Why is this not in the news?

[Gulo Blue]

viability is a medical term, not sure if you have kids or have gone through the process but it's something that the doctors go over with you. it's generally 24 weeks 0 days, doctors are unlikely to do a cesarean section prior to that time and they won't resuscitate a fetus before 23 weeks.

there are cases that defy this though, like an ectopic pregnancy, which can go past 24 weeks but not be viable in that there is no chance for survival outside of the womb. those are usually caught at the 20 week period and have to laparotomy

I don't know if you intended to disagree, but that reinforces what I just said.

 

[Spartanmack]

The 1st Matrix was such a great movie. Particularly the 1st time you see it when you don't know why things are happening the way they are (like the mouth sealing over..."WTF!!! Are these FBI guys wizards?"...then he wakes up "Ah. He was just dreaming."...NOPE! ...then there's that robotic parasite.) Definitely a movie I wish I could wipe from my memory and experience for the 1st time again.

Didn't care for it (except of course for Carrie-Anne Moss' Trinity), haven't been able to sit through the other 2. I get that fans think it's kind of the thinking man's Terminator but I don't really care for sci-fi in general so I guess I prefer my gratuitous ultra-violence in bubble gum flavor. Plus, at the time I couldn't take Ted Theodore Logan seriously - not sure that I could now either.

 

[Sbee]

I don't know if you intended to disagree, but that reinforces what I just said.

not really disagreeing but adding to viability, I don't know if i'd consider it a term used out of convenience though, depending on the context

 

[Gulo Blue]

not really disagreeing but adding to viability, I don't know if i'd consider it a term used out of convenience though, depending on the context

What I meant by the word convenience is that it is something we can define scientifically in the absence of of a scientific determination on when human life begins. It is incorrect to assert the science defines human life to begin at any specific point. We have laws based on things we can determine. It's similar to phrases like "preponderance of evidence". Our laws reflect our efforts to do the best we can in the absence of absolute knowledge. There is no authoritative position on when life begins based on scientific research so some laws ban abortion at viability. Viability is used as a substitute for the scientifically undetermined point where life begins. It's a legal substitution. Not a scientific equivalence. So it is incorrect to assert that you can say life begins at viability based on science. You might say "necessity" rather than "convenience" depending on your point of view, but the idea I was trying to convey with that word is that viability is not used because it is scientifically equivalent, it is used for practical reasons.

 

[Thumb]

You were doing ok up to here but this is where you go off the rails, because my subsequent response to him was that no, I was not wrong - it is in fact extremely difficult to adopt babies in the US and I cited 5 instances of folks who attest to that. I never once said adopting kids was difficult - there are hundreds of thousands of kids in foster care and homes awaiting adoption. I specifically said babies because that is what's relevant to the abortion argument and it is extremely difficult to adopt a baby in the US, unless you think everyone who wants to adopt a baby in the US can easily cut checks for $50k, then I guess it's just difficult and not extremely difficult.

You just don't get it. You keep bringing up lack of money or whatever else, that is not a lack of babies, that is just overall difficulty with the process.

Your argument has more tangent lines then a bicycle wheel has spokes.

Once again, clear and concise: People did not go to China or other countries to adopt because of a lack of babies. And it certainly has 0 to do with abortion.

I award you no points, and may whatever god you believe in have mercy on your "talking your ass around in circles" soul.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Cherry picked reference:

Dr. Bradley M. Patten from the University of Michigan wrote in Human Embryology that the union of the sperm and the ovum "initiates the life of a new individual" beginning "a new individual life history."

Granted, that's a 1946 reference, but we really haven't uncovered much that's impacted our understanding of life since then. Nobody's making arguments based on things Patten didn't know. That's not why I picked the reference anyway.

 

[Thumb]

Cherry picked reference:

Dr. Bradley M. Patten from the University of Michigan wrote in Human Embryology that the union of the sperm and the ovum "initiates the life of a new individual" beginning "a new individual life history."

Granted, that's a 1946 reference, but we really haven't uncovered much that's impacted our understanding of life since then. Nobody's making arguments based on things Patten didn't know. That's not why I picked the reference anyway.

Haven't read all of this thread so if I'm covering something already said, excuse me plz.

But the instance you mention has no cognitive functions. When someone is in an accident and have no cognitive function or are in a "vegetative state", we unplug the machines. How is that any less of murder than an abortion is to a fetus?

Seems to me if you make that argument that life is life, you;re pretty backed into a corner by that.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You just don't get it. You keep bringing up lack of money or whatever else, that is not a lack of babies, that is just overall difficulty with the process.

Your argument has more tangent lines then a bicycle wheel has spokes.

Once again, clear and concise: People did not go to China or other countries to adopt because of a lack of babies. And it certainly has 0 to do with abortion.

I award you no points, and may whatever god you believe in have mercy on your "talking your ass around in circles" soul.

You're the one deviating from the original point. The original point was that pregnant mothers that don't want their babies had options other than abortion. That the argument derailed over how difficult it is to adopt doesn't really get to the original point. Are there so many babies available for adoption the system can't handle more? The answer is no. If you want to give a baby up for adoption, there are options.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Haven't read all of this thread so if I'm covering something already said, excuse me plz.

But the instance you mention has no cognitive functions. When someone is in an accident and have no cognitive function or are in a "vegetative state", we unplug the machines. How is that any less of murder than an abortion is to a fetus?

Seems to me if you make that argument that life is life, you;re pretty backed into a corner by that.

It doesn't exactly follow, but it is a valuable aside. Looking to later stages in life can be useful in making clarifications. And cognitive function is an important element. I think, if we're talking about people that don't believe in souls, and if science was capable of determining consciousness, the legal do not cross line would be changed to the point where consciousness is possible, which more closely fits with the vegetative state example you pick. Just another indication that viability is not a satisfactory criteria.

 

[Spartanmack]

You just don't get it. You keep bringing up lack of money or whatever else, that is not a lack of babies, that is just overall difficulty with the process.

Your argument has more tangent lines then a bicycle wheel has spokes.

Once again, clear and concise: People did not go to China or other countries to adopt because of a lack of babies. And it certainly has 0 to do with abortion.

I award you no points, and may whatever god you believe in have mercy on your "talking your ass around in circles" soul.

This is just laughably stupid - there are waiting lists years long for public adoption of BABIES, that's why my brother-in-law adopted toddlers - they didn't have the means for private adoptions and they to be on a waiting list to adopt toddlers. Even if you have the means for a private adoption, it's still difficult to find a baby to adopt in the US. These are not tangents, they are both evidence of how difficult it is to find a baby to adopt in the US, which was my original point no matter what you say it was. And you're wrong about the time it takes or the kid being a toddler by the time you get him/her home - in a private adoption, you can take your adopted baby home from the hospital as soon as the doctors clear the baby for release. You are wrong - people adopting babies overseas aren't going there for drive-thru adoptions, they're going overseas because they want to adopt babies and can't get them here in the US.

Finally, I didn't say adoption was difficult because of abortion. I clearly said, knowing how many folks are so desperate to adopt a baby here in the US, it's beyond shameful that we are aborting over 1mm babies each year in this country.

And I couldn't possibly care less if you're not giving me any points as I think you are easily the dumbest person in every argument on this sight. I have zero respect for you and even less need for your points.

 

[Spartanmack]

Haven't read all of this thread so if I'm covering something already said, excuse me plz.

But the instance you mention has no cognitive functions. When someone is in an accident and have no cognitive function or are in a "vegetative state", we unplug the machines. How is that any less of murder than an abortion is to a fetus?

Seems to me if you make that argument that life is life, you;re pretty backed into a corner by that.

The difference is the accident victim presumably has no chance of recovering cognitive functions and likely is in excruciating pain. Euthanasia in these situations is considered merciful and many people make conscious decisions and write living wills detailing how they want to be treated if they're ever in that situation. It's completely different from the case of the unborn child.

 

[Michchamp]

You're the one deviating from the original point. The original point was that pregnant mothers that don't want their babies had options other than abortion. That the argument derailed over how difficult it is to adopt doesn't really get to the original point. Are there so many babies available for adoption the system can't handle more? The answer is no. ...

no, that argument derailed over spartan-dbag's inability to lay out what those other options to abortion are. (see post #18). We should just "do better" and not have abortions, apparently. Okaaaaaaaay... now leaving him to his city in the clouds and getting back to the real world...

... If you want to give a baby up for adoption, there are options.

I don't think anyone has ever disputed that there are options, but thanks for mentioning it. Sure carrying a kid to term, going through the pain and risk of childbirth is an option. maybe not an equal option to having an abortion, or the cost to society of having to bear wards of the state & all the attendant problems of orphaned children living outside the law... but it's easy to sit on the internet and demand other people live according to your own moral code.

If you look at what they did to poor unwed catholic mothers, they were basically sending them to these nunneries and forcing them to work as slave labor as penance for the sin of getting pregnant. AND they lumped rape victims in with the bunch... so if a woman gets raped, gets pregnant, she has to go through 9 months of labor, the stigma of being poor and unwed (which in her society, pretty much permanently branded her as a whore & not marriage material) and work as a slave for the Church to pay off her "sin"? Sick. She can't simply decide to discreetly have an abortion, and try to live her life from that point as best she can... no she has to do what Red & spartanhack think she should.

It's irritating that if you are pro-choice, you get painted as wanting people to have abortions, or planning to perform abortions yourself. Like I'm some sort of bloodthirsty baby killer... right. That's been an effective, but despicable slur used by Holier-than-Thou "Pro Life" hypocrites for a long time. All I'm saying is that a woman, or a couple, should be free to make that decision for themselves, and the state should not prevent that. The State & the Church through it's political manipulations, should not prevent her from having that choice.

Facing 9 months of labor to bring a kid into the world that a mother can't care for... and/or an unwed mother in an incredibly religious society like Ireland was to be branded and stigmatized for the rest of her life because YOU don't believe abortion is right, is just being a complete ass. But I'm sure those same people have no problem blaming her alone... "She shouldn't have gotten pregnant then." like it's that simple.

 

[Spartanmack]

no, that argument derailed over spartan-dbag's inability to lay out what those other options to abortion are. (see post #18). We should just "do better" and not have abortions, apparently.

Good thing for you Thumb's around to take your title. Did you really need those "options" spelled out for you? The rest of this post is just more typical michchamp "change the subject", "move the goalpost" nonsense - hardly worthy of a response.

 

[Gulo Blue]

no, that argument derailed over spartan-dbag's inability to lay out what those other options to abortion are. (see post #18). We should just "do better" and not have abortions, apparently. Okaaaaaaaay... now leaving him to his city in the clouds and getting back to the real world...



I don't think anyone has ever disputed that there are options, but thanks for mentioning it. Sure carrying a kid to term, going through the pain and risk of childbirth is an option. maybe not an equal option to having an abortion, or the cost to society of having to bear wards of the state & all the attendant problems of orphaned children living outside the law... but it's easy to sit on the internet and demand other people live according to your own moral code.

If you look at what they did to poor unwed catholic mothers, they were basically sending them to these nunneries and forcing them to work as slave labor as penance for the sin of getting pregnant. AND they lumped rape victims in with the bunch... so if a woman gets raped, gets pregnant, she has to go through 9 months of labor, the stigma of being poor and unwed (which in her society, pretty much permanently branded her as a whore & not marriage material) and work as a slave for the Church to pay off her "sin"? Sick. She can't simply decide to discreetly have an abortion, and try to live her life from that point as best she can... no she has to do what Red & spartanhack think she should.

It's irritating that if you are pro-choice, you get painted as wanting people to have abortions, or planning to perform abortions yourself. Like I'm some sort of bloodthirsty baby killer... right. That's been an effective, but despicable slur used by Holier-than-Thou "Pro Life" hypocrites for a long time. All I'm saying is that a woman, or a couple, should be free to make that decision for themselves, and the state should not prevent that. The State & the Church through it's political manipulations, should not prevent her from having that choice.

Facing 9 months of labor to bring a kid into the world that a mother can't care for... and/or an unwed mother in an incredibly religious society like Ireland was to be branded and stigmatized for the rest of her life because YOU don't believe abortion is right, is just being a complete ass. But I'm sure those same people have no problem blaming her alone... "She shouldn't have gotten pregnant then." like it's that simple.

Speaking of hypocrisy, you're complaining about being unfairly painted a certain way in a post where you stereotype others.

 

[Thumb]

You're the one deviating from the original point. The original point was that pregnant mothers that don't want their babies had options other than abortion. That the argument derailed over how difficult it is to adopt doesn't really get to the original point. Are there so many babies available for adoption the system can't handle more? The answer is no. If you want to give a baby up for adoption, there are options.

I'm not deviating from shit, because I didn't bring up that part he did. I refuted his hyperbole saying the reason there were no babies to adopt in this country was because of abortions. He claimed people went to other countries because of a lack of babies here:

you have couples searching the world over because there aren't enough babies to adopt here in this country.

So I'm not the one deviating from anything, I'm simply refuting his claims of why people go to other countries to adopt. He started that tangent, not me.

 

[Sbee]

no, that argument derailed over spartan-dbag's inability to lay out what those other options to abortion are. (see post #18). We should just "do better" and not have abortions, apparently. Okaaaaaaaay... now leaving him to his city in the clouds and getting back to the real world...



I don't think anyone has ever disputed that there are options, but thanks for mentioning it. Sure carrying a kid to term, going through the pain and risk of childbirth is an option. maybe not an equal option to having an abortion, or the cost to society of having to bear wards of the state & all the attendant problems of orphaned children living outside the law... but it's easy to sit on the internet and demand other people live according to your own moral code.

If you look at what they did to poor unwed catholic mothers, they were basically sending them to these nunneries and forcing them to work as slave labor as penance for the sin of getting pregnant. AND they lumped rape victims in with the bunch... so if a woman gets raped, gets pregnant, she has to go through 9 months of labor, the stigma of being poor and unwed (which in her society, pretty much permanently branded her as a whore & not marriage material) and work as a slave for the Church to pay off her "sin"? Sick. She can't simply decide to discreetly have an abortion, and try to live her life from that point as best she can... no she has to do what Red & spartanhack think she should.

It's irritating that if you are pro-choice, you get painted as wanting people to have abortions, or planning to perform abortions yourself. Like I'm some sort of bloodthirsty baby killer... right. That's been an effective, but despicable slur used by Holier-than-Thou "Pro Life" hypocrites for a long time. All I'm saying is that a woman, or a couple, should be free to make that decision for themselves, and the state should not prevent that. The State & the Church through it's political manipulations, should not prevent her from having that choice.

Facing 9 months of labor to bring a kid into the world that a mother can't care for... and/or an unwed mother in an incredibly religious society like Ireland was to be branded and stigmatized for the rest of her life because YOU don't believe abortion is right, is just being a complete ass. But I'm sure those same people have no problem blaming her alone... "She shouldn't have gotten pregnant then." like it's that simple.

exactly, I'm pro life myself, but I'm in my 30's, married, relatively wealthy, and have the resources to support a child. Far be it from me to condemn someone else who doesn't have the means or infrastructure to support a child. I don't try to force my judgements on others in different situations, which is exactly what the anti abortion crowd does.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not deviating from shit, because I didn't bring up that part he did. I refuted his hyperbole saying the reason there were no babies to adopt in this country was because of abortions. He claimed people went to other countries because of a lack of babies here:




So I'm not the one deviating from anything, I'm simply refuting his claims of why people go to other countries to adopt. He started that tangent, not me.

Fine. I just saw a bunch of talk about the original point so I ctrl-f'ed the word "adopt" to see what the original point about adoption was, but I don't care to defend that point more than Mack.

 

[Gulo Blue]

exactly, I'm pro life myself, but I'm in my 30's, married, relatively wealthy, and have the resources to support a child. Far be it from me to condemn someone else who doesn't have the means or infrastructure to support a child. I don't try to force my judgements on others in different situations, which is exactly what the anti abortion crowd does.

This is the main thing that I'd like to see change about my religious community on this topic. If you're anti abortion, show it by supporting single mothers. I wish I could say MC's stereotyping is wrong on a bigger scale, but even I would bet he's generally right.

 

[Michchamp]

This is the main thing that I'd like to see change about my religious community on this topic. If you're anti abortion, show it by supporting single mothers. I wish I could say MC's stereotyping is wrong on a bigger scale, but even I would bet he's generally right.

You know I'm right. my path is virtuous and based on human kindness and understanding.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You know I'm right. my path is virtuous and based on human kindness and understanding.

I know my path is based on human kindness and a continued search for understanding. Yours is hypocrisy and assumptions.

You know the arguments regarding creationism and "What evidence would change your mind?" Given that this isn't a scientifically settled issue, contrary to how some present it, you should consider that you might be wrong and may one day have a better understanding. I do.