Wait On That Abortion

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

I believe life is a continuum, as sperm and ova are alive, and no, I do NOT see that as murder. Neither do I see 1-2 month human abortions as murder, and I have seen several aborted (spontaneously) 2-month-old fetuses in my life.

The conceptus is an aggregation of rather undifferentiated cells, not yet developed, not yet capable of going forward in development independent of the mother's body.

Interesting point: why do people feel a sense of loss when there is a spontaneous miscarriage? Isn't it because they feel a death has occurred?

And what is done to prevent those undifferentiated cells from developing? You know, the cells whose DNA doesn't match the woman's? Killing them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Interesting point: why do people feel a sense of loss when there is a spontaneous miscarriage? Isn't it because they feel a death has occurred?

Having never had a miscarriage, I cannot speak for what other people feel. I'm sure that people that want a baby are unhappy to lose the pregnancy at such an early stage of development, (as they are unhappy about not being able to get pregnant) but nature aborts plenty of pregnancies for it's own reasons.

And what is done to prevent those undifferentiated cells from developing? You know, the cells whose DNA doesn't match the woman's? Killing them.

What is that supposed to mean? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

(and btw, read up on maternal mitochondrial DNA before you commit ever more to your argument regarding cells that are not "her" DNA)

You have shifted the conversation away from the subject, to talking about developing feti.

The conversation, however, is constitutional and legal: it is about your desire to control the lives of people you don't even know, and your desire to have the government of the United States force women to have babies. That is not legal in this country.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

The conversation, however, is constitutional and legal: it is about your desire to control the lives of people you don't even know, and your desire to have the government of the United States force women to have babies. That is not legal in this country.

Wrong. It is not "controlling" other people to outlaw murdering someone in utero.

Women who are pregnant have babies. The brilliant solution by the warped people who came up with it is to kill the baby before it can be delivered. THAT is the issue.

The facts surrounding fetal development give evidence that the cells/tissue/organs being destroyed do not belong exclusively to the would-be mother. Genetically half hers, and half the father's, as all of us are, it is not simply what a woman chooses to do "with her body" technically. If it was just her body, she'd be able to get pregnant with nobody's help. She might have been born pregnant. It's absurd.

That is simply language the pro-abortion crowd uses to shout people down or stop any further thought or deliberation on this issue, because, since 1973, they have the decision they wanted from the Supreme Court. Further debate does them no good, and they are fearful that if points like mine are made that enough people agree with, eventually a future Supreme Court may reverse the decision.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Genetically half hers, and half the father's,

Yes, we know eggs and sperm combine to form mammals. BTW, though, the DNA each cell contains is more the mothers contribution, not 50-50 - again, see mitochondrial maternal DNA

So if you want to make an argument about who has control of a fertilized egg, based upon DNA contribution, the mother wins. She also owns the incubator and chemicals necessary to sustain that egg.

as all of us are, it is not simply what a woman chooses to do "with her body" technically. If it was just her body, she'd be able to get pregnant with nobody's help

Why does ova and sperm combining give the government the right to force a woman to bear a baby? That argument addresses only the interests of the sperm contributor. The government still has nothing to do with it.

That is simply language the pro-abortion crowd uses to shout people down or stop any further thought or deliberation on this issue, because, since 1973, they have the decision they wanted from the Supreme Court.

Yes, you use the terms murder butcher baby, the pro-choice, anti-government takeover of woman's bodies to force births crowd uses those words.

I wish more of the anti-abortion crowd, who care so much about developing fetuses, would give a damn after those babies start breathing oxygen, and for the duration of their lives.

Joey - I certainly respect your beliefs and passion about the issue of abortion, and you are welcome and free, in this country, to legally continue to pursue your goals regarding changing the law reference legal control of it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Joey - I certainly respect your beliefs and passion about the issue of abortion, and you are welcome and free, in this country, to legally continue to pursue your goals regarding changing the law reference legal control of it.

And I do appreciate that Riot. I'm glad that my passion on the subject was received in the spirit it's given.

And I have to agree with a previous post that this was probably as civil of a conversation as I've heard or participated in on the subject.

When I do use strong terminology, I'm trying to drive the point home and I'm not consciously trying to amplify it for shock value. It's just the way I see it.

As a philosphical point: A murder in a closed, soundproof room with no witnesses is still a murder.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Wrong. It is not "controlling" other people to outlaw murdering someone in utero.

What about this point? Is it controlling to no longer allow a murder of this sort to take place?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

What about this point? Is it controlling to no longer allow a murder of this sort to take place?

I think the classification of first weeks abortions as "murder" is beyond absurd, and purely inflammatory.

And yes, our government forcing women to bear babies is beyond controlling - it's illegal under our system of constitutional law.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think the classification of first weeks abortions as "murder" is beyond absurd, and purely inflammatory.

And yes, our government forcing women to bear babies is beyond controlling - it's illegal under our system of constitutional law.

Not to split hairs -- if the government decides that abortion is no longer to be legal, that's seems to be different than actively "forcing" someone to have a baby. Abortion is the active termination and disposal of what is (or would be, depending on your point of view) another person. But since abortion, which is relatively new in terms of human history (less than 100 years as an officially defined procedure), is the active measure, the disallowment of it is not an active measure.

The fact that pregnancy starts with fertilization of an egg and then is on "autopilot", for lack of a better term, until the child is ready for delivery is nature's (or God's) design. It is an illusion to think that there are all these "decision points" during that interval. There aren't. There isn't anything close to a daily question, "Good morning, would you like to remain pregnant?" If you don't like God's design, take it up with him. Or lament the short sightedness of our Darwinian evolution. But it is what it is.

I'd be curious to know how many people are pro-abortion and against capital punishment. In other words, the most innocent among us get executed without due process of law, in utero, but some sadistic serial killer shouldn't be executed even if he kills 100 people. I would find that the exact opposite of what should happen.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

But since abortion, which is relatively new in terms of human history (less than 100 years as an officially defined procedure), is the active measure, the disallowment of it is not an active measure.

This is incorrect, joey; abortion has been around for almost as long as pregnancy has been around. What the term "abortion" encompasses has evolved, but what you think of as abortion (a woman's conscious action to end a pregnancy) is older than recorded history.

The fact that pregnancy starts with fertilization of an egg and then is on "autopilot", for lack of a better term, until the child is ready for delivery is nature's (or God's) design.

Technically, the WHO defines pregnancy as beginning when a fertilized egg implants into the uterine lining. So no, pregnancy starting with fertilization of an egg is not a fact; that's false. The debate about when life begins can continue, as that's a matter of opinion, but pregnancy is a medically defined term and it starts on implantation.

I'd be curious to know how many people are pro-abortion and against capital punishment. In other words, the most innocent among us get executed without due process of law, in utero, but some sadistic serial killer shouldn't be executed even if he kills 100 people. I would find that the exact opposite of what should happen.

Those who oppose capital punishment, as I understand it, oppose it on the grounds that it is not applied fairly and that there is always the risk of an innocent person being executed (there was a pretty devastating New York article on that very thing happening a few years back). So your question is a straw man.

This has been a very interested thread to read. I want to post two links, for those interested. The first is an excerpt from a very excellent book, When Abortion Was a Crime which explores the roughly 100 years in the US when abortion was more or less illegal (1867-1970). It's out of print now, but you can still find used copies on Amazon.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs...ay/abortex.htm

Chock full of interesting facts, like that even the Catholic Church tacitly allowed abortion until the 1860s and it wasn't until the 1890s that they removed the "life of the mother" exception.

The other is a piece entitled "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion: When the Anti-Choice Choose" and it's a collection of anecdotes from abortion providers who have had anti-choice people come to them for abortion:

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Joey, I wouldn't endeavor to argue with you about when life begins, as none of us know. Even the Bible is wishy-washy on it, with some references to God knitting people together in the womb and others to God breathing life in only as the baby leaves the mother's body. But understand, that no law will stop a desperate woman from attempting to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy. And the majority of abortions are performed on women who have already had a baby. So outlawing abortion will lead to the deaths of desperate women who are already mothers. If you are truly, truly against abortion, then you need to work towards a nation that financially supports childrearing, through state-supported daycare, accommodating work schedules for parents (or subsidies so parents can take time off to care for babies, as they do in Europe). And to push for comprehensive sex education and birth control to be free to anyone who needs it. If we want more potential lives brought into the nation we need to be willing to man and woman up with our own tax dollars and support them. Because having a kid is f*cking expensive, but that's not going to stop people from having sex.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not to split hairs -- if the government decides that abortion is no longer to be legal, that's seems to be different than actively "forcing" someone to have a baby.

No. The government will exactly be forcing a woman to have a baby.

Do some google, about current cases in the last year or so: read about women who have developed problems with their pregnancies, and could not have abortions per certain conservative state laws (they had to wait for the baby to die in utero, or be delivered then die)

But since abortion, which is relatively new in terms of human history (less than 100 years as an officially defined procedure), is the active measure, the disallowment of it is not an active measure.

Women have been inducing abortions for centuries, Joey. Physically and chemically.

The point of your sentence is not agreed to by me: of course the government interfering in a woman's life, in the medical decisions she and her doctor makes, is active, aggressive, communist, ridiculous government takeover and control. Appalling overreach.