Abortion

Neverfly: It is, after all, not her body alone at stake. But the dveloping life within her.
If her suffering is Greater than that of the unconscious zygote, she must abort.

That was from the example of the girl raped by her father. How can anyone know the suffering of a zygote? We only know the suffering of the mother?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, they don't
READ the ENTIRE post. Don't cherry pick it.
Look at all of it.

If I say the cells are to be respected, HOW does that contradict me saying that the cells are not equal to the life of the mother?

What I had said was that a person should weigh such a decision on ALL the factors, be educated about it and not weigh it on a biased perception or dismissal.

Also: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2515801&postcount=359

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ETA: Correction-- I misread your post.

This is in line with what I have said.
If her suffering is greater than her understanding of the child to develop.

I really do not see what is so hard to understand about that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No I am not disputing the thing about respecting cells and the life of the cells not being equal to the mother.

Its what I pointed out here:

And I would think that this would be what created the confusion on what you really believe:

"An expectant mother carrying a child that decides to abort a FETUS is what upsets me."

And then this:

"If a woman learns she's 2 weeks pregnant and after careful consideration, decides she must abort- I cannot hold that against her."

They contradict each other.

In other words you are saying that you think a woman should be able to have an abortion but then you say it upsets you that an expectant mother would decide to abort. This is what makes it difficult to know if you are actually pro choice or not and perhaps the source of the misunderstanding. I mean its supposed to not be difficult to avoid pregnancy and the stats show most women have never had an abortion yet mistakes are made, life can throw a variety of issues and problems that would make one necessary.

Then I pointed this out as perhaps some of the source of misunderstanding in addition to the above:

NF: My OPINION is that a person preventing pregnancy is entirely different from a person deliberately removing a life that has begun.
(Yes-- I think that a few cells should be respected but in all honesty -- It would be for what they represent- not what they are at that moment.
It is not a person, though it will become one. And does not carry the respect granted to a person.)


Okay so what is the difference between a person preventing a pregnancy and a person aborting save that the person preventing a pregnancy doesn't need to abort?

Then you say this:

"If a mothers life is in danger (For some odd reason) and the choice comes up to sacrifice those cells or thte mom- them cells gotsta go."

Is it that you think a woman for example shouldn't have an abortion if say she cannot afford a child or is emotionally unprepared or simply doesn't want one? Because I believe that Bells would agree that a woman should be able to have an abortion for whatever reason she feels makes it necessary and that that is what is called pro choice.

 

Well how is a woman supposed to know what a zygote is feeling? I mean who is that supposed to be measured? The only thing the girl could possibly know is how she feels.

 

I'm simply presenting my views - I don't think its practical to criminalize it ... and furthermore I think its absurd to anticipate legislative change in terms of overnight parliament

depends on the criteria one i using to float their boat

why?
Just tell the bastard to keep his laws off your body.
Done deal.

So binge drinking during pregnancy also gets the green light in your books?

hence you might as well drop the appeal to law as some sort of authority

as do rapists, murderers, traffic controllers and librarians

same for the above too

You've said that women are individuals and that at the end of the say their body is theirs.

how does that answer these questions?

so you think that all that is required for any legislation to be upheld is to pass it through the relevant channels?
How do you explain the failure of Prohibition?

 

Irrelevant.

That is NOT what I said.

Really?
Let's look at that SAME POST AGAIN:

That's one of many. Quit trying to manipulate the posts into looking as though I am making false claims.

No, they do not. A FETUS is not a ZYGOTE.
Two totally different stages of development. I covered this in that SAME POST I KEEP ASKING YOU TO READ ALL OF...

 

Yes a fetus here:

"An expectant mother carrying a child that decides to abort a FETUS is what upsets me. Taking that line of reasoning a Wee Bit Further means that it's Not That Difficult to avoid pregnancy."

And then the zygote here:

So let's say a woman has been raped by her father.
She is impregnated and a week or so later considers her options: Bear the child and adopt him/her out or abort.In either case, her situation will determine what she will choose. It is, after all, not her body alone at stake. But the dveloping life within her. If her suffering is Greater than that of the unconscious zygote, she must abort.

See what I mean? That is why I asked how a girl can know what a zygote is feeling and that it cannot be quantified and that the girl can only gage how she feels.

And that this statement:

"An expectant mother carrying a child that decides to abort a FETUS is what upsets me."

And then this one:

"If a woman learns she's 2 weeks pregnant and after careful consideration, decides she must abort- I cannot hold that against her."

Can come across as contradictory. I mean if you had qualified the first statement by saying 'well an expectant mother WHO HASN'T carefully considered etc etc'... is what upsets you, it would have come across as more clear and not read like two contradictory statements.

 

No, I do not. You are still not differentiating between a fetus and a zygote.

Irrelevant. I called the zygote Unconscious too.
GO READ WHAT I SAID.

If her UNDERSTANDING of the innocent Life that Will Develop.

THAT is what I said. It is NOT rocket science. It is NOT contradictory--it is the Reality of the situation when Dismissal and Bias are Removed.

 

Bells:
I notice you Utterly IGNORED my post number 359 in which I Clearly Showed With Quotes where I clearly answered your questions Prior to repeated questions (Same quetions again and again) from you.

I notice you did not retract your claim that I did not answer questions.

Instead, you CONTINUE TO ASK MY POSITION with accusatatory questions. The Same Ones. Ridiculous. Totally.

 

I wasn't attempting to differentiate. I was asking how the raped girl could know what the zygote is feeling since you say the feelings of the girl should be weighed with that of the zygote when there is no way to measure the feelings of a zygote. I mean of course she will understand that if left alone it will develop into a baby, even young girls are not so stupid as to not understand what the potential is that of a human being. None of this of course helps anyone gage how a one can weigh the feelings of a zygote against those of the girl.

I did read what you said. Its not the zygote vs the fetus that is being questioned or your use of the terms its that the way these statements are juxtaposed creates some confusion. Particularly these two:

"An expectant mother carrying a child that decides to abort a FETUS is what upsets me."

And then this one:

"If a woman learns she's 2 weeks pregnant and after careful consideration, decides she must abort- I cannot hold that against her."

That is why I said: if you had qualified the first statement by saying 'well an expectant mother WHO HASN'T carefully considered etc etc'... is what upsets you, it would have come across as more clear and not read like two contradictory statements.

Do you see now what could have caused a misunderstanding?

 

Naturally. They are the ones performing the abortion.

Yes. The fetus, like a born baby, is simply a human in an early developmental stage.

No. His beliefs are simply a little more complex than you would like to give credit. But hey, why acknowledge that? It is far easier for you to rebutt the generic dumbed down arguments often misattributed to pro-lifers, rather than what he is actually saying.

Indeed. How dare they take away my 'right to choose'. How dare they interfere. Such meddling by society must outrage a 'pro-choicer' such as yourself.

But wait. You often criticise pro-lifers for their supposed hypocrisy. Yet I remember you demanding that a man who was not the biological father of a child be required by law to support it. And your response to anyone who objected was 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!'

Ergo. You are more than happy to take away an individual's right to choose when the welfare of a child is at stake.

Hypocrisy.

I found no inconsistencies.

You are wrong on both accounts.

No. I re-iterate, you can still express your negative opinion regarding an individual's decision, while still allowing them to choose.

 

You are not being honest, again.
I posted a LINK TO THE POST for all to read. And there are Several Posts that cover it. I would have to sift through all this b s to find them. So I stuck with ONE because it's easiest on me. They are ALL THERE.
I was not joking- I posted the actuality. If I posted it all- in mass-- people won't READ such a thing. That one post would have been a page long all by itself.
If you are confused- have some honor and admit it.

You continued to post asking the same questions AFTER I was Clear. Many other people looked and said I was clear.

The only confusion is caused by your repeated attempts at clouding the issue and obfuscation.

 

But what many seem to forget is that the fetus already *exists* in the world. The fact that it is located in the womb is incidental. One does not come into existence upon birth, their environment simply changes.

The same could be argued for a baby who lives under their parents' roof. Nevertheless, it is criminal for those parents to deny that child the essentials of life.

Likewise, the fetus is also dependent on the mother for nourishment via the placenta in order to sustain life, through no fault of its own. If it is neglect for a parent to deny sustainence to a born baby, then it must also be neglect to deny that same sustainence to an unborn baby.

You would be entitled to enteral feeding if you were unable to swallow. You would be entitled to dialysis if you were unable to urinate.

 

Bells: Or look at other methods to abort (take up to 1-2 months of the "pill" and bring on a period).

Is that true? I never heard that taking the hormones could bring on an abortion.

 

@Neverfly

""If a woman learns she's 2 weeks pregnant and after careful consideration, decides she must abort- I cannot hold that against her."

But the way a woman is never only 'two weeks pregnant' she has to miss a period, usually two before she realizes she is pregnant so most women are around two months pregnant when they start thinking 'holy shit' or 'great I'm pregnant.'

 

I must be misunderstanding much here. Pro-choice is the decision whether or not to continue with the pregnancy or to abort. One would hope though, during the emotional time a woman learns she is pregnant that she is fully informed of ALL options and makes careful decisions. Those decisions though, should include the father.
Oh no, I said it. Why? Because both decided to have sex. The fetus or zygote or however you want to look at it, is equally his as it is hers. Does she have to carry it? Yep. No one can change that fact. But if the sperm donor wants to take on responsibility for creating this life, the father should have that opportunity.
For those who have children, that would be like a doctor performing medical procedures on your 5 or 15 year old child without prior consent or knowledge. How would you feel? Violated, upset? What gives the right for one parent to make the decision and not the other. She opened her legs too, suffer the consequences.
Of course in the case of rape or medical emergency, then the father shouldn't have a choice or fight the decision.
Also interesting that here, instead keeping objective, I see some that like to take jabs and use sarcastic tones, accusing others of doing the same as they are. I thought this was a science forum, not a "beat down others until they agree with me" forum.