Split from Economics thread - Abortion Discussions

[JimL]

Insofar as I bother to read discussions here on abortion (which isn't often), I'm always left scratching my head when the term "Partial Birth Abortion" comes up. I've tried looking it up, and the whole thing seems like nonsense. Why should anyone care or bother to distinguish how abortions are performed? It appears to be a term made up by nutters and used by nutters as far as I can tell.

The medical term is Dilation and extraction. Partial Birth is a term made up by the anti-abortion faction.

[Bill the Cat]

A 6 week fetus is not a viable member of our species, is the point being made...nor is it subject to legal protection. "Viability" has always been the key.

Viability is also a relative term, and is also just another point in our development. A human in the middle of a heart transplant is also not viable at that point. And a pre-viable fetus is also the subject of legal protection under the UVVA.


Thank you. There is no such thing as a "potential human person". It is an actual human person. As such, it is on the same path of human development as you are. You just happen to be farther along.

legal

Yet, the preponderance of arguments contain such biologically ignorant phrases like "It's just a clump of cells", "it's not a baby", and "it's my body". All are used with the intention to make the independent member of our species something less than that. Denying an individual member of our species "personhood" based on an arbitrary stage of development is unjust.

Without an active brain pattern a fetus cannot be said to be a as you claimed, merely a potential functioning member of the species.

Yes it can, and it is. Active brain patterns are merely advanced specific functions of cells of our species. That a fetus hasn't developed that specificity yet in no way negates the fact that it is still functioning.


We are discussing WHAT gets aborted.

This is not in doubt, nor is it relevant.

It is WHOLLY relevant. It shows that there is no difference from a biological POV between the embryo and an infant from the standpoint of both being individual members of our species. Once that is shown and agreed upon, then the arbitrary things like applying rights can be discussed.


The only difference between abortion and the UVVA is who gets to legally harm or kill the unborn. Rights are applied to the unborn at EVERY stage against anyone except the mother harming the fetus, and the same penalties (except the death penalty) are applied to the crime as if they had been done to anyone else. So, your contention that the "insensate fetus" is not protected by law is utter crap. Public Law 108-212 protects the fetus "at any stage" as a separate member of our species with rights.

[Cow Poke]

Pursuant to state and federal law it is illegal to "take, feed, disturb, possess, sell, purchase or barter, or attempt to engage in any such conduct, any bald eagle or parts thereof, or their nests or eggs. All violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

Yeah, this is yet another glaring inconsistency the liberals can't defend. Save baby eagles - kill baby humans.

[Cow Poke]

The medical term is Dilation and extraction. Partial Birth is a term made up by the anti-abortion faction.

It's not at all unusual for liberals to come up with terminology they can hide behind, Jimmy. Kinda like "pro-choice" for abortion when it actually removes any choices an unborn baby could ever make. And, just like so much of liberalism, it's incredibly inconsistent -- liberals are generally adamantly opposed to school choice.

[rogue06]

Yeah, this is yet another glaring inconsistency the liberals can't defend. Save baby eagles - kill baby humans.

One poster here gets upset over hunting whales but thinks parents ought to be able to "abort" babies for a couple months after they're born.

save-the-baby-humans-baby-whale.jpg

[firstfloor]

[Cow Poke]

If human fetus tissue is so valuable that you are willing to force other people to grow it and give birth to it against their will,

Ummm... in the vast majority of the cases, the "grower" of "it" made a decision to engage in an activity which is commonly known to produce this situation.

why do you also support the death penalty, nuclear weapons, military action, guns

Last I saw, there's not a single conservative on the planet who advocates using these on innocent babies. Now, there's a certain sick and twisted poster on Tweb who DOES advocate the murder of children who actually HAVE been born.....

and are careless about the environment

That's a gutless liberal talking point, FF - we want clean water and air for our kids to drink and breathe...

and overpopulation

Yeah, that one scared me to death when I was a kid and they were teaching in school that we weren't going to have room to breathe. Then I learned that the ENTIRE POPULATION of the US could fit in the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida with room to move around a bit.

There's just too much stooooopid in that part for me to even address.

[Bill the Cat]

Yet, the preponderance of arguments contain such biologically ignorant phrases like "It's just a clump of cells", "it's not a baby", and "it's my body". All are used with the intention to make the independent member of our species something less than that.

If human fetus tissue is so valuable that you are willing to force other people to grow it and give birth to it against their will,

See Tassy? Q.E.D.

why do you also support the death penalty,

Because people who commit murder should lose their right - at the government's hand of justice - to live.

nuclear weapons

Proportional strength is always a good deterrent to the use of force. And we are not for nuclear weapons for states like Iran, unlike your ilk who turn a blind eye and hope they obey...

, military action,

To ensure idiots like you have a free country to spew your ignorance. We're generous like that.

guns

That pesky Constitution...

and are careless about the environment

I picked up trash at the Appomattox river this past weekend. What'd you do?

and overpopulation

A result of the liberal policies of promiscuity and easy escape marriages.

and the welfare and the education system

That our ideas are different from your laissez faire approach to welfare and education doesn't mean we care less about them. We just see better ways to manage and control them than you have.

You're an idiot.

[One Bad Pig]

Respectfully, If your criterion can't accept that 100 per year is justifiable then your criterion is crap.

Respectfully, we appear to be talking past each other here or something. My criterion has nothing to do with numbers.

If there is something in Jim's post you want me to address quote it.

You brought up this whole line of discussion in response to my noting that the legal distinction regarding the legality of abortion is purely based on convenience. Your discussion has not touched on this in any way.

And now you're assuming things. Who is going around planning to get knocked up and then abort? It's ludicrous.

It's your misreading of my post that is ludicrous. How in the world do you get that out of my post? I'm referring to YOUR assumption that there was some plan to carry the baby to term.

Once a women is pregnant she either plans to abort or plans to carry it to term.

Lolno. What kind of fantasy world do you live in that you think it is that black and white?

Such dithering you speak of is insufficient to explain that only 100 per year happen during the third trimester. 93% happen in the first trimester which is itself evidence against that this dithering occurs in any significant capacity. Being pregnant isn't the kind of thing you can ignore so it stands to reason that if the women don't want to be pregnant then they will get an abortion promptly if they are able. Hence 93% in the first, 7% in the second and RoundingError% in the third, 0.00625%. For an abortion to be happening after 24 weeks something bad happened along the way.

That dithering doesn't occur in any significant capacity hardly means it won't happen at all. Duh.

Partial Birth Abortion isn't a medical term.

It is an accurate, if colloquial, description of the process.

Beyond that, you'd need to talk with someone who was directly involved to know why something wasn't done for certain.

Or I just talk to you, who can confidently declare that something WAS done for certain. Derp.

[Tassman]

It's not at all unusual for liberals to come up with terminology they can hide behind, Jimmy. Kinda like "pro-choice" for abortion when it actually removes any choices an unborn baby could ever make. And, just like so much of liberalism, it's incredibly inconsistent -- liberals are generally adamantly opposed to school choice.

[JonathanL]

Unlike you most unborn babies don't actually stay that way forever.

[Tassman]

Viability is also a relative term, and is also just another point in our development. A human in the middle of a heart transplant is also not viable at that point. And a pre-viable fetus is also the subject of legal protection under the UVVA.

Thank you. There is no such thing as a "potential human person". It is an actual human person. As such, it is on the same path of human development as you are. You just happen to be farther along.

Yet, the preponderance of arguments contain such biologically ignorant phrases like "It's just a clump of cells", "it's not a baby", and "it's my body". All are used with the intention to make the independent member of our species something less than that. Denying an individual member of our species "personhood" based on an arbitrary stage of development is unjust.

Yes it can, and it is. Active brain patterns are merely advanced specific functions of cells of our species. That a fetus hasn't developed that specificity yet in no way negates the fact that it is still functioning.

actual brain cell activity.

We are discussing WHAT gets aborted.

"What gets aborted" in the vast majority of cases is an insensate fetus during the first trimester.

It is WHOLLY relevant. It shows that there is no difference from a biological POV between the embryo and an infant from the standpoint of both being individual members of our species. Once that is shown and agreed upon, then the arbitrary things like applying rights can be discussed.

The only difference between abortion and the UVVA is who gets to legally harm or kill the unborn. Rights are applied to the unborn at EVERY stage against anyone except the mother harming the fetus, and the same penalties (except the death penalty) are applied to the crime as if they had been done to anyone else. So, your contention that the "insensate fetus" is not protected by law is utter crap. Public Law 108-212 protects the fetus "at any stage" as a separate member of our species with rights.

[hansgeorg]

If human fetus tissue is so valuable ... careless about ... overpopulation ...

Yeah, that one scared me to death when I was a kid and they were teaching in school that we weren't going to have room to breathe. Then I learned that the ENTIRE POPULATION of the US could fit in the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida with room to move around a bit.

A result of the liberal policies of promiscuity and easy escape marriages.

Christianity

CowPoke : Bill the Cat = 1:0

[Cow Poke]

Well, if you don't MURDER them before they continue their natural development...

Meanwhile, it's POSSIBLE that even you could have a functioning brain some day!


By the way, Tazzy... you know the difference between a lawyer and a sperm?


They both have a one-in-a-million chance of becoming a human being!


(watch Tazzy overthink that joke and try to argue it )

[Bill the Cat]

Christianity

CowPoke : Bill the Cat = 1:0

You're babbling again.