any who have taken reasonable care to prevent injury. Further, the principle does not apply universally, as you seem to suggest. It applies only to the particular class of children that has a capacity to recognize the attraction but not a capacity to recognize the risk. Fetuses do not have a capacity to recognize anything. The concept of invasion meanwhile hangs entirely upon the host. Either an intruder is welcomed or it is not. No role is played by the intruder in this determination at all.

Originally Posted by camping!

Have you ever met an indenticle twin? While they share the same dna, they have seperate identities. They are not part of the mother in the same way as her toenail would be. They are seperate and distinct.

I have met many sets of twins and some triplets, but they arise in the discussion only because the extraneous concept of "unique DNA" was introduced. The DNA of identical twins actually does diverge over time, as certain chains will be replicated in different numbers and may be turned on or off at different times and in different sequences. It does begin as identical however, so over some period, the criterion of "unique DNA" does not apply. This turns out to make no difference at all, however, which is why the concept is as extraneous as whether today is Tuesday or not.

Originally Posted by camping!

Very true...we are allowed to believe as we wish. We are also all allowed freedom of speech. In these forums you can certainly say whatever you want, just as I have the right to say whatever I want. You may never believe as I do, and that is fine.

On this, we agree and always have. Issues arise only when some wish to justify imposing their personal standards upon those who do not share those standards. This we cannot have while still thinking of ourselves as living in a civil society.