Wait On That Abortion

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

What is omitted from this debate is when, during the pregnancy, abortions are legally permitted to be performed.

Watched another vet "pinch a twin" this morning in a pregnant TB mare. I did not tell him he was "murdering" a horse.

Yet if you believe life begins at conception you would see that as murder!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Yet if you believe life begins at conception you would see that as murder!

I believe life is a continuum, as sperm and ova are alive, and no, I do NOT see that as murder. Neither do I see 1-2 month human abortions as murder, and I have seen several aborted (spontaneously) 2-month-old fetuses in my life.

The conceptus is an aggregation of rather undifferentiated cells, not yet developed, not yet capable of going forward in development independent of the mother's body.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

I believe life is a continuum, as sperm and ova are alive, and no, I do NOT see that as murder. Neither do I see 1-2 month human abortions as murder, and I have seen several aborted (spontaneously) 2-month-old fetuses in my life.

The conceptus is an aggregation of rather undifferentiated cells, not yet developed, not yet capable of going forward in development independent of the mother's body.

Interesting point: why do people feel a sense of loss when there is a spontaneous miscarriage? Isn't it because they feel a death has occurred?

And what is done to prevent those undifferentiated cells from developing? You know, the cells whose DNA doesn't match the woman's? Killing them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Interesting point: why do people feel a sense of loss when there is a spontaneous miscarriage? Isn't it because they feel a death has occurred?

Having never had a miscarriage, I cannot speak for what other people feel. I'm sure that people that want a baby are unhappy to lose the pregnancy at such an early stage of development, (as they are unhappy about not being able to get pregnant) but nature aborts plenty of pregnancies for it's own reasons.

And what is done to prevent those undifferentiated cells from developing? You know, the cells whose DNA doesn't match the woman's? Killing them.

What is that supposed to mean? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

(and btw, read up on maternal mitochondrial DNA before you commit ever more to your argument regarding cells that are not "her" DNA)

You have shifted the conversation away from the subject, to talking about developing feti.

The conversation, however, is constitutional and legal: it is about your desire to control the lives of people you don't even know, and your desire to have the government of the United States force women to have babies. That is not legal in this country.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

The conversation, however, is constitutional and legal: it is about your desire to control the lives of people you don't even know, and your desire to have the government of the United States force women to have babies. That is not legal in this country.

Wrong. It is not "controlling" other people to outlaw murdering someone in utero.

Women who are pregnant have babies. The brilliant solution by the warped people who came up with it is to kill the baby before it can be delivered. THAT is the issue.

The facts surrounding fetal development give evidence that the cells/tissue/organs being destroyed do not belong exclusively to the would-be mother. Genetically half hers, and half the father's, as all of us are, it is not simply what a woman chooses to do "with her body" technically. If it was just her body, she'd be able to get pregnant with nobody's help. She might have been born pregnant. It's absurd.

That is simply language the pro-abortion crowd uses to shout people down or stop any further thought or deliberation on this issue, because, since 1973, they have the decision they wanted from the Supreme Court. Further debate does them no good, and they are fearful that if points like mine are made that enough people agree with, eventually a future Supreme Court may reverse the decision.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Genetically half hers, and half the father's,

Yes, we know eggs and sperm combine to form mammals. BTW, though, the DNA each cell contains is more the mothers contribution, not 50-50 - again, see mitochondrial maternal DNA

So if you want to make an argument about who has control of a fertilized egg, based upon DNA contribution, the mother wins. She also owns the incubator and chemicals necessary to sustain that egg.

as all of us are, it is not simply what a woman chooses to do "with her body" technically. If it was just her body, she'd be able to get pregnant with nobody's help

Why does ova and sperm combining give the government the right to force a woman to bear a baby? That argument addresses only the interests of the sperm contributor. The government still has nothing to do with it.

That is simply language the pro-abortion crowd uses to shout people down or stop any further thought or deliberation on this issue, because, since 1973, they have the decision they wanted from the Supreme Court.

Yes, you use the terms murder butcher baby, the pro-choice, anti-government takeover of woman's bodies to force births crowd uses those words.

I wish more of the anti-abortion crowd, who care so much about developing fetuses, would give a damn after those babies start breathing oxygen, and for the duration of their lives.

Joey - I certainly respect your beliefs and passion about the issue of abortion, and you are welcome and free, in this country, to legally continue to pursue your goals regarding changing the law reference legal control of it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Joey - I certainly respect your beliefs and passion about the issue of abortion, and you are welcome and free, in this country, to legally continue to pursue your goals regarding changing the law reference legal control of it.

And I do appreciate that Riot. I'm glad that my passion on the subject was received in the spirit it's given.

And I have to agree with a previous post that this was probably as civil of a conversation as I've heard or participated in on the subject.

When I do use strong terminology, I'm trying to drive the point home and I'm not consciously trying to amplify it for shock value. It's just the way I see it.

As a philosphical point: A murder in a closed, soundproof room with no witnesses is still a murder.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Wrong. It is not "controlling" other people to outlaw murdering someone in utero.

What about this point? Is it controlling to no longer allow a murder of this sort to take place?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

What about this point? Is it controlling to no longer allow a murder of this sort to take place?

I think the classification of first weeks abortions as "murder" is beyond absurd, and purely inflammatory.

And yes, our government forcing women to bear babies is beyond controlling - it's illegal under our system of constitutional law.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

I believe life is a continuum, as sperm and ova are alive, and no, I do NOT see that as murder. Neither do I see 1-2 month human abortions as murder, and I have seen several aborted (spontaneously) 2-month-old fetuses in my life.

The conceptus is an aggregation of rather undifferentiated cells, not yet developed, not yet capable of going forward in development independent of the mother's body.

That is your belief, unfortunately it is not scientific proof. One thing is for sure the process which begins at conception will evolve eventually into a birth if not interrupted. We lack the knowledge necessary to say at what point in that process life begins.

[Mike]

Here's a link to the Nebraska bill giving the thumbs up to abortion causers murder:
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/F...ntro/LB232.pdf

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Mike

Here's a link to the Nebraska bill giving the thumbs up to abortion causers murder:
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/F...ntro/LB232.pdf

First off, why can't politicians write a bill using plain, easy to understand English? I know many are lawyers but geesh!
This is an attempt to bypass "Roe" by referring to an "unborn child" and I can see someone taking this as permission to murder abortion providers...dangerous and unnecessary legislation.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

That is your belief, unfortunately it is not scientific proof. One thing is for sure the process which begins at conception will evolve eventually into a birth if not interrupted. We lack the knowledge necessary to say at what point in that process life begins.

The potential for a new "life" obviously begins at conception (although I think that is a moot point, as the egg is alive, the sperm is alive, the live sperm fertilizes the live egg which simply begins the process that leads to cell division and differentiation) The single-celled fertilized zygote is never dead and inert (and neither can dead eggs be successfully fertilized) - although differentiation can certainly be readily arrested.

IMO a bunch of cells with the beginnings of primitive neural tube formation is not "a baby", and it's death is certainly not "murder". A fetus doesn't even have all major organs necessary for life until about 2 months of gestation.

The question, for me, is when can that life be sustained independently (with medical support) from the mother's body.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

IMO a bunch of cells with the beginnings of primitive neural tube formation is not "a baby", and it's death is certainly not "murder". A fetus doesn't even have all major organs necessary for life until about 2 months of gestation.

The question, for me, is when can that life be sustained independently (with medical support) from the mother's body.

If the fetus (or collection of cells, however structurally organized) is alive, then active measures to destroy it have to be considered murder. You can't have death through active means of another be anything but murder.

That's why, as we all know, we have degrees in the law. First degree -- you sat down, planned it out, and killed the victim. Second degree - you got so pissed off that you killed someone in anger, when you might not have done it otherwise. Third or manslaughter - accidental, possibly negligent. Then some states have "involuntary manslaughter" - maybe you never got your brakes checked and you slid through an intersection and killed some little old lady with your car. You certainly didn't want that to happen, didn't plan it, weren't angry - but involuntary since you couldn't stop it once the car was moving.

So I can't agree with your "there was a death but no murder" argument.

Your standard for the permissability is what the Supreme Court called "viability" which is probably more legal than biological terminology. Funny thing about it is that as medical technology gets better, we can save children at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy. Consider the goings on in Italy, where there is debate about "terminating the pregnancy" but saving the baby. Up until now, terminating the pregnancy was synonomous with killing the fetus. In the future, it might not be. It may be possible shortly that the baby can be removed from the mother and hosted artificially or in another willing woman. Now, what happens? For those who saw the abortion as a way to evade the responsibilities of parenthood, it might not work out that way, when, years after, someone knocks on their door looking for their "biological" parents.

What we have now is that premature delivery of wanted children results in medical measures used to save their lives - pretty successfully. But unwanted children at the same level of maturity can be left to die or aborted through "partial birth abortion". Which one of these two identically aged children is alive? Wouldn't the answer have to be the same for both? The mother doesn't get to decide like Solomon who lives or dies.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If the fetus (or collection of cells, however structurally organized) is alive, then active measures to destroy it have to be considered murder.

No. Your use of the deliberately misapplied and inflammatory term "murder" to a fertilized egg is ridiculous in my eyes. Sorry.

And, again: if that is your position, why are you not trying to make illegal in-vitro fertilization doctors?