Jacob,

I was attacking your argument and I realize that I am taking to a person, so out of respect of this fact I speak to you as if you are in the room. My tone my reflect my frustration with you, and can be rude sometimes. I am expressive and passionate I speak to you with the same bluntness I use with most intelligent adults, Not every paragraph I write (say) then, is going to be formal, just as I would not speak only in declarative and interrogative sentences, that would be rude. I am human being, and I know I am talking to one.

What I am attacking is the behaviour of your ignorance toward how humans come to be, your disrespect of all women's unique role in giving life, and the manipulation bringing fact in a bit of information that is irrelevant (Eugenics) as being a result of what would happen if women had the choice to have an abortion or not. When we akin DNA to life we are examining a splinter instead of the home. Eugenics is another architectural plan altogether and has nothing to do with ending fetal development. I am addressing the behaviour of your ideas because your writing expresses your behaviour and I worry about the effect this kind of thinking brings to men's behaviour in the word. To be perfectly honest, history tells me I have reason to.

I asked: "How can you continue to ignore the simple fact that a fetus is unable to sustain it's own life outside the womb and for this reason cannot be called life. Anything under 24 weeks is dead outside the womb."


You respond: "First of all, notice how you keep referring to the baby as being "inside" or "outside" of the womb? What happened to the baby really just being a part of the woman's body?"

You are ignoring this fact by asking me what you do. The baby is not part of the woman's body, the fetus is, Jacob.

I never use fetus and baby interchangeably, or say that the baby is inside the body or that the fetus lives outside the body. I refer to the facts (as they have been named) of what is inside and attached to the women's body VS what is outside the womb and body and is no longer physically attached and dependent. Inside: egg, sperm for a brief moment, embryo, fetus. Outside: baby/infant, child, youth, adult.

This is one of the few either-or aspects of humanity. We can only be a baby (infant, toddler) in the absence of the fetus; the adult in the absence of the child; alive in the absence of death.

We become human only when we are born through the vagina (or abdomen), the umbilicus is cut, removing the infant (baby) from the oxygen of it's mothers blood supply, and only then is this an autonomous human being. Coincidentally breathing shows up right at that moment, which is good because breathing is the one thing parents cannot do for anyone but themselves. Breath is life. An infant (baby) really is a brand new life, and that it is a human being now an established fact. The fetus is not an established or separate life in the womb and it is not a baby. The fetus is a part of the mother through shared systems and metabolic and mechanical processes, it is the mother's breath and blood; as long as she lives so does the fetus. The mother dies, the fetus dies.


When did we start talking about independence and personhood? I thought we were talking about the differences between fetus and baby, life potential and life. Without breath, no life. With life there is always breath. This fact has been known since biblical times, (not that it isn't presently obvious to our senses ) " God forms him out of earth ("adama"), and breathes into him the breath of life" (And even here the men who wrote this seem a little dismissive of the role of women. Which also illustrates the tendency of men to dismiss the value of women's unique role in giving birth to a life. Why is that? Are men jealous that they cannot do this? Is this why they feel that they have a right to dictate and limit women's choices?)

I accept the fact of infanticide, it's right up there with other life taking crimes of murder, they happen. But that is the killing of an infant, which is out side of the womb, an established life. Abortion is about choosing to halt the potential of life of becoming life it is not killing anything that exists in fact.

I am pro-choice, your choices as much as mine, provided they enable the continued life of each individual for the betterment of our collective humanity. I have great reverence for life, which is why I am pro-abortion. I trust (most) women to decide for themselves whether it is safe for her to attempt give life to another human being or not. I trust women to make their own choices. I know that some will make the wrong choice either way, because I accept that human rights do not mean we are not prone to error and I hope that we all can learn something from our mistakes of both information and action. Just as I would expect to be trusted in decisions about the life(s) I am responsible for. I believe women should be able to choose and that children should only be born of choice. And I appreciate that some men will feel at a loss for not being able to make all the choices women can make in terms of furthering humanity life, but this is an unchangeable fact. Women have been subjected and restricted from choice for this reason, evidenced by history, for far too long. And the "pro-life" position, is continuing to prolong this kind of subjugation towards women.

I am consistent in my views, I just don't confuse the potential life with life, or the sawdust with the home.

Your quote of me: "Until a baby develops through all the womb stages long enough for the basic fuel system lungs and breath to function outside, which not all do by the way, it is not life, it is a life in potential. Is this just too profound for you to understand? "

Oh, by your lack of direct response to this, and going on about life support, it seems so. Yes, it is rather profound, take your time, you will get it if you try.

Scary as death is, you, we all, will eventually die. With out the ability to breath, as all life is first and last fueled by breath, and at the point were the lungs cannot be helped and stop functioning, yes you (we all ) will cease to be human.

You cannot liken mechanical life support with a female human being. That is most inaccurate, as machines are not alive. This is the most disrespectful point in the "anti-abortion" argument. It is downright dehumanizing.

I wrote: "Why is it the "pro- Life" argument always has to bring in killing, murder, eugenics (which are considerably off topic) to make a point that is not even accurate? These only detract from understanding and support further ignorance."

You responded: Why is it that the "pro-choice" argument always uses words like "fetus" and "potential life"? Well, it is because there is no language neutral option we can use to frame the argument. I am not willing to participate in a debate using your loaded terms,
(So we shal use your terms loaded with misinformation instead?)

and you are not willing to debate using mine. Our terms reflect our judgments and our positions. I could not call abortion anything less than murder.

I find murder that is an irrational choice of words meant to frighten and subjegate by accusation and shame as this certainly does not reflect the facts. You cannot murder that which is not yet alive.

We are talking about the fetus, which is a potential life. How many times do I have to say it? As long as the womb environment sustains the fetus growing inside and attached to the woman, there is a potential for the fetus to become a living breathing human being; with out this environment, it dies. At the moment of birth, we hope, the infant, can now process air and through this ultimately irreplaceable process, be alive and as long as it has someone to depend on (leaving out the levels of dependency needs and how they are addressed or not) it too has the potential to become an adult human more fully formed human life. And like the fetus that is not a baby, the dependant baby is not an independent adult. And unlike the adult and infant, the fetus in not alive. The mother is. It is her life it uses to grow from.

Ya know for all the energy the "right to lifer's" expend denying the facts of life, I wonder why they are not so harsh on those who neglect and abuse the life they chose to have. Why are the abusers not being picketed, and lobby'd against? Why do the "right to life" people demand that all women who are pregnant should give birth, and yet ignore all the those who neglect the dependency needs of living children by making them some other person's problem or fault? I wonder what would happen to all the neglected children if the pro-life priority was to make sure every child's needs for sustained growth and protection where met.

I would have a whole lot more faith in the "pro-life" stance if you were using your numbers to press for the end of child abuse/neglect, war and murder instead of choosing to use words like kill and murder in such false and inflammatory ways.

I have responded to your (and other "pro-life"arguments) with concrete, testable, facts ad nausem (as spy would say) , you chose to take it as a personal attack instead of addressing the points I've said very clearly. This is truely ignoring and ignorant behaviour. And it does nothing to serve and honour life.

Lol...I think I'm with thucy...I have nothing more to say to you. Your arguments are flat out wrong. You won't listen to reason. You continue to call me ignorant. Pathetic.

I believe that was a personal attack.

I am right and you "Sir" are deluded. Good luck with that.

You could not respond to a single point directly, and each point I made was in direct response to your previous post, point.

And you laugh in your ignorance.

* point by point

I might be feeling some of Thucydide's aloneness right now, odd since there is so much life.

I got a little too personal with you Thu, but the biology is the biology for a reason. Any human biologist would say as much and they would be the one who know.

It's hard to accept the miracle of pregnancy is not that we're carrying a live baby in your womb, and that there will, if a woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term and all goes well, be a sweet small life that hopefully someone will help to live and become a good human being.

I don't think your argument has a leg giapeep. A fetus not being able to breath on it's own-doesn't make any sense. We depend on a lot of things: the earth, government, and GOD. We can't survive without God. Does that mean he will terminate whoever he doesn't care about? No. Because he cares for everyone. I can't remember the Bible verse, maybe someone can help me out. It states that God created you long before you were in the womb, long before conception, before the world was made. You were created.

A festus not being able to breath doesn't make any sense???
So you don't connect the ability to breath as essential to being alive? It's time to read some books.

Oxygen is the one thing we cannot live more than a few minutes without.
Seems like you too need the breath test.
Ok, hold 10 minutes, no cheating.

Post back when your done.

Even the Bible which so many attribute as God's word says Breath is Life. (see quote above)

"I can't remember the Bible verse, maybe someone can help me out. It states that God created you long before you were in the womb, long before conception, before the world was made. You were created."

I am an atheist. I don't believe we were "created" before we were born. That is I don't believe in eternal souls. I do believe in a continuum that lead my existence but that started before I was conceived.
Jacob and ZaZaMaRaNDBo are obviously theists. Thucydides are you a a theist too?
How about you giapeep are you a theist or angnostic/atheist?

"" We depend on a lot of things: the earth, government, and GOD. We can't survive without God." I believe I am surviving just fine without god. I also believe I would outlive the fall of my government.

"Does that mean he will terminate whoever he doesn't care about? No. Because he cares for everyone. " Huh??

I am a Christian, but I haven't made my argument on religious grounds from my very first post forward, so I don't see how you can say I am obviously a theist unless you have made the erroneous assumption that all pro-life people believe in God...

Jacob, this isn't the first thread you've posted on. Its not metagaming to take your theist comments from other threads to this one. :P

Jacob, I haven't made that assumption at all. I agree that is possible to believe in Christianity and be be pro-choice. That said though, for many pro-life advocates there are some basic assumptions that are not up for debate. I am interested to determine which of those assumptions are part of this discussion, if any. I'll suggest some assumptions, souls exist, souls are sacred, fetuses have souls, it is wrong to kill living things with souls; then, given those premises the pro-life case is water-tight. That is, if we accept those premises

@spy
It is true that I think the pro-life case is airtight if you bring the Bible into it. Verses such as "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" make it pretty clear that according to the Bible God is involved in the creative act in the womb itself and even before then.

BUT, I think the case against abortion is airtight even without that and that is how I have been arguing both in this thread and in the other abortion thread.

@DJ
It IS meta-gaming!! :P Of course, meta-gaming doesn't bother me like it seem to bother other people... All I'm saying is that I think abortion can be argued against powerfully and persuasively apart from any religious or theological arguments.

I haven't read through all of giapeep's vitriol on this thread, but until now I think the debate has left relgion out of it.

religion*

I'm still waiting for Jacob's point by point response to my 7:38 reply.

"Vitriol" def: Bitterly abusive feeling or expression

Once again a personal attack in the absence of reasoned discussion.

Jacob, if you perceive "vitriol" where there is none, then you are censoring my words and their clear meaning with your own bitter perception.

This would explain why you are unable to respond to the facts I have presented here due to your own, I would suggest, limited, beliefs and bitterness.

Limited beliefs and the bitterness they can cause always makes me sad.

"You are ignoring the facts, despite your ability to use terms such as DNA in a seemingly coherent sentence. And you may attempt to hide your disrespect toward what can only be a woman's choice, behind your obvious ignorance, but since your ignorance isn't that big, all it does is serve to enlarge your obvious lack of respect for the facts of a woman life and the life results from her body for which she will suffer for and be ultimately responsible for."

Giapeep, I can't read the above statement without agreeing with Jacob that your words were vitriolic. Jacob has been around here long enough that I have no doubt he will respond with the intellectual response you are looking for (though he isn't at your beck and call).

And presenting 'facts'...? 'Fact' is a matter of interpretation in some of your statements. They are your beliefs, even if you choose to call them facts.

To the religious folk:
If all you know and say are quotes and interpretations of the Bible it does not make much sense talking with you, does it? :)
Especially on a forum as, obviously, everyone can read for themselves.

Is it possible for religious people to conceive the notion, purely for the sake of the argument, that it might be possible that their belief system might be wrong?

@Jacob, of course in the end it comes to religion - you quoted the Bible in one message and then said you want to leave religion out of it. Ok, then do so - prove abortion is a bad thing without bringing God and the soul into the discussion :)

@giapeep - man, I have a feeling I agree with you on a lot of points, but I wish I didn't. You sound more zealous than the everyone else. Not really doing your cause a favor. Remember to breathe :)

Dingleberry,
That was a frustrated response, but it's fair enough to call it bitter. It might be nice if you included what instigated that response and that I acknowledge both took responsibility and explained that emotion in my 7:38 response. (I believe that when remove the context, the truth of the moment is also removed)

That we need breath to live is a fact. That the fetus is dependent on the woman's oxygen supply (and her other resources) to survive to birth, fact. The fetus is also dependent on the woman's being for decisions that will effect both it's survival invitro and once born the baby's life so that it can make it into adulthood, fact. (She may decide to marry the father, raise the child herself or give it to other adults to care for, or she may decide to abandon, abuse or neglect it -- though these would reduce the baby's odds of having full and free access to an adult life).

That only a woman's body can carry give birth to new life and that only she should have a say in what happens to it, a belief that if/when it is discounted shows that not all believe in personal freedom and continues that debate, the freedom to choose for one's self is crucial.

Difference between fetus and baby, child and adult facts.

Difference between alive (breathing) and dead (not breathing) facts.

That men are not ultimately responsible for bringing forth new life. Fact. (ultimately as with their own lives) Pregnancy does not make men alter their behaviour toward their own bodies so that the potential life can be born through them, fact.

I am human, my emotions will be expressed through my writing as much as the facts of what I am saying. The reader can focus on one and/or the other and does.

When my frustration has shown through and the commented on, I have adjusted my behaviour (as shown by my writing) in consideration of the truth of this reflection.

What I find interesting, and frustrating, is that the comments against my position become a personal attack on my method of expression and not on the facts and ideas that we are discussing.

Ivo,
Thanks for the input, lol. You will see that what you call my zealousness has grown in proportion with my frustration. If you read my first post, which I notice many here have not, you will see that I presented different at the start.

I must say it is my belief that it takes some stones (avoiding sarcasm right now) to think anyone has any right to make decisions for others that they will never have to decide for their own physical beings. In the cases of abortion and birth, that's about half the population who will decide for others what they will never (due to their physiology) have to live through.

I agree to your point, but you'll have to excuse me for not reading all of your work :)

Yes, it might be better to let women decide on this alone. That is, unless man think women are not to be trusted with that decision.

And, there is a good amount of hypocrisy it trying to impose rules that are effectively valid for only half the population, while it's the other half that's so vocal and opinionated.

Yo all, if I may, I'm going to try to simplify this a bit. In my opinion, this is one of the most difficult points of contention out there, because both sides have reasonable rationales for thier position. I don't think that fact is something all you steaming flame-tendency people appreciate.

To start, I will isolate two principles:

Everyone agrees that a woman has the rights to her own body. (I hope)

Everyone also agrees that murdering a human is wrong, and supersedes that right. (I hope so as well)

The point of disagreement is not about those two beliefs, it is the following: Side 'pro-choice' believes that fetus' are not really humans. Side 'pro-life' believes they are.

Thus, one is okay with ending non-human life to honour body rights, whilst the other is willing to supersede body rights to protect 'human' life. I do not find either of these points of view particular unreasonable.

Insofar as the argument goes, there are valid reasons for thinking that abortion could either lead to positive or ill effects on general society. For one I believe that 'pro-choice' wins on this point, but I also do not think it is the central issue. (I am talking about crime rates following Roe vs. Wade and such).

Thus, apart from all of the other argumentation that is merely supportive, the essential question is what precisely constitutes a human life.

Personally I don't one need be a Christian to disagree with abortion, and neither does being Christian necessary mean that you must be against abortion. Similar, there are atheistic reasons to take either position, and atheists do take both sides. Please do not stereotype, y'all. :)

So, what is a human, and what is not a human? What are the relevant characteristics?

Is a fertilized egg a human? Is a fetus a human? Is a braindead cenetarian a human? Is a section of my brain grown in vat human?

In my humble opinion it is this, or these, question(s) which ought to matter and be discussed, with all other filler and tripe left to the sidelines.

excellent post friendly - thanks for putting the issue so succinctly.

@ivo
If you look at both threads about abortion that are on here you will see that I did not say a thing about religion religion until i was accused by the pro-choice side of basing everything on religion. Even then I didn't quote Bible verses until giapeep felt it was necessary to assert that the Bible says that breath=life. So, I don't blame you for not reading through the combined 400 or so posts, but really, all of my arguments have left religion out of it.

I will not respond to giapeep anymore as she merely repeats her own arguments without considering anything I've said and then goes on to insult and belittle anyone who is making an argument she doesn't like. I don't think that makes for a productive debate _like the MANY productive debates that we actually HAVE had on this site_.

If ivo or jonesy or anyone else wants to continue having a debate then that's fine with me.

Giapeep,
I think you are getting too caught up in semantics.
“Difference between fetus and baby, child and adult facts.”
Please acknowledge the fact that word definitions change over time. When the US was born, there was a quote ‘All men are created equal’. At the time, it mean all Anglo Saxon Protestant white males are created equal. That has changed over time to include blacks, Hispanics, greens, blues, yellows, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, witchs and pagans, and women.

‘Fetus’ and ‘baby’ are just arbitrary names for easily identifiable events. That’s all they are. You even acknowledge that “I refer to the facts (as they have been named) “. By clinging so tightly to those definitions, you are glossing over the fact that there is a vast difference between a 2 week old fetus and a 40 week old fetus. However, you wish to treat them all the same. By your logic, you can terminate a pregnancy at 40 weeks after you have gone into labor. Do you agree with that statement? If you agree a 40 week ‘fetus’ can be terminated, I don’t think there is anything I can say to change your mind. If you don’t agree, acknowledge that everything isn’t as black and white as you’d like to paint it.

“Difference between alive (breathing) and dead (not breathing) facts.” Again, arbitrary definitions. Some people need breathing apparatuses, some babies are born needing breathing apparatuses. Doesn’t mean they are dead. And they can recover from that.

“I trust (most) women to decide for themselves whether it is safe for her to attempt give life to another human being or not.” Unfortunately the question frequently ends up being is it ‘convenient’, not is it ‘safe’.

“Ya know for all the energy the "right to lifer's" expend denying the facts of life, I wonder why they are not so harsh on those who neglect and abuse the life they chose to have. Why are the abusers not being picketed, and lobby'd against?”

This is a ridiculous argument. So you can’t be pro-life unless you are protesting war, gun violence, capital punishment, child abusers?

“ your disrespect of all women's unique role in giving life”

I’m not sure I read that in Jacob’s response. Please point it out.

“Is this why they feel that they have a right to dictate and limit women's choices?)”

Again, if a pro-lifer believes a human is getting murdered, they aren’t trying to dictate women’s choices. They are trying to protect life.

All that being said, I am pro-choice. If you want to abort a 2 week old fetus, be my guest. However, I can’t condone you aborting a 40 week old fetus. Some time between 2 weeks and 40 weeks, that changes for me from abortion to something just a little less than murder. I can’t tell you when that time is; that’s for scientists smarter than me to determine. But its not black and white. It never is.

Please accept the fact that people different from you may be rational, may be intelligent, may or may NOT be religious.

Sorry sword, but this is not the main question.

You have two groups of people:
- those who have their beliefs but are willing to leave the rest of mankind make their own choice
- those who think their beliefs are more important than freedom of choiceI've hear

From what I know heard the main argument is that life may start at conception. Well, maybe, but maybe not. Until this is somehow proven or considered common knowledge I'm not so sure. Especially as this is coming from the same people who have a problem with theevolution and use a 2000-year old book as the main source of scientific knowledge :)

Of course Jacob, by all means leave the discussion, that is your choice. But let's be clear, I responded specifically to what your posted at 2:02.

Do not project on me your inability to respond reasonably to what I wrote or to valid the scientific and humane facts. Your labeling my written behaviour "vitriol" attacks me, not my argument, and this tells me you do not have a reasonable response to the very simple and yet profound facts and limitations of life.

Peace

Ivo,
So you are assuming only religious Christians are pro-life?