Author Topic: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets  (Read 1615 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12276
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #58 on: May 22, 2014, 08:55:58 AM »
Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you are responsible for their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.

And he pointed out, in the post you mainly ignored, that a body is not the same as a house.  Rights to one's body are not the same as rights to one's property.

He invited you to explain yourself without an analogy.  If one has a valid point to express by analogy, then that point can also be expressed without an analogy.  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #59 on: May 22, 2014, 09:20:50 AM »
Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you knew of their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.

And he pointed out, in the post you mainly ignored, that a body is not the same as a house.  Rights to one's body are not the same as rights to one's property.

He invited you to explain yourself without an analogy.  If one has a valid point to express by analogy, then that point can also be expressed without an analogy.  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with.

Sorry but there is no direct analog.  Again this is mostly philosophical.  But my above I was addressing the error in his analogy.

If you can think of a way I can present a direct analogy or even better a scientific argument for the reason that a baby/(fetus), in utero, deserves less rights than a human house guest.

Both were in essence invited guests, both resided in their location for a long time before the decision to kick them out was reached, both has a high likelihood of survival .  Then rather than calling a cab or having a c-section, they are kicked out in an unsurvivable situation.

In both situations I believe the people are obligated to not cause harm to their respective guests regardless of the inonvenience to them. 

I am hoping that someone will come up with the scientific/ethical/moral/ or logical reason why you should be able to kill a baby 1 second and it is a crime to kill them the next.  Especially when calling the cab is an option.

Of course the point is rendered somewhat moot, because it is illegal to kill a fetus in the third trimester unless there is an imminent serious risk to the mother.

So legally there is no argument to be made. If mom can't get her act together before 6.? months then she is stuck with it.  The law seems to back my analogy.   You and your body can become subserviant to another if you are irresponsible beyond a certain level.

You can arbitrarily use science to explain that the fetus refers to a forming human that resides in the womb and that regardless of when it is born it is called a baby.  These two terms have but one distinguishing feature their location.   

Science can also say that a forming human with 8 months gestation can sense pain.

Beyond that we are stuck in personal opinion.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 10:14:51 AM by epidemic »

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #60 on: May 22, 2014, 09:30:44 AM »
Let it go, ep.  I'm not iterested.  You are not in my weight class. 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #61 on: May 22, 2014, 10:21:16 AM »
Let it go, ep.  I'm not iterested.  You are not in my weight class.

I am quite sure our relationship is that of you being a light weight and me being heavy weight, both morally and intelletually speaking.  Probably even got a few pounds of fat on you as well.

Thanks to my school system I might say I do have a disadvantage grammatically.  But you fail to see that you are making judgement based upon your personal beliefs.  Not science, not legal, but from your gut.   I see where you are coming from and I just happen to bestow human rights earlier than you.  For you it is in the 20's and for me the third trimester.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 10:30:51 AM by epidemic »

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #62 on: May 22, 2014, 10:54:30 AM »
I just happen to bestow human rights earlier than you.  For you it is in the 20's and for me the third trimester.

Why?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #63 on: May 22, 2014, 10:56:49 AM »
I am quite sure our relationship is that of you being a light weight and me being heavy weight, both morally and intelletually speaking. 

Of course you are, little fella.  That is known as the Dunning Kruger effectWiki.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12276
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #64 on: May 22, 2014, 11:57:26 AM »
Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you knew of their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.

And he pointed out, in the post you mainly ignored, that a body is not the same as a house.  Rights to one's body are not the same as rights to one's property.

He invited you to explain yourself without an analogy.  If one has a valid point to express by analogy, then that point can also be expressed without an analogy.  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with.

(... unrelated bs ...)

If you meant to ignore what I said in my post, epidemic, then it would have been more polite and honest to simply ignore the post rather than pretending to address it.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #65 on: May 22, 2014, 03:11:41 PM »
I just happen to bestow human rights earlier than you.  For you it is in the 20's and for me the third trimester.

Why?

Why not?   I consider a viable human to be a human with rights???  Why wouldn't you?


Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #66 on: May 22, 2014, 03:16:09 PM »
Why not?   I consider a viable human to be a human with rights???  Why wouldn't you?

What kind of rights? Would you allow them to have sex? Get a tattoo? Drink? Smoke? Do drugs? Get a job? All this regardless of age, of course. Or are you saying that a viable human isn't actually a human?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #67 on: May 22, 2014, 03:20:49 PM »
Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you knew of their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.

And he pointed out, in the post you mainly ignored, that a body is not the same as a house.  Rights to one's body are not the same as rights to one's property.

He invited you to explain yourself without an analogy.  If one has a valid point to express by analogy, then that point can also be expressed without an analogy.  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with.


(... unrelated bs ...)

If you meant to ignore what I said in my post, epidemic, then it would have been more polite and honest to simply ignore the post rather than pretending to address it.


I am all ears,  give me an example of what you are looking for.   I did address your point but not to your satisfaction .  I can not think of how to express it with out analogy.   

I have done direct explaination.  If the fetus is viable, then it is human.  If it can live outside the woman then perhaps you should not be allowed to kill it.   If it feels pain perhaps you should not inflict it.   Studies have indicated that personality is partially formed in utero meaning that there is a functioning brain that is capable of storing information.  If it were removed at 7.5 months it would have an extremely good chance at living out a full and normal life.   


Do you think we as a society should not allow people to kill infants and toddlers?  Can you please explain why we should not be allowed to kill infants and or toddlers?

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #68 on: May 22, 2014, 03:22:03 PM »
Why not?   I consider a viable human to be a human with rights???  Why wouldn't you?

What kind of rights? Would you allow them to have sex? Get a tattoo? Drink? Smoke? Do drugs? Get a job? All this regardless of age, of course. Or are you saying that a viable human isn't actually a human?

Well we can start with a right to draw breath.  They are probably a little young for sex.  Why do they intrigue you sexually? :)

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #69 on: May 22, 2014, 03:44:54 PM »
Well we can start with a right to draw breath.  They are probably a little young for sex.

Either they're humans, and therefore have the same rights as a human, or they're not, and therefore don't have the same rights as a human. Make up your mind.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12276
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #70 on: May 22, 2014, 03:59:11 PM »
Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you knew of their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.

And he pointed out, in the post you mainly ignored, that a body is not the same as a house.  Rights to one's body are not the same as rights to one's property.

He invited you to explain yourself without an analogy.  If one has a valid point to express by analogy, then that point can also be expressed without an analogy.  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with.

I am all ears,  give me an example of what you are looking for.   I did address your point but not to your satisfaction .  I can not think of how to express it with out analogy.

Well then, there you go.  Case closed.  You have no valid point.  This doesn't mean that you're wrong; it doesn't disprove what you're saying.  What it means is that you are unequipped to argue it, as you don't understand your own position.  If you did, then you could explain it directly, without explaining something else you feel is similar.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 04:00:56 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #71 on: May 23, 2014, 04:49:45 AM »
What kind of rights? Would you allow them to have sex? Get a tattoo? Drink? Smoke? Do drugs? Get a job? All this regardless of age, of course. Or are you saying that a viable human isn't actually a human?

Well we can start with a right to draw breath.  They are probably a little young for sex.  Why do they intrigue you sexually? :)

Here you recognise that rights are dependant on the developmental stage of the human or potential human in question.

Just because something can become a person doesn't mean that it should be treated the same as an actual person.

you've answered this question.

Why not?   I consider a viable human to be a human with rights???  Why wouldn't you?

Why did you infer that there was something inherently sleazy about OAA asking if it was ok for fetus' to have sex?

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #72 on: May 23, 2014, 06:37:23 AM »
Well we can start with a right to draw breath.  They are probably a little young for sex.

Either they're humans, and therefore have the same rights as a human, or they're not, and therefore don't have the same rights as a human. Make up your mind.

I see that you are correct, rights are at least in some part dependent on age or stage of developement.  I concede that.  I also agree with societies general belief (Laws) that when a fetus in utero reaches viability that it has the right to life.  Society has spoken and the logic is sound.

As to the statement   ".  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with"  I would like to hear Azdgari explain why we should not kill our children.  If he can not do so then this is apparently not a valid point then should we eliminate child welfare laws???

If you agree with laws against parents murdering their children, it should be simple for you to express it.  Perhaps I will learn something in the process of how to express myself without analogy.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 06:41:04 AM by epidemic »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #73 on: May 23, 2014, 12:52:08 PM »
I see that you are correct, rights are at least in some part dependent on age or stage of developement.  I concede that.

Do you also concede that a fetus (in fact, anyone under the age of approximately 25 years old) is underdeveloped (not fully developed)?

I also agree with societies general belief (Laws) that when a fetus in utero reaches viability that it has the right to life.  Society has spoken and the logic is sound.

Society also thinks homosexual relationships are an abomination. Society is wrong.
I'd also like to see the evidence for your claim. As far as I can tell, it's just you. Abortion is quickly becoming acceptable in every developed[1] country.

As to the statement   ".  If this cannot be done, then it means that there was no valid point to begin with"  I would like to hear Azdgari explain why we should not kill our children.  If he can not do so then this is apparently not a valid point then should we eliminate child welfare laws???

I can think of at least one reason for keeping children alive, and it's not even an emotional one. I don't know if Azdgari will post it, though I'm sure he'll at least think about it.
 1. USA doesn't count.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #74 on: May 23, 2014, 03:16:49 PM »
I see that you are correct, rights are at least in some part dependent on age or stage of developement.  I concede that.

Do you also concede that a fetus (in fact, anyone under the age of approximately 25 years old) is underdeveloped (not fully developed)?

I agree with it, our brains do develop through out much of our life.  (But we do for some reason protect life as a virtually absolute right after the womb [exception being crime])


I also agree with societies general belief (Laws) that when a fetus in utero reaches viability that it has the right to life.  Society has spoken and the logic is sound.

Society also thinks homosexual relationships are an abomination. Society is wrong.
I'd also like to see the evidence for your claim. As far as I can tell, it's just you. Abortion is quickly becoming acceptable in every developed[1] country.
 1. USA doesn't count.

Society can be wrong, and society can be right.   I agree that we should not treat homosexuality as an abomination.  I think killing babies is wrong after the second trimester.  you also need to trim in your argument a little for me, I have never said abortion was wrong.  I only question if there is a point when one should demand birth over abortion due to fetal development and semi autonomous viability.  America and the UK prohibit abortion in the third trimester and the uk has taken this rule and restricted it recently.  formerly they were 28 weeks and now the moratorium is 24 weeks.  I agree with abortion being legal but it seems as if western countries have restrictions on it as a rule.  France is even tighter at 14 weeks, germany first trimester.  All countries have varying degrees of exception for late term abortions for the health of the mother.  I am not going to look at the laws from each country but it seems as if it is virtually universal that right to life extends into the womb at some point in most countries.



Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #75 on: May 23, 2014, 04:02:01 PM »
I agree with it, our brains do develop through out much of our life.  (But we do for some reason protect life as a virtually absolute right after the womb [exception being crime])

So why do people get access to all the rights a fully-grown human does if they're not fully grown?

Society can be wrong, and society can be right.

Isn't it amazing how society just happens to be wrong when you disagree with it and just happens to be right when you agree with it? Reminds me of christians and the Bible.

I think killing babies is wrong after the second trimester.

Everyone does. Killing a baby is wrong, regardless of age. A fetus, on the other hand, can and does put the mother through a lot of risk.
Wait, did you mean to say fetus?

you also need to trim in your argument a little for me, I have never said abortion was wrong.  I only question if there is a point when one should demand birth over abortion due to fetal development and semi autonomous viability.

Ignoring the "demand" thing (you don't own it, you don't get any say in it), sure there is. It's called "birth". At least that's the most objective one. We can also declare arbitrary rules as to what is human and what isn't.

America and the UK prohibit abortion in the third trimester and the uk has taken this rule and restricted it recently.

I say "USA doesn't count", you say "America". Unless you're referring to the continent, in which case I'll need to see one link per country in America, I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.

formerly they were 28 weeks

Probably inspired by the movie "28 Weeks Later".

and now the moratorium is 24 weeks.

That's awesome. Give women less time to figure out if they want to let the fetus become a baby or not.
Also, kudos on using a (relevant) word I didn't know.

I agree with abortion being legal but it seems as if western countries have restrictions on it as a rule.  France is even tighter at 14 weeks, germany first trimester.  All countries have varying degrees of exception for late term abortions for the health of the mother.  I am not going to look at the laws from each country but it seems as if it is virtually universal that right to life extends into the womb at some point in most countries.

You're ignoring something that I don't think other people have mentioned. You're putting the fetus's life above the mother's. Why? Is a potential human somehow more valuable than a fully-grown human? Is a seed more valuable than a tree? Does it produce oxygen? Can it feed herbivores? If I cut a small piece from it and plant it somewhere, will it grow? Does it bear fruit? Likewise, can a fetus think? Can it feel (emotions; not physical sensations)? Can it express anything? Can it learn? Can it breathe? Can it even pee and/or poop? The answer to all these is "No; it cannot", and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.
Being able to experience physical sensations (having perception of the world) does not make one sentient. Are bacteria sentient? Are krill sentient? What about Octopuses' arms? They still move, feel, touch, and try to feed a non-existent body, even when detached from the body.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #76 on: May 27, 2014, 10:19:22 AM »
I agree with it, our brains do develop through out much of our life.  (But we do for some reason protect life as a virtually absolute right after the womb [exception being crime])

So why do people get access to all the rights a fully-grown human does if they're not fully grown?

Well sticking to the right to life.  After birth it has rights.  If it is born 1 month early it has rights.  Physically an 8 month Fetus (we will stick with the word you can deal with) is no different than baby born in the 8th month.  Why does it magically get the right to life at the same stage of development because it resides outside?


Society can be wrong, and society can be right.

Isn't it amazing how society just happens to be wrong when you disagree with it and just happens to be right when you agree with it? Reminds me of christians and the Bible.
  Well I am sure you find anti gay marriage legislation,  As stated we all have things we find wrong with the law.  I think a fetus that is indestinguishable from a baby has a right to life.

I think killing babies is wrong after the second trimester.

Everyone does. Killing a baby is wrong, regardless of age. A fetus, on the other hand, can and does put the mother through a lot of risk.
Wait, did you mean to say fetus?

You are playing word games.  Excluding residence, can you tell me the destinguishing features of an 8 month old Fetus and a baby born at 8 months gestation?



America and the UK prohibit abortion in the third trimester and the uk has taken this rule and restricted it recently.

I say "USA doesn't count", you say "America". Unless you're referring to the continent, in which case I'll need to see one link per country in America, I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.
  I think the onus is now on you to show me examples of countries that do not confer rights on fetus at some point during gestation.  As for your mincing of words again.  America when used all by its lonesome usually refers to the United States of America.  I am sure you knew this.  If not perhaps you need to work on expanding your horizons.


formerly they were 28 weeks

Probably inspired by the movie "28 Weeks Later".

yeah ummmm ok. :D



and now the moratorium is 24 weeks.

That's awesome. Give women less time to figure out if they want to let the fetus become a baby or not.
Also, kudos on using a (relevant) word I didn't know.

I don't know about you but sometimes we need to make decsions in less than 6 months.  Perhaps before killing something one should make the decision before it can potentially survive outside of you.

I agree with abortion being legal but it seems as if western countries have restrictions on it as a rule.  France is even tighter at 14 weeks, germany first trimester.  All countries have varying degrees of exception for late term abortions for the health of the mother.  I am not going to look at the laws from each country but it seems as if it is virtually universal that right to life extends into the womb at some point in most countries.

You're ignoring something that I don't think other people have mentioned. You're putting the fetus's life above the mother's. Why? Is a potential human somehow more valuable than a fully-grown human? Is a seed more valuable than a tree? Does it produce oxygen? Can it feed herbivores? If I cut a small piece from it and plant it somewhere, will it grow? Does it bear fruit? Likewise, can a fetus think? Can it feel (emotions; not physical sensations)? Can it express anything? Can it learn? Can it breathe? Can it even pee and/or poop? The answer to all these is "No; it cannot", and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.
Being able to experience physical sensations (having perception of the world) does not make one sentient. Are bacteria sentient? Are krill sentient? What about Octopuses' arms? They still move, feel, touch, and try to feed a non-existent body, even when detached from the body.

Well actually Babies can pee and poop prior to birth, I believe that it is well known that Fetuses can think at a babies level, learning mom and dads voice has been documented in utero, some personallity traits are supposed to begin forming in later stages of pregnency.  An 8 month old fetus is sentient it has more than feeling, it has thoughts, dreams, so it is definitely sentient.  I am confident that bacteria and krill do not dream, an octopus's arms are not sentient (First off an octopus's arms are called tentacles and they are not viable on their own.)

As for comparison to plants I am not sure you can compare a mamalian life cycle to a plant but a seed would be much more aptly compared to a  blastocyst, a seedling would be akin to a fetus.  I was just at Lowes and seeds are much less valuable than seedlings.  Young plants are worth more than seedlings and finally old plants are worth less Try to sell a 5 foot tomato plant with fruit on it:)


Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #77 on: May 27, 2014, 01:35:48 PM »
Well sticking to the right to life.  After birth it has rights.  If it is born 1 month early it has rights.  Physically an 8 month Fetus (we will stick with the word you can deal with) is no different than baby born in the 8th month.  Why does it magically get the right to life at the same stage of development because it resides outside?

Because the circumstances are different? Why does a man holding a gun on someone lose the right to live while that same man, not holding the gun anymore, doesn't?

Well I am sure you find anti gay marriage legislation,  As stated we all have things we find wrong with the law.  I think a fetus that is indestinguishable from a baby has a right to life.

But it is not indistinguishable from a baby. That's the whole point. I'll explain more below.

You are playing word games.  Excluding residence, can you tell me the destinguishing features of an 8 month old Fetus and a baby born at 8 months gestation?

Excluding their theistic beliefs, can you tell me the distinguishing features of a theist and an atheist?
You see why your point is moot (and that's the nicest way I can put it)? If you ignore the differences, obviously things will be the same. What you're saying is this:
P has X features in common with Q and Y different features. If you ignore Y, P=Q.
Which is illogical. You can't toss out the differences and just go "OMG! They're exactly the same!"

I think the onus is now on you to show me examples of countries that do not confer rights on fetus at some point during gestation.

They're what's known as "third-world countries", so I think you'll dismiss them.

As for your mincing of words again.  America when used all by its lonesome usually refers to the United States of America.  I am sure you knew this.  If not perhaps you need to work on expanding your horizons.

I am well aware of that. I am also aware that I said this:
I say "USA doesn't count", you say "America". Unless you're referring to the continent, in which case I'll need to see one link per country in America, I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.
Bold mine for emphasis.
I think the last bit of the last sentence applies here as well.

Off-topic: I am also aware that what a lot of the world refers to as "North" and "South" America is simply called "America" by every geography teacher I've ever heard of.

formerly they were 28 weeks

I don't know about you but sometimes we need to make decsions in less than 6 months.  Perhaps before killing something one should make the decision before it can potentially survive outside of you.

Or... you know, give women the freedom to do with their bodies as they wish and not as you wish just because you're trying to protect what she thinks is a mistake and make her go through a very painful and potentially deadly (yes, labor can be deadly both to women and fetuses) procedure.
Tell me, do you also apply this decision when the fetus (once it's born and becomes a baby) is sick in a way that doesn't affect its brain? You know, something like dimorphism or Harlequin-type ichthyosis, which can be fatal (not a death sentence nowadays thanks to science) and very, very painful to the baby (remember; it's been born by now), parents, nurses, doctors, and just about everyone that sees it and can feel empathy or hear its screams of pain (which, even if you feel no empathy, will give you a headache).

Well actually Babies can pee and poop prior to birth,

Either they're babies or they're prior to birth, so this does not compute. However, assuming you meant "fetuses", I'll have to admit to using a little hyperbole there. Yes, technically speaking, fetuses do pee and poop. However, their urine gets reabsorbed into their bodies and mixes with the amniotic fluid. Poop, however, is somewhat (IMO; not in the opinion of the writer of the article I'll link you to) rare. Only 12% of fetuses poop in the womb, and doing so is very dangerous for it.
Link: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2667/do-unborn-babies-urinate-defecate-in-the-womb

I believe that it is well known that Fetuses can think at a babies level, learning mom and dads voice has been documented in utero, some personallity traits are supposed to begin forming in later stages of pregnency.  An 8 month old fetus is sentient it has more than feeling, it has thoughts, dreams, so it is definitely sentient.

Gonna have to see links to this.

I am confident that bacteria and krill do not dream, an octopus's arms are not sentient

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Invertebrates
Their arms catch food and try to feed the body, even when there's no body to feed. This may not be sentience (they're not self-aware), but they are intelligent.

(First off an octopus's arms are called tentacles and they are not viable on their own.)

One of the (male) octopus's arms is actually its penis, which is why I said "arms". In addition, octopuses can walk under water. Not kidding; google it. They bend their arms in such a manner that resembles feet, raise their other arms, and walk along the sea floor.

As for comparison to plants I am not sure you can compare a mamalian life cycle to a plant but a seed would be much more aptly compared to a  blastocyst, a seedling would be akin to a fetus.  I was just at Lowes and seeds are much less valuable than seedlings.  Young plants are worth more than seedlings and finally old plants are worth less Try to sell a 5 foot tomato plant with fruit on it:)

So, by your logic, better put everyone in prison. They might all become killers. Potential is worth more than actual accomplishments.

EDIT: Fixed quotes (thanks, sctrewtape).
« Last Edit: May 27, 2014, 02:09:32 PM by One Above All »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #78 on: May 27, 2014, 02:50:42 PM »

Because the circumstances are different? Why does a man holding a gun on someone lose the right to live while that same man, not holding the gun anymore, doesn't?

Well in this case the only people holding the guns is the doc and the mom to be.



But it is not indistinguishable from a baby. That's the whole point. I'll explain more below.

This is an abitrary destinction.  You are choosing the location to determine whether something lives or dies. Where location is the only determining factor.  You might agree with this I don't unless the mothers life is in danger.


Excluding their theistic beliefs, can you tell me the distinguishing features of a theist and an atheist?
You see why your point is moot (and that's the nicest way I can put it)? If you ignore the differences, obviously things will be the same. What you're saying is this:
P has X features in common with Q and Y different features. If you ignore Y, P=Q.
Which is illogical. You can't toss out the differences and just go "OMG! They're exactly the same!"

No they are both people with a right to live regardless of their belief in a boogy man or lack there of.  Some differences really don't matter.  PS I have heard the Doctor call the fetus a baby many times.  It is really again all about perception.  Abortion clinic will call it a fetus and a OBGYN will often call it a baby.



They're what's known as "third-world countries", so I think you'll dismiss them.

Ok so third word countries are who you want to use as the benchmark for societies morals?

I am well aware of that. I am also aware that I said this:
I say "USA doesn't count", you say "America". Unless you're referring to the continent, in which case I'll need to see one link per country in America, I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.
Bold mine for emphasis.
I think the last bit of the last sentence applies here as well

Off-topic: I am also aware that what a lot of the world refers to as "North" and "South" America is simply called "America" by every geography teacher I've ever heard of.
That has not been my experience Geography teachers would often speak of the Americas (note the s) when speaking of continents.  I also heard them refer to North America and South America when refering to specific continents.  But when the word America is used individually it usually refers to the country known as the USA.



Or... you know, give women the freedom to do with their bodies as they wish and not as you wish just because you're trying to protect what she thinks is a mistake and make her go through a very painful and potentially deadly (yes, labor can be deadly both to women and fetuses) procedure.
Tell me, do you also apply this decision when the fetus (once it's born and becomes a baby) is sick in a way that doesn't affect its brain? You know, something like dimorphism or Harlequin-type ichthyosis, which can be fatal (not a death sentence nowadays thanks to science) and very, very painful to the baby (remember; it's been born by now), parents, nurses, doctors, and just about everyone that sees it and can feel empathy or hear its screams of pain (which, even if you feel no empathy, will give you a headache).

anencephaly, massive torturous genetic disorders, discovered late term would be grounds for abortion in my opinion.  As for the risk to mom of birth.  I don't know the mortality stats for Natural vs C-section.  I don't know if they improve if you induce in the 7th month while the baby is small but viable and how an early birth compares with abortion risk.  I know that the risk to mother is extremely rare if there is not an underlying condition.   The risk to the baby is irrelevant when the alternative is abortion which is 100% fatal.


Either they're babies or they're prior to birth, so this does not compute. However, assuming you meant "fetuses", I'll have to admit to using a little hyperbole there. Yes, technically speaking, fetuses do pee and poop. However, their urine gets reabsorbed into their bodies and mixes with the amniotic fluid. Poop, however, is somewhat (IMO; not in the opinion of the writer of the article I'll link you to) rare. Only 12% of fetuses poop in the womb, and doing so is very dangerous for it.
Link: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2667/do-unborn-babies-urinate-defecate-in-the-womb


I did not say they pooped often only that your statements was wrong.




Gonna have to see links to this.

Babies bonding with mother and father's voice here is a little link
Personallity is also forming in utero


Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Invertebrates
Their arms catch food and try to feed the body, even when there's no body to feed. This may not be sentience (they're not self-aware), but they are intelligent.[/url]


One of the (male) octopus's arms is actually its penis, which is why I said "arms". In addition, octopuses can walk under water. Not kidding; google it. They bend their arms in such a manner that resembles feet, raise their other arms, and walk along the sea floor.
  Interesting but ultimately kinda not what we are talking about.

As for comparison to plants I am not sure you can compare a mamalian life cycle to a plant but a seed would be much more aptly compared to a  blastocyst, a seedling would be akin to a fetus.  I was just at Lowes and seeds are much less valuable than seedlings.  Young plants are worth more than seedlings and finally old plants are worth less Try to sell a 5 foot tomato plant with fruit on it:)

So, by your logic, better put everyone in prison. They might all become killers. Potential is worth more than actual accomplishments.

I never said or implied nothing of the sort.   I simply am saying that (I am going to use a word you don't like)

A baby in the womb who is viable for semi autonomous life (meaning able to be cared for by anyone) might deserve a right to live.  My arbitrary set point, is having the equipement to survive outside the mother and having a human brain.

As you aptly pointed beyond the life of the mother I think you are right that a certain quality of life should be weighted in as well when doing a risk assesment.

In closing I understand that you feel third world countries are doing things right and you believe that the destinction of the vaginal barrier is a reason to allow a fetus to be killed at the whim of the host.  I happen to be in agreement with most western countries regarding this subject.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #79 on: May 27, 2014, 03:03:26 PM »
I'm checking out a video right now, so I'll just drop these links regarding risk to the mother and fetus during birth.
http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/press_materials/fs/fs_newborndealth_illness/en/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillbirth#Prevalence (note the "one every 20 minutes")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death#Global_Trends (note the "650 women per year")
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12276
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #80 on: May 27, 2014, 06:41:36 PM »
Perhaps this might help:  Epidemic, where does one's right to life come from?  And how do we verify its presence, as opposed to its absence?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +130/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #81 on: May 27, 2014, 08:57:27 PM »
A right to life requires the option to not exercise the right.

I have the right to speak freely without hindrance from my government. I have the right to possess a firearm. I have a right to limit my government from unreasonable search and seizures of my person or property. I have the right to not incriminate myself.

I am not required to speak freely -- I can choose to keep my mouth shut. I do not have to possess a firearm -- I can never own or possess a firearm for my entire life. I do not have to endure a search of my person or property without my consent -- but I can choose to tell the police that they are free to search my car or home whether they have any reason to conduct a search or not. I have the right to not confess anything to any government representative that would immediately cause me to be arrested or prosecuted, but I can also blab under oath all I want.

A right to life requires that the fetus be able to consciously exercise the right to die (the only alternative). Since a fetus is unable to communicate, much less comprehend the circumstance of the question, it is impossible for the fetus to have a right that the fetus cannot exercise or otherwise choose to ignore. Furthermore, a born human at no time in his life has a right to life because that right has an assumption that the individual hasn't committed murder, for example. In other words, it's a conditional right. On certain conditions the right can be exercised.

If you believe that fetuses have a right to life, and I don't know how you arrive at that bungi cord logic, you have to admit that humans have a right to die. It's the only way to choose to not exercise a right to life.






John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #82 on: June 17, 2014, 09:37:07 AM »
I'm checking out a video right now, so I'll just drop these links regarding risk to the mother and fetus during birth.
http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/press_materials/fs/fs_newborndealth_illness/en/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillbirth#Prevalence (note the "one every 20 minutes")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death#Global_Trends (note the "650 women per year")

Ok I finally read you link and as expected it does not sufficently break down the maternal death rate to be significant to argument.

America and Europe have clauses in place that consider the medical risk to the mother after the 24 to 28 week deadline.  So of that 650 women who die per year,  assuming that everyone of them was denied an abortion in after the 24th week it is likely that many if not most had medical conditions that contributed to the death that would have allowed late term abortion.  So we have an unknown mortality rate because the statistics are not presented in a manner that corresponds to the law.


Lets start with 650 deaths, out of approximately 4,000,000 births.  We have a death rate of about 16.5 per 100,000.


How many of that 650 died prior to the cutoff?  Well ectopic pregnancy alone accounts for 10 to 15% of deaths earlier than the cut off 24 to 28 weeks. 
Ok now we are down to  553 or a rate of 13.825 per 100,000 affected by the law.  Since ectopic pregnancy is not the only high risk pregnancy we still have alot of room to reduce that 553 number.  We could reduce it by the number of women who would choose late term abortion with no medical necessity only about 25% of women choose abortion 

Abortion stats after the 24th week will be worse than 9.09 in 100,000 How much worse it is may be up for debate because this statistic is based on the 21'st week but I assume the complications would rise substantially over the weeks following the 21'st week since stress on the mother and size of the baby are increasing.

Statistically abortion vs birth is starting to look closer to a wash as far as health of the mom.   That is as close as I can get the numbers with a quick scan of the internet. 

It is hard to make an apples to apples analysis. 

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #83 on: June 17, 2014, 09:41:51 AM »
A right to life requires the option to not exercise the right.

I have the right to speak freely without hindrance from my government. I have the right to possess a firearm. I have a right to limit my government from unreasonable search and seizures of my person or property. I have the right to not incriminate myself.

I am not required to speak freely -- I can choose to keep my mouth shut. I do not have to possess a firearm -- I can never own or possess a firearm for my entire life. I do not have to endure a search of my person or property without my consent -- but I can choose to tell the police that they are free to search my car or home whether they have any reason to conduct a search or not. I have the right to not confess anything to any government representative that would immediately cause me to be arrested or prosecuted, but I can also blab under oath all I want.

A right to life requires that the fetus be able to consciously exercise the right to die (the only alternative). Since a fetus is unable to communicate, much less comprehend the circumstance of the question, it is impossible for the fetus to have a right that the fetus cannot exercise or otherwise choose to ignore. Furthermore, a born human at no time in his life has a right to life because that right has an assumption that the individual hasn't committed murder, for example. In other words, it's a conditional right. On certain conditions the right can be exercised.

If you believe that fetuses have a right to life, and I don't know how you arrive at that bungi cord logic, you have to admit that humans have a right to die. It's the only way to choose to not exercise a right to life.

Actually as stated way way before.  The right to life is commonly not a choice that needs to be made by the individual.  it is illegal to attempt suicide, you may not under any circumstances simply snuff out a baby 1 second after birth.  Society makes the rules or some would say god does.  But I think of god as just the collective society banding together and claiming that a super being is the source of their morals.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #84 on: June 17, 2014, 09:42:56 AM »
Sorry, epidemic, but the fact that we lost two whole weeks of posts leaves me unwilling to go back to my old debates, including this one. Tell you what: you keep on trying to limit other people's free will and implicitly aiding in/causing their deaths while causing them unnecessary pain and suffering; meanwhile us rational folks protect free will, life, and quality of life, OK?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #85 on: June 17, 2014, 09:59:16 AM »
Sorry, epidemic, but the fact that we lost two whole weeks of posts leaves me unwilling to go back to my old debates, including this one. Tell you what: you keep on trying to limit other people's free will and implicitly aiding in/causing their deaths while causing them unnecessary pain and suffering; meanwhile us rational folks protect free will, life, and quality of life, OK?

Who is suggesting death, You are the one promoting it.  I am the one promoting life.  I inconjunction society in most first world nations am demaning personal responsibility and decision making over a multi month period before finally holding someone accountable for their inaction.  There are restrictions on free will.   I can not join the military if I don't do it before a certain date.  I cannot have an abortion if I don't do so by a certain unless there is serious risk of harm.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12276
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Video stirs up anti abortion hornets
« Reply #86 on: June 17, 2014, 10:47:20 AM »
Perhaps this might help:  Epidemic, where does one's right to life come from?  And how do we verify its presence, as opposed to its absence?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.