Abortion Debate Forum - the Truth Is a Circle

steen

replied on April 8th, 2005

Extremely eHealthy

Re: the Truth Is a Circle

where_is_the_line wrote:

the issue is humanity... Who can prove that unborn human beings are not human?

ah, so you are referring to the species issue? Yes, the fetus and embryo are as human as are your kidneys.

Quote:

so please disprove human fetus' humanity or you can not justify abortion.

sure we can. The issue of abortion rights is about allowing the use of your body. The status of the fetus is irrelevant, your postulation none withstanding.

Quote:

please tell me why a human fetus is not a human being.

because it is not an individual, and thus is not a "being."

Quote:

i am of the opinion, based on facts, that it can not be disproved.

isn't that special. I am also of te opinion, based on facts, that the fetus is not a human being. That's nice, we both have opinions. So?

Quote:

people in support of abortion (or pro-choice b/c who is pro-abortion, even though it's apparently only a reproductive choice as simple as letting the being live to birth or giving it up for adoption) ....

you are rambling. What is it you are trying to hint at here?

Quote:

...Can not concede to the humanity of embryos and fetuses because then any arguments they try to make fall apart and hold no water.

what a stupid claim. Even if the fetus was a person 5 times over, it still would not have the right to use a person's body against that person's wishes. No other person has such a right. So until I can force you to give of your bodily resources to me, you can't force the woman to give of her bodily resources to the embryo or fetus either. Therefore, regardless of how absolutist your silly claim is, it is still silly.

Quote:

if the unborn being is human, and therefore a human being, which of course it is, then it takes more to justify the killing of it, under law, let alone morally, than for just any reason as our law currently is written.

so you say. You are saying that "a human being" has the right to use another person's body to stay alive. Then I have the right to force you to give blood if it could save my life.

Yet, I have no such right, and as such your claim is outright false. You are simply wrong.

Quote:

stop playing ignorant and ignoring the truth.

why don't you?

|

Kourtney08

replied on April 8th, 2005

Active User, very eHealthy

Quote:

stop playing ignorant and ignoring the truth.

ah, I was hoping you'd be a pro-lifer that didn't have to prove her point by insulting.

Ah, well.

Anyways, I don't think because people have different views they're ignorant.

Please stop playing like you know the facts. Thanks.

|

2ferano

replied on April 9th, 2005

Extremely eHealthy

A fetus is a human fetus, yes. It obviously isn't a dog fetus. But, like steen said, it isn't its own being and cannot live without its "host" and therefore isn't a human being. Fact: a fetus is not legally a human being based on biology, etc. So, your "facts" stating that it is are merely opinion.

When a fetus can survive, or grow on its own then o.K, get rid of abortion. But as long as it needs its "host" then obviously it is a women's rights issue.

Would you let me live off of your body for nine months, bearing the possability that you may die when I break off? Should that not be your decision?

|

where_is_the_line

replied on April 11th, 2005

Experienced User

Re: the Truth Is a Circle

steen wrote:

ah, so you are referring to the species issue? Yes, the fetus and embryo are as human as are your kidneys.

it goes beyond the species issue. A fetus and an embryo are more human that a mere kidney. A kidney is not a living human being that matures and changes inside the woman's body, as the being will continue to do outside if allowed to live.

Quote:

the issue of abortion rights is about allowing the use of your body. The status of the fetus is irrelevant, your postulation none withstanding.

you aren't disproving the status of the fetus by claiming it is irrelevant, which does not make any sense to me. (go ahead, insert smart remark here) how can you claim it is irrelevant?

Quote:

[a human fetus is not a human being] because it is not an individual, and thus is not a "being."

it clearly is a being, just look at the definition: existence; life, one that lives or exists. Are you denying that a fetus is not alive or that it actually exists?
Individual: existing as a separate thing or being
a fetus is not separate from the woman's body while inside. But it is distinguishable, it is a separate body within her body, it is not part of her body, it is in her body.

Quote:

i am also of the opinion, based on facts, that the fetus is not a human being. That's nice, we both have opinions. So?

so our opinions are only as good as the facts that back them up. You haven't explained why you think a fetus is not a human being. I think it is because from conception it has it's own, separate, dna, bloodtype, gender, etc. It develops and matures from the moment of conception just as it continues to do outside of the womb. It is a being that is nothing else but human. A kidney, for example, is not a human being because it does not grow and develop and mature on it's own, even though it uses the woman's body to stay alive, a kidney grows with the rest of the body, not independently (not as far as reliance, as far as not being part of her body) as a fetus does.

Quote:

you are rambling. What is it you are trying to hint at here?

the point I am trying to make is simple. Why do people get so defensive when being called pro-abortion? Even though by some of the comments in this forum, people are clearly pro-abortion, not just having the choice to abort. Yet some people maintain abortion is bad, but they can't impose their view etc etc while others do not seem to see anything wrong with abortion no matter what, simply because the woman has the ability to make a choice. I was certainly not rambling.

"...Can not concede to the humanity of embryos and fetuses because then any arguments they try to make fall apart and hold no water"

Quote:

what a stupid claim. Even if the fetus was a person 5 times over, it still would not have the right to use a person's body against that person's wishes. No other person has such a right. So until I can force you to give of your bodily resources to me, you can't force the woman to give of her bodily resources to the embryo or fetus either. Therefore, regardless of how absolutist your silly claim is, it is still silly..

go ahead, say stupid and silly a few more times and maybe it will become true or you'll convince a few more people, that actually works in the mass media.

Quote:

you are saying that "a human being" has the right to use another person's body to stay alive. Then I have the right to force you to give blood if it could save my life.
Yet, I have no such right, and as such your claim is outright false. You are simply wrong.

donating blood and being pregnant are completely different, that is not a very good analogy.
You do not need to save the life of a fetus, you simply need not kill it.
Yes, the younger a person is the more protection we generally provide for it under law.
You were already allowed to be born, you are past the point of needing that protection.

|

where_is_the_line

replied on April 11th, 2005

Experienced User

kourtney08 wrote:

Quote:

stop playing ignorant and ignoring the truth.

ah, I was hoping you'd be a pro-lifer that didn't have to prove her point by insulting.

Ah, well.

Anyways, I don't think because people have different views they're ignorant.

Please stop playing like you know the facts. Thanks.

fair enough, that comment was unnecessary. It was emotional and inflammatory, my error.

And i'm flattered you refered to me as a "her" but I am male.

I wasn't refering to everyone with that comment, just certain people, and that comment had nothing to do with proving any of my points, it only had the potential to insult, but it obviously did not further any of my arguments.

I do know a fair amounts of facts, I apparently form different conclusions from them than other people. Sometimes I just feel people are ignoring certain aspects because it doesn't fit their argument as well, but I guess we're all guilty of that to some extent.

I don't assume ignorance just because someone has a different viewpoint.

Again, I shouldn't have included that comment, it wasn't very prudent in retrospect.

|

where_is_the_line

replied on April 11th, 2005

Experienced User

hotasfrick wrote:

when a fetus can survive, or grow on its own then o.K, get rid of abortion. But as long as it needs its "host" then obviously it is a women's rights issue.

ok, but abortion is still legal past the point of viability outside of the womb for any reason. So do you agree with me we should limit the choice of the woman after that point?

|

jenn_smithson

replied on April 14th, 2005

Active User, very eHealthy

where_is_the_line wrote:

steen wrote:

ah, so you are referring to the species issue? Yes, the fetus and embryo are as human as are your kidneys.

it goes beyond the species issue. A fetus and an embryo are more human that a mere kidney. A kidney is not a living human being that matures and changes inside the woman's body, as the being will continue to do outside if allowed to live.

i'm sorry to have to correct you but you are wrong. The kidney does mature and it does change. It is not a human being because obviously it is not and cannot be independent of the person it inhabits, much like a fetus. How is it that "a fetus and an embryo are more human than a mere kidney"? How are they more and how did you reach that distinction and definition?

Quote:

how can you claim it is irrelevant?

whether you consider the fetus a human person or not does not matter (hence, is irrelevant) since no person (whether living, "unborn", or dead) has the right to be physically dependent on another persons body, resources, and organs. When I say physically dependent, I am referring to actually being physically attached to another person to survive.

Quote:

[a human fetus is not a human being] because it is not an individual, and thus is not a "being."

it clearly is a being, just look at the definition: existence; life, one that lives or exists. Are you denying that a fetus is not alive or that it actually exists?

for me, personally, neither. I am not denying that a fetus (if healthy) is alive or that it exists. However, I believe what steen meant to say is that a fetus is not a human *person*. To be considered a person and indeed the way that we have always counted and considered persons is that they be born. Upon successful birth, physical indepence is established and the fetus is then its own person and is at that time considered a part of the human race.

Quote:

individual: existing as a separate thing or being
a fetus is not separate from the woman's body while inside. But it is distinguishable, it is a separate body within her body, it is not part of her body, it is in her body.

actually, it is not separate but is intimately, physically attached to the woman for survival. In this respect, it is a part of her body just like a kidney, a mole, and her hair. It cannot live without the woman and is physically attached to her body and systems. It is not an individual since it is not separate. This is also why we do not consider z/e/f's persons.

Quote:

i think it is because from conception it has it's own, separate, dna, bloodtype, gender, etc. It develops and matures from the moment of conception just as it continues to do outside of the womb. It is a being that is nothing else but human. A kidney, for example, is not a human being because it does not grow and develop and mature on it's own, even though it uses the woman's body to stay alive, a kidney grows with the rest of the body, not independently (not as far as reliance, as far as not being part of her body) as a fetus does.

identical twins do not have unique dna (from one another), are they not considered persons? Clearely, having unique dna does not garner one the status of being considered a person. Hydatiform moles also have unique human dna from the host but you can find no one claiming that they are human persons. These are human but are not persons. The fetus then is not independent on an argument of dna because several other things have unique dna but would never be considered a person. The fetus is not independent of the woman. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the woman's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the woman's body are *symbiotically linked*, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the woman does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the woman.

You stated, "a kidney, for example, is not a human being because it does not grow and develop and mature *on it's own*, even though it uses the woman's body to stay alive, a kidney grows with the rest of the body, not independently (not as far as reliance, as far as not being part of her body) as a fetus does." this is false. A fetus does not develop and mature "on its own" since it is physically attached to the woman's body. The woman's body providing nutrients and oxygen aid in development and without them, the fetus will not grow. A fetus that fails to implant (physically attach) to the woman does not continue to grow "on its own". It's growth, development, and maturity depend entirely upon being physically attached (therefore not independent) to the woman's body. A fetus that suffers from a defect will still grow even when any signs of life cannot be detected. Clearly, the fetus is not willing itself to grow and cannot grow independently from the woman's body just as your claims that the kidney cannot grow independently from a body to support it.

Quote:

why do people get so defensive when being called pro-abortion? Even though by some of the comments in this forum, people are clearly pro-abortion, not just having the choice to abort.

probably because no one on this particular board is pro-abortion. Being pro-abortion would mean that you advocate *all* pregnancies ending in abortion. Being pro-choice means to support all the choices that a woman may make with her own pregnancies.

Quote:

you are saying that "a human being" has the right to use another person's body to stay alive. Then I have the right to force you to give blood if it could save my life.

Yet, I have no such right, and as such your claim is outright false. You are simply wrong.

donating blood and being pregnant are completely different, that is not a very good analogy.

on the contrary, being pregnant is the voluntary donation of space within your body, your resources and fluids, and your organs for the potential that a child may be born. If you do not wish to donate, you can take contraceptives and if that does not work (as all contraception has a failure rate), you can then choose to either donate those resources or obtain an abortion.

Quote:

you do not need to save the life of a fetus, you simply need not kill it.

how do you do one without doing the other? How do you end a pregnancy that you do not want and the fetus not be killed? Because the fetus *is* physically dependent on the woman, ending the pregnancy cannot but end in the death of the fetus.

|

jenn_smithson

replied on April 14th, 2005

Active User, very eHealthy

where_is_the_line wrote:

hotasfrick wrote:

when a fetus can survive, or grow on its own then o.K, get rid of abortion. But as long as it needs its "host" then obviously it is a women's rights issue.

ok, but abortion is still legal past the point of viability outside of the womb for any reason. So do you agree with me we should limit the choice of the woman after that point?

[/quote] please provide evidence (case names, dates, and courts will be sufficient) that abortion is legal past the point of viability "for any reason"? Please point out in the prevailing court precedence where this is true and please point out the documented cases for women obtaining abortions "for any reason" past viability.

Prevailing case law states that abortions after viability are only legal in the event that the life or health of the woman is in jeopardy. Abortions after viability account for only 1/5 of 1% of all abortions performed. The overwhelming majority of abortions performed are done so within the first trimester and well within viability. You must show actual, medical need to obtain an abortion after viability. Not only must you show this for your insurance (or medicaid/medicare) to cover the associated costs but you must also find one of the very few doctors who will perform the procedures common after viability.

Women don't wait around until after viability to suddenly decide that they will have an abortion nor can they legally. Abortions performed after viability are prescribed in the event of fetal abnormality not conducive to life outside the womb or where the pregnancy represents a present danger to the woman's health or life.

To my knowledge, there have been no cases (and you can be rest assured that they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law nor would any doctor go near them and risk their livelihood) involving women who obtain a post-viability abortion "for any reason". There are reasons for these abortions to be allowed and performed and they must be medically documented.

|

foreverblue

replied on April 14th, 2005

Active User, very eHealthy

The difference is that a kidney cannot exist outside of the human body no matter how long you keep it in your body,whereas a fetus after 24 weeks can live independent of the females body,take your kidney out after 24 weeks and even with all the technology we have it will die in a matter of hours,take a fetus out after 24 weeks and it will more than likely live for 90 years,that is the difference and you must admit it is a major difference

|

sandyallen

replied on April 14th, 2005

Extremely eHealthy

Welcome back jenn-smithson! I agree with you, very well said!

Fyi foreverblue I am not jenn's spouse or secretary(lol) I just wanted to set things straight.

Sincerely,
sandy

|

steen

replied on April 14th, 2005

Extremely eHealthy

foreverblue wrote:

the difference is that a kidney cannot exist outside of the human body no matter how long you keep it in your body,whereas a fetus after 24 weeks can live independent of the females body,

irrelevant. The right to not have your body used against your willl is not dependent on the outcome of that use. And no, the kidney no more live on its own than does the bodily resources for the fetus. But the kidney patient that benefits from the new kidney will live as surely as will the fetus if it makes it to birth. Guess, you see neither the woman nor the kidney pateitn as persons in their own right?

Quote:

take your kidney out after 24 weeks and even with all the technology we have it will die in a matter of hours,

likewise for any of the bodily resources you want to give to the fetus against the woman's will.

Quote:

take a fetus out after 24 weeks and it will more than likely live for 90 years,

yes, the fetus can be the recipient of bodily resources just as the kidney patient can. So they can bot h live. Yet, you don't care about the kidney pateint. Guess it is true that you are not pro-life, only pro-fetal-life?

Quote:

that is the difference and you must admit it is a major difference

really? What are the major differences between the recipients of the bodily resources? What is the big difference between the kidney pateint and the fetus? After all, you pl always claim that the fetus is a human being, a person. Are you denying that the kidney patient is both of these?

|

foreverblue

replied on April 15th, 2005

Active User, very eHealthy

steen wrote:

foreverblue wrote:

the difference is that a kidney cannot exist outside of the human body no matter how long you keep it in your body,whereas a fetus after 24 weeks can live independent of the females body,

irrelevant. The right to not have your body used against your willl is not dependent on the outcome of that use. And no, the kidney no more live on its own than does the bodily resources for the fetus. But the kidney patient that benefits from the new kidney will live as surely as will the fetus if it makes it to birth. Guess, you see neither the woman nor the kidney pateitn as persons in their own right?

Quote:

take your kidney out after 24 weeks and even with all the technology we have it will die in a matter of hours,

likewise for any of the bodily resources you want to give to the fetus against the woman's will.

Quote:

take a fetus out after 24 weeks and it will more than likely live for 90 years,

yes, the fetus can be the recipient of bodily resources just as the kidney patient can. So they can bot h live. Yet, you don't care about the kidney pateint. Guess it is true that you are not pro-life, only pro-fetal-life?

Quote:

that is the difference and you must admit it is a major difference

really? What are the major differences between the recipients of the bodily resources? What is the big difference between the kidney pateint and the fetus? After all, you pl always claim that the fetus is a human being, a person. Are you denying that the kidney patient is both of these?

can someone please decipher this trolls rambling,i do not speak troll

|

jenn_smithson

replied on April 15th, 2005

Active User, very eHealthy

foreverblue wrote:

can someone please decipher this trolls rambling,i do not speak troll

this is *exactly* why I stopped coming here. Last week I reviewed a few threads, found this behavior to be lacking, and decided to post again thinking that everyone had grown the hell up in the time I have not been posting here. If you're going to return to such infantile behavior, I will once again say farewell.

Do you people act this way at your jobs with someone you don't agree with or don't like? Do you act this way in church?

Jesus tap dancing christ, .G.E.T .O.V.E.R .I.T. *.G.R.O.W .U.P.*! .E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E!!!!!

|

2ferano

replied on April 16th, 2005

Extremely eHealthy

I also am pretty much done here. I really did think this forum was a great idea and that is why I asked for it. But, for some reason, people just can't stop insulting each other and it is just too much stress for me. It is a shame. Especially since most of you who are doing all of this insulting back and forth, I know are above it! Whether I agree with your views or not, I don't think anyone here is stupid or immature, but for some reason a lot of you feel the need to act that way anyway.
If someone is insulting you, why don't you be the bigger person and come back with a valid debate, or just ignore it? Obviously the person doing the name-calling or whatever isn't worth the time it takes to post, so why do it? I don't know. Just my thoughts.

|