Abortion - Your Opinion

[Dirius]

Does an embryo have a brain?
The embryonic stage reveals that the fertilized egg is a clump of cells with no brain; the processes that begin to generate a nervous system do not begin until after the fourteenth day. No sustainable or complex nervous system is in place until approximately six months of gestation.
They turn life support off in brain dead people.

Ok,please tell me the exact point in time when a fetus becomes a person please.

 

[Dirius]

Dirius, we've been in agreement for the last few pages that if men really do not want to get married, they shouldn't get married. If they don't want children, maybe they should keep their genes in their jeans. Or at least get a vasectomy. They cannot rely on condoms (1/10 failure rate) or the woman's birth control. If she forgot to take a couple of pills, for example, her protection that month is toast.

We're in agreement that divorce is common. In a truly dysfunctional marriage, especially if the husband is abusive, it's the smart thing to do. Ditto with a living-together partner arrangement.

So those topics are over and done with.

I don't think we agree waybread. I don't believe in telling people what they should do with their personal lives. According to your statement, you are stating what men in certain position should or should not do. I have never said what men should or should not do. I just said that men, don't seem to want to get married, but at no point I cast judgement on what they do, or issued a recommendation on what they should do.

Where we disagree is on abortion, the topic of this thread.

We also disagree on whether marriage and even divorce can be financially advantageous to either party. I pointed out that it truly depends upon some basic circumstances, like their jurisdiction's marriage and family laws. You are emotionally attached to the incorrect notion that divorced dad's inevitably get financially beat-up. But that's not the thread topic.

The divorce system is too biased against men to be considered "fair", or at least this is the perception that men hold; in any case, the financial risk of divorce is much higher than the financial perks of marriage. Just not a good investment.

Why don't you read up further on the morning-after pill yourself? As in, the morning immediately after unprotected sex or failed contraception. Not two weeks later. Check out reputable medical sites like the Mayo Clinic or Planned Parenthood.

With your attachment to hook-up culture, knowing about the morning-after pill might be advantageous to you.

"Preventing ovulation?" Good grief, Dirius. Healthy fertile women ovulate monthly. Most eggs are unfertilized, and are shed through the woman's regular menstrual period. Stopping ovulation on a one-off or occasional basis is not unhealthy or harmful.

Possibly what you mean is that if a sexually active woman becomes pregnant but doesn't know it, then has a known contraception failure and gets a morning-after pill. That's possible, I suppose, but you apparently also need to read up on women's monthly cycles.

A woman is most likely to get pregnant in the middle of her monthly cycle, not while she is menstruating or just after her period stops for the month. This is the basis of the Catholic church's acceptance of the "rhythm method." Then sperm ejaculated into the vagina are viable for up to about 5 days. So the timing is tricky, whether she wishes to conceive or to avoid it. For one thing, the timing of many women's menstrual cycles is irregular.

I don't know the pharmacological effect of the morning after pill - what I know is that it supposedly prevents fertilization and ovulation. If this is the case, I have no problem with it, go ahead and use the morning after pill as much as you want.

How many women do you think actually have "regular abortions"? [Your wording] Very few women would view abortion as just another form of birth control. For one thing, it's an expensive procedure; especially if the woman is poor, has no external funding for it, and/or has to travel a long distance to obtain it.

Abortion is not a crime. Not according to most of the world's nations. So don't make that assumption.

If a girl is brutally raped, it's not her fault. A resulting pregnancy is the man's (or men's) crime.

You're not going to cover pre- and post-natal expenses for a pregnant teenager who gets kicked out of the house by her "Christian" parents. Or maybe you'd prefer the Old Wild West shotgun wedding, where the girl is forced to marry her rapist.

You don't seem to understand these women's mental anguish. Some rape victims do choose to bring their pregnancy to term. But not all, and they shouldn't have to.

Yes abortion is not a crime in the U.S. Killing a woman for certain reasons isn't a crime in parts of the middle-east sub continent. Legality of something doesn't make it good or bad. Mental anguish does not morally justify you to end someone elses life.

Roe v. Wade assumes that a non-viable fetus is not a person. End of story.
Read this: https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article...ns-are-not-natural-persons-and-why-it-matter/

I've read the full court disclosure, and they do mention that the law of the U.S. does not recognize the fetus as a person. I do conscede that point there, and I was wrong about Roe v Wade.

However, reading further, there are now laws and rulings which do suggest the fetus is alive while in the uterus - considering roe v wade is a 50 year old ruling when limited technology was available, does actually provide more chances of stopping abortion.

 

[waybread]

I don't think we agree waybread. I don't believe in telling people what they should do with their personal lives. According to your statement, you are stating what men in certain position should or should not do. I have never said what men should or should not do. I just said that men, don't seem to want to get married, but at no point I cast judgement on what they do, or issued a recommendation on what they should do.

Are you kidding me? Most of your posts have been precisely about telling pregnant women what they should and shouldn't do!!!!

My saying that if men do not want to get married they shouldn't get married is not "telling them what to do." They've made their decision. I'm merely affirming it.

The divorce system is too biased against men to be considered "fair", or at least this is the perception that men hold; in any case, the financial risk of divorce is much higher than the financial perks of marriage. Just not a good investment.

This is your belief, Dirius. I've explained multiple times why you cannot over-generalize about this. You have to look at major factors that you refuse to consider. Please keep in mind that for most people, money is not the only or even primary determinant of whether they choose to marry, partner, date, or become a total hermit.

You can keep your money and never know what it is like to be deeply loved by a woman, or by your own little son or daughter. You can keep your money and never address that fear of abandonment, that fear that someone might take advantage of you. But there is a big cost to you, at the end of the day.

I don't know the pharmacological effect of the morning after pill - what I know is that it supposedly prevents fertilization and ovulation. If this is the case, I have no problem with it, go ahead and use the morning after pill as much as you want.

Seriously? LOL. Dirius, I'm an old lady. My days of worrying about an unwanted pregnancy are long over.

But now who's telling people what they should or shouldn't do?

Yes abortion is not a crime in the U.S. Killing a woman for certain reasons isn't a crime in parts of the middle-east sub continent. Legality of something doesn't make it good or bad. Mental anguish does not morally justify you to end someone elses life.

Dirius, I'm not ending someone else's life.

But here's where the hypocrisy comes in. Lives get terminated all the time, but you're not complaining about the other causes. For example:

*The family decides to take Granny off life-support in the hospital.
*Death penalty (state-sanctioned killing.)
*Warfare (state sanctioned killing)
*Reckless driving (vehicular homicide)
* false belief in self-defense-- where the other party was not armed or dangerous
*police shootings of unarmed and not-dangerous suspects.
*involuntary manslaughter
*ignoring famine victims
*insurance companies denying patients life-saving treatments

It's a much longer list. In my examples, the dead were actual living people, however, not embryos or non-viable fetuses.

I've read the full court disclosure, and they do mention that the law of the U.S. does not recognize the fetus as a person. I do conscede that point there, and I was wrong about Roe v Wade.

However, reading further, there are now laws and rulings which do suggest the fetus is alive while in the uterus - considering roe v wade is a 50 year old ruling when limited technology was available, does actually provide more chances of stopping abortion.

Thanks for checking up on this.

Yes, the fetus is alive, but it is not a person. It may become a person, or it might not.

 

[waybread]

Ok,please tell me the exact point in time when a fetus becomes a person please.

At birth.

A horoscope tells you as much.

 

[blackbery]

So then you agree with the Dem platform of abortion right up until the moment of birth when the baby's head is crowning,
because IT is not a person, not a human being but a blob to be murdered & tortured?

At last you admit that a 9 month old fetus is a disposable 'non-person' that can be thrown away like the day's garbage.

At birth.

A horoscope tells you as much.

 

[Dirius]

I'm answering the order of your statement from last to first:

Yes, the fetus is alive, but it is not a person. It may become a person, or it might not.

At birth.

A horoscope tells you as much.

If by your own admission the fetus is alive, then you are indeed killing someone else when you practice an abortion. The rest of the discussion is then kind of moot, because you are accepting the action of murdering another person for the sake of the mother's preference.

This might be understandable if there is a complication, or if the pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk, or the pregnancy isn't viable. But if it is a viable pregnancy - you have no moral right to justify someone's murder. The conditions of conception, or the mother's socio-economic standing are no justification to affect someone else's life.

Are you kidding me? Most of your posts have been precisely about telling pregnant women what they should and shouldn't do!!!!

My saying that if men do not want to get married they shouldn't get married is not "telling them what to do." They've made their decision. I'm merely affirming it.

I haven't. What I say is that you can't kill an innocent person. As you said, the fetus is indeed alive.

This is your belief, Dirius. I've explained multiple times why you cannot over-generalize about this. You have to look at major factors that you refuse to consider. Please keep in mind that for most people, money is not the only or even primary determinant of whether they choose to marry, partner, date, or become a total hermit.

You can keep your money and never know what it is like to be deeply loved by a woman, or by your own little son or daughter. You can keep your money and never address that fear of abandonment, that fear that someone might take advantage of you. But there is a big cost to you, at the end of the day.

I have considered your factors. There are indeed economic perks. But the way risk assesment equation works, is you consider first the viability of the deal you are making - the perks factors you are mentioning come as secondary. If the risk from the agreement you are entering is too high, and the return is too low (just a few economic discounts) - its not worth it.

But now who's telling people what they should or shouldn't do?

Dirius, I'm not ending someone else's life.

But here's where the hypocrisy comes in. Lives get terminated all the time, but you're not complaining about the other causes. For example:

*The family decides to take Granny off life-support in the hospital.
*Death penalty (state-sanctioned killing.)
*Warfare (state sanctioned killing)
*Reckless driving (vehicular homicide)
* false belief in self-defense-- where the other party was not armed or dangerous
*police shootings of unarmed and not-dangerous suspects.
*involuntary manslaughter
*ignoring famine victims
*insurance companies denying patients life-saving treatments

It's a much longer list. In my examples, the dead were actual living people, however, not embryos or non-viable fetuses.

Waybread as you pointed out the fetus is alive. You are ending the fetuses life by doing it. And if it is a viable pregnancy - then its not justifiable.

By your own admission, you are just trying to justify killing someone.

Thanks for checking up on this.

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong if the empirical evidence is there to back the claim. This is why I keep asking when the fetus is alive. If someone can indeed verify it is not a living person at some stage, I don't mind the abortion; but if it is alive, then its the killing of a living human. Same thing with the morning after pill, if only prevents fertilization, I don't mind it.

 

[blackbery]

Unfortunately, they aborted so many baby girls in China that there is a severe shortage of women now. The men have no-one to marry & have children with. They are kidnapping & buying woman from other Asian countries to 'make up' for the lack of females in the country.

So more abuse of women to solve a problem that they created themselves with their hatred of giving birth to a girl.

Agree with you that the total lack of irony from the 'feminists' who find sex-selecting abortion 'empowering' truly staggering.

Well most abortions worldwide are of female fetuses. Its called sex-selective abortions.

Countries such as China, the aborted babies are almost exclusively women. Same thing in Cuba. Same thing in India.

Same in Canada. Same in the U.S.

A lot of "female empowerment" right?

 

[david starling]

So then you agree with the Dem platform of abortion right up until the moment of birth when the baby's head is crowning,
because IT is not a person, not a human being but a blob to be murdered & tortured?

At last you admit that a 9 month old fetus is a disposable 'non-person' that can be thrown away like the day's garbage.

in the U.S., 92% of both intentional abortions and spontaneous abortions ("miscarriages") are occurring within the FIRST trimester (12 weeks).

"Viability" is by the SECOND trimester, 24-26 weeks, which is when the fetus can be removed by c-section and placed in an incubator.

in Sweden, the elective abortions stop at 18 weeks, after which the life of the mother must be certified as "at risk" by an M.D. for an abortion to be allowed by law.

In Florida, the elective abortions stop at 20 weeks.

 

[blackbery]

What is your intrusion here about? Waybread stated that a fetus is a non-person until it is born. Therefore, she agrees with the Dem platform of supporting murdering the 'non-person' right up until the moment of birth.

...because only after a baby is BORN is it a 'person' & have the right to live.

Your comments are completely irrelevant.

92% of both intentional abortions and spontaneous abortions ("miscarriages") are occurring within the FIRST trimester (12 weeks).

"Viability" is by 24-26 weeks, which is when the fetus can be removed by c-section and placed in an incubator.

in Sweden, the elective abortions stop at 18 weeks, after which the life of the mother must be certified as "at risk" by an M.D. for an abortion to be allowed by law.

In Florida, the elective abortions stop at 20 weeks.

 

[blackbery]

Do you agree with Waybread David? At one point, do YOU believe the 'non-person' applies & IT can be killed?

2 weeks, 2 months, 4 months or 9 months?

Please give a direct answer on what YOU believe is the 'right time' to abort when it's okay.

 

[david starling]

What is your intrusion here about? Waybread stated that a fetus is a non-person until it is born. Therefore, she agrees with the Dem platform of supporting murdering the 'non-person' right up until the moment of birth.

...because only after a baby is BORN is it a 'person' & have the right to live.

Your comments are completely irrelevant.

When do you consider a fertilized human egg (a "zygote") to have reached the developmental stage of personhood?

 

[blackbery]

I knew you wouldn't answer David, you never do.

Just constant blabbing on about zygotes.

Keep up with your 'feminism'; I'm sure the murdered baby girls who were tortured & torn apart in the womb will thank you in their afterlife.

When do you consider a fertilized human egg (a "zygote") to have reached the developmental stage of personhood?

 

[blackbery]

I don't have the patience like Dirius to deal with people who think it's okay to murder another innocent living being...and not only murder them but cause great pain & suffering to their tiny, fragile bodies.

I hate Planned Parenthood which is nothing more than a death cult.

 

[david starling]

I don't have the patience like Dirius to deal with people who think it's okay to murder another innocent living being...and not only murder them but cause great pain & suffering to their tiny, fragile bodies.

I hate Planned Parenthood which is nothing more than a death cult.

I didn't say I agreed with waybread's exasperated comment.

You're now the one who won't answer. Dirius thinks an implanted zygote, which rapidly develops into an embryo at two weeks after fertilization ("conception"), is already a "baby".

What's your opinion? That's what this thread is really about.

 

[chay]

I don't have the patience like Dirius to deal with people who think it's okay to murder another innocent living being...and not only murder them but cause great pain & suffering to their tiny, fragile bodies.

I hate Planned Parenthood which is nothing more than a death cult.

The adrenochrome tastes better the smaller the fetus....slurp

 

[david starling]

Hey, what happened to the fat guy trying to dance?

Oh--that's on the Covid thread!

 

[chay]

Hey, what happened to the fat guy trying to dance?

How many fetus called Cletus do you think were at that rally?

 

[waybread]

So then you agree with the Dem platform of abortion right up until the moment of birth when the baby's head is crowning,
because IT is not a person, not a human being but a blob to be murdered & tortured?

At last you admit that a 9 month old fetus is a disposable 'non-person' that can be thrown away like the day's garbage.

No, Blackbery.

1. This is not the Democratic platform. https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm

2. I disagree personally with what you falsely imagined to be my beliefs.

But the horoscope is clear. Personhood begins at birth.

Disagree with astrology on this, if you wish.

Traditional astrologers developed methods to pinpoint conception, but they were not credible. There was no way to check them, and then not all gestation periods are identical.

You might be interested in reading Ptolemy's chapter in Tetrabiblos, on "children who are not reared." His philosophy was that there was no point in parents asking for a full-length chart reading on a baby who would not survive.

Infant mortality rates were extremely high in 150 CE. But infanticide was widely practiced in the ancient Roman empire. Unwanted babies were left on garbage dumps.

Please read this on the history of infanticide (aka how humans handled unwanted pregnancy in the bad old days.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

 

[chay]

Blackberry, individuals can have an opinion on abortion and many other things without it being political. Black and white thinking is a sign of mental illness. Everything on the planet is not either Republican or Democrat, Left or Right, Good or Evil.

 

[waybread]

I'm answering the order of your statement from last to first:

If by your own admission the fetus is alive, then you are indeed killing someone else when you practice an abortion. The rest of the discussion is then kind of moot, because you are accepting the action of murdering another person for the sake of the mother's preference.

Dirius, I know that you're a clever guy, and not nearly as obtuse as this paragraph suggests.

You can call it "killing" if you like to be melodramatic about it, but what an early- or even mid-term abortion seeker is not "killing" is an actual person. No "murder" is therefore involved.

And please get off the sociopathic notion that abortions are entirely about the woman's "preference." Many women with ectopic pregnancies longed for a healthy baby. They could die if the embryo is not removed, and ruptures their fallopian tube. Oftentimes it's the father who doesn't want the baby and pressures his wife/GF to have an abortion. Sometimes a woman with multiple implanted embryos is carrying so many fetuses that they cannot all survive to healthy births. Aborting one or two gives the remaining fetuses a significantly better chance of healthy live births.

Surely you understand that desperate girls can get suicidal over an unwanted pregnancy. I don't imagine you'd be OK with her suicide so long as doctors could somehow save her fetus.

If you wish, we can review once more all of the reasons why abortion is not merely about "preference."

BTW, I assume you are a strict vegetarian. Obviously livestock are capable of feeling fear, pain, and suffering, notably at the time of slaughter; and they want to live. They have heartbeats and functioning brains. Plus, they've been born.

This might be understandable if there is a complication, or if the pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk, or the pregnancy isn't viable. But if it is a viable pregnancy - you have no moral right to justify someone's murder. The conditions of conception, or the mother's socio-economic standing are no justification to affect someone else's life.

It's good that you admit of some very real needs for exceptions to a strict anti-abortion stance.

But, yet again, Dirius, early-term abortion is not murder.

I get that this is your strongly-held belief, but most nations on the planet and the law of the US says it's not.

I haven't. What I say is that you can't kill an innocent person. As you said, the fetus is indeed alive.

A fetus is not a person. Terminating it is therefore not murder.

But it's the height of hypocrisy for anti-abortionists to ignore all of the other ways in which they justify or ignore homicides or state-sanctioned murder of actual living people.

I have considered your factors. There are indeed economic perks. But the way risk assesment equation works, is you consider first the viability of the deal you are making - the perks factors you are mentioning come as secondary. If the risk from the agreement you are entering is too high, and the return is too low (just a few economic discounts) - its not worth it.

So don't get married, Dirius.

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong if the empirical evidence is there to back the claim. This is why I keep asking when the fetus is alive. If someone can indeed verify it is not a living person at some stage, I don't mind the abortion; but if it is alive, then its the killing of a living human. Same thing with the morning after pill, if only prevents fertilization, I don't mind it.

There are two separate issues here that you keep conflating. (1) Is a viable fetus alive? and (2) Is it a person? Yes to #1, and no to #2.

The only dicey part here is with a requested abortion so late in the woman's pregnancy (generally after 24 weeks) that the fetus could survive on its own, albeit oftentimes with great medical interventions and health risks as a preemie. Generally I wouldn't support abortion at a late stage.

But I think there are a few exceptions. Sometimes a later-term fetus is known to have such severe birth defects that it cannot possibly survive more than a few hours after birth, and in great distress. Under such circumstances, it may be more humane and compassionate for both the mother and the fetus to terminate the pregnancy.