Abortion Question

[knapplc]

^ They keep trying to debate lunacy with facts. It's a common problem, something I tried to do here for a while before I gave up on a few people. You simply cannot provide enough facts to stop zealots from being zealous.

[JJ Husker]

 

What El Diaco was clearly saying with the bold is when it's human, not specifically when it's "alive." My finger is alive. In and of itself it is not human.

That's exactly my point. The word "life" has nothing to do with the distinction.

 

An example of when this might matter in the debate is when people say "the heart is beating". Lots of living things have a beating heart.

 

I am really confused about what point you are trying to make.

My position is very simple and please don't get hung up on the words, human or life or living or heartbeat.

At the time of conception that baby/life/fetus is just as viable of a life form as you or I. Left to nature alone, it will either go full term and exit the birth canal and be born or it will miscarry and will not be born. Those are natural occurrences. I see no difference between killing that baby/life/fetus with abortion and killing a 30 year old person. Those would be unnatural occurrences perpetrated on purpose by others. I can't explain it any better than that and it doesn't take parsing the words to figure it out. As far as "lots of living things have a beating heart" or "lots of things are alive", If you do not realize the inherent differences between human beings, who have the ability to discuss this subject on a message board, and one of the many pets I have owned (or a dandelion, or a fish....) I cannot help explain it any further. When the word "life" is used pertaining to a human being or an unborn fetus, the distinction should be clear.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

Tell me again about how concerned your party is for "heartbeats"

 

This is despicable.

 

Pro-life people are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. Once the person is born, they are their mothers/fathers are on their own. And if you aren't apart of this country, then f#*k you. Sad.

 

I am really impressed that you choose to apply what this douchebag says to all pro life people, or really to anyone except the person spouting the nonsense. Not sure how or why anyone would make that leap.

[NM11046]

 

 

 

 

 

I don't like abortion, but I'm pro-choice. One thought that I go back to is those using contraceptives. There is still a possibility of pregnancy; I personally know someone who become pregnant despite an IUD. The couple chose to have to baby, and I agree with that decision, but I still think that was their decision to make. They were in school, and it was a life-changing and career altering decision for both of them. They were being responsible with contraceptives and still got pregnant (I understand abstinence is the only certain).

 

My personal belief, there should be time period allowed for abortion. I saw a mention of 5.5 weeks for a heartbeat, but some people don't even know they're pregnant within that period of time. Without getting into the weeds, maybe it should be allowed within the first trimester. I think I saw 0% viability at 21 weeks, and only 50% viability at 24 weeks. After that, I think it should be allowed when there is significant risk to the mother's health.

I think this is very reasonable.

For those of us that don't like abortion being used as birth control, I believe the answer lies in education and information rather than laws preventing the activity. But I also understand the people that do not want to be accomplices of the act. I understand that if public funds are used for abortions, many people feel that makes them a party to the act. This is primarily where the defunding of planned parenthood comes from.

But PUBLIC FUNDS ARE NOT USED FOR ABORTION. Sorry, not yelling at you JJ, just don't know if everyone understands that.

I guess I don't understand that.

PP provides more abortions than any other single entity. They also provide numerous other services.

 

An analogy. The meth addict begging on the corner snorts crystal and eats a little food every once in awhile. It's pretty naive to think that all of the money they obtain panhandling goes only towards food and none of it towards their crank habit.

 

If PP did not provide abortions, how much funding would they really need? Killing babies is their flagship product. They would cease to exist without it. I just cannot believe that any dollar they receive doesn't help them in some indirect (or direct) way to provide abortions.

 

JJ it's not their "flagship". It is the hot button and talking point for conservatives and pro lifers that don't know about the entirety of PP and what they offer, or what their population is and why those folks are going to PP. Not every woman who walks into a PP is going for an abortion.

 

PP is where I went for my first doctor exam when I still lived at home but needed birth control and I was working for $4.00 (or something similarly ridiculous in the 80's) an hour and I wasn't able to go to my small town doctor without my parents being involved. When I walked in I saw a very close family friend's daughter - seriously. PP is serving a population that is predominantly at or below poverty level. They provide medical services, but also more importantly educational opportunities for young people and those who perhaps are more irresponsible and casual about how they are living their life. It's a place to go if one suspects they've been exposed to an STD, or needs an aids test. Men and women use PP.

 

Here's an excellent overview by NPR, so it's fact based and unbiased. It's from late 2015, but is a solid overview and explains QMany & Zrod's comments in more detail. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

 

And for your reference, here is a list of what PP offers in the way of services:

 

Health Services -

• Reproductive health care for women, men and teens in a caring, confidential and non judgmental setting

• Well-Woman Exam

• HPV (Human papillomavirus) Vaccine for women and men

• Pap Test (cervical cancer screening)

• Pregnancy Testing

• Menopause Services and Hormone Replacement Therapy

• Urinary Tract Infection Treatment

• Vasectomy*

   

Education -

• Sexual Health Education

• Birth Control

• Emergency Contraception • STD Testing and Treatment • HIV Testing and Counseling • Breast Exam

• Pregnancy Options Information

• Diagnosis and Treatment of Abnormal Pap Tests • Abortion*

• Sex education and training for schools, religious institutions, community groups, individuals and families

• Professional training for teachers, counselors, health and social service providers

Advocacy

• Encouraging government officials to support laws that ensure access to reproductive health care and information

• Educating our community to engage in the legislative process to improve women’s health and health education

I am fine with you having personal moral issues with abortion and finding it distasteful. But you're a fact based guy, so here they are. You can hate PP but know that what they do is far broader than one procedure.

 

NM-

I am aware of all the other things that PP does. I probably shouldn't have used the phrase "flagship product" but there is no denying they provide more abortions than any other source.

 

I wouldn't say I hate PP as they do provide a lot of good and needed services. Part of the problem is that I was more trying to explain how many others see PP, not necessarily how I see them or feel about them.

 

You're right, I do have some moral issues with abortion and I do find it to be quite distasteful in most circumstances. But I also realize it is not going to be legislated away. People will always have abortions whether they are legal or not and I do want them to be done in a safe and sterile medical environment whether or not I agree with any specific reasons for having one.

 

Most reasonable people can agree that in cases of rape, incest or when the mothers life is in danger that abortions should be allowed. However, I probably take a harder line against them when the only argument is "it's a woman's choice" or when they result from lack of personal responsibility. I can accept them in cases where honest attempts at birth control have failed but I do not like to see it used as just another form of birth control. Personally I have a big problem with people who have had multiple abortions (Like Martha Plimpton) and promote them like there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. But I can accept that in some cases it is necessary and not the worst thing that could happen.

 

My hang up with abortion is not fueled by some right wing radical religious fervor as I suspect most anti-abortion people are. I just simply feel it is a viable living human being beginning at conception and, in my mind, that fetus has done nothing to harm anyone and is one of the most innocent and vulnerable beings and I think in most cases they deserve a chance at life outside the womb. They surely cannot defend themselves so I speak up the best I can in their defense. I don't want to tell others what they can or can't do and I don't want to make them feel even worse about the tough choices they may have to make. But I also am not going to placed in a position where I am condoning killing innocents because mommy and daddy wanted to be careless and irresponsible.

 

A lot of people feel it is inconsistent to be for the death penalty and against abortion. There is no inconsistency in my mind at all. I am all for using the death penalty to kill those who have earned it through their own heinous actions. And I am just as opposed to killing someone with the death penalty as I am an innocent baby. In fact, I view that as even worse because the wrongly executed person knows what is happening. I feel pretty good about having the default position that promotes life and discourages snuffing it out.

 

Thanks for taking the time and sharing your rationale - I appreciate it JJ (you will always be JJ to me)

[NM11046]

 

Tell me again about how concerned your party is for "heartbeats"

This is despicable.

When is a reporter just goinf to stand up and say "wtf are you talking about?!!!"

 

This is at least the 2nd day Peter has really pushed ... I'm hoping he goes Stephanolopolous soon, I have a feeling it's headed that way. NBC has certainly publicized that they are very supportive of their reporters calling balls and strikes.

[Ratt Mhule]

 

 

 

Tell me again about how concerned your party is for "heartbeats"

 

This is despicable.

 

Pro-life people are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. Once the person is born, they are their mothers/fathers are on their own. And if you aren't apart of this country, then f#*k you. Sad.

 

I am really impressed that you choose to apply what this douchebag says to all pro life people, or really to anyone except the person spouting the nonsense. Not sure how or why anyone would make that leap.

 

 

Not everyone JJ. Most republicans in govt. and far right republicans think this way. Just go read some comments on articles about trumpcare and them cutting medicaid and you will see what Im talking about.

[Landlord]

My position is very simple and please don't get hung up on the words, human or life or living or heartbeat.

 

At the time of conception that baby/life/fetus is just as viable of a life form as you or I. Left to nature alone, it will either go full term and exit the birth canal and be born or it will miscarry and will not be born. Those are natural occurrences. I see no difference between killing that baby/life/fetus with abortion and killing a 30 year old person. Those would be unnatural occurrences perpetrated on purpose by others. I can't explain it any better than that and it doesn't take parsing the words to figure it out. As far as "lots of living things have a beating heart" or "lots of things are alive", If you do not realize the inherent differences between human beings, who have the ability to discuss this subject on a message board, and one of the many pets I have owned (or a dandelion, or a fish....) I cannot help explain it any further. When the word "life" is used pertaining to a human being or an unborn fetus, the distinction should be clear.

 

 

 

Your position holds up under certain comparisons, but not under others.

 

For a decent amount of time, the thing we are referring to is nothing more than DNA. For another decent amount of time, the thing we are referring to is a clump of ambiguous cells. You can make the argument that destroying some cells created by humans is murder, but then, is it also murder to cut your hair? Clip your fingernails? Scrub your skin? Those all destroy cells with unique human DNA. The response might be, "well no, of course not, your hair can't grow and be birthed as a baby", which is all fine and good, but the argument to many is that it can't be made from what that thing will eventually become; it can only be made from what it is present-tense to the person making the decision. I'm sure you can imagine how that is self-defeating by thinking of other examples under the same rationale. I'm heading out the door and can't remember off the top of my head, but I think that's listed as a logical fallacy.

 

 

You assert that some DNA and some undefined cells are fully and uniquely human, in a way that skin/hair/etc. cells are not. Other's disagree. Nobody has any proof either way, and nobody has a universal definition of what makes something human. It is very subjective. I'm somewhere in that spectrum.

[RedDenver]

 

 

What El Diaco was clearly saying with the bold is when it's human, not specifically when it's "alive." My finger is alive. In and of itself it is not human.

That's exactly my point. The word "life" has nothing to do with the distinction.

 

An example of when this might matter in the debate is when people say "the heart is beating". Lots of living things have a beating heart.

 

I am really confused about what point you are trying to make.

My position is very simple and please don't get hung up on the words, human or life or living or heartbeat.

At the time of conception that baby/life/fetus is just as viable of a life form as you or I. Left to nature alone, it will either go full term and exit the birth canal and be born or it will miscarry and will not be born. Those are natural occurrences. I see no difference between killing that baby/life/fetus with abortion and killing a 30 year old person. Those would be unnatural occurrences perpetrated on purpose by others. I can't explain it any better than that and it doesn't take parsing the words to figure it out. As far as "lots of living things have a beating heart" or "lots of things are alive", If you do not realize the inherent differences between human beings, who have the ability to discuss this subject on a message board, and one of the many pets I have owned (or a dandelion, or a fish....) I cannot help explain it any further. When the word "life" is used pertaining to a human being or an unborn fetus, the distinction should be clear.

 

LOMS makes good points that I won't repeat. The basic problem I have with your argument is that you have to define a clump of cells as "human" and also define what it means to be "viable", and defining those will give you problems of classifying the things you want and not things you don't want (e.g. fingernails, skin cells). Another example would be a person on life-support. Is that person "viable human life"? How do you know? And is that really a person or just a human body?

 

I'm not trying to pick on you, so let me turn this around and give you my view instead. I think consciousness defines what is a "person", and consciousness is defined as the ability to think ("I think; therefore, I am"). It's extremely difficult to define exactly when the ability to think comes about, but we know that thought requires brain activity and we can detect brain waves. So I come to the conclusion that abortion should be illegal once the fetus has brain waves (which I have to admit I don't know when that is during the pregnancy, but whenever it is, that's when I'm legally opposed to it). And I'd apply that to someone on life-support as well - we should treat them as people with all their rights unless they have no brain activity (or are otherwise unable to think).

[JJ Husker]

Guys, I am simply stating how I view when human life begins. I fully realize the exact moment that bundle of cells becomes a person is up for debate and that there are many factors to consider. I'm not proposing that we adopt laws that declare life begins at conception. That just happens to be when I view it as such.

 

My rationale is probably over simplistic. If it isn't subjected to outside forces, it will either expire of natural causes or grow to be a 50 year old person. It doesn't really matter to me at what point it ceases to be only a bundle of cells (like fingernails or hair) because I am more concerned with what it has the potential to become. We were all conceived and look where we are now....and then consider where aborted fetus' are now. That's all I'm trying to say.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

What El Diaco was clearly saying with the bold is when it's human, not specifically when it's "alive." My finger is alive. In and of itself it is not human.

 

That's exactly my point. The word "life" has nothing to do with the distinction.

An example of when this might matter in the debate is when people say "the heart is beating". Lots of living things have a beating heart.

I am really confused about what point you are trying to make.

My position is very simple and please don't get hung up on the words, human or life or living or heartbeat.

At the time of conception that baby/life/fetus is just as viable of a life form as you or I. Left to nature alone, it will either go full term and exit the birth canal and be born or it will miscarry and will not be born. Those are natural occurrences. I see no difference between killing that baby/life/fetus with abortion and killing a 30 year old person. Those would be unnatural occurrences perpetrated on purpose by others. I can't explain it any better than that and it doesn't take parsing the words to figure it out. As far as "lots of living things have a beating heart" or "lots of things are alive", If you do not realize the inherent differences between human beings, who have the ability to discuss this subject on a message board, and one of the many pets I have owned (or a dandelion, or a fish....) I cannot help explain it any further. When the word "life" is used pertaining to a human being or an unborn fetus, the distinction should be clear.

LOMS makes good points that I won't repeat. The basic problem I have with your argument is that you have to define a clump of cells as "human" and also define what it means to be "viable", and defining those will give you problems of classifying the things you want and not things you don't want (e.g. fingernails, skin cells). Another example would be a person on life-support. Is that person "viable human life"? How do you know? And is that really a person or just a human body?

 

I'm not trying to pick on you, so let me turn this around and give you my view instead. I think consciousness defines what is a "person", and consciousness is defined as the ability to think ("I think; therefore, I am"). It's extremely difficult to define exactly when the ability to think comes about, but we know that thought requires brain activity and we can detect brain waves. So I come to the conclusion that abortion should be illegal once the fetus has brain waves (which I have to admit I don't know when that is during the pregnancy, but whenever it is, that's when I'm legally opposed to it). And I'd apply that to someone on life-support as well - we should treat them as people with all their rights unless they have no brain activity (or are otherwise unable to think).

I think that is a very reasonable metric to apply to the issue. I just happen to start a bit sooner.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/axios/status/842461464631885824

Tell me again about how concerned your party is for "heartbeats"

This is despicable.

 

Pro-life people are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. Once the person is born, they are their mothers/fathers are on their own. And if you aren't apart of this country, then f#*k you. Sad.

I am really impressed that you choose to apply what this douchebag says to all pro life people, or really to anyone except the person spouting the nonsense. Not sure how or why anyone would make that leap.

Not everyone JJ. Most republicans in govt. and far right republicans think this way. Just go read some comments on articles about trumpcare and them cutting medicaid and you will see what Im talking about.

Thank you for revising it to not all, and adjusting it to most. I can agree with that. I knew what you were saying, I just have a problem with blanket statements about all persons in a group. Lately I have developed a real problem with most republicans and many conservatives. I hate to think I might be growing more liberal but I sure as hell do not want to be what ever today's republicans have become.

[RedDenver]

I hate to think I might be growing more liberal but I sure as hell do not want to be what ever today's republicans have become.

Haha, you're where I was 15 years ago. The more I looked into policy issues, the more I realized I agreed with the liberals. Not the Democrats, but the liberal ideas.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/axios/status/842461464631885824

Tell me again about how concerned your party is for "heartbeats"

This is despicable.

Pro-life people are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. Once the person is born, they are their mothers/fathers are on their own. And if you aren't apart of this country, then f#*k you. Sad.

I am really impressed that you choose to apply what this douchebag says to all pro life people, or really to anyone except the person spouting the nonsense. Not sure how or why anyone would make that leap.

Not everyone JJ. Most republicans in govt. and far right republicans think this way. Just go read some comments on articles about trumpcare and them cutting medicaid and you will see what Im talking about.

Thank you for revising it to not all, and adjusting it to most. I can agree with that. I knew what you were saying, I just have a problem with blanket statements about all persons in a group. Lately I have developed a real problem with most republicans and many conservatives. I hate to think I might be growing more liberal but I sure as hell do not want to be what ever today's republicans have become.

I think you're far from liberal. You're a true thinking conservative. Someone who is unfortunately without a party these days. Republicans cast you out long ago in favor of the extreme right.

[QMany]

My hang up with abortion is not fueled by some right wing radical religious fervor as I suspect most anti-abortion people are. I just simply feel it is a viable living human being beginning at conception and, in my mind, that fetus has done nothing to harm anyone and is one of the most innocent and vulnerable beings and I think in most cases they deserve a chance at life outside the womb. They surely cannot defend themselves so I speak up the best I can in their defense. I don't want to tell others what they can or can't do and I don't want to make them feel even worse about the tough choices they may have to make. But I also am not going to placed in a position where I am condoning killing innocents because mommy and daddy wanted to be careless and irresponsible.

 

I'm not being critical. But reading your response just made me think, "what is a 'fetus?' " By definition, it is "unborn offspring, from the embryo stage (the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth." It seems fetus is often used to mean from conception to birth. Carry on, just found that interesting.

[JJ Husker]

 

My hang up with abortion is not fueled by some right wing radical religious fervor as I suspect most anti-abortion people are. I just simply feel it is a viable living human being beginning at conception and, in my mind, that fetus has done nothing to harm anyone and is one of the most innocent and vulnerable beings and I think in most cases they deserve a chance at life outside the womb. They surely cannot defend themselves so I speak up the best I can in their defense. I don't want to tell others what they can or can't do and I don't want to make them feel even worse about the tough choices they may have to make. But I also am not going to placed in a position where I am condoning killing innocents because mommy and daddy wanted to be careless and irresponsible.

 

I'm not being critical. But reading your response just made me think, "what is a 'fetus?' " By definition, it is "unborn offspring, from the embryo stage (the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth." It seems fetus is often used to mean from conception to birth. Carry on, just found that interesting.

I'm sure that is probably correct in a strictly scientific way. Probably is the more proper way to view it but I like being different.😀