Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As you must be aware of, many societies in human history have found no problem at all in what we would today call infanticide. The majority of those societies suffered from being unable to tell prior to birth whether or not the rather haphazard process of gestation had gone materially off course. With current levels of technology, most devastating fetal anomalies can be detected in utero, and the process of abortion can come to substitute, humanely some might say, for that of infanticide.
As for so-called partial birth abortion (actually, intact D&X), it is a medical procedure originally designed to address the matter of late-term pregnancies that had become disastrously compromised. Under various circumstances, it is physically easier and safer for the patient than alternative methods, as well as being less expensive and posing a lower risk of adversely affecting future fertility. As the word "intact" would suggest, it also provides parents dealing with a failed pregnancy an entire corpus to hold and grieve over. Once having established a proficiency in this technique, some practitioners have expanded their use of it as an option in all late-term abortions.
Because it is widely misrepresented, it may be helpful to understand what an intact D&X actually is. In this procedure, the cervix is partially dilated using laminaria (sticks of seaweed that expand as they absorb moisture), and the fetus is then positioned so that it may be withdrawn feet-first through the cervix and into the birth canal until the head is all that remains within the uterus. A catheter is then inserted into the cranium, and all fluid is withdrawn via evacuation. This causes the unfused cranial plates to collapse, significantly reducing the diameter of the skull. The head is then withdrawn from the uterus, and the entire fetus is brought down the birth canal, around the pelvic ridge, and removed through the vagina.
Actually its NOT helpful to understand the D&X process, or societal infanticide, or fetal anomalies. These are actually irrelevant to the discussion. I've made no judgements other than chastising some who refuse to answer simple yes or no questions. You may be falsely anticipating my responses to these questions.
A very colorful way of making the "its just cells" argument and ignoring the points often brought up concerning this area of the issue. Again, very colorful but you didn't accomplish anything other than saying you are right and they are wrong.
You entirely misconstrue the point, and I will do you the favor of assuming that you do so deliberately, rather than having been incompetent to discern the point to begin with. The process of gestation would not be well represented by a bar- or step-graph, but only by a line-graph representing a variable curve of incrementally increasing development. There are no points of discontinuity at which one state suddenly ceases to exist and another and loftier state comes suddenly into existence in its place. As such, the actual situation is simply not amenable to the drawing of those bright lines of demarcation that some will insist upon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Picking over the root meaning of words to avoid dealing with the intended meaning often made does not object to the point, but rather attempts to evade it by focusing on the irrelevant. I would be more concerned with the context your opponent is using than nitpicking the words themselves. Again, logic doesn't care about the level of language used or how eloquently it is delivered, it only cares that the points being made are valid in supporting the conclusions they derive.
Quite to the contrary. The user of the word "innocent" in this case introduces as if it were relevant a concept that is entirely extraneous to the matter under consideration. The intent of the user is not to introduce logic, but to introduce emotion. The definitions of guilt and innocence are long and rather well established, and there are no circumstances under which either of those can be applied to a fetus. The many who attempt to use the term in this context are simply engaging in a deceit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
And yet, this position is contingent on your previous point. That it is "just cells" and therefore nothing more than yet another cell among many all of the womans body and not defined in any other manner than that. In order for this conclusion to be valid, the initial premise that this is based on has to be valid, yet the original premise has not been proven valid without using technicalities that ignore the context. One side is simply the right to manage ones own body, the other side is that it is a forfeiture of another's life. Obviously having to contend with the second option would completely invalidate this current point.
As was stated, the position is contingent upon the presumptions noted and no others. The fact that you do not want to deal with the arguments as presented does not constitute a warrant to rail against others that were in fact not presented. Either you believe that a woman has the right to guide her own reproductive history apart from the state and the will of God, or you believe that she does not. If you would make women servants in this area to the state or to the will of God, simply say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Saying it is so, does not make it so. You can be as colorful as you like, but the summary of your statement is simply "I am right, they are wrong" without any valid reasoning. Unfounded subjective positions don't become valid just because you use a higher level of delivery. In the end, it really is just BS in a pretty box.
I apologize if I express my positions too well. This is perhaps a part of the price one pays for obtaining an education. Simple complaint over the choice of words employed in presenting an opposing argument however hardly stands as any refutation of it. If you have any means at all by which to support the notion that you or anyone else should be given decision-making rights and powers superior to those of the woman involved, please present and defend those as best you can. Your current reluctance in this regard suggests at best a certain lack of confidence on your part in the nature of whatever those might be...
Last edited by saganista; 03-06-2008 at 08:43 AM..
You entirely misconstrue the point, and I will do you the favor of assuming that you do so deliberately, rather than having been incompetent to discern the point to begin with. The process of gestation would not be well represented by a bar- or step-graph, but only by a line-graph representing a variable curve of incrementally increasing development. There are no points of discontinuity at which one state suddenly ceases to exist and another and loftier state comes suddenly into existence in its place. As such, the actual situation is simply not amenable to the drawing of those bright lines of demarcation that some will insist upon.
Yet, can that process result in any other outcome? As some would say, the stages of the process are irrelevant to the simple fact that as soon as it formed (biologically termed and identified), it begins a process that can result in only one outcome. Do you deny this fact?
Again, my point is that you evade the context of the issue by attempting to colorfully confuse the issue with details that are irrelevant to the over all issue.
Now I might agree if we were discussing the position from the issue or belief that attempts to try and classify "when" a period of gestation is identifiably different, but I am not, nor are many who hold like positions. When is of no concern. The beginning of the process is defined and identified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Quite to the contrary. The user of the word "innocent" in this case introduces as if it were relevant a concept that is entirely extraneous to the matter under consideration. The intent of the user is not to introduce logic, but to introduce emotion. The definitions of guilt and innocence are long and rather well established, and there are no circumstances under which either of those can be applied to a fetus. The many who attempt to use the term in this context are simply engaging in a deceit.
Innocence in its context often referred to is that of one who is not at fault, responsible for the occurrence or guiltless. That is a logical stand point. The child is innocent in the matter because they had no control, no responsibility or case of guilt in the matter. That is the logical stance and I thought a fairly clear point many have made. I do not argue with your use of the word in the context you choose, only the method to which you attempt to apply it in this discussion. While some may use it within the context to make your position legitimate, it however is not the rule. Picking only the points you wish to address and then applying them as a general rule is illogical and some might say unethical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
As was stated, the position is contingent upon the presumptions noted and no others. The fact that you do not want to deal with the arguments as presented does not constitute a warrant to rail against others that were in fact not presented. Either you believe that a woman has the right to guide her own reproductive history apart from the state and the will of God, or you believe that she does not. If you would make women servants in this area to the state or to the will of God, simply say so.
Again, you evade the issue. You apply a condition to your scenario so you can control the outcome to your liking. As I said, the issue is not of a persons rights, that is unless you think a person has a right to kill another because they want to? The issue of religion here is irrelevant. The issue is that our laws forbid killing another without extenuating circumstances. As I said, your position is contingent on first claiming that it is not a life. By doing so, you can then urge the discussion into a simple rights issue. I know exactly what you are doing here. Your conclusions are not valid at this stage because they are dependent on an earlier premise that has not been validated. You can choose to ignore that, but it does not make your position anymore valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
I apologize if I express my positions too well. This is perhaps a part of the price one pays for obtaining an education. Simple complaint over the choice of words employed in presenting an opposing argument however hardly stands as any refutation of it. If you have any means at all by which to support the notion that you or anyone else should be given decision-making rights and powers superior to those of the woman involved, please present and defend those as best you can. Your current reluctance in this regard suggests at best a certain lack of confidence on your part in the nature of whatever those might be...
The method of the delivery is not the measurement of ones education other than that of simple communication. Your delivery does not make your position valid. In fact, I find your methods rather devious. Not because of your choice of words, spelling, or grammatical presentation, but because the context of your position is evasive and (my opinion) attempts to use that delivery to hide the fact that it isn't making any valid supported points. Yet it is filled with assumptive conclusions and broad generalities.
It is a fallacy that we are not concerned about collateral damage. They are important to us, many soldiers die in the line of duty trying to minimize and protect those who are innocents. In Vietnam, a common tactic by the enemy was to send women and children booby trapped with explosives because they knew the soldiers were concerned about innocents. Many soldiers were killed due to the hesitations and concern for those people. I wouldn't buy all that propaganda from the anti-war crowd. There is an old saying about peace and soldiers, I think it goes along the lines of "Nobody wants peace more or respects life as much as those who are required to kill to protect it".
Ask some adults who grew up with that if they would rather have never been born? I honestly don't know what each would say and I wouldn't dare presume to speak for them.
For the first paragraph...two words, "shock" and "awe".
For the second paragraph, I sure wish I hadn't been.
The current discussion not only relates to personal convictions but to legal definitions, which, for the benefit of the accused, must provide some delineation by removing the subjective opinion of judges and juries. If you or I were put in such a position as the accused I know that I would and I suspect that you would rather rely more upon a concrete, logical definition of the charges instead of placing our fates in the emotional and unpredictable subjective responses of our peers.
An at least temporary agreement as to specific definitions of terms is often required within legal proceedings. It may, for instance, become necessary to establish what the definition of the word "is" is. Neither the thread title nor any discussion noted since however has suggested that the law relative to reproductive rights is anything more than a perhaps anticipated at some point sidebar. Discussion has focussed on aspects of the physical processes of fetal development and people's perhaps poor understandings of those and perhaps illogical reactions to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
This would indeed be the case if one was to define innocent in the narrow sense of not being guilty of a crime. However a more learned definition would also include "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil", or in this case ""blameless".
Crime has nothing to do with it. Incapacity does. By your attempts above, trees and cattle are blameless, and we slaughter them both by the billions. And if we move (via the use of "sin") into the religious realm, the concept of an "innocent" fetus flies directly in the face of the doctrine of original sin, one of the central themes of Christian dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
This is not a matter of forced pregnancy or forced sterility but a question of when the child is no longer part of the woman's body and is then the beneficiary of legal protection by the State.
Au contraire. If you do not admit of a woman's right to guide her own reproductive history to the exclusion of arbitrary state or religious interference, then your position is very much a matter of promoting compulsory childbirth, ultimately dismissing in toto the rights and wishes of the woman involved, making her entirely subservient to the uninformed and unsupported beliefs of persons unknown to her and unconcerned over her situation.
The laws of this society and its antecedents have meanwhile long ago answered the question of physical separation as being defined by the event of physical separation. These various umbilical cord posts are not examples of insight, but rather (as has been suggested earlier) of irrelevance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
These were the same type arguments put forth by the slaveholders in the early 19th century.
To the extent that there are similarities at all, the arguments of slaveholders would have been akin to those of the anti-abortion side. Each would insist upon overriding the clearly expressed and well reasoned wishes of another merely for the sake of their own comfort and convenience. No sustainable argument for either position exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Also, I imagine some of them would even suggest that unless one has experienced growing a crop without slave labor then one has no right to speak against slavery.
Slaveholders had no experience at all at bringing in a crop without slaves. There are no recorded instances of one running outside and saying "Never mind, boys...I'll get it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
It seems that you are suggesting that no children's opinions should be considered when they conflict with the decision-making of the child's parents. I doubt that many child advocates would agree with your statement.
I would have some confidence that all of them would agree that a child's opinions and interests are rather different matters from a child's decision-making rights and powers. This bit is nothing but a deflection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Still, my opinions, which I haven't really expressed in this most recent discussion, are based on scientific facts and logical reasoning.
Opinions may vary when the time for these is finally deemed to have arrived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Is my expecting honest answers to my questions an unreasonable request? I think not. Then the discussion can turn more toward factually supportive opinions and demonstrative facts.
You have been given honest answers. You simply didn't like them.
An at least temporary agreement as to specific definitions of terms is often required within legal proceedings. It may, for instance, become necessary to establish what the definition of the word "is" is. Neither the thread title nor any discussion noted since however has suggested that the law relative to reproductive rights is anything more than a perhaps anticipated at some point sidebar. Discussion has focussed on aspects of the physical processes of fetal development and people's perhaps poor understandings of those and perhaps illogical reactions to them.
You've obviously missed a few posts. Many of the posts in this thread have related to the logic behind the abortion policies in the Netherlands.
Quote:
Crime has nothing to do with it. Incapacity does. By your attempts above, trees and cattle are blameless, and we slaughter them both by the billions. And if we move (via the use of "sin") into the religious realm, the concept of an "innocent" fetus flies directly in the face of the doctrine of original sin, one of the central themes of Christian dogma.
Another diversion. Cattles and trees cannot be compared to a human. They have no constitutional rights. Why not just answer the questons and forget about these tactics?
Quote:
Au contraire. If you do not admit of a woman's right to guide her own reproductive history to the exclusion of arbitrary state or religious interference, then your position is very much a matter of promoting compulsory childbirth, ultimately dismissing in toto the rights and wishes of the woman involved, making her entirely subservient to the uninformed and unsupported beliefs of persons unknown to her and unconcerned over her situation.
One's reproductive rights are easily maintainable during the first two trimesters, when the fetus has no discernable human brain waves.
Quote:
The laws of this society and its antecedents have meanwhile long ago answered the question of physical separation as being defined by the event of physical separation. These various umbilical cord posts are not examples of insight, but rather (as has been suggested earlier) of irrelevance.
Using your criterion, the cutting of the umbilical cord is the ONLY point of relevence, since this is the point at which complete seperation is achieved.
Quote:
To the extent that there are similarities at all, the arguments of slaveholders would have been akin to those of the anti-abortion side. Each would insist upon overriding the clearly expressed and well reasoned wishes of another merely for the sake of their own comfort and convenience. No sustainable argument for either position exists.
Only if one chooses to ignore the obvious similarity I expressed previously. Who on the anti-abortion side opposes abortion for their own comfort and convenience? It would seem that this is more a motivation and reasons expressed to support late term abortion.
Quote:
Slaveholders had no experience at all at bringing in a crop without slaves. There are no recorded instances of one running outside and saying "Never mind, boys...I'll get it."
Do you think these individuals went out and bought some slaves and then decided, "Hey, I'll be a plantation owner."? Many grew crops for years with paid help and sharecroppers before the Africans started selling slaves to Americans.
Quote:
I would have some confidence that all of them would agree that a child's opinions and interests are rather different matters from a child's decision-making rights and powers. This bit is nothing but a deflection.
Actually this entire train of thought is irrelevent.
Quote:
Opinions may vary when the time for these is finally deemed to have arrived.
I'm sure they will. The question is what will be the supporting facts?
Quote:
You have been given honest answers. You simply didn't like them.
I'm not sure you even know what answer I would like.
For the first paragraph...two words, "shock" and "awe".
For the second paragraph, I sure wish I hadn't been.
For the first, explain with any form of logic or reason as to why you think "shock" and "Awe" supports that claim. I have no clue whats twirling on in that head of yours or if the basis of that position is founded on misinformation. So please explain why it supports your position.
Thats your choice and decision concerning your life. You certainly have a right to decide that about yourself. You however have no right to decide that for another.
If you believe it's ok, then by all means I won't object.
I don't believe it's ok but I'm not about to force my opinion on you.
And I wouldn't expect that you force your opinion on me.
If more people lived like that we'd have so much less controversy in this world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is illogical to say that life = sentient.
I don't care about the innuendo of people who can only suspect because they are unable to prove anything.
