Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Anyone know what age the youngest surviving preemie ever was?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 01:37 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 01:18 PM)Dom Wrote:  Anyone know what age the youngest surviving preemie ever was?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/articl...rents.html

21 weeks according to that article. Had a twin brother however that died. That is why viability is such an imprecise measure and why generally abortions in the third trimester are restricted to "Life of the mother".

In all the appeals to emotion that this thread is based on I have yet to see a compelling reason why it is anyone business outside of the mother and to a lesser degree her family and the father. Muffs reaction is evolutionary and predictable. He saw a closely related newborn for the first time and spent about a week surrounded by women cooing over the baby. Of course he is going to be looking at this through rose-tinted glasses. On the bright side Muffs, Gay Uncles are an evolutionary advantage and help explain why homosexuality exists despite seeming to be a genetic dead end(well thats one of the theories anyway).

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
12-10-2013, 02:30 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2013 02:42 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 12:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 12:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If you assert that, then does it make it true?
My assertion is as follows:
A person = a human = a human zygot or human baby or human child or human adult.

A zygote/blastocyte/foetus lacks a nervous system until the end of the second trimester. It lacks the means to be a person.

That's what makes the assertion true.
By what definition states that a person must have a nervous system?
Also by what definition states that you are obliged to protect all persons? that you are obliged to force your opinion, via sanctioning police with use of extreme force to protect an unborn from its own mother?

If the police weren't in the picture. Lets say you have to do the dirty work yourself. How far you be willing to go in order to force my wife into having an unwanted baby, just because it has developed a nervous system?
I would be willing to go all the way, I would risk my life, I would be willing to end the life of an aggressor if they were using physical violence against my pregnant wife.

We keep arguing for separation of state and religion, but what is the difference between a religious person wanting to force their moral beliefs onto others and an atheist wanting to force their moral beliefs onto others? I see no appreciable difference. If you are willing to accept morality as a basis for law, then you are saying that might makes right and you must accept that religious folk have the same right as you to force their moral beliefs on others. Thus if they deem homosexuality immoral then they can force gay people apart. If the Catholics deem contraceptive immoral, divorce immoral etc...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 02:47 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 12:26 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Reductio ad absurdum a zygote, blastocysts and embryos are only potentially people. Not much beyond sperm/unfertilised eggs, a matter of degrees. They have no central nervous system and are, for the most part, indistinguishable from any other clump of cells. Now the mother is a full human with a central nervous system and full set of rights, why is it ok to impose at her expense on behalf of something that does not meet that definition?
Reductio ad absurdum, Who defines rights? You make such claim with full gusto, but have nothing to back it up. the foetus has no rights but the mother has a full set of rights? Please direct me to the objective test I can perform to see for myself that what you say is true.

I am all for choice of the mother and for government backing off.
But please tell me
why is it ok to impose at the mothers expense on behalf of an unborn with a nervous system?

If sense of pain is your problem, then tell me what is more painful, birth or abortion? Maybe we ought to force all mothers to abort so the babies can avoid the torture of birth pain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 02:51 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 02:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  By what definition states that a person must have a nervous system?

Empathy, Stevil, empathy.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 03:20 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 02:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 12:26 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Reductio ad absurdum a zygote, blastocysts and embryos are only potentially people. Not much beyond sperm/unfertilised eggs, a matter of degrees. They have no central nervous system and are, for the most part, indistinguishable from any other clump of cells. Now the mother is a full human with a central nervous system and full set of rights, why is it ok to impose at her expense on behalf of something that does not meet that definition?
Reductio ad absurdum, Who defines rights? You make such claim with full gusto, but have nothing to back it up. the foetus has no rights but the mother has a full set of rights? Please direct me to the objective test I can perform to see for myself that what you say is true.

I am all for choice of the mother and for government backing off.
But please tell me
why is it ok to impose at the mothers expense on behalf of an unborn with a nervous system?

If sense of pain is your problem, then tell me what is more painful, birth or abortion? Maybe we ought to force all mothers to abort so the babies can avoid the torture of birth pain.

What actual point are you trying to make?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 03:26 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 03:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  What actual point are you trying to make?
I am against arbitrarily forcing ones opinions onto others.
Creating laws is a way of giving police permission (obligation) to use extreme force against members of society.
A person has an opinion that gay sex is immoral. Does this justify police forcibly stopping gay people, restraining them, locking them up?
Gay relationships are not a threat to society so how can we justify interfering in the lives of gay people?
Same thing goes for abortions, they are no threat to society, so how can we justify interfering in the decisions of the parents?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 03:30 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 03:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 03:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  What actual point are you trying to make?
I am against arbitrarily forcing ones opinions onto others.
Creating laws is a way of giving police permission (obligation) to use extreme force against members of society.
A person has an opinion that gay sex is immoral. Does this justify police forcibly stopping gay people, restraining them, locking them up?
Gay relationships are not a threat to society so how can we justify interfering in the lives of gay people?
Same thing goes for abortions, they are no threat to society, so how can we justify interfering in the decisions of the parents?

So how in anyway is that different from what I wrote?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
You're saying that government should not micro manage our lives. I agree with that.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 03:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 03:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  What actual point are you trying to make?
I am against arbitrarily forcing ones opinions onto others.
Creating laws is a way of giving police permission (obligation) to use extreme force against members of society.
A person has an opinion that gay sex is immoral. Does this justify police forcibly stopping gay people, restraining them, locking them up?
Gay relationships are not a threat to society so how can we justify interfering in the lives of gay people?
Same thing goes for abortions, they are no threat to society, so how can we justify interfering in the decisions of the parents?

The late term abortion of a viable fetus is murder. Is murder not a threat to society?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: