@james

"Whose life and livelihood is in no way threatened? Being pregnant is as dangerous as being a cop or being in the military statistically speaking, and that's entirely beyond any other negative effects on career etc which can be devastating. Women are to be forced at gunpoint to endure these risks because of ill founded and stupid superstitions. That's absurd

Oh and "have a sentient being inside them" is scientifically disproven and utterly false. This is like the "killing babies" stupidity a fetus isn't a baby, by definition. And there isn't even a brain formed capable of self awareness or thought. If that's the standard for the end of life (it is) that's absurd that suddenly people want a totally different approach at the other end.

"Innocent" has nothing to do with it. People dying in fires are innocent too but we don't prosecute bystanders for not rushing into burning buildings.

These arethe kinds of stupid statement that makes me say that no one who hasn't been pregnant should be allowed to have a say. It's easy for you to pontificate, but then you have nothing at stake in the outcome, do you? (At least not yet. Maybe someday your wife will be the one to die because she could abort a fetus at a medically critical time to satisfy someone else's religious ideas)

And you need to learn more developmental biology. You statement about stem cells vs a zygote is howlingly inaccurate. Neither develops without direction and both have all the molecular machinery necessary.

Strawman alert:

prosecute bystanders for not rushing into burning buildings.

your comparison of an inaction 'rushing into burning buildings' does not equate to an action, performing an abortion procedure.

and the statement: 'your wife will be the one to die' suggests you have no compassion for other humans who disagree with you. perhaps you would like to eliminate everyone who disagrees with you. You could be like Kim jung-un and 'kill them with anti-aircraft guns'.

and to deny that the vast majority of abortions is not for convenience is laughable when the number of abortions in the US is over 50 million since Roe v. Wade. 50 MILLION. that is the same as the population of all of the people in California, Oregon and Washington combined. Me thinks white man you speak with forked tongue.

@MajorMitchell

"James, I think you demonstrate such stubborn obtuse intransigence, it's not an "innocent" fetus, it simply a fetus...duh"

fine it's just a fetus. so how can you compare it to pro-death penalty people? that's something YOU did.

"This continual use of "innocent" is an emotional tactic. It implies guilt to a woman who chooses to have an abortion."

we only started this line of though because of your claims on the pro death penalty people.

furthermore, you said "innocent" because morality is a social construct that fetuses aren't even aware of. i'm saying that morality isn't just determined by society, rather it's by legal standing, and the liberties it represents.

"You cannot extrapolate from a legal approval of abortion of a fetus being legal allowance to murder children, that's a legal nonsense.. Children have a far different legal status to that of a fetus...duh"

RIGHT NOW, they do have very different standings. that's what this entire conversation is about! SHOULD these legal standings be changed?

you can't use the argument "the law says to do this, therefore that is a good thing to do"

"As a further demonstration of your apparent legal incompetence, try and follow this: If abortion is murder ( and I do not concede that it is, instead I would refute that proposition, but hypothetically let's allow it for a moment )"

alright

"then you cannot convict the woman of the crime of murder since she does not carry out the act of abortion.. You might convict her of conspiracy to murder"

yes, well, if the action would actually be carried out, the correct term would be an "accomplice to murder"

"However neither murder, or conspiracy to murder can apply, because the fetus does not have the same legal status as a living, breathing person."

ugh. you said in your first sentence that you'd be playing devil's advocacy. but in the end, you're only saying "it's not the current legal status"

we are arguing WHETHER OR NOT. WHETHER. OR. NOT. that fetus/baby should be given rights.

"So any decision that allows abortion does not endorse murder."

currently, under the assumption that a fetus SHUOLD have no rights. i'm arguing, is this correct?

"It's quite logical to treat the fetus as different from a person, if you give a fetus the same legal status as a person you create more legal problems than you solve."

once again, i'm not worried about creating more legal problems, i'm worried about the truth. i will not be listening to an argument that says that option A is harder so we probably shouldn't do it.

" did not call those who a "pro life" when it's over abortion, and "pro death" hypocrites, I wrote that the contradiction was "monumental hypocrisy" for which I had contempt. You can infer what you will, correctly, or more likely, incorrectly."

ok... so it's a "monumental hypocrisy"
tell me if i'm wrong, but here is my line of thought:
the reason for anti-abortion, is because somebody wants to save a life (whether or not it is a life, this is their motive).
the reason for pro death penalty, is because somebody has committed a heinous act (although apparently Texas is going to execute a get away driver, which is bullshit)

so how is this a "monumental hypocrisy"??? I'm failing to see the contradicting values that make these two positions impossible to hold together. can you elaborate further?

"Finally, don't whine about getting rebuked by the Almighty Mods to me, or try to make me responsible for their actions, or inactions. I made no complaints to the Almighty Mods regarding your good self. As I have remarked before in other threads, I can tolerate a fair amount of insult, if they are witty, clever, and do not use extremely offensive terms. Capt Brad dishes out a fair quantity of barbed comments aimed at me, and I have not once run off to the Almighty Mods via email to whine about Capt Brad."

you complained on that thread, i never said anything about emailing them. in any case, your sensitivity to things you find "extremely offensive" nearly got me silenced.

but whatever, i guess you're allowed to be an asshole, as long as you have nuance.

"But I do take your point under consideration. Although I would suggest that both of us should "ease up on each other" in future, don't expect me to make concessions without the same from you.
But remember.. "Et illum nemo impune lacissat".... No one provokes (me) with impunity. I don't hold to that rigidly and as I get older allow a lot more to " slide on by"



@Ogion

""Whose life and livelihood is in no way threatened? Being pregnant is as dangerous as being a cop or being in the military statistically speaking, and that's entirely beyond any other negative effects on career etc which can be devastating. Women are to be forced at gunpoint to endure these risks because of ill founded and stupid superstitions. That's absurd"

assuming no danger becomes immediately prescient to medical personnel... add that to my query. shifts in amount of placenta , placement of the baby within the womb - in the case of my older brother, having an umbilical cord wrapped around his throat (he was always a dipshit), increased chance of miscarriage, not enough nutrients being retained by the mother, pre existing conditions with pregnancy. if these, or many more factors, come up then let's assume we can allow abortions.

but let's consider:
"and that's entirely beyond any other negative effects on career "

i thought we had been told for the better part of a decade now, pregnant mothers were just as capable in their careers as working men? now if we want to go back and say this is wrong, working mothers are inefficient, all over the place with hormones and shouldn't be allowed to work much of the time, i'm no comfortable with that myself.

women are affected in different ways in pregnancies.

here is how most women who die from 2011 to 2013

Cardiovascular diseases, 15.5%.
Non-cardiovascular diseases, 14.5%.
Infection or sepsis, 12.7%.
Hemorrhage, 11.4%.
Cardiomyopathy, 11.0%.
Thrombotic pulmonary embolism, 9.2%.
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, 7.4%.
Cerebrovascular accidents, 6.6%.
Amniotic fluid embolism, 5.5%.
Anesthesia complications, 0.1%.

6.1% of pregnancy related deaths are "unknown"

if any of these even begin to appear, then let's allow abortion. for the other 6.1%, if there was any sign of problems, then abortion should be allowed (however i can't find the damn data regarding medical files to see if these had any warning signs at all)

however, i'm talking about the other 99.9827% who will not die form a pregnancy

should they have the option for an abortion?

"Oh and "have a sentient being inside them" is scientifically disproven and utterly false. This is like the "killing babies" stupidity a fetus isn't a baby, by definition. And there isn't even a brain formed capable of self awareness or thought. If that's the standard for the end of life (it is) that's absurd that suddenly people want a totally different approach at the other end. "

in fact, self awareness only truly occurs after birth, so clearly that is not a good measurement for "can we kill it or not?". but consciousness, EEG rhythms still occur within the womb. if this is purely about sentience, then newborns are up for grabs. if this is about women's rights, then let's argue just that. still, i'm not seeing how kids ONLY get rights once sentience comes around.

under that logic, newborns don't have rights.

"These arethe kinds of stupid statement that makes me say that no one who hasn't been pregnant should be allowed to have a say. It's easy for you to pontificate, but then you have nothing at stake in the outcome, do you? (At least not yet. Maybe someday your wife will be the one to die because she could abort a fetus at a medically critical time to satisfy someone else's religious ideas)"

if there's a chance of death for the mother, then abortions should be allowed.

how come you guys yell at me or not reading what you're saying, even when i directly quote every line, but then you completely lie about what my position is?

"And you need to learn more developmental biology. You statement about stem cells vs a zygote is howlingly inaccurate. Neither develops without direction and both have all the molecular machinery necessary."

A stem cell is any cell that has the capacity to divide indefinitely and give rise to more specialized cell, so is a zygote a stem cell? The zygote is the combination of gametes and divides to give rise to the cells which will form an organism. A zygote ACTUALLY would be considered a totipotent stem cell.

Totipotent cells give rise to pluripotent stem cells which can generate the ectoderm, mesoderm, endoderm and germ cells. THESE allow stem cells to be created, which are the ones that can be used to rebuild tissue in different organisms.

the stem cell needs a directing force, a zygote: totipotent cell, IS a directing force.

and you say i need to know more about developmental biology? piss off.

I find it really weird that Yanik is the only person with any grasp of the actual debate. Everyone else just can't empathize with the other side.

and you say i need to know more about developmental biology? piss off.

Yeah Ogion, piss off!

You go James!!!

Well, seeing as I am a PhD biologist, I'd say your understanding of the role of the uterine lining for development is lacking. A stem cell ha all the machinery a zygote has. Yes, a zygote can get started, but left on its own without interaction with maternal cells it won't grow past a certain point any more than a stem cell will

However, this abortion is murder nonsense is presupposing your conclusion. Remember "murder" is a very particular kind of homicide, which is itself a subset of killings. If you remove life support from a brain dead person who can't live on their own, that's neither a homicide not a murder though it is a killing. Three separate things.

Now, babies are quite distinct from fetuses, in that the do not have nontransferable dependence on anyone. A fetus requires input and help from a specific person. So there are two related questions. Why does a fetus have special rights to demand that assistance, when no one else does? If I am dying in a fire no one recognizes that I have a right to require you to rush into a burning building to save me upon penalty of inprisonment if you don't. So, you're in the situation of carving out some exception. However, you seem to want to talk back on the "you're to blame for having sex" which is not much of an argument, unless sex is some particularly dis favored activity (which frankly for many it is, which is the real reason there is even a question here).

There is always a chance of death for the mother. You're specious comaprison to all causes of death is absurd. Murder is a fairly rare cause of death, so does that means murder is a non issue and should be legal? Of course not. The only appropriate comparison is to look at the risk of injury or death resulting from the pregnancy you are demanding others undergo. That's the only reasonable assessment of risk that you want to impose.

Furthermore, anyone who suggests that pregnant women are treated equally or fairly doesn't live in the real world. Furthermore, anyone suggesting that being pregnant doesn't make work harder have never been pregnant. How about we inject you with drugs to make you nauseous for five months and see how easy you think it is. This myth of the risk less and difficulty free pregnancy is spreading lies. You are demanding serious risks and discomfort to satisfy your poorly grounded philosophical objections.

So, you want to extend special rights to a lump of cells at significant harm and risk to women. That in a nutshell is a position that denigrates the rights and autonomy of women for the sake of some poorly defined or justified objection. Given the weakness of the anti-choice position based on facts, it is hard to not conclude that some level of this objection is based in placing an exceptionally low value on the rights and autonomy of women. Frankly, given your other statements, I'd say this is a significant aspect of your motivations

I have a perfectly good grasp of the debate. I just don't have a lot of respect for the anti-choice position because it is poorly founded and pretty immoral. Just because I don't respect it doesn't mean I don't understand it. I understand the flawed logic of white supremacists also, but I find their argument poorly founded and immoral. One can do both understand and dismiss the arguments as not compelling

And James doesn't have a particularly good grasp of the debate. He doesn't understand the utterly different standing of babies and fetuses and compares then repeatedly. He refers to murder, which isn't a crate but is emotional garbage. He absolutely doesn't understand the real life aspects of pregnancy. He has bogus understanding of biology. No, he doesn't understand the terms of the debate very well at all

@Ogion

"Well, seeing as I am a PhD biologist, I'd say your understanding of the role of the uterine lining for development is lacking. A stem cell ha all the machinery a zygote has. Yes, a zygote can get started, but left on its own without interaction with maternal cells it won't grow past a certain point any more than a stem cell will"

The interaction is primarily for resources. i'll concede to you that microchimerism does occur, but there's is no perceivable dangerous directly from this. furthermore, the primary exchange of cells would occur in the early gestation stages, so let's say that all abortions for the first two weeks should be allowed.

wait, i already said that. look back in the thread: first two weeks, i'm on for pro choice.

what threatens the mother's life the most are outside diseases and conditions during pregnancy, the fetus developing a problem, or the fetus affecting the mother in negative ways where it degrades her quality of health SO MUCH that it threatens her life to a large degree.

"There is always a chance of death for the mother. You're specious comaprison to all causes of death is absurd. Murder is a fairly rare cause of death, so does that means murder is a non issue and should be legal? Of course not. The only appropriate comparison is to look at the risk of injury or death resulting from the pregnancy you are demanding others undergo. That's the only reasonable assessment of risk that you want to impose."

yes, there is a chance of death for a woman, specifically from the pregnancy. it is .0173%

now if symptoms begin to arise, then we should act and terminate the pregnancy. however, if no symptoms begin to arise, i feel hard pressed to say a correct course of action is a 100% chance of death for the fetus/baby.

and i'll admit that abortion is safer than pregnancy from what studies i've seen, although i'm not sure if they've stratified for later term abortions, where the fetus/baby is more fully developed (I'm using the term fetus/baby to try to be neutral to each side fyi)

"Furthermore, anyone who suggests that pregnant women are treated equally or fairly doesn't live in the real world. Furthermore, anyone suggesting that being pregnant doesn't make work harder have never been pregnant. How about we inject you with drugs to make you nauseous for five months and see how easy you think it is. This myth of the risk less and difficulty free pregnancy is spreading lies. You are demanding serious risks and discomfort to satisfy your poorly grounded philosophical objections."

why say "philosophical objections" when you can just say "objection to killing human life"

also, i'm not talking about the current situation. there are plenty of abortions that SHUOLD be enacted, but aren't because of religious dogma. i agree with you on that. however, i'm saying what does an ideal system look like?

also "Furthermore, anyone suggesting that being pregnant doesn't make work harder have never been pregnant."

no no no, this is the feminists' claim.

"So, you want to extend special rights to a lump of cells at significant harm and risk to women."

phraseology is EVERYTHING. what if i said, "So, you want to kill a baby just because it's a slight inconvenience to a woman?"

"That in a nutshell is a position that denigrates the rights and autonomy of women for the sake of some poorly defined or justified objection."

YES! let's get back on track: the rights of autonomy for a woman. this is where i believe the true center of the divide is.

"Given the weakness of the anti-choice position based on facts, it is hard to not conclude that some level of this objection is based in placing an exceptionally low value on the rights and autonomy of women. Frankly, given your other statements, I'd say this is a significant aspect of your motivations"

*assumes motive*

no, i just don't like ending a life without considering all avenues. and i've already conceded PLENTY for the sake of argument, which could be argued.

but conscious children who have no current perceivable risk to a mother's life, that is up for debate.

and stop making it sound like every pregnancy, mother's life are on a knife's edge on whether or not they'll survive. while the deaths are tragic (and should be prevented - I AM PRO CHOICE HERE) they are a small proportion.

though this does leave room open for debate: should abortion be allowed if there is a RISK OF:
permanent coma for the woman? temporary? some nerve damage? slight anxiety? future reproduction problems?

and at what level of risk with each of these would we be willing to say "nope, that's too much, an abortion is the best option." - ?

@Ogion

"And James doesn't have a particularly good grasp of the debate."

you speak too highly of me

"He doesn't understand the utterly different standing of babies and fetuses and compares then repeatedly."

YOU SAID (YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU) sentience was key, and fetuses aren't sentient. i was being intellectually honest, and said that not all children are sentient. you CANNOT hold a double standard here! Clearly there is an underlying difference beyond sentience.

"He refers to murder, which isn't a crate but is emotional garbage."

unjustified killing is murder. so when is something justified, and when is it not? i believe in some cases with abortion, it IS unjustified

"He absolutely doesn't understand the real life aspects of pregnancy. He has bogus understanding of biology. No, he doesn't understand the terms of the debate very well at all"

*attacks credibility*

sorry if i just don't roll over, especially with your sly little appeal to authority a few posts back. i have questions, and i want answers. if all you're giving me is ad hominem, then that's not productive at all, is it?

Ok, keep conflating babies and fetuses. It just shows your total dishonesty

@Ogion

YOU said that sentience was important, but sentience doesn't occur until well after birth!

by making that a distinguishable factor YOU conflated babies and fetuses

wait i thought you muted this thread

The point is that abortion is absolutely justified in virtually every case, because it is the woman's decision whether she wants to continue or not. The justification on the one side is that no one should be able to compel such physically intimate servitude at a risk of death that is six times greater than the risk of being murdered, not to mention the other negatives. On the reverse we are talking about an entirely dependent non-sentient clump of cells. So, compelling interests on the one sode, and not very compelling interests on the other. the only way to declare that abortion is "murder" is to ignore the rights of women. Funny how it is nearly always MEN who are so willing to deal away the rights other women.

When people provided logic scream adhiminem, they've lost the argument. What we are left with is an ideologue.

I was right to mute this thread. Or maybe more efficient to mute James since most of what he writes is illogical obtuseness

I don't assume your motives James. You have demonstrated it unequivocally and repeatedly

@Ogion

"The point is that abortion is absolutely justified in virtually every case, because it is the woman's decision whether she wants to continue or not."

i would contend this, saying that at some point, the fetus/baby must be taken into consideration.

"The justification on the one side is that no one should be able to compel such physically intimate servitude at a risk of death that is six times greater than the risk of being murdered, not to mention the other negatives."

once again, you're inflating the risk of pregnant women dying. we have 15000 murders a year? you have an exceedingly small chance of dying. you have a .0173% chance of dying because of pregnancy.

FURTHERMORE: if any risk signs begin to show: abortion should be made allowed immediately! without any of these risk signs, the mortality rate of mothers is exceedingly low.

"On the reverse we are talking about an entirely dependent non-sentient clump of cells"

you just described a newborn, just as much you did the child one day before birth.

"'So, compelling interests on the one sode, and not very compelling interests on the other. the only way to declare that abortion is "murder" is to ignore the rights of women. Funny how it is nearly always MEN who are so willing to deal away the rights other women. "

these are not solely the rights of women, they are the rights of ALL humans.

"When people provided logic scream adhiminem, they've lost the argument. What we are left with is an ideologue. "

when people provided ad hominem, scream ad hominem: it means the other side isn't willing to have an argument.

"I was right to mute this thread. Or maybe more efficient to mute James since most of what he writes is illogical obtuseness"

you very clearly DIDN'T mute this thread lol

"I don't assume your motives James. You have demonstrated it unequivocally and repeatedly"

in that case you're consciously misrepresenting me. i am not profusely supporting either side, i'm just trying make sure the argument gets addressed on a core level. in doing this, i have conceded plenty of ground that others haven't

"YOU said that sentience was important, but sentience doesn't occur until well after birth!"

[citation needed]

Sentience is the capacity to experience sensation. The brain structures for sentience (corpus callosum etc.) develop around weeks 24-28. The foetus is not actually conscious at this time due to being sedated by the uterine environment, but equivalent preterm babies would have some form of consciousness.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

If you're talking about infants without sentience, I suspect you are actually referring to self-awareness, which is a separate phenomenon.

Please note that this does not reflect my own views about when human life begins or when abortion is moral. I am simply providing what little I know about the standards you are discussing.

@Lethologica

sentience = consciousness then? because if so you're correct, i need to revisit my terms. furthermore, EEG measurement occurring in a fetus would be consciousness.

also, i'll find that Ogion claim on sentience, but it might be back in the Daily Trump Thread.

page 3 of this thread: OGION:

"At minimum, without higher order brain activity and sentience, there's no solid rationale for extending rights to what is a clump of cells. Prior to birth, there is no "child.""

Apparently Ogion misses the point about parents. parents sacrifice. parents give up some of their life for their children. not every child may be wanted but that is no reason for abortion. Ogion never answered my question about what we do about unwanted people. he is about 'saving' the planet from global climate change and protecting endangered species but never about protecting innocent children. to morph a developing child into "an entirely dependent non-sentient clump of cells" is the same logic that the Nazis used to change Jews, homosexuals, communists and the mentally ill into non-humans, justifying their extermination. I am sure Ogion has muted me but i will not be silent.

ok so 4 terms:
life
sentient life
conscious life (self aware)

let's use these three from now own, will that be alright? i think i've been mixing up sentience and consciousness, and if so, i apologize.

hello James. stepping on me again. but i don't mind, you keep at Ogion too. do not let them silence you either!

I think 'higher-order brain activity' is a highly unorthodox basis for personhood. It's also not the same thing as sentience. Your argument about babies without 'sentience' *does* apply to higher-order brain activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_functions

the argument of sentience is a red herring. what of people with advanced dementia or alzheimer's? they may not be sentient anymore but we don't exterminate them; Holland and Oregon notwithstanding.

Brad, you are confusing sentience for...something else. Patients with advanced dementia and Alzheimer's are still sentient. You basically have to be braindead to not be sentient.

That's also not what a red herring is.

I completely reject the statement by Ogion that he has a PhD in biology. I highly, highly that that is accurate.

No one with any understanding of Fetology could possibly make the statement that prior to birth a child is "a clump of cells. Prior to birth there is no child."

Anyone who makes that statement has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

@Lethologica,
But a human foetus is sentient, at least after around 13 weeks gestation, probably earlier.