USA abortion rights

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › USA abortion rights

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2911568 8-May-2022 12:37

kingdragonfly: @Technofreak

Do you have any science behind any of the claims, or is it just based on faith and beliefs?

Your definition is so broad that a cancer growing inside a women meets your criteria.

Does the cancer have a say on whether it should be removed, as it has the same cognitive abilities as a zygote?

Faith is wonderful, but it doesn't feed or shelter an unwanted child.

No need for science or faith. I thought difference would be blindingly obvious between a fertilised egg/embryo/foetus and a cancer cell. One is the normal natural action in reproduction of the species where and egg from the female is fertilised by the sperm from a male, cancer is an uncontrolled unnatural growth of abnormal cells in the body.

I don't think cancer comes anywhere near close to meeting any criteria like you suggest. Plus cancer is a threat to life whereas a fertilised egg/embryo/foetus is very rarely a threat to life.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16315

Lifetime subscriber

#2911580 8-May-2022 13:28

Technofreak:

Yes, most certainly they do but once conception occurs there's another life in involved.

You clearly have very strong feelings about this. They deserve to be respected. But because they are so strong, there is little point in debating the issue as nothing will change your mind. It is also unlikely that anything will change mine. You seem to think there is some kind of mystical process that occurs at the moment of conception. One moment you have cells, the next a human being. I just don't see it that way. As I previously stated, what you have is potential, nothing more. What makes a human being is a lengthy, complex, ongoing process of biological and later cultural development. You can pick any random point in that process and say the potential has suddenly become a human being, but you can equally pick any point and say it has not. Some choose the moment of conception as the magic marker. Some choose the moment of birth. Various authorities say it is after so many weeks of gestation. These are all equally arbitrary. Like many people, I choose the moment of birth. At that point a new human being exists, with all the rights of a human being.

What about a foetus not yet born but far enough along to possibly survive outside the womb? It depends on the circumstances. I don't see it as a question of principle. Again, any demarcation is necessarily arbitrary, even the moment of conception. The choice to have a baby, with everything that entails, belongs to the woman. Everyone else should stay out of it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

kingdragonfly

11991 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12880

Subscriber

#2911648 8-May-2022 16:06

Technofreak:I thought difference would be blindingly obvious between a fertilised egg/embryo/foetus and a cancer cell.

The concept of "zero" is also obvious, but didn't reach Europe until 900 years after the New Testaments gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written.

It's also blindingly obvious that a particle in one place and another entangled particle one light-year away cannot be connected by a mysterious communication channel.

But most physicists think quantum mechanics is a thing.

So excuse me if "blindingly obvious" doesn't cut it without proof.

You seem to believe the zygote has cognitive abilities, even before the sixth week, when the brain, neurons and synapses (connections) begin to develop.

Have you any proof that a zygote could experience anything, much less the ability to "have is say", before week 6?

Or is that just a gut feeling?

PsychoSmiley

251 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 198

#2911706 8-May-2022 21:16

Technofreak: Just imagine if your mother had decided to abort you?

No issue if she had because I wouldn't be here to offer my input on this. Honestly at times I wish she had because this world is completely and utterly poked.

I would much rather people not bring life into this world if they don't think they can do their best for it.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2911710 8-May-2022 21:30

Technofreak: Plus cancer is a threat to life whereas a fertilised egg/embryo/foetus is very rarely a threat to life.

You may be unaware there are all kinds of risks in carrying a pregnancy to term. USA maternal mortality is nearly three times NZ. Not all possible conditions are fatal but many are permanent and require ongoing medical assistance.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2912018 9-May-2022 21:30

kingdragonfly:
Technofreak:I thought difference would be blindingly obvious between a fertilised egg/embryo/foetus and a cancer cell.

The concept of "zero" is also obvious, but didn't reach Europe until 900 years after the New Testaments gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written.

It's also blindingly obvious that a particle in one place and another entangled particle one light-year away cannot be connected by a mysterious communication channel.

But most physicists think quantum mechanics is a thing.

So excuse me if "blindingly obvious" doesn't cut it without proof.

You seem to believe the zygote has cognitive abilities, even before the sixth week, when the brain, neurons and synapses (connections) begin to develop.

Have you any proof that a zygote could experience anything, much less the ability to "have is say", before week 6?

Or is that just a gut feeling?

No I don't, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Saying that the egg/embryo/foetus doesn't get a say doesn't translate that it is capable of having a say. My point was there are two affected parties but only one party is involved in the decision.

I have a question for you. When do you consider life starts for a baby?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2912071 9-May-2022 21:50

Technofreak: No I don't, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Saying that the egg/embryo/foetus doesn't get a say doesn't translate that it is capable of having a say. My point was there are two affected parties but only one party is involved in the decision.

Just to be clear, who are the two affected parties?

kingdragonfly

11991 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12880

Subscriber

#2912085 9-May-2022 22:51

Technofreak: No I don't, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Saying that the egg/embryo/foetus doesn't get a say doesn't translate that it is capable of having a say. My point was there are two affected parties but only one party is involved in the decision.

I'm going to take a leap of faith, and assume you're male, wanting to get a sex change. But even if you go under the knife I'm afraid you can't get pregnant.

When technology does catch up, I'm sure you'll be happy that someone besides yourself will want a say in when you can or cannot have a child.

kingdragonfly

11991 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12880

Subscriber

#2912347 10-May-2022 15:10

NPR (US National Public Radio): Abortion providers and advocates experience déjà vu as Roe v. Wade is threatened

When the draft opinion signaling the Supreme Court was poised to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked this week, many abortion providers and advocates had just attended the National Abortion Federation conference.
...
Many abortion providers and advocates have been preparing for this moment, though, and now that it seems all but certain that Roe will be overturned, the conversations have turned to what their work will look like in the future.
...
Interview Highlights
Dr. Erin King, your clinic is in Granite City, Illinois, just about 10 minutes from the Missouri border, where abortion access has already been quite restricted. Illinois is surrounded by states that have trigger laws, meaning automatic bans would go into effect if Roe is overturned. How is your clinic preparing for this possible outcome?

King: About 60% of our patients are from Missouri. They are coming from out of state. And we have watched over two years as Missouri has restricted abortion so much that there are just a couple hundred abortions happening in Missouri right now where there used, you know, to be over 5- to 6,000 at least per year.

And so we are extremely worried about the Supreme Court decision that the same thing is going to happen in more states around us. And pretty much every other state that borders Illinois will immediately or, over this next several months after a Supreme Court decision, will have significant restrictions on abortion if not a complete ban on abortion.
...

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2912460 10-May-2022 19:03

gzt:
Technofreak: No I don't, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Saying that the egg/embryo/foetus doesn't get a say doesn't translate that it is capable of having a say. My point was there are two affected parties but only one party is involved in the decision.

Just to be clear, who are the two affected parties?

If you haven't been able to figure out my answer to that by now then I think I'd be wasting my time answering your question.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2912463 10-May-2022 19:06

kingdragonfly:
Technofreak: No I don't, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Saying that the egg/embryo/foetus doesn't get a say doesn't translate that it is capable of having a say. My point was there are two affected parties but only one party is involved in the decision.

I'm going to take a leap of faith, and assume you're male, wanting to get a sex change. But even if you go under the knife I'm afraid you can't get pregnant.

When technology does catch up, I'm sure you'll be happy that someone besides yourself will want a say in when you can or cannot have a child.

I thought I was having a discussion with someone who, while they may not agree with me, was interested in a rational discussion. Obviously I was mistaken. I apologise for wasting your time.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2912486 10-May-2022 20:12

Technofreak: If you haven't been able to figure out my answer to that by now then I think I'd be wasting my time answering your question.

Not at all. This is why I asked. Rereading your replies I will assume you have a belief that human life begins with a sperm fertilising an egg. At exactly that point in your belief this becomes an affected party in any potential pregnancy termination decision.

I think you are happy to agree that this zygote at this point has no consciousness. May I conclude then that you believe in a religious sense that this zygote at this point has a soul and this is the reason for your objection?

kingdragonfly

11991 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12880

Subscriber

#2913124 12-May-2022 18:05

The US Senate is more conservative than the US House of Representatives. The reason is lightly populated rural states, like Wyoming and Montana, has the same number of Senators as highly populated urban states, like New York and California.

All Republicans and one democrat senator voted against codifying "Roe vs Wade" into federal law.

BBC News: US Democrats' bid for federal abortion law fails in the Senate

US Senate Democrats have failed to pass a bill to make the right to abortion a federal law, as the nation's top court is poised to curtail it.

The move, meant to counter the Supreme Court's expected ruling that abortions can be banned, was seen as doomed from the start.

The Democrat-led House passed the bill, but it failed 49-51 in the Senate.

Votes were closely watched as abortion emerges as a flashpoint ahead of this year's midterm elections.
...

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2913156 12-May-2022 22:43

gzt:
Technofreak: If you haven't been able to figure out my answer to that by now then I think I'd be wasting my time answering your question.

Not at all. This is why I asked. Rereading your replies I will assume you have a belief that human life begins with a sperm fertilising an egg. At exactly that point in your belief this becomes an affected party in any potential pregnancy termination decision.

I think you are happy to agree that this zygote at this point has no consciousness. May I conclude then that you believe in a religious sense that this zygote at this point has a soul and this is the reason for your objection?

My point of view has nothing to do with consciousness or whether or not a soul might be present. So far as I’m concerned it purely based around logic.

There has to be a starting point. I think we might be able to agree on that, it’s just a matter of what that point is.

The way I see it, from the moment of conception a human being starts its development. That development continues from then on, until well after birth and on into early adulthood and perhaps even later.

What’s different between a baby inside the womb compared to one that has been born? The egg/embryo/foetus/baby inside the womb depending on how old it is may not be as physically developed as a new born baby, but then a day old baby isn’t as well developed as say a five year old who in turn isn’t as well developed as a teenager. The way I see it they are all the same person at various stages of development through their life.

We have arbitrary milestones during the growth and development of a person. For example when a baby is born. They are just milestones of some description. In my mind they don’t mark a significant point or moment in time in the development of that human being. That development is a gradual process.

Even though we make a big deal about a babies birth, at birth a baby is just as dependant on its mother for survival as it was the day before while still in the mother’s womb. It's just another day older than it was the day before.

My logic says the only significant defining event is conception. After that point we have a new life which is gradually growing/developing.

My logic says that if it’s not OK to kill a baby outside of the womb what makes it OK to terminate that life at some point prior to it being born?

You may not see it the way I do, but hopefully this helps explain the reasoning behind my point of view.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2913161 12-May-2022 23:39

Technofreak: My logic says that if it’s not OK to kill a baby outside of the womb what makes it OK to terminate that life at some point prior to it being born? You may not see it the way I do, but hopefully this helps explain the reasoning behind my point of view.

A egg just fertilized is clearly not a baby. This part of your argument is not logical.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6