• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

If you killed a 26-week preemie in the NICU, is it murder? If you can abort then, why would it be?


As is obvious, and has been clarified many times, the preemie in the NICU is not using any other person’s body/organs/blood without their permission, and so there is no one who has a competing legal right of autonomy to withdraw that support.


The argument is that no being has a right to the organs and body of another being without consent.
The Preemie in NICU is not violating that.
 
The 3-D images you posted don’t provide any new information. I don’t know what you think you were proving.

I posted images of 3 embryos at similar stages although the third one was a bit later. Does it make you uncomfortable to realize that when an embryo is aborted it is not distinguishable from the embryo of another animal except to a trained expert?

The 3D color ultrasound imagery of living babies is making YOU uncomfortable. Smiling. Sneezing. Twin babies hugging. Crying.

“Crying” now, too? “Hugging”? These are not actual facts. These are emotional fabrications about what fetuses are doing. Seriously. Newborns do not have the ability to either hug or smile. (Lion, I thought you were a parent - do you not know this?). Do you think they had this skill as fetuses, then lost it, then slowly gained it again? Really?


Why am I not surprised that Planned Parenthood has been associated with allegations of selling body parts of aborted babies.


It sounds like you are unaware that this was a lie. (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, even though I KNOW you have been told before that this is a lie)
The people who made this claim paid $2M in damages for FRAUD. It is not true, it was never true. You try to evade your responsibility by saying “they were associated with allegations,” but your intent is to repeat the lie.
When you repeat a lie, you become the person spreading the lies.

You might want to do some research on this before you continue to spread a lie.
 
If you killed a 26-week preemie in the NICU, is it murder? If you can abort then, why would it be?


As is obvious, and has been clarified many times, the preemie in the NICU is not using any other person’s body/organs/blood without their permission, and so there is no one who has a competing legal right of autonomy to withdraw that support.


The argument is that no being has a right to the organs and body of another being without consent.
The Preemie in NICU is not violating that.

Rhea: you are much more eloquent than I on this subject (well most likely on all subjects!). Just to requote for it's brevity and power: "no being has a right to the organs and body of another being without consent".
 
Biologist here. I've never thought that embryos were 'blobs.' Blastulas? Yes, if you don't know what you're looking at.

As a biologist, you must also know about this elementary fact of human biology.

Like all placental mammals, human individuals begin at conception and end at death. It's a universal trajectory of physical development. One conception might result in a trajectory that spans 80 years before death from old age. Another might end after a few days with death by miscarriage. Another might end after a few years, due to fatal illness. Nobody has a lease on tomorrow, and we're all gonna die. But this fact is well established.

Where morality comes in is the choices we make. People, all too often, make choices that will result in death for other people. Abortion is not the only such choice by any means. But it is one.
And the abortions I oppose aren't the ones resulting from rape or medical problems. They're the ones resulting from people who feel entitled to Choose irresponsible sex, and also entitled to killing their progeny because they don't want to take responsibility for the outcome of their Choice.
Tom
 
Fine. Do you agree that unborn human babies are the same species as you and I?
...since this is HUMAN rights issue. (As you say.)

They're not "human" until they are viable outside an actual human's body. Blastocysts are not "humans" except by the most tortured definitions contrived by superstitious god-peddlers.

Let the huge number of women who oppose abortion decline to have abortions
Youre confusing Western, liberal, abortion on demand with the Chinese version of abortion on demand - being forced to have an abortion.

No, it is YOU who are trying to impose Chinese-style control over women's bodies.

Nope. I don't want to control the body of a pregnant woman.

Then STFU about prohibiting abortions.
Fact - you don't want to control the body of "a" pregnant woman - you want to control ALL women's bodies.

I want to control the abortion industry.
Why?
(A: Because abortion is a procedure that is the exclusive province of women's bodies, which you wish to control).

Making murder illegal doesn't control anyone's body does it?

No, it doesn't. Murder is already illegal. So STFU.

Do you think eating meat should be illegal because huge numbers of women oppose eating meat?
If I did, I would start a new thread.

No need for a new thread - it's about acting on behalf of "huge numbers of women" to control the actions of ALL women.
You are appointing yourself (acting in the name of your imaginary friend of course) arbiter of when controlling the actions of ALL women is or is not acceptable... no wonder so many authoritarians get their oxygen from the religious cabal.
 
No, it doesn't. Murder is already illegal. So STFU.

Murder is a vague term, too much subjective opinion involved to have an objective meaning. One person or government might consider a particular killing murder while others do not.

That's why I avoid the term in this discussion.
Tom
 
Biologist here. I've never thought that embryos were 'blobs.' Blastulas? Yes, if you don't know what you're looking at.

As a biologist, you must also know about this elementary fact of human biology.

Like all placental mammals, human individuals begin at conception and end at death. It's a universal trajectory of physical development. One conception might result in a trajectory that spans 80 years before death from old age. Another might end after a few days with death by miscarriage. Another might end after a few years, due to fatal illness. Nobody has a lease on tomorrow, and we're all gonna die. But this fact is well established.

Where morality comes in is the choices we make. People, all too often, make choices that will result in death for other people. Abortion is not the only such choice by any means. But it is one.
And the abortions I oppose aren't the ones resulting from rape or medical problems. They're the ones resulting from people who feel entitled to Choose irresponsible sex, and also entitled to killing their progeny because they don't want to take responsibility for the outcome of their Choice.
Tom


Do you have a tribunal where women can come to you with their stories and you can judge whether they are deserving of bodily autonomy?


I am always surprised by you people who think that women in loving marriages who do not want any more children must tell their husbands, “no more sex for 40 years” and both of them must live like that because you think she’s not responsible enough to simultaneously want a healthy sex life with her husband but also not want additional children.

You all keep spouting that the only way women are alowed to control their bodies is YOUR way.
You think “life begins at conception and ends at death” and that no one is allowed to stop artificial respiration or tube feeding on a brain dead “life,” because you think that with or without a brain it’s a “person.” I disagree. A human life if one that has had cognition and will have cognition again. For those who have not yet had cognition, and for those who will never have it again, they are life but they are not experiencing personhood. You try to force your belief that beings with human tissue but no functioning brain have more rights than live humans. I reject that. You can live your life that way, but I reject you tryng to force false beliefs onto my life and into my womb, or onto my post personhood breathing carcass.
 
Biologist here. I've never thought that embryos were 'blobs.' Blastulas? Yes, if you don't know what you're looking at.

As a biologist, you must also know about this elementary fact of human biology.

Like all placental mammals, human individuals begin at conception and end at death. It's a universal trajectory of physical development. One conception might result in a trajectory that spans 80 years before death from old age. Another might end after a few days with death by miscarriage. Another might end after a few years, due to fatal illness. Nobody has a lease on tomorrow, and we're all gonna die. But this fact is well established.

Where morality comes in is the choices we make. People, all too often, make choices that will result in death for other people. Abortion is not the only such choice by any means. But it is one.
And the abortions I oppose aren't the ones resulting from rape or medical problems. They're the ones resulting from people who feel entitled to Choose irresponsible sex, and also entitled to killing their progeny because they don't want to take responsibility for the outcome of their Choice.
Tom

I asked before but how do you define human conception?

Here are two often used but dramatically different definitions of human conception:

Conception: 1. The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.
2. The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium.

Implantation into the uterine wall takes 5-6 days after fertilization. If it implants in the uterus instead of a fallopian tube or fails to implant at all.
Fertilization and implantation are vastly different.

We know that AT LEAST 3/4 of all fertilized eggs NATURALLY fail to survive 6 weeks of gestation. We honestly do not know how many fertilized fail to implant at all.

From your post above and others, it seems you categorize abortions into 3 categories:
1. pregnancy from rape
2. pregnancy that causes serious medical problems

Which are justifiable in your opinion.

And then:
3. Pregnancies that result from 'irresponsible sex.'
Does that include people who conceive despite using birth control correctly? ALL birth control carries some failure rate associated with IDEAL use. Real life use carries a higher failure rate. Morning after pills are not universally available and are not typically free. Even sterilizations can result in pregnancy, although this is rare. At least two of my friends were so conceived, one after his mother had her tubes tied.

Lots of people are having 'responsible sex' using birth control and still conceive a pregnancy. Lots of people who conceive this way do decide to continue the pregnancy.

But some do not. There are many, many, many reasons for this.

If we really want to prevent abortions, we need to do several things:
Improve sex education and make it universal.
Improve health care and make it universal and free for all. Including mental health care.
Improve medical leave and make it paid
Improve parental leave and make AT LEAST 3 months of it paid. My personal opinion is that it should be mandatory for both men and women. This would help to reduce the stigma and remove any hiring/workplace bias against women who are or may become pregnant
Make universal affordable/free childcare available from birth through primary school age.

I've come to realize that I do not need to know the reasons people make the choices about reproduction or any other choice nor do other people require my approval. I'd much rather that we do as much as possible to reduce the need for abortion than punish women who seek abortion or medical providers who perform abortion.
 
Biologist here. I've never thought that embryos were 'blobs.' Blastulas? Yes, if you don't know what you're looking at.

As a biologist, you must also know about this elementary fact of human biology.

Like all placental mammals, human individuals begin at conception and end at death. It's a universal trajectory of physical development. One conception might result in a trajectory that spans 80 years before death from old age. Another might end after a few days with death by miscarriage. Another might end after a few years, due to fatal illness. Nobody has a lease on tomorrow, and we're all gonna die. But this fact is well established.

Where morality comes in is the choices we make. People, all too often, make choices that will result in death for other people. Abortion is not the only such choice by any means. But it is one.
And the abortions I oppose aren't the ones resulting from rape or medical problems. They're the ones resulting from people who feel entitled to Choose irresponsible sex, and also entitled to killing their progeny because they don't want to take responsibility for the outcome of their Choice.
Tom

You are committing a standard fallacy of the "pro-life" side here. You use the word "human" in the adjective sense and then replace it with "people". For one definition they are the same, but they are not the same in the sense you are using them.

Later this week the doc is going take some human cells from my wife and in the end destroy them. So what? It's the usual yearly blood check doctors do. Nobody cares about the destruction of human cells.

What we care about are people--and it's not the same word at all. The doc certainly isn't going to take people out of her!

Personally, I do not believe a person can exist without a mind--I define personhood as extending from first consciousness to last consciousness. (Yes, that means I consider someone in a persistent vegetative state no longer a person. The body's there, the person isn't.)

The earliest that first consciousness can be is the 7th month. At that point all abortions are for fetal defects--I don't believe there's any threat to the woman that wouldn't be handled by delivery instead.
 
Biologist here. I've never thought that embryos were 'blobs.' Blastulas? Yes, if you don't know what you're looking at.

As a biologist, you must also know about this elementary fact of human biology.

Like all placental mammals, human individuals begin at conception and end at death. It's a universal trajectory of physical development. One conception might result in a trajectory that spans 80 years before death from old age. Another might end after a few days with death by miscarriage. Another might end after a few years, due to fatal illness. Nobody has a lease on tomorrow, and we're all gonna die. But this fact is well established.

Where morality comes in is the choices we make. People, all too often, make choices that will result in death for other people. Abortion is not the only such choice by any means. But it is one.
And the abortions I oppose aren't the ones resulting from rape or medical problems. They're the ones resulting from people who feel entitled to Choose irresponsible sex, and also entitled to killing their progeny because they don't want to take responsibility for the outcome of their Choice.
Tom

You are committing a standard fallacy of the "pro-life" side here. You use the word "human" in the adjective sense and then replace it with "people". For one definition they are the same, but they are not the same in the sense you are using them.

Later this week the doc is going take some human cells from my wife and in the end destroy them. So what? It's the usual yearly blood check doctors do. Nobody cares about the destruction of human cells.

What we care about are people--and it's not the same word at all. The doc certainly isn't going to take people out of her!

Personally, I do not believe a person can exist without a mind--I define personhood as extending from first consciousness to last consciousness. (Yes, that means I consider someone in a persistent vegetative state no longer a person. The body's there, the person isn't.)

The earliest that first consciousness can be is the 7th month. At that point all abortions are for fetal defects--I don't believe there's any threat to the woman that wouldn't be handled by delivery instead.

Very good post about the difference between human and person.

I differ slightly from you in that I still consider someone in a persistent vegetative state or similar to be a person. But I don't necessarily think that it is obligatory or advisable or moral to allow a person to continue to exist with no hope for regaining any thought.
 
You think “life begins at conception and ends at death”
I do.
I also think that the huge variety of life is a result of speciation through natural selection. Evolution.

And rather like you, there are ideologues who think that my beliefs are the results of bad morals and nefarious motives. I must be an Evilutionist because I hate God and His Holy Word. Rather like you, they dodge the evidence and facts and stick to their strawman arguments and insults.

I'm used to it.

and that no one is allowed to stop artificial respiration or tube feeding on a brain dead “life,” because you think that with or without a brain it’s a “person.” I disagree.

This is yet another of your strawman arguments. You cannot possibly know anything about my opinions on the subject of euthanasia. But that doesn't stop you from putting words into my mouth and responding to that, instead of what I actually did post.

I get that from creationists a lot as well.
Tom
 
You are committing a standard fallacy of the "pro-life" side here. You use the word "human" in the adjective sense and then replace it with "people".

No I didn't.
Go back and reread. I used the term "human individual".

Human can be either an adjective or a noun. I tried to be clear. Just ignoring what I actually wrote doesn't make me wrong and you right.
Tom
 
You think “life begins at conception and ends at death”
I do.
[…]
Rather like you, they dodge the evidence and facts and stick to their strawman arguments and insults.

This apprears to be a non sequitur. IN what way do I dodge evidence to hear you say “life begins at conception and ends at death” and conclude that you mean it to treat beings the same at one end as the other?


and that no one is allowed to stop artificial respiration or tube feeding on a brain dead “life,” because you think that with or without a brain it’s a “person.” I disagree.

This is yet another of your strawman arguments. You cannot possibly know anything about my opinions on the subject of euthanasia. But that doesn't stop you from putting words into my mouth and responding to that, instead of what I actually did post.


Well, then, you have said something contradictory and I need clarification.
You said, “life begins at conception and ends at death” and I concluded that you mean it to treat beings the same at one end as the other?

Are you saying that life begins at conception and ends at death, and it’s okay to end those lives prior to death?
 
This apprears to be a non sequitur. IN what way do I dodge evidence to hear you say “life begins at conception and ends at death” and conclude that you mean it to treat beings the same at one end as the other?

Where did I post anything referring to end of life issues?

Quote something.
Anything. Anything I posted on that subject.

I'll wait.
Tom
 
This apprears to be a non sequitur.

I just realized a mistake that I made.

I responded to a post from [MENTION=136]Toni[/MENTION];.
You responded to my post. I responded to your post, thinking I was responding to the poster I'd quoted.

Sorry, my mistake.
Tom
 
Can I buy fetal body parts from the abortion industry?
In practical terms yes. Legally? Yes.

Business partners in Planned Parenthood’s fetal tissue program in southern California admitted illegally selling fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood and were shut down in a $7.8 million settlement with the Orange County District Attorney, who credited CMP’s undercover reporting with prompting the successful prosecution.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fetal-tissue-20171209-story.html

According to the settlement signed Monday, DV Biologics LLC and sister company DaVinci Biosciences LLC, both based in Yorba Linda, must cease all operations in California within 60 to 120 days. The agreement also requires the companies to admit liability for violations of state and federal laws prohibiting the sale or purchase of fetal tissue for research purposes, prosecutors said.
 
Here's another 'usual suspect' who can't cope with purely secular arguments against abortion.
Are you under the illusion that you have made some? Anyone who explicitly or implicitly claims a human zygote or blastula is a human being to argue against abortion is either a functional idiot or a religious zealot. Anyone who thinks fetuses smile is biologically ignorant and is making an appeal to emotion in order to buttress their religious twaddle of an argument.
Did you see laughing dog use the quote function to support his intellectually dishonest claim about me using "irrational religious twaddle"?
The only intellectually dishonest claims are spewed by you (see above, along with Rhea's and Toni's evisceration of your ignorant claims).
Just patently false special pleading on his part about some imaginary right to do whatever you want in the USA without anyone's permission - American anarchy. Inconvenient democracy. A utopia of selfishness.
I find it difficult to accept that anyone is sufficiently delusional to believe people in the USA need their permission to enact laws and policies, or are you just babbling again, so are you just babbling?

It is a fact that no one in the USA needs your permission do anything. Just like no one in Australia needs mine. While you are entitled to spew all the twaddle, dumbness and falsehoods you want, no one is required to either accept them or even pay attention to them. The same is true for me. It doesn't bother me, because I'm an adult.
 
This apprears to be a non sequitur. IN what way do I dodge evidence to hear you say “life begins at conception and ends at death” and conclude that you mean it to treat beings the same at one end as the other?

Where did I post anything referring to end of life issues?

Quote something.
Anything. Anything I posted on that subject.

I'll wait.
Tom

“Ends at death”

You brought up the point at which you consider life ends.
This is in the context of what we can and cannot do to people who are alive.
You imply end-of-life issues by talking about the end of life in the context of saying that you have restrictions about what we are allowed to do after you claim life has begun.

Are you saying that you have different standards at the end of life versus the beginning? I assumed you had the same standards at both ends, and that’s why I wrote what I did.

Please clarify so that I don’t have to guess.
You brought up when life ends.


EDITED: just saw your update. Ignore if this is no longer relevant.
 
You are committing a standard fallacy of the "pro-life" side here. You use the word "human" in the adjective sense and then replace it with "people".

No I didn't.
Go back and reread. I used the term "human individual".

Human can be either an adjective or a noun. I tried to be clear. Just ignoring what I actually wrote doesn't make me wrong and you right.
Tom

I missed that because I'm so used to the deception. However, it doesn't help you as it is clearly false. You and your identical twin are only one person. Who is the fraudster defrauding the government, you or your twin?? (Yeah, I have no reason to think you have an identical twin, I'm just showing some of the ramifications of your claim.)

And chimeras are two people, not one. As one of the pair never worked they won't have their own social security, but they should still get half what their partner gets. As well as being treated as married on tax returns. They're getting gypped.
 
Back
Top Bottom