rickyp wrote:The body aborts 70% of zygotes and early stage fetus i think its an indication that life hasn't begun.

So, science takes a backseat to your opinion? Okay.

On the other hand, it could easily be concluded that it simply shows how fragile and special life is. I'll go with that one.

Fate seems to think that every zygote has achieved person hood.

Not even close to what I've said. Then again, this is standard operating procedure for you. Personhood is a different standard than "life." It is a very subjective standard and has been utilized to justify all manner of evil throughout history. You can choose that standard if you like; I'll go for the higher standard.

fate

Let's say that's true, why don't you tell those 1.032 late-term abortion victims that they are "non-existent?

"

Sounds like a big number doesn't it? But relative to the US population, and relative to causes of death of innocents by many factors its pretty small. And if an appeal to compassion for innocents were compelling wouldn't there have been some changes to gun laws in the US? 30,000 will die from guns deaths this year, and there seems to be no movement on limiting accessing to guns.

I'm in agreement with you that third term abortions should be illegal except for rare medical circumstance. But I did try to find a number on what portion of the 1.032 might be abortions of choice. Its pretty hard to find. But a large portion of the 1,032 are done because the fetus is so defective it cannot survive birth... And another large percentage are because the woman's life is in serious danger.
There are only 4 doctors in the US who will perform a third semester abortion. And the procedure costs about $10,000. That pretty much means its only in the purvue of the wealthy and privileged.
Fighting to limit all abortions, using late term abortion as a reason, is dishonest. Because a very small percentage, less than 1/2 of 1 %, are late term. And because they are almost unattainable anyway.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/06/tru ... abortions/

bbauska

As long as money coming from the government was not going to any abortion provider, I would regretfully compromise on the first 12 weeks being allowed for abortion.

You aren't compromising when you exclude the use of government money.
First. Its not just your government. Therefore the taxes used are not just coming from opponents of a woman's right to choose..
And since polls show that the majority of Americans support the right to choose..
.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/ameri ... years.aspx

I have a hard understanding the consistency of your position. You say

Here is why my position is a compromise. I don't want to have the government paying for ANY contraception

and then you say

1. I have already stated that contraception should be fully and freely available. I do not agree on the emergency contraception. That should be paid by the patient

Fully and freely available would mean young women and poor women would have access to long term contraception (The way the Colorado test has worked). And it would be the most effective way to reduce and eliminate abortions. (A goal I share with you and Fate)

The question is.. which goal is more important to you? The reduction in recourse to abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancies.... or the elimination of government involvement in provision of health care to women?
If it is the former you will stop cleaving to the latter.

I have no compunctions about government involvement in the provision of health care because I know the evidence presented by dozens of countries is that it has produced far more effective and efficient health care than the US system. In particular there are fewer unplanned pregnancies in these countries than in the US.
But I don't think that its a compromise to stop government funding of Planned Parenthood if PP offers abortion as a service. That is capitulation.
By doing so it surrenders the choice of the majority to a loud vocal minority.
By doing so one it surrenders low cost health provision to the poorest . In other words it is the surrender of choice by only the poorest. So only the most vulnerable are made to suffer by this restriction of tax money.
By doing so it limits health care for some 630,000 women who use PP.... and only some very small subset of them for the provision of abortion services.
Why is it that it is always the poor who have to surrender their choices and surrender their freedoms?
Reducing support for PP is a very selective punishment of poor people, since the wealthy will always be able to buy their abortions privately. Acting to accommodate the defunding of PP, unless they eliminate abortion as a service, is not compromise . Its throwing the poor under the bus to satisfy the feelings of the moral minority.
And all it would do is force those poor women back into the past where they found back room butchers and took their chances.
Abortion was legalized in the US in order to eliminate the back room butchers to which the poor had to resort . Have some compassion for these women too. Provide them with the services they need to avoid unwanted pregnancies freely and you'll eliminate both abortion and the unfortunate consequences of illegal abortion operations. (And they'll be some reduction of poverty and crime.)

The opponents of abortion always resort to emotional arguments. Even when they are patently false (Carly's appeal to a nonexistent video, or the appeal to the doctored video supposedly incriminating PP officials) . But there seem to be no memory for the emotional reason why abortion services were finally legalized in the US after 80 years. It was the suffering of the women who sought abortion through illegal means. Does that suffering not always appeal to your compassion?

fate

So, science takes a backseat to your opinion?

Not at all.
Find some scientific consensus that says a fetus is definitely a living being and not an early stage of the development of life. Which is what you quoted before.

RickyP,
I will not be answering your questions You mind is closed. It is unchanging and not worth the effort.

Good day, Sir

rickyp wrote:fate

Let's say that's true, why don't you tell those 1.032 late-term abortion victims that they are "non-existent?

"

Sounds like a big number doesn't it? But relative to the US population, and relative to causes of death of innocents by many factors its pretty small.

Right. What's a thousand-plus human lives, right?

Let's see . . . how many died at the Boston Marathon? Less than a thousand, so . . . no biggie.

How many died at the Pentagon on 9/11? Less than a thousand . . . what's the deal? Can't they just get over it? Don't they know more people die from other causes?

When you think about it, so-called "mass murderers" like Bundy and Manson are jokes. I mean, come on, none of them has ever been close to a thousand?

You are making the lamest of lame arguments.

And if an appeal to compassion for innocents were compelling wouldn't there have been some changes to gun laws in the US? 30,000 will die from guns deaths this year, and there seems to be no movement on limiting accessing to guns.

Another immaterial argument. Eliminating guns would not stop the abortion of viable babies.

What's next? Cancer?

I'm in agreement with you that third term abortions should be illegal except for rare medical circumstance.

Then stop trying to justify it or minimize it.

The question is.. which goal is more important to you? The reduction in recourse to abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancies.... or the elimination of government involvement in provision of health care to women?
If it is the former you will stop cleaving to the latter.

Your problem? You believe the lies of PP. http://adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-d ... -10-(or-so)-planned-parenthood-deceptions

I have no compunctions about government involvement in the provision of health care because I know the evidence presented by dozens of countries is that it has produced far more effective and efficient health care than the US system.

1. That has nothing to do with abortion.
2. It's only a partial-truth. "Efficiency" is in the eye of the beholder. In Canada, many procedures take many, many months to schedule. You know this, yet you make it sound like socialized medicine is nirvana. There's also the matter of doctor shortages, denied services, etc. And, if you think insurance companies are tough to deal with, try the government. In many cases, the government is shielded from lawsuits--not so insurance companies.

In particular there are fewer unplanned pregnancies in these countries than in the US.

In most socialist countries, the native population is nose-diving. So, there are few pregnancies of any kind.

But I don't think that its a compromise to stop government funding of Planned Parenthood if PP offers abortion as a service. That is capitulation.

Nonsense. Watch the videos from the link above. Everything you posted below this was a lie. I can't blame you--you've been duped by your liberal, PP-loving sources.

fate

So, science takes a backseat to your opinion?

Not at all.
Find some scientific consensus that says a fetus is definitely a living being and not an early stage of the development of life. Which is what you quoted before.

You've not even claimed that it's not. You've pointed to the numbers that don't survive. Well, if they don't survive . . . they were alive.

That's basic deduction. I'm sure you can grasp that.

ray

Any living being will eventually die (at least until the singularity); why would G-d do that? Does that mean that no life is sacred

This was interesting. I don't think fetus are alive and therefore can't be "killed."
But it occurred to me that we have the same problem at the end of life. How do we define when someone has died?
Turns out medical science defines dearth as lack of brain activity... Which does offer a counter point in the development of the fetus.

Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognisable Electroencephalography[wp] (EEG) pattern from the fetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception.[2]
The point of using neurological factors rather than other signs such as a heartbeat is that this is a much more useful indicator from the point of view of science. A heart beats using mostly involuntary muscle movements so is really little different from any other spontaneous motion or metabolic processes. A heartbeat means relatively little in real terms, although it is more dramatic from an emotive point of view

If it its true at the end of life, why is it not true with fetal development?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

rickyp wrote:ray

Any living being will eventually die (at least until the singularity); why would G-d do that? Does that mean that no life is sacred

This was interesting. I don't think fetus are alive and therefore can't be "killed."

Well then, it's like God Himself has spoken. When you say, "I don't think," it is an indisputable fact.

Erm, or a very disputable non-fact:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)

In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis�each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts�each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.

After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn�t become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14

In other words, you have no idea what you're blathering about. You're welcome.

rickyp wrote:
This was interesting. I don't think fetus are alive and therefore can't be "killed."
But it occurred to me that we have the same problem at the end of life. How do we define when someone has died?
Turns out medical science defines dearth as lack of brain activity... Which does offer a counter point in the development of the fetus.

Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognisable Electroencephalography[wp] (EEG) pattern from the fetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception.[2]
The point of using neurological factors rather than other signs such as a heartbeat is that this is a much more useful indicator from the point of view of science. A heart beats using mostly involuntary muscle movements so is really little different from any other spontaneous motion or metabolic processes. A heartbeat means relatively little in real terms, although it is more dramatic from an emotive point of view

If it its true at the end of life, why is it not true with fetal development?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

Aside from the question of "life", which I think Fate handled very well, my question for Ricky is based what he has posted, would he ban all abortions after 24 weeks (5.5 months), which is when we start to pick up EEG patterns?

rayjay

Aside from the question of "life", which I think Fate handled very well, my question for Ricky is based what he has posted, would he ban all abortions after 24 weeks (5.5 months), which is when we start to pick up EEG patterns?

I've been awfully consistent that abortions should not be available after 22 to 24 weeks. (Except in exceptional circumstances.)

Fate

Well then, it's like God Himself has spoken.

Has he? I mean your the guy who claims to know exactly what God thinks and plans... So if you say it sounds like Her ....ok.

The link I offered (below0 goes into an in-depth exploration of the concept of "When does life begin".
Its obviously a complex subject and we simply don't have any conclusions.
Without any conclusive evidence, the medical community has comprehensively agreed that abortions of choice won't happen in the third trimester. In the US only 4 doctors will perform such a procedure. In Canada its only two.
But there is no consensus on the ideas discussed.
I'm comfortable enough with the idea that women should have the right to choose when there is this kind of doubt.
However I'd also like society to take all the steps that have proven to reduce unplanned pregnancies and therefore eliminate abortion as much as possible.
A lot of those ideas entail socialist principles . (Free medical care and free contraception to women.A rigorous and compulsory sex education course to children as they age .... )
Whats more important to you Fate? Clinging to your "conservative principles" or the elimination of unplanned pregnancies. (And its not a false choice since we know Colorado has proven that unplanned pregnancies can be reduced even in the USA)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

rickyp wrote:rayjay

Aside from the question of "life", which I think Fate handled very well, my question for Ricky is based what he has posted, would he ban all abortions after 24 weeks (5.5 months), which is when we start to pick up EEG patterns?

I've been awfully consistent that abortions should not be available after 22 to 24 weeks. (Except in exceptional circumstances.)

Fate

Well then, it's like God Himself has spoken.

Has he? I mean your the guy who claims to know exactly what God thinks and plans... So if you say it sounds like Her ....ok.

The link I offered (below0 goes into an in-depth exploration of the concept of "When does life begin".
Its obviously a complex subject and we simply don't have any conclusions.
Without any conclusive evidence, the medical community has comprehensively agreed that abortions of choice won't happen in the third trimester. In the US only 4 doctors will perform such a procedure. In Canada its only two.
But there is no consensus on the ideas discussed.
I'm comfortable enough with the idea that women should have the right to choose when there is this kind of doubt.
However I'd also like society to take all the steps that have proven to reduce unplanned pregnancies and therefore eliminate abortion as much as possible.
A lot of those ideas entail socialist principles . (Free medical care and free contraception to women.A rigorous and compulsory sex education course to children as they age .... )
Whats more important to you Fate? Clinging to your "conservative principles" or the elimination of unplanned pregnancies. (And its not a false choice since we know Colorado has proven that unplanned pregnancies can be reduced even in the USA)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

Not just no, but NO BLOODY WAY.

I posted an article by someone with a doctorate on Princeton's website. I cited the particular part wherein she describes why I'm right and you're wrong. You freaking post a link?

No.

You lose. Period.

Doctor Fate wrote:I posted an article by someone with a doctorate on Princeton's website. I cited the particular part wherein she describes why I'm right and you're wrong. You freaking post a link?

Oh, and a rational-wiki link at that? Like it's objective?

Furthermore, this is just more of your opinion:

rickyp wrote:I'm comfortable enough with the idea that women should have the right to choose when there is this kind of doubt.

There is no doubt. NOTHING in your article directly rebuts my evidence.

You lose.

fate

Oh, and a rational-wiki link at that? Like it's objective

yes.

fate

There is no doubt. NOTHING in your article directly rebuts my evidence

Then you need to read more closely.

One of the main viewpoints, and the one that possibly best reflects the reality of the situation, is that there is no one point where life begins. Instead, the beginning of life is a continuous process. It may have a start where there is "no life" and an end where there "is life," but there isn't a clearly defined boundary. This can be a problem for people who want their world to be black and white and their morals to be absolute, and it is certainly a problem from a legal perspective, where as far as possible things need to be clear-cut and even. Bear in mind that the simple act of fertilization itself takes up to twenty hours to complete — there really is no "magic spark" that some people may like to think that happens instantaneously.

Fate this is what you should really take away from this...

Indeed, the potential for human life can begin very early, but it is personhood that is the sticking point. The question is very much whether the two are equal and therefore happen at the same point. Leaving the answer in the hands of philosophy and opinion however makes the distinction between "life" and "non-life" purely subjective and the answer will be different for everyone. This is the most important fact to bear in mind, particularly when discussing legalities - subjective thoughts cannot and should not be forced upon everyone fairly.

rickyp wrote:fate

Oh, and a rational-wiki link at that? Like it's objective

yes.

That's a lie.

RationalWiki is a wiki written from a skeptical, secular, and progressivist perspective. It was originally created as a counter to Conservapedia after an incident in which contributors attempting to edit Conservapedia were banned.

Okay, it's either a lie or YOU don't understand "objective." Which is it?

fate

There is no doubt. NOTHING in your article directly rebuts my evidence

Then you need to read more closely.

I'm doubtful, but okay, let's see how your quote directly rebuts my evidence.

One of the main viewpoints, and the one that possibly best reflects the reality of the situation, is that there is no one point where life begins. Instead, the beginning of life is a continuous process. It may have a start where there is "no life" and an end where there "is life," but there isn't a clearly defined boundary. This can be a problem for people who want their world to be black and white and their morals to be absolute, and it is certainly a problem from a legal perspective, where as far as possible things need to be clear-cut and even. Bear in mind that the simple act of fertilization itself takes up to twenty hours to complete — there really is no "magic spark" that some people may like to think that happens instantaneously.

Hey, I'm going to do you a solid. See the words in bold? Those indicate something other than "evidence." In fact, they're not evidence at all. Those are words indicating OPINION and POSSIBILITY, not EVIDENCE.

So, one of us needs to "read more closely," if by that you mean "READ WITH COMPREHENSION."

You are either being stupid or dishonest. Please indicate which one.

Fate this is what you should really take away from this...

Indeed, the potential for human life can begin very early, but it is personhood that is the sticking point. The question is very much whether the two are equal and therefore happen at the same point. Leaving the answer in the hands of philosophy and opinion however makes the distinction between "life" and "non-life" purely subjective and the answer will be different for everyone. This is the most important fact to bear in mind, particularly when discussing legalities - subjective thoughts cannot and should not be forced upon everyone fairly.

Oh, so what I SHOULD (in your opinion) take away from the discussion is something OTHER THAN what the discussion was about.

It was about WHEN LIFE BEGINS!

You want to change it to WHEN PERSONHOOD OCCURS.

Those two things ARE NOT THE SAME. MOVING THE GOALPOSTS IS AN ADMISSION OF LOSING.

This was part of your previous post:

The link I offered (below0 (sic) goes into an in-depth exploration of the concept of "When does life begin".
Its obviously a complex subject and we simply don't have any conclusions.

Actually, it didn't go "in-depth" as to "When does life begin." It offered opinion. That's what "one that possibly best reflects" and "It may have" mean. Those are not words of certainty or expertise. Those are words of CONJECTURE.

Since you could not rebut my evidence about "when life begins," you shift to "when personhood begins."

Again, you LOSE.

Unless you have something new, which you won't, we're done here.

(I apologize to those with average reading comprehension skills for the shouting)

Doctor Fate wrote:In most socialist countries, the native population is nose-diving. So, there are few pregnancies of any kind.

Would you care to supply some evidence and some definitions? What do you mean by "native population" - just anyone who is born there, or those from the indigenous social groups?

Which countries do you consider socialist for the purposes of this assertion - is the UK one of them?

Over what period do you measure decline?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:In most socialist countries, the native population is nose-diving. So, there are few pregnancies of any kind.

Would you care to supply some evidence and some definitions? What do you mean by "native population" - just anyone who is born there, or those from the indigenous social groups?

Which countries do you consider socialist for the purposes of this assertion - is the UK one of them?

Over what period do you measure decline?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/ ... es-stupid/

If you want to save time, this is a map. http://www.mapsofworld.com/europe/thema ... -rate.html

From the map:

Among the European Countries, birth rates lie between 8.2 and 15.3 per 1000 people. Albania has the highest birth rate whereas Germany and Italy have the lowest. Most of the countries of Europe have birth rates ranging from 9 to 11 per thousand people per year.

Thanks for the article from the Princeton scientist--I certainly learned something. But I don't think a scientist is in any better position to define what a human being is or when human life begins than anyone else . It's still a philosophical question.