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.
Really? If I were aborted, I would still be here.....more or less....or at least the consciousness that is the most important part of me.
But I thought one of the reasons you give for defending abortion is that the fetus is not conscious of their surroundings, but now you say it is the most important part of them. (You will notice I've said nothing that is not contained in your quote)
I never said consciousness is the most important part of fetuses. I said consciousness is the most important part of you. My two statements don't contradict each other...and I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Quote:
Tell me, what do the aborted want out of life? We've gone from what someone calls a mass of cells.......to a fetus that can have everything they want out of life, all without leaving the womb. That's quite a spread. The aborted can have all they want out of life.......except life itself.
The aborted will not want anything...because they no longer exist. However, I can prove what fetuses want, in some limited ways.
I know for a fact that they have no interest in living, for example. They might not be opposed to living, but they're definitely not going to have any desire to live. That's because they lack them mental capacity to understand the concept of "living."
What I'd strongly suspect they'd want most, however, would be the following:
Imagine you're in a womb. You know nothing about the world around you. You don't understand the concept of death. Death, to you, would merely be a deep form of sleep. You are destined to emerge out of a hole, or die. Dying might hurt, or it might be just the equivalent (as far as you're concerned) of drifting off into a deeper sleep. However...going out through that hole is definitely going to be unpleasant, and the only thing your mind might be able to comprehend is that suffering is unpleasant.
Therefore, if we're going by what fetuses most likely would be best described as "wanting" it would probably, nearly always, be painless death as soon as possible, rather than going out that hole.
Quote:
My thinking was along other lines. There's that 'conscious' thing again. Since the subject has been a fetus and ethics, I will assume what you are describing here is that an aborted fetus will still be here, in other people. The first one they were literally in didn't want them. Will others? (rhetorical question)
But again, you say a fetus has no sentience, which I do not disagree in the primary stages, then how does something that doesn't exist 'continue on after I die (am aborted)?
I admit I post this only because I find your philosophy contradictory.
I was not describing an aborted fetus as still being there. I was, rather, describing the person the fetus would have become as still being there...in the sense that there will still be people with consciousness.
Imagine a scenario in which a 16 year old mother gets an abortion, but then has a child when she's built up more resources to care for that child, at 23. The end result of that is a child in a probably better environment than it would have been in with a 16 year old mom. We therefore might as well say that the original fetus was teleported into the future, into a better environment, rather than having died...perhaps with pain as a side effect of that teleportation...or perhaps not.
I never said consciousness is the most important part of fetuses. I said consciousness is the most important part of you. My two statements don't contradict each other...and I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
If you read the bold in the above and below quotes of yours, you will see what I'm getting at.
Quote:
The difference between the military killing things and abortion is when the military does it, it causes harm. If you were aborted, on the other hand, you'd still be here...more or less...or at least the consciousness that is the most important part of you. It would merely exist in other people. You would still exist...just not trivial, unique, genetic traits.
Those are contradictory statements no matter how you wish to spin them.
Here is another.
Quote:
The aborted will not want anything...because they no longer exist.
They don't want anything, but...
Quote:
The fact that someone would still be thinking of themselves as "Me" though, means you'd still have everything you want out of life, even if you were aborted.
This proxy "Me" who is alive has no relationship with an aborted fetus or vice versa.
Quote:
However, I can prove what fetuses want, in some limited ways.
I know for a fact that they have no interest in living, for example. They might not be opposed to living, but they're definitely not going to have any desire to live. That's because they lack them mental capacity to understand the concept of "living."
What I'd strongly suspect they'd want most, however, would be the following:
Imagine you're in a womb. You know nothing about the world around you. You don't understand the concept of death. Death, to you, would merely be a deep form of sleep. You are destined to emerge out of a hole, or die. Dying might hurt, or it might be just the equivalent (as far as you're concerned) of drifting off into a deeper sleep. However...going out through that hole is definitely going to be unpleasant, and the only thing your mind might be able to comprehend is that suffering is unpleasant.
Therefore, if we're going by what fetuses most likely would be best described as "wanting" it would probably, nearly always, be painless death as soon as possible, rather than going out that hole.
You think a fetus would prefer a painless death rather than birth? Was that what you thought when you were in the womb? You believe that is what most people thought when they were in the womb? Is that your 'proof'?
Yes, the picked and chosen ones. Specifically, I want the law to protect the right of women to decide whether the fetal cell clusters that result from pregnancy are wanted or not, and to act to maintain them, if they want, with the goal of allowing time and transformation to take place. And a future new person to develop. Or to get rid of them if they do not want to bring future new life into the world.
I also want to protect the right of couples to have abortion available up to full term if profound deformities are discovered and they don’t want to be saddled with that kind of existence.
Specifically, I want women to realize if they don't want the cell clusters that result from pregnancy, take the responsible steps to prevent pregnancy by those means used by all women today who don't want to become pregnant. I am not familiar with any woman who said their abortion was a pleasant experience.
"Scientists have long known that life begins at fertilization. At that very moment sperm and egg join, a new human being is formed with unique DNA separate from the mother and father. That DNA contains all the information necessary to govern the baby’s growth and development for the rest of her life.
In 1981, medical experts testified before a U.S. Senate judiciary subcommittee to this fact.
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth from Harvard University Medical School stated, "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." "
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
So you visited one of the many religious “what to say to pro-choice people when they say a fetus is not a person” response lists. And you cherry picked a favorite quote from an ancient anti-choice professor who made an assertion in 1981.
Congratulations. Her arguments are just assertions. Religious anti-choice scientists exist. We know that. Come up with your own arguments.
Science does not determine when a fetus becomes a person. Science says things like life begins at conception. Well, duh. When the heck else could it begin? We know that. Science says a fetus is a human being. Oh, so glad to hear such profundity. I thought a fetus was a Venusian being.
“Person” is a legal concept, not a scientific one. So science will never answer the question of when to assign personhood to fetal cells. So, all civilized countries act rationally and allow abortions with varying gestational limits. It is perfectly ok to kill fetal cell masses if you don’t want a potential human person to emerge after time and transformation.
That is the law pretty much across every good and decent society, with most of the exceptions being in the countries ruled by theocratic tyranny. And although a Tennessee or Louisiana or Alabama wants to take us back to that level, we are not going to allow it.
Did it look like a religious site --- ? here's the follow up to the article
" Whereas, the General Assembly, in the exercise of its constitutional powers and in carrying out its duties and responsibilities under the law, finds it necessary and proper to ensure that the rights of its citizens extend to each newly born and preborn human being. Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina: "
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,593,334 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Why would you want a bunch of men making decisions on what a woman can and cannot do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
I would want both men and women protecting their freedoms from the irrational dogmas of those who would be tyrants. If we let them. Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
That bell is going to toll for you that's for damn sure --- it's good that women are more educated about their bodies today and their unborn. And that education doesn't include your bs. People are rofl --- at how serious you are about it --- mass cells. We do know a crazy person when we read one, and the people in this thread have been playing with you. Just so you know.
Women do know when they go in for an abortion they are killing their unborn. They know it up front and people like you are not fooling them. They also, know that men have vested interest in not having to take responsibility for their actions. Women have been ruled over in a man's world for far too long, to all of sudden to get stupid now.
Do you know what that personhood bill actually does? A man can not knock up a woman and leave her be, without having to take responsibility in the form of child support for what you've been calling a mass of cells. The only ones that won't want to see that happen is men.
So why would you want a bunch of men making decisions on what a woman can and cannot do? You would only if you're a man, Marc.
"For those identifying historical figures with racist roots who should be removed from public view because of their evil histories, Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, must join that list."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
None of those quotes seem particularly startling to me...including her quote:
In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" (Margaret Sanger commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).
That quote is worthless without the full context. It could imply racism, or merely fears of being perceived as racist. All we definitely know is it seems like it could have been phrased more tactfully...but then, this was 1939.
Regarding the eugenics strategies involving fewer people people with mental illnesses and ailments procreating...whether that's right or wrong depends merely on where you want the power to lie. Do you want the power to lie with the state, or with the parents? There are pros and cons to each way of doing things.
Right now, I would definitely say that those sorts of rights best belong to the parents...because it's a lovely thing to maintain our freedoms over our children and ourselves, and because most conditions people are born with involve some mixture of pros and cons. Even painful conditions can be teachers. I've heard of parents with kids with aspergers talk about how nice their kids are.
I could easily imagine a benign society that says it's illegal to give birth to a kid with aspergers though...especially in societies with limited resources, because if we legally allow giving birth to a kid with aspergers, we're saying that it's okay to bring a child into this world who may well outlive their parents, who may need care from someone.
The society that Sanger lived in had fewer safety nets than ours' does. That's one thing to take into consideration.
But...if some society in the future legally provides some kind of tax benefits to people with genetic disorders or mental problems who sterilize themselves, I think we should consider just leaving them alone and letting them do their thing, and us do ours...because there are pros and cons to each strategy.
Here, such a strategy would likely result in enough resentment to create pointless chaos in society. That's not necessarily the case in every culture though.
That said...I still don't know everything about Sanger.
I will emphasize, though, that while I'd personally disagree with this quote of Sanger's...I don't think it's unreasonable at all. I'd have far more concerns about mentalities that label it "entirely barbaric" than about mentalities of people who agree with her:
In a 1957 interview with Mike Wallace, Sanger revealed: "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world - that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sin - that people can - can commit."
What's especially relevant in that quote is how we define "disease." There are physical ailments...then there is stuff like low I.Q.'s and minds working unusually that may be more likely to be a mixture of pros and cons than entirely negative.
"Scientists have long known that life begins at fertilization. At that very moment sperm and egg join, a new human being is formed with unique DNA separate from the mother and father. That DNA contains all the information necessary to govern the baby’s growth and development for the rest of her life.
In 1981, medical experts testified before a U.S. Senate judiciary subcommittee to this fact.
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth from Harvard University Medical School stated, "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." "
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Which is irrelevant because nothing in that statement involves ethics, or the discussion of ethics. All that's saying is "I'm going to arbitrarily decide X is what a human is. Maybe next week we'll determine that toasters are humans. The week after that, squirrels are humans...and other organisms with obvious capacity for pain, unlike the recently fertilized eggs we're calling now...for no reason because we want to be as confusing as possible."
Yeah...in the scientific sense the minute our sperm and eggs meet, that's a human. That recently formed zygote, however, has absolutely none of the traits that are the reason we consider human lives (or animal lives) as having worth though. In a more practical sense...it's therefore not human.
I've got nothing for all of this inhuman tribble --- I can't even describe it any more than to just call it tribble. Apparently some people have a lot of time on their hands to waist and waist it, you have --- If you could only hear yourself. I take that back --- it's actually a good thing you can't.
That bell is going to toll for you that's for damn sure --- it's good that women are more educated about their bodies today and their unborn. And that education doesn't include your bs. People are rofl --- at how serious you are about it --- mass cells. We do know a crazy person when we read one, and the people in this thread have been playing with you. Just so you know.
Women do know when they go in for an abortion they are killing their unborn. They know it up front and people like you are not fooling them. They also, know that men have vested interest in not having to take responsibility for their actions. Women have been ruled over in a man's world for far too long, to all of sudden to get stupid now.
Do you know what that personhood bill actually does? A man can not knock up a woman and leave her be, without having to take responsibility in the form of child support for what you've been calling a mass of cells. The only ones that won't want to see that happen is men.
So why would you want a bunch of men making decisions on what a woman can and cannot do? You would only if you're a man, Marc.
There is no unborn. There is a fetal protoplasmic mass that in early pregnancy is not a person and is simply removed not killed. The guilt trip you hope to utilize will be gone soon as me move toward a more secular and sensible world. Where we actually WANT to deal with reality, and not avoid the effort through cynical shallow mysticism. And men won’t make this decision alone, it will be men and women taking a rational approach and seeing things for what they are. And correctly realizing that a fertilized egg is a nothingburger until time passes and transformation occurs. 24 weeks and beyond? That’s where the argument starts. 12-16 weeks? Pop it out and be more careful next time.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,593,334 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
That bell is going to toll for you that's for damn sure --- it's good that women are more educated about their bodies today and their unborn. And that education doesn't include your bs. People are rofl --- at how serious you are about it --- mass cells. We do know a crazy person when we read one, and the people in this thread have been playing with you. Just so you know.
Women do know when they go in for an abortion they are killing their unborn. They know it up front and people like you are not fooling them. They also, know that men have vested interest in not having to take responsibility for their actions. Women have been ruled over in a man's world for far too long, to all of sudden to get stupid now.
Do you know what that personhood bill actually does? A man can not knock up a woman and leave her be, without having to take responsibility in the form of child support for what you've been calling a mass of cells. The only ones that won't want to see that happen is men.
So why would you want a bunch of men making decisions on what a woman can and cannot do? You would only if you're a man, Marc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
There is no unborn. There is a fetal protoplasmic mass that in early pregnancy is not a person and is simply removed not killed. The guilt trip you hope to utilize will be gone soon as me move toward a more secular and sensible world. Where we actually WANT to deal with reality, and not avoid the effort through cynical shallow mysticism. And men won’t make this decision alone, it will be men and women taking a rational approach and seeing things for what they are. And correctly realizing that a fertilized egg is a nothingburger until time passes and transformation occurs. 24 weeks and beyond? That’s where the argument starts. 12-16 weeks? Pop it out and be more careful next time.
Take it up with the government legislatures and science says otherwise. That nothingburger is going to get child support, hide and watch it happen. The Personhood Movement
Where it came from and where it stands today.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 05-24-2021 at 04:19 PM..
There is a ton of information that proves you wrong. That you will not accept it doesn't make it go away.
Quote:
There is a fetal protoplasmic mass that in early pregnancy is not a person and is simply removed not killed.
I will align with science and biologists rather than someone spouting nonsense. A "protoplasmic mass" or whatever other name you wish to assign, the organism is alive. Any organism, plant or animal, is either dead or alive. There is no middle ground. Something that is alive is growing, maturing, changing. Something that is dead is lifeless, decaying. When you take something alive and terminate (take the life out of it) you have killed it. A fetus is not something to be casually discarded.
Quote:
The guilt trip you hope to utilize will be gone soon as me move toward a more secular and sensible world. Where we actually WANT to deal with reality, and not avoid the effort through cynical shallow mysticism.
You are under the guise that no secular people oppose abortion, only "religious mysticism".
Kelsey Hazzard is the president of Secular Pro-Life, which brings together people of every faith and no faith in defense of preborn children. She practices law in Florida.
The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights
Kelsey HazzardOctober 19, 2017
"Millennials in the “pro-life generation” are not interested in a culture war, but simply want to save preborn children and their mothers from the tragedy of abortion." https://www.americamagazine.org/voices/kelsey-hazzard
Quote:
And men won’t make this decision alone, it will be men and women taking a rational approach and seeing things for what they are. And correctly realizing that a fertilized egg is a nothingburger until time passes and transformation occurs. 24 weeks and beyond? That’s where the argument starts. 12-16 weeks? Pop it out and be more careful next time.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,593,334 times
Reputation: 2576
A more comprehensive look at Personhood legislature as it pertains to Roe V Wade: Personhood (2020)
"Personhood USA’s efforts do not enjoy universal support, even within the anti-choice movement. The National Right to Life Committee and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have refused to back state-level measures out of fear that state-level amendments will make their way to the Supreme Court and result in a decision that would reaffirm Roe v. Wade and undermine the progress that has been made in chipping away at the constitutional right to abortion at the state level.
<snip>
In addition to repeated attempts to pass “personhood” legislation at the state and federal level, “personhood” activists frequently attempt to place “personhood” initiatives on the ballot in the hopes that voters will approve them. These efforts have been largely unsuccessful. In the last ten years, only three states—Alabama, Colorado, and Mississippi—have put “personhood” measures to a vote. While voters rejected the measures in Colorado and Mississippi, Alabama voters did not.
<snip>
In 2019, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed HB 481 into law, which amends state law to define “natural person” to mean “any human being including an unborn child.” The bill includes embryos and fetuses in state population based determinations and amends the state tax code to redefine “dependent” to allow a fetus at any stage of development to qualify as a dependent minor."
If Personhood laws undermine overturning abortion --- seems to me, this is like having your cake and eating it too for women --- Taxes, child support and health insurance for the unborn.
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.
