The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

Of course, and thats true. But some people abort into the 21st week..some even later. By all your theories thats the stage that we can call something human right..

Yes I agree. If you want to abort a child in the 21st week, I think the only excuse could be that you are going to die/suffer severe physical ailment due to giving birth.

thus you're either side with pro-life or pro-death.

I prefer to be referred to as 'anti-life', thankyou.

 

[bshoc]

I prefer to be referred to as 'anti-life', thankyou.

Alright whatever floats your boat, so long as nobody is inferring that killing a healthy baby is somehow a "choice" that should be in anybody's control.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well it is a choice of course, much as it's a choice to continue on with your baby. If you are anti-life then I guess you're pro-choice too. All these words tho, they're just catch-cries to sell your sides story better. Pro-life sounds cute and cuddly, anti-choice sounds totalitarian - neither of them really accurately describe the debate.

 

[lengy]

Pro-life, more like pro-oppression.

 

[bshoc]

Pro-life, more like pro-oppression.

Yeah, the same way we're oppressing murders from killing people. If you think stopping murders or abortion is oppression, then I'll gladly wear the label of "oppressor."

 

[otay]

Whenever a girl has her period she releases something which could have grown into a human being, had she been moral enough to fuck every guy in sight.

There is a point to this. And that is when do you define life? Is it when the baby leaves the mother? Or during the 3rd, 2nd, 1st trimester?? Why not go further back, and say that everytime a female has her period, or a dude ejaculates, they are preventing the formation of life....or perhaps even murdering!

It depends when you define life! I personally would not know exactly when this is, but I don't believe it is within the first trimester. I understand that mothers of miscarriages may not agree with my or others definition of when life begins (which is fair enuff), but just because we have a different definition does not make me pro-death.

 

[otay]

Thats the biological definition, not the legal or moral one. How do you define the end of life may I ask?? Do you believe a "vegetable" (ie someone who is under an induced coma) is still alive?

 

[bshoc]

Thats the biological definition, not the legal or moral one.

One would think that to a rational man, the legal and moral definition of life would based around the science which specialises the most in the subject. Then again pro-abortion is hardly the realm of the rational man is it? It is rather the territory of the brainwashed "new age" human, which is actually a devolution of humanity by feminists, leftist activists and utilitarians.

How do you find the end of life may I ask??

Easy, apply the formula for life in reverse.

 

[otay]

Apply the formula in reverse? So when these doctors declare patients dead, really they are inspecting the full unique genetic code and the full set of chromosomes and declaring that they are no longer "there"?

 

[bshoc]

Apply the formula in reverse? So when these doctors declare patients dead, really they are inspecting the full unique genetic code and the full set of chromosomes and declaring that they are no longer "there"?

No, cell division.

 

[otay]

And while its not specifically about abortion, it is pertinent, is in fact the definition of death. Scientists claim the biological definition of death to be the when their brain ceases to function. However this does not cut it legally. A little opposite to aobrtion no?

Yet I think most ppl can agree the correlation between those against abortion and those for keeping patients in a vegetable state is high (I definely found this to be the case in America when I was their during the Schiavo debate )? So in one case we must follow the definition laid out by scientists, yet the other we can't. Im confuzzled

 

[kami]

Yeah and I suppose the fetus signs a "you can kill me becuase you accidently concieved me and now I have to die for your stupid mistakes" form right before conception right? :rofl:

No, but because the foetus is a non-sentient creature that is completely and utterly dependent on and residing within the mother's body then one would expect that choice to default to the mother. Also, you fail to address the point that a carer may decide in some circumstances whether their 'caree' remains on life support or not.

The same way you breathe my air, die. And eating the nutrients and food that I could possibly need to survive - you need to be put to death right away. I mean becuase its better to kill people than let them steal our valuable nutrients right? And what about those people recieving blood for other people, outrage!

I do not breathe your air, I breathe air from the same ultimate source as you. I also do not eat your nutrients, I gain them from the same ultimate source as you. For me to do either would require me to plug myself into your body somehow. Your blood example also didn't make any sense, blood donations are donated...no one goes around buying/stealing blood.

It doesen't, it possesses equal rights like the rest of humanity becuase whether you ignore it or not, its a seperate human bieng in every reguard of the word, thats basic science.

If you think that the foetus doesn't possess greater rights then why argue the point, since that was what the question was about?

Abortion = killing other people, argument nulled.

Just because you are pro-choice doesn't mean you think people should abort, only that you can't choose for them.

Where did you get this idea? Becuase its not true. Check the government statistics.

Its moderately well-known fact - its been mentioned in this thread several times and I've encountered the concept at university also.

Combining Medicare and hospital data?

As discussed above, using either the Medicare data or the hospital data in isolation will produce a misleading picture of abortion in Australia.(39) At the same time, using the two data sets in combination—for example, by adding the number of Medicare-funded abortion procedures to the number of separations for pregnancy terminations performed on public patients—will not produce a reliable estimate of the total number of abortions performed in Australia, for all of the reasons outlined above. For example:

• the Medicare data does not distinguish between pregnancy terminations and other procedures which are not abortions per se
• not all women who have abortions in private patient settings claim the Medicare rebate, and
• it is possible that the hospital data excludes some women who have abortions in outpatient settings in public hospitals (who may not be counted as admitted patients).

Therefore, in the absence of any other national data set on abortions, it is impossible to quantify accurately the total number of abortions which take place in Australia each year.

Yeah stupid people in Holland not killing their babies enough, bet it makes you damn sad. Hopefully all you white Australians just abort yourselves out of existance and leave this country to other people, it seems clear that this value means nothing to you.

There was no need for that bshoc, it does not aid your argument.

 

[ur_inner_child]

The reason, bshoc, as to why "pro-death" would be inaccurate description for pro-choice is because of the reason as to why pro-choicers back abortion: the idea of choice, much like the way you are pro-life because you have a perception about when life starts. Pro-death would imply that pro-choicers love death. It's an inaccurate portrayal of pro-choicer's reasoning as to why they chose their view in the first place.

Which is inaccurate. I'm sure an individual like you should be able to just understand that and let it be, and go back to debating the topic

 

[bshoc]

And while its not specifically about abortion, it is pertinent, is in fact the definition of death. Scientists claim the biological definition of death to be the when their brain ceases to function. However this does not cut it legally. A little opposite to aobrtion no?

Ugh no they dont, scientists would not make such a claim given the number of people emerging from braindeath or coma- that and the fact that many organism that are alive have no mental funtions to speak of, or at that, a brain. Cell division is the definition of life and lack of it is death, nothing more.

 

[bshoc]

The reason, bshoc, as to why "pro-death" would be inaccurate description for pro-choice is because of the reason as to why pro-choicers back abortion: the idea of choice, much like the way you are pro-life because you have a perception about when life starts. Pro-death would imply that pro-choicers love death. It's an accurate portrayal of pro-choicer's reasoning as to why they chose their view in the first place.

Which is inaccurate. I'm sure an individual like you should be able to just understand that and let it be, and go back to debating the topic

No, being pro killing something is pro-death, pro-choice is a silly little gloss over.

 

[ur_inner_child]

No, being pro killing something is pro-death, pro-choice is a silly little gloss over

I'm not sure as to whether you can't get your head around what I said or whether you are choosing to ignore it.

I'm talking about terminology and why society uses it, not your opinion of abortion and of those who engage or support it.

 

[otay]

Until not long ago, the word dead seemed unambiguous. Death (in a physiological sense) meant the cessation of both heartbeat and breathing, known as cardiorespiratory arrest. Today, most doctors view this criterion as insignificant, even irrelevant. In its place, they have adopted a set of neurological criteria that define death as "the absence of brain activity," regardless of other bodily functions*.

*the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Death

 

[bshoc]

I'm talking about terminology and why society uses it, not your opinion of abortion and of those who engage or support it.

When you understand why some in society call it "pro-choice", you will understand why others (more intelligent people with at least a basic spine) call it "pro-death"

 

[bshoc]

Until not long ago, the word dead seemed unambiguous. Death (in a physiological sense) meant the cessation of both heartbeat and breathing, known as cardiorespiratory arrest. Today, most doctors view this criterion as insignificant, even irrelevant. In its place, they have adopted a set of neurological criteria that define death as "the absence of brain activity," regardless of other bodily functions*.

*the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Death

Seems retarded given the sheer number of living things devoid of a brain, i believe theres quite a few million on your forearm right now.

Every scientist I've talked to consider the ability of a body's cells to divide to be the guage of life or death.

 

[ur_inner_child]

When you understand why some in society call it "pro-choice", you will understand why others (more intelligent people with at least a basic spine) call it "pro-death"

Most members come into these forums with an opinion, yes, but most members will keep an open mind, and keep their perception of whether they are more intelligent or not to themselves. For example, yes I am pro-choice, but robbie1 was pro-life, and I agreed with his reasoning.

Intelligent debaters do not normally say to their opponent that they are less intelligent.

I apologise, but using the "I'm intelligent, I'm right, you are wrong, we are done" mentality is usually unnecessary. You will gain far more respect if you sustain an argument without abuse or furthermore, never crossing the line of whether your opponent is intelligent or not.