**2012 Election Day thread**

[Soxbadger]

Lots of people shouted and screamed about laws restricting late-term abortions. 34 Senators voted against it.

 

There isn't "a particular point in pregnancy" when a fetus undergoes some sudden change that transforms it from a blob of tissue into a human baby. That's why delineating any particular date is silly from a scientific standpoint.

 

Medically, there is no significant difference in development that makes an abortion at 12 weeks any different than one at 39 weeks.

 

But by your own argument of zygote v fetus, there is a scientific difference between 0 and some point, yet you dont recognize that.

 

Interesting.

[cabiness42]

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5484633_many-...-heartbeat.html

 

A fetus does not have organs, bones, skin, heart, brain, etc at conception.

 

 

 

So by your own argument, a fetus is not alive at conception.

 

A zygote is definitely a form of life at conception, but has almost no human characteristics aside from DNA. In the 8-10 week range, the fetus has developed full human characteristics.

[cabiness42]

But by your own argument of zygote v fetus, there is a scientific difference between 0 and some point, yet you dont recognize that.

 

Interesting.

 

No, I recognize that. That point is in the 8-10 week range.

[Reddy]

No, I recognize that. That point is in the 8-10 week range.

so if it's done before 8 weeks you're good with it?

[cabiness42]

so if it's done before 8 weeks you're good with it?

 

I suppose so, though you realize that most women are about 8 weeks pregnant before they even know it, especially the ones who aren't trying to get pregnant, right?

 

[hogan873]

Abortion is such a touchy subject. I personally think the government needs to keep their nose out of it, but that doesn't mean I think it's right. There are situations where it could be the right choice (rape, clear indication of something wrong). I don't know how some people can make that decision so easily.

 

My wife had a molar pregnancy (similar to a miscarriage), and we were both beyond upset about it, mainly because up until the time when the doctor found it to be molar we thought of it as our baby. So, I guess you could say that there in always the assumption of life beyond the fact that you can hear a heartbeat as early as 6-8 weeks.

[Reddy]

Abortion is such a touchy subject. I personally think the government needs to keep their nose out of it, but that doesn't mean I think it's right. There are situations where it could be the right choice (rape, clear indication of something wrong). I don't know how some people can make that decision so easily.

 

My wife had a molar pregnancy (similar to a miscarriage), and we were both beyond upset about it, mainly because up until the time when the doctor found it to be molar we thought of it as our baby. So, I guess you could say that there in always the assumption of life beyond the fact that you can hear a heartbeat as early as 6-8 weeks.

honestly, this is an INCREDIBLY small number. i don't think the vast majority have an easy time with it at ALL

[cabiness42]

Abortion is such a touchy subject. I personally think the government needs to keep their nose out of it, but that doesn't mean I think it's right. There are situations where it could be the right choice (rape, clear indication of something wrong). I don't know how some people can make that decision so easily.

 

My wife had a molar pregnancy (similar to a miscarriage), and we were both beyond upset about it, mainly because up until the time when the doctor found it to be molar we thought of it as our baby. So, I guess you could say that there in always the assumption of life beyond the fact that you can hear a heartbeat as early as 6-8 weeks.

 

So should the government keep their nose out of all of the killing of human beings, or just some of them?

 

You see, that "keep the government out of it" argument is inconsistent with the recognition that they are human beings. You can go the route of soxbadger and ignore science and try to say they aren't human beings and then at least you are consistent, but then we tried for a lot of years to say that blacks weren't human beings either.

 

If you admit that they are human beings, then that trumps any argument about the rights of women or keeping the government out of people's sex lives and any of that other stuff, except when continuing the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.

Edited November 8, 2012 by HickoryHuskers

[Jenksismyhero]

Abortion is such a touchy subject. I personally think the government needs to keep their nose out of it, but that doesn't mean I think it's right. There are situations where it could be the right choice (rape, clear indication of something wrong). I don't know how some people can make that decision so easily.

 

My wife had a molar pregnancy (similar to a miscarriage), and we were both beyond upset about it, mainly because up until the time when the doctor found it to be molar we thought of it as our baby. So, I guess you could say that there in always the assumption of life beyond the fact that you can hear a heartbeat as early as 6-8 weeks.

 

We can all agree it's a touchy subject. My issue is SB's ironically inhuman view of something he admits is alive, but nevertheless should not be considered a thing which is in need of keeping alive.

 

I'm "fine" with it up until that 6ish week timeline. Morning after pill? Acceptable. After fertilization and the egg and the sperm begin to create something? Nope, except in cases of incest/rape/health of the mother. But the issue becomes that most of the time you don't know you're pregnant, so effectively its a no abortion but in exception situations type thing.

 

I also think it's bulls*** that the government plays any part in the payment of an abortion, and I think it's bulls*** that some of the "barriers" such as having to wait 24 hours gets so much reaction, especially considering some of the problems that women have after going through with it. It's an important decision (queue SS telling me how terrible I am for assuming women DON'T think it's important) and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Reddy]

We can all agree it's a touchy subject. My issue is SB's ironically inhuman view of something he admits is alive, but nevertheless should not be considered a thing which is in need of keeping alive.

 

I'm "fine" with it up until that 6ish week timeline. Morning after pill? Acceptable. After fertilization and the egg and the sperm begin to create something? Nope, except in cases of incest/rape/health of the mother. But the issue becomes that most of the time you don't know you're pregnant, so effectively its a no abortion but in exception situations type thing.

 

I also think it's bulls*** that the government plays any part in the payment of an abortion, and I think it's bulls*** that some of the "barriers" such as having to wait 24 hours gets so much reaction, especially considering some of the problems that women have after going through with it. It's an important decision (queue SS telling me how terrible I am for assuming women DON'T think it's important) and shouldn't be taken lightly.

honestly.

 

i don't think it's something anyone takes lightly (except for rare, rare occasions)

[Soxbadger]

We can all agree it's a touchy subject. My issue is SB's ironically inhuman view of something he admits is alive, but nevertheless should not be considered a thing which is in need of keeping alive.

 

I'm "fine" with it up until that 6ish week timeline. Morning after pill? Acceptable. After fertilization and the egg and the sperm begin to create something? Nope, except in cases of incest/rape/health of the mother. But the issue becomes that most of the time you don't know you're pregnant, so effectively its a no abortion but in exception situations type thing.

 

Part 1, not sure how that is your conclusion from my posts.

 

The entire question is "when is it alive" because once you determine its "alive" then its absolutely deserving of protection. Right now my best argument for alive is "can it survive without the mother." I dont know when that time is, Id ask scientists to give me data.

 

Part 2, so im completely inhumane because I am not sure when life begins, but youre absolutely humane because youve set a 6 week deadline? How does that even make sense?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm gonna guess that women are smart enough to make this decision regarding their body and their reproductive organs without a bunch of guys telling them what they can or can't do.

[Soxbadger]

So should the government keep their nose out of all of the killing of human beings, or just some of them?

 

You see, that "keep the government out of it" argument is inconsistent with the recognition that they are human beings. You can go the route of soxbadger and ignore science and try to say they aren't human beings and then at least you are consistent, but then we tried for a lot of years to say that blacks weren't human beings either.

 

If you admit that they are human beings, then that trumps any argument about the rights of women or keeping the government out of people's sex lives and any of that other stuff, except when continuing the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.

 

lol

 

If they are human beings, why can the mother drink and hurt them? Why cant DCFS force the mother to stop drinking or go to rehab?

 

You need to think about the consequences of your statements before you just puff about how wrong I am. Also please link me to all the scientists who conclusively state that at conception its "human". If youre going to rely on scientists, bring me some information to back up your claim. Its poor form to just say "Well everyone thinks this" and not prove it.

 

Thanks in advance.

[cabiness42]

This is the thing I hate most about the abortion issue is that the two political sides have the exact opposite positions you would expect them to have.

 

The liberals have their heads in the sand and ignore the scientific evidence about the beginning of human life, and the conservatives are standing up for the members of society who are the most vulnerable and have the fewest rights.

 

Yet on most other issues, the conservatives have their heads in the sand when it comes to science and the liberals are standing up for people whose rights are getting trampled.

[StrangeSox]

"The science" does not and cannot make moral statements on when something becomes a human being.

[Soxbadger]

This is the thing I hate most about the abortion issue is that the two political sides have the exact opposite positions you would expect them to have.

 

The liberals have their heads in the sand and ignore the scientific evidence about the beginning of human life, and the conservatives are standing up for the members of society who are the most vulnerable and have the fewest rights.

 

Yet on most other issues, the conservatives have their heads in the sand when it comes to science and the liberals are standing up for people whose rights are getting trampled.

 

Show me all your science friends who say that cells at conceptions are the equal to humans, just show me the money. This is so frustrating.

 

At the second of conception, the cells arent "members of society" thats just a fallacy.

[cabiness42]

lol

 

If they are human beings, why can the mother drink and hurt them? Why cant DCFS force the mother to stop drinking or go to rehab?

 

You need to think about the consequences of your statements before you just puff about how wrong I am. Also please link me to all the scientists who conclusively state that at conception its "human". If youre going to rely on scientists, bring me some information to back up your claim. Its poor form to just say "Well everyone thinks this" and not prove it.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

The mother can drink and hurt them because our society has said they can, just like society used to say we can own slaves and hurt/kill them at our discretion.

 

I'm not stating that it is fully human at conception. I'm stating that it's human in the 8-10 week range.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm gonna guess that women are smart enough to make this decision regarding their body and their reproductive organs without a bunch of guys telling them what they can or can't do.

 

Men and women have roughly the same opinions on abortion and when or if it should be illegal. So it's not like all women are pro-choice with no questions asked.

[Soxbadger]

The mother can drink and hurt them because our society has said they can, just like society used to say we can own slaves and hurt/kill them at our discretion.

 

I'm not stating that it is fully human at conception. I'm stating that it's human in the 8-10 week range.

 

So after all of this you just flat out agree with me that they arent protected at conception, but instead protected at a time later on.

 

Thus the only argument is "WHEN".

 

Hilarious that you agree with me now, just flipping hilarious.

[Brian]

I thought Hillary announced a long time ago that she was only serving one term?

 

I remember hearing that as well.

[cabiness42]

"The science" does not and cannot make moral statements on when something becomes a human being.

 

How is becoming a human being a moral issue? A human being is a biological creature with a well-defined physical development. Other than physical development, what makes somebody a human being?

[Soxbadger]

How is becoming a human being a moral issue? A human being is a biological creature with a well-defined physical development. Other than physical development, what makes somebody a human being?

 

Being alive.

 

A dead body has all the physical characteristics of a human, but we dont give dead bodies the same rights as humans.

 

Why?

 

Being alive means something.

[Jenksismyhero]

Part 1, not sure how that is your conclusion from my posts.

 

The entire question is "when is it alive" because once you determine its "alive" then its absolutely deserving of protection. Right now my best argument for alive is "can it survive without the mother." I dont know when that time is, Id ask scientists to give me data.

 

Part 2, so im completely inhumane because I am not sure when life begins, but youre absolutely humane because youve set a 6 week deadline? How does that even make sense?

 

And we've discussed how this is an awful standard. I kid would die without its mother even after being born.

 

[Reddy]

Being alive.

 

A dead body has all the physical characteristics of a human, but we dont give dead bodies the same rights as humans.

 

Why?

 

Being alive means something.

[Jenksismyhero]

Being alive.

 

A dead body has all the physical characteristics of a human, but we dont give dead bodies the same rights as humans.

 

Why?

 

Being alive means something.

 

Not the same rights, but we give them SOME rights. They have rights to various things well after death. As an attorney you know that.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Jenksismybitch