Abortion - Page 11 - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 02-17-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple-T

Sure, no problem. I'm not a scientist or a doctor by trade , so I'll go with the prevailing judicial opinion that a fetus becomes a viable human being when it can survive out side the womb. Somewhere around 22-28 weeks. The main reason being that it can survive outside of the womb. The characteristics is that it can breath air and all vital organs can function. If a person (regardless of age) could not breath air and their vital organs failed, they'd be dead.

I'm still fuzzy on your opinion though. When in your estimation does a zygote become a human being? As long as it is in the womb? Is a 1-day old zygote a human? If so, why would a 1-day old zygote outside of the womb not be a human?

As I said I am conflicted on the petri dish zygote, in principal I would rather not see INF, but I recognize the benefit it provides to many people. I wish more people would consider adoption.

Once conception has taken place in the womb I believe that a human being exists. IMO the judicial definition is inadequate. Human children cannot exist without a lot of intervention for a number of years.

For example research has shown (information that didn't exist when Roe v Wade was decided) that there is brain activity going on and a functioning nervous system long before the lungs are fully functional. Should we subject that nervous system to the horror of being ripped apart because the lungs aren't fully functional outside the womb?

If a baby is born prematurely (say 20 weeks for the sake of this discussion). If a criminal breaks into the hospital and murders the child they would be facing criminal charges, Logically why would it be permissible to kill that same child if they were in a womb rather than in an intensive care center?

Can I presume from you definition that you feel that partial birth abortion should be illegal?

Triple-T · 02-17-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

As I said I am conflicted on the petri dish zygote, in principal I would rather not see INF, but I recognize the benefit it provides to many people. I wish more people would consider adoption.

Once conception has taken place in the womb I believe that a human being exists. IMO the judicial definition is inadequate. Human children cannot exist without a lot of intervention for a number of years.

For example research has shown (information that didn't exist when Roe v Wade was decided) that there is brain activity going on and a functioning nervous system long before the lungs are fully functional. Should we subject that nervous system to the horror of being ripped apart because the lungs aren't fully functional outside the womb?

If a baby is born prematurely (say 20 weeks for the sake of this discussion). If a criminal breaks into the hospital and murders the child they would be facing criminal charges, Logically why would it be permissible to kill that same child if they were in a womb rather than in an intensive care center?

Can I presume from you definition that you feel that partial birth abortion should be illegal?

I am not a fan of abortion at all. It is bad for the mother and I strongly value having children in the world. As was stated earlier in this thread, partial birth abortion is illegal except in extreme cases where the mothers life is in danger and I agree with that.

Since the womb is so important to your definition of a baby, you need to make sure the mother lives, right? Sounds like you are in favor of partial birth abortions.

As to timing, the definition is built around viability. If it is determined that viability begins at 20 weeks, then let's update the law.

But it seems we are reaching a consensus here. Abortion should be legal up to the point of viability and then only to protect the mother's life. What is disagreeable about that?

***patsfan13*** · 02-17-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple-T

I am not a fan of abortion at all. It is bad for the mother and I strongly value having children in the world. As was stated earlier in this thread, partial birth abortion is illegal except in extreme cases where the mothers life is in danger and I agree with that.

Since the womb is so important to your definition of a baby, you need to make sure the mother lives, right? Sounds like you are in favor of partial birth abortions.

As to timing, the definition is built around viability. If it is determined that viability begins at 20 weeks, then let's update the law.

But it seems we are reaching a consensus here. Abortion should be legal up to the point of viability and then only to protect the mother's life. What is disagreeable about that?

The AMA has stated that there is no medical need for a partial Birth Abortion. I also question why the pro abortion is so fanatical in opposing laws restricting this barbaric procedure.

Since in a partial Birth abortion the entire baby except the head is extracted from the womb, what medical purpose is sevweb by inserting a sharp object in the birth canal to puncture the so the brain can be sucked out? In what circumstance would that benefit the health of the mother over allowing the birth to be completed?

Triple-T · 02-17-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The AMA has stated that there is no medical need for a partial Birth Abortion. I also question why the pro abortion is so fanatical in opposing laws restricting this barbaric procedure.

Since in a partial Birth abortion the entire baby except the head is extracted from the womb, what medical purpose is sevweb by inserting a sharp object in the birth canal to puncture the so the brain can be sucked out? In what circumstance would that benefit the health of the mother over allowing the birth to be completed?

When you say "no medical need", do you mean there are alternatives to the procedure or that a mother's life cannot be in danger?

Please provide links.

But if it does come down to the baby is viable and can be delivered safely, then yes, I don't think there should be partial birth abortions. Of course, we've already established that prevailing law says a baby cannot be aborted once it reaches viability, so what exactly is the issue?

***patsfan13*** · 02-17-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple-T

But it seems we are reaching a consensus here. Abortion should be legal up to the point of viability and then only to protect the mother's life. What is disagreeable about that?

My definition of viability would be different. As long as the child or fetus is developing normally it is a viable human being for a particular stage of it's development, since we all pass through the same stages of development.

Quote:

At only 40 days after fertilization electrical waves as measured by the EEG can be recorded from the baby's brain, indicating brain functioning47, 48.

47. Hamlin, H. (1964), "Life or Death by EEG," Journal of the American Medical Association, October 12, 113.

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception.

J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564

Where there is ambiguity or uncertainty IMO we should err in favor of life rather than if favor of death.

Real World · 02-17-2007, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3 to be 4

I appreciate you saying that. thank you.

your following points:
"- I support abortions being made available, primarily for instances of rape, incest and health of the mother. I don't support it as a means to remedy an inconvience.

- Support parental notification for minors. Always have.

- Generally opposed to late term abortions. "

show you are a reasonable person.

Predictably, we disagree on the miracle issue. But with this issue, when you are looking for just a little budge room, one must be happy with what one can get it.

one more point, and i dont mean this in a condescending or patronizing way because I respect what you said, im just speaking for me, i will repeat that before my wife became pregnant with our daughter, I never budged on the issue either.
Until it became personal, i wasnt able to look at an unborn in the way i did when i looked at the first images when she was the size of a Rice Krispie and that little heart was going. It changes things. And when you see things in a personal perspective, you can broaden that out to others.
Many peoples view on race are only changed when they become good friends, for the first time, a person of another race. then they can see the issue in ways they never thought.

Im not saying every parent is changed, or that people without children are incapable of seeing things different, im trying to explain more fully, amplifying if you will, my earlier point.

Nicely put.

PF1996 · 02-17-2007, 12:33 PM

Your ignorance and stupidity, although typical of an anti-abortionist, are still quite amazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3 to be 4

its interesting how you want to keep this debate to be all or nothing. "Should we outlaw all (fill in the blank)?"
its misleading to state thats what the Pro-Lifers are proposing, because we know we'll never get close to that anyway. All that we are hoping for at this point are reasonable limits, and people like you freak out at the notion. Why?

I asked you to provide a RATIONAL reason for "limiting abortions". You provide the following..."reason, a "fetus" is alive. killing it is killing it. is that one?". This is NOT rational because we KILL many things that fit the most basic definition of being alive...i.e cancerous tumours. Thus, the fact that something meets a very basic defintion of being "alive" isn't reason in itself for it not to be terminated. It is also not a rational reason for YOU to provide for wanting to "limit abortions", when you support abortions for rape/incest. Abortions performed for rape/incest reasons are NO different from those performed for any other reason. I.E. - they ALL involve "killing of fetuses". So you CANNOT RATIONALLY argue that abortion should be limited "to prevent killing fetuses", while supporting abortion for rape/incest which also KILLS fetuses. Are you able to comprehend this basic fact, now that I've spelled it out for you???

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3 to be 4

also, its a lie to say that almost all abortions involving the destroying of a mass of tissue that doesnt resemble anything like a baby. Are you serious???

have you ever seen a picture of even or 2 or 3 month old "fetus"?

you lose ALL credibility when you say such a (dare I say it?) stupid thing.

I beg you to please read sentences COMPLETELY before replying. I stated that most abortions are performed on fetuses that do not resemble a living child/baby/person in a MEANINGFUL way. This means that such fetuses have not yet reached a stage of physical development where they are capable of self-survival.

Now, again, I await just ONE rational reason for why abortions should be limited.

***patsfan13*** · 02-17-2007, 01:19 PM

Reasons some might consider rational may be reasons the you don't consider rational due to you personal frame of reference.

That doesn't make the POV of others irrational. I haven't heard a rational (from my POV) for killing babies in the womb.

PF1996 · 02-17-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Those laws have been used in court cases to prevent studying PBA and reasons for it. for example
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20040331.html

This link leads to a particular court case where the government was on a fishing expedition for abortions records to try to support their ban on d/e abortions because the gov't apparently doesn't have any evidence of their own. Feel free to provide links to the other CASES you mentioned.

Here are the facts. ONE PERCENT of all abortions are performed after the FIFTH month of pregnancy. The majority of states in the U.S. ban late term abortions except for medical reasons. Here's another fact which I'm sure you don't quite grasp. The vast majority of women will not carry a pregnancy past five months, and then wake up one morning and decide to submit themselves to a potentially dangerous SURGICAL PROCEDURE, for the hell of it. Considering all these facts, it's highly likely that the ONE PERCENT of abortions performed on late term pregnancies are NOT done for "cosmetic reasons". Even if ALL these late-term procedures were done for "cosmetic reasons", such a fact wouldn't constitute a reason to ban late-term abortions. Simply place limitations on WHY a late-term abortion can be performed, as MANY STATES have already done. So your rallies against late-term abortion to justify your opposition to abortion is disingenious at best or ignorant at worse. You decide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

At what point does a fetus become a human being what are the characteristics that make it a human being rather than a inanimate lump of tissue?

Just because a human during the fetal stage of their development isn't a human being doesn't make it so. Give me a rational reason why a human being isn't a human being during the fetal stage of it's development?

Hmmm...because if you cut open a woman's stomach and removed a 16 week old fetus...it would DIE. Fully developed human beings...i.e. PERSONS do not NEED to leech off of another human being's body TO SURVIVE. Please do take a child development class - it's apparent that you need one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Whne one removes cancerous cells from an organism it is being done to save the live of the organism from a diseased part of the body. In what way is a human during the fetal stage of it's development a disease??

I'll spell it out for you since, like the typical anti-abortionist, you're apparently too obtuse to understand. You claimed that fetuses shouldn't be removed due to their unique DNA and the fact that they fulfill the basic requirements of "life". So do cancerous cells, yet they are removed at will. Thus simply having unique DNA or being a basic lifeform doesn't make fetuses "persons", or entitle them to individual protections and terminating them is not "murder".

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

I agree you don't seem to care you callousness is quite apparent. and not really rational.

I most certainly do not care about abortions - this is true. Why is this "callous", or relevant, and how is "callousness" innately irrational?

PF1996 · 02-17-2007, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Reasons some might consider rational may be reasons the you don't consider rational due to you personal frame of reference.

That doesn't make the POV of others irrational. I haven't heard a rational (from my POV) for killing babies in the womb.

Actually RATIONALITY has NOTHING to do with one's "PERSONAL frame of reference". It's about being LOGICAL AND FACTUAL, i.e. statements that are CONSISTENT with each other and with REALITY. Anti-abortionists have NO rational basis for opposition to abortion. Like you, they make unfounded claims, such as "abortion is killing and wrong"...but it's not killing and is okay for rape/incest