911 tapes: Aborted fetus was breathing

[GearSolidMetal]

They are doing it on the premise that it cannot live outside the body once it has been performed. If it does...well then it has been born and magically transforms into a baby. Killing it would also legally be murder.

NOT according to our wonderful 1st black President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...852895a-f87d-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html

Don't disagree with Obama, or you're racist.

 

[in the]

Germany has the 14 weeks limit (i.e. the fetus is 12 weeks old) and mandatory counseling and a mandatory waiting period. Obviously there are also here women who have multiple abortions, but to me this whole abortion mess is about minimizing negative externalities.

Viability definitely is the ending point of any discussion, and with the progress of medicine, I was told by our doc that viability is today already around the 24th week. So this is way too close.

The problem is, here in America, if you put up any restrictions on abortion, pro-abortion groups will raise hell about the War on Women and old white crusty men legislating female health issues, which is of course misogyny.

You can bet that in leftist/progressive circles here in America, if we went the route of Germany, we'd be called archaic by anyone taking the identity of pro-choice. There would be a media onslaught of the government literally killing women who now have no access to abortion on demand (that's what they would say). I personally don't think the option of abortion should be completely eliminated, but I do favor much greater restrictions. At some point, a separate human life begins, and it's at that point where choice flies out of the window for me. At what point that new human life begins is up to debate, but viability is the latest possible time in my opinion.

 

[in the]

Yes, and when one has to talk about personhood, some group is getting killed. You say a group aren't people and then you can dispose of them.

It is pathetic how pro life people have been painted as anti science or religious nuts. Listen to dopes like Bill Nye say that pro lifers are anti science. Such a fucking scumbag he is.

Agreed. My opinion on abortion is secular. When does life begin? At that moment, even a little before then just to be safe, the "choice" option ceases to exist, because human life has value.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

You missed out on the Dr. Kermit thread. I wish I could find it. Some people were arguing that he didn't do anything illegal/immoral, until they found out the babies had been killed after failed abortions they had survived. Then, the argument was merely down to location - if these babies had been in the womb, it would have been considered abortion, but since they were not (even though they were meant to be aborted), it was considered murder. In other words, the only difference between abortion and murder was the location of the baby, which I think is a bullshit argument.

That's unpleasant as fuck.

I used to be 100% pro abortion, but the longer I listen to the arguments and, oddly, the more arguments I hear that are in favour of abortion, the more I find myself feeling ashamed at the idea of defending the practice.
I still think there are extreme cases where abortion is warranted, but the scope of those circumstances is getting narrower and narrower.

 

[in the]

This is why you really have to question the sanity--if not the morality--of the rabidly pro-"choice" crowd. They have worked really hard to paint people that are pro-life as anti-women, instead of anti-murder.

Sick fucks.

 

[in the]

That's unpleasant as fuck.

I used to be 100% pro abortion, but the longer I listen to the arguments and, oddly, the more arguments I hear that are in favour of abortion, the more I find myself feeling ashamed at the idea of defending the practice.
I still think there are extreme cases where abortion is warranted, but the scope of those circumstances is getting narrower and narrower.

The only issue I've went back and forth on more than abortion is gun control, so I'm not one to get on much of a soap box here. But having the ability to adjust one's stances based on new information is a good thing.

I personally think abortion laws here in America are way too lax for my tastes.

 

[JonesBones]

Agreed. My opinion on abortion is secular. When does life begin? At that moment, even a little before then just to be safe, the "choice" option ceases to exist, because human life has value.

Science is becoming a religion. Where everything is wrong because of science. So fucking lazy and groupthink.


Well, where do matters stand in 2009? Today's litigation surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage routinely features data from published scientific articles establishing that one's sexual identity or sexual impulses or sexual conduct is—or is not—inborn, resistant to change, expressive of the function of specific neural pathways, etcetera. The influential journal SCIENCE offers an illustrative piece of research in a 1991 Simon LeVay article titled, "Differences in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men." Perhaps you are interested in the main effects, what we found poking around in the hypothalamus. Just in case you are interested, it was found that the relevant cell groups associated with male sexual behavior were twice as large in heterosexual men as in women, and in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. I think it is fair to say that had such a finding been available in the 1950s, it would have been a conclusive proof that homosexuality is not only a pathological condition but an instance of neuropathology, witnessed by the homosexual's "abnormal" cellular morphology. You see, the facts are helpless. Facts are just there. And then we come in and decide what we're going to say about them. Pick your year, pick your country, pick your political party, and I'll tell you what you are going to say about the facts. Meanwhile, the little facts just sit there, helpless, wondering what libel you will heap on them next.


Let me emphasize here that I have neither the competence nor the conviction that would allow me to decide how best to understand homosexuality. History teaches, however, that what the law permits it encourages. With Edmund Burke, I am disinclined to jettison whole traditions and institutions that have served humanity well. With Burke, I am especially disinclined when the argument favoring a radical change rises no higher than a claimed "right" or a mere conjecture that would pose as a fact of nature. (Just to tell you, when I don't consult Burke on these, I might consult *Darthy *Pocker: "I don't care what you do, just don't frighten the horses.") I offer these remarks on the scientific understanding of homosexuality to make clear that the putative "facts" of science not only carry cultural and political weight—no matter how carefully concealed—but very often seem to be shaped and even "discovered" by way of factors that are themselves ineliminably political and ideological.

 

[JDragon]

Agreed. My opinion on abortion is secular. When does life begin? At that moment, even a little before then just to be safe, the "choice" option ceases to exist, because human life has value.

I saw the fetus' heart beat after like four weeks. I think you re talking about independent life, though.

 

[JonesBones]

I saw the fetus' heart beat after like four weeks. I think you re talking about independent life, though.

But a fetus is its own organism. Organism =life by definition. It is a not an organ of another organism. It is not a parasite. This is science. So what is it? People treat a fetus like a kidney, but a kidney is only a level of organization of an organism.

It is a human organism, it is just not fully developed. Like a 2 year old. Or 10 year old. Which cannot reproduce or have sex either, which is one marker of life, but it is based on the potentiality of it doing so. Nobody would argue a 5 year old wasn't human because they can't reproduce/aren't sexually mature. Yet an argument could be made that a 5 year old is not "life". It could be stripped of the title of life or personhood. As that is all philosophy anyway. Not science like that fuckhead Bill Nye says.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

The only issue I've went back and forth on more than abortion is gun control, so I'm not one to get on much of a soap box here. But having the ability to adjust one's stances based on new information is a good thing.

I personally think abortion laws here in America are way too lax for my tastes.

Hah! Gun control has been a swinging issue for me as well. I started off in favour of gun control, but have moved away from strict control over time. As always with most issues, I think there needs to be some compromise, and so probably some limited gun control, but the idea of outright banning guns is far from my idea of a perfect world.
America seems to have an all-or-nothing approach to a lot of issues though.

Are individual doctors allowed to refuse to perform abortions based on their interpretation of either their religious beliefs or the oath they take?

 

[in the]

Science is becoming a religion. Where everything is wrong because of science. So fucking lazy and groupthink.


Well, where do matters stand in 2009? Today's litigation surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage routinely features data from published scientific articles establishing that one's sexual identity or sexual impulses or sexual conduct is—or is not—inborn, resistant to change, expressive of the function of specific neural pathways, etcetera. The influential journal SCIENCE offers an illustrative piece of research in a 1991 Simon LeVay article titled, "Differences in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men." Perhaps you are interested in the main effects, what we found poking around in the hypothalamus. Just in case you are interested, it was found that the relevant cell groups associated with male sexual behavior were twice as large in heterosexual men as in women, and in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. I think it is fair to say that had such a finding been available in the 1950s, it would have been a conclusive proof that homosexuality is not only a pathological condition but an instance of neuropathology, witnessed by the homosexual's "abnormal" cellular morphology. You see, the facts are helpless. Facts are just there. And then we come in and decide what we're going to say about them. Pick your year, pick your country, pick your political party, and I'll tell you what you are going to say about the facts. Meanwhile, the little facts just sit there, helpless, wondering what libel you will heap on them next.


Let me emphasize here that I have neither the competence nor the conviction that would allow me to decide how best to understand homosexuality. History teaches, however, that what the law permits it encourages. With Edmund Burke, I am disinclined to jettison whole traditions and institutions that have served humanity well. With Burke, I am especially disinclined when the argument favoring a radical change rises no higher than a claimed "right" or a mere conjecture that would pose as a fact of nature. (Just to tell you, when I don't consult Burke on these, I might consult *Darthy *Pocker: "I don't care what you do, just don't frighten the horses.") I offer these remarks on the scientific understanding of homosexuality to make clear that the putative "facts" of science not only carry cultural and political weight—no matter how carefully concealed—but very often seem to be shaped and even "discovered" by way of factors that are themselves ineliminably political and ideological.

I don't think science is the problem here. I think irrational people who see any limit on abortion being "religious people trying to push their religion in my womb, on my body" are the real problem. They were exposed in that Dr. Kermit thread. I wish that thread hadn't been aborted.

I saw the fetus' heart beat after like four weeks. I think you re talking about independent life, though.

Yep, I even brought up the issue in that Kermit thread of when a separate heart beating develops as my stance of when life begins. But there's no way an embryo could live outside of the womb because other important things hadn't developed yet, so I altered my stance. Regardless, I would say "choice" ends somewhere between a separate heart beat developing and a month before viability.

Also, not just independent life. Hell a newborn is completely dependent on caregiving and would die without it. Many people with physical or mental disabilities will remain dependent the rest of their lives. So I don't really take that into consideration tbh.

 

[JonesBones]

If anyone wants to read a takedown of that douche:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...-and-even-worse-at-making-rational-arguments/

 

[in the]

Hah! Gun control has been a swinging issue for me as well. I started off in favour of gun control, but have moved away from strict control over time. As always with most issues, I think there needs to be some compromise, and so probably some limited gun control, but the idea of outright banning guns is far from my idea of a perfect world.
America seems to have an all-or-nothing approach to a lot of issues though.

Are individual doctors allowed to refuse to perform abortions based on their interpretation of either their religious beliefs or the oath they take?

There are clinics that specialize in abortion. The doctors and nurses who perform them know what they're getting into.

 

[in the]

But a fetus is its own organism. Organism =life by definition. It is a not an organ of another organism. It is not a parasite. This is science. So what is it? People treat a fetus like a kidney, but a kidney is only a level of organization of an organism.

It is a human organism, it is just not fully developed. Like a 2 year old. Or 10 year old. Which cannot reproduce or have sex either, which is one marker of life, but it is based on the potentiality of it doing so. Nobody would argue a 5 year old wasn't human because they can't reproduce/aren't sexually mature. Yet an argument could be made that a 5 year old is not "life". It could be stripped of the title of life or personhood. As that is all philosophy anyway. Not science like that fuckhead Bill Nye says.

I don't like the "life" argument. I like the "human life" argument. Sperm would be considered life if it was found on another planet, and if that is taking a life, well, I blame porn sites and porn stars for all the holocausts I've been responsible for.

True story - I knew someone (not very smart, but not retarded, either) who was taught that in the womb, human life goes through stages of evolution, so when you have an abortion, you're basically killing a fish. Even though this had been widely discredited, she believed it and who knows if she acted on faulty "science" she had learned.

 

[JonesBones]

I don't like the "life" argument. I like the "human life" argument. Sperm would be considered life if it was found on another planet, and if that is taking a life, well, I blame porn sites and porn stars for all the holocausts I've been responsible for.

True story - I knew someone (not very smart, but not retarded, either) who was taught that in the womb, human life goes through stages of evolution, so when you have an abortion, you're basically killing a fish. Even though this had been widely discredited, she believed it and who knows if she acted on faulty "science" she had learned.

Sperm is not an organism. A fetus is. Sperm is a cell. Like a blood cell or skin cell. If somebody found a drop of blood on another planet it would be an indicator life was there, but the blood itself is not life. An organism is life. You can't "kill" a blood or sperm cell. I mean, if you cut off my finger, did you "kill" my finger? What was killed? lol There is difference between life and being alive. My finger is alive. But it is not "life". I am life. I am still life when living parts of me "die".

 

[in the]

If anyone wants to read a takedown of that douche:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...-and-even-worse-at-making-rational-arguments/

Maybe Slim Goodbody can come out and tell us about gun control next. He'd probably have better arguments than BNSG.

Sperm is not an organism. A fetus is. Sperm is a cell. Like a blood cell or skin cell. If somebody found a drop of blood on another planet it would be an indicator life was there, but the blood itself is not life. An organism is life. You can't "kill" a blood cell.

You're really fucking up my wonderful sperm holocaust moment.

 

[in the]

Sperm is not an organism. A fetus is. Sperm is a cell. Like a blood cell or skin cell. If somebody found a drop of blood on another planet it would be an indicator life was there, but the blood itself is not life. An organism is life. You can't "kill" a blood or sperm cell. I mean, if you cut off my finger, did you "kill" my finger? What was killed? lol There is difference between life and being alive. My finger is alive. But it is not "life". I am life. I am still life when living parts of me "die".

Science might evolve to the point of having a small sliver of what you'd consider non-life to replicate and/or recreate an organism. So that would just lead to more obfuscation imo. Plus, using the organism definition means that even zygotes qualify, and that's too restrictive of a stance on this issue for my tastes.

Instead of looking at it only through the lens of science, I also use humanistic reasoning. When human life begins (emphasis on human), choice ends.

Honestly, I don't think we differ too much, if at all.

 

[frenz]

this is not an abortion is immoral story. it's a we need to think about the law on how late an abortion can be performed. simple. 21 weeks is too far.

 

[frenz]

NOT according to our wonderful 1st black President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...852895a-f87d-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html

Don't disagree with Obama, or you're racist.

ummm you're the one who brought up him being black so yeah I am gonna call you racist? lmao. your posts ITT are nothing short of embarrassing.

 

[AgedFlatus]

Couple of bad apples...