A fetus is part of a woman’s body? (1 Viewer)

jon_mx said:

My use of self-awareness was more just the ability to feel pain, not some conscience of existence.  Perhaps not an accurate usage, but to point out the fetus will have feelings which are separate from the mother who will be entirely unaware of the pain 

Click to expand...

The ability to feel pain and suffer are also later developments, like third trimester late.

jon_mx said:

My use of self-awareness was more just the ability to feel pain, not some conscience of existence.  Perhaps not an accurate usage, but to point out the fetus will have feelings which are separate from the mother who will be entirely unaware of the pain 

Click to expand...

There's the backpedaling we know and loathe.

-fish- said:

There's the backpedaling we know and loathe.

Click to expand...

You guys are pathetic.   All you care about is some kind of gotcha.  No one wants to discuss anything.  You guys can lie and distort until you think you found something.  

jon_mx said:

You guys are pathetic.   All you care about is some kind of gotcha.  No one wants to discuss anything.  You guys can lie and distort until you think you found something.  

Click to expand...

You are the one that made a generalized, uninformed post.   You were corrected, and it was also correctly pointed out that per your typical approach, you would then backpedal and claim to be persecuted (as well as resorting to name calling).  It's not our fault if you are so predictable.   You've been asked by the owner of the site to stop doing this.   It happens in nearly every thread you enter.  

You now claim you didn't mean to say what you said, even though you defended it until it was clear it was indefensible.   Gee, I wonder how we knew that would happen?

-fish- said:

You are the one that made a generalized, uninformed post.   You were corrected, and it was also correctly pointed out that per your typical approach, you would then backpedal and claim to be persecuted (as well as resorting to name calling).  It's not our fault if you are so predictable.   You've been asked by the owner of the site to stop doing this.   It happens in nearly every thread you enter.  

You now claim you didn't mean to say what you said, even though you defended it until it was clear it was indefensible.   Gee, I wonder how we knew that would happen?

Click to expand...

Whatever dude.  This is horse manure not worthy of discussion. 

jon_mx said:

Whatever dude.  This is horse manure not worthy of discussion. 

Click to expand...

Considering we're talking about your posts, I couldn't agree more.

-fish- said:

Considering we're talking about your posts, I couldn't agree more.

Click to expand...

IC FBGCav said:

How many pro life people adopt or fund programs to financially support mom and child until 18?

Or is it, let it live, then I don't need to care?

Click to expand...

I have seen this point raised a few times.

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in my region, I have worked with and/or donated to 4 different privately funded non-profit organizations along these lines.  Two of them are women's shelters and two are foster care/adoption organizations that work through churches.  They are Cherish Kids, Backyard Orphans, COPE & Harmony House.

In Southwest Missouri (a very conservative region), there are thousands of people who care for and work to help these women and children.

matuski said:

Of all the fields of science to choose, I think you whiffed on genetics.  Nobody is arguing that a fetus doesn't inherit genes.  

Still no idea what you are talking about again with the anti/pro science stuff.  Like saying you are pro or anti economics.  I don't get it.

Click to expand...

My jizz has genes. Do you they want to save that? 

Jayrod said:

I have seen this point raised a few times.

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in my region, I have worked with and/or donated to 4 different privately funded non-profit organizations along these lines.  Two of them are women's shelters and two are foster care/adoption organizations that work through churches.  They are Cherish Kids, Backyard Orphans, COPE & Harmony House.

In Southwest Missouri (a very conservative region), there are thousands of people who care for and work to help these women and children.

Click to expand...

Good work, Jayrod.  We don't agree on a lot of stuff, but at least your actions are consistent with your beliefs.

A fetus is obviously part of a woman’s body.  It is literally attached to it by an umbilical cord.   

I read a pro-choice argument today that really bothered me.  Curious to know if I'm way off base here, or if this bothers other people as well.

The argument stated that forcing a young woman (and possibly man) to have a baby they aren't ready for isn't doing that child any favors.

My opinion is that, yes, giving that child life is indeed a favor.  Refusing that child any ability to do anything is not doing it any favors.  I understand what they are getting at, but still, I think it is an awful way to approach the subject.

I believe this is a horrible precedent to set and makes the projected quality of life a qualifying factor in the right to life.  I can empathize with many of the pro-choice arguments, but this one actually makes me a little bit angry about the flippant-ness with which some people approach this issue.

Jayrod said:

I read a pro-choice argument today that really bothered me.  Curious to know if I'm way off base here, or if this bothers other people as well.

The argument stated that forcing a young woman (and possibly man) to have a baby they aren't ready for isn't doing that child any favors.

My opinion is that, yes, giving that child life is indeed a favor.  Refusing that child any ability to do anything is not doing it any favors.  I understand what they are getting at, but still, I think it is an awful way to approach the subject.

I believe this is a horrible precedent to set and makes the projected quality of life a qualifying factor in the right to life.  I can empathize with many of the pro-choice arguments, but this one actually makes me a little bit angry about the flippant-ness with which some people approach this issue.

Click to expand...

Yes, you’re way off base here.  

Jayrod said:

I read a pro-choice argument today that really bothered me.  Curious to know if I'm way off base here, or if this bothers other people as well.

The argument stated that forcing a young woman (and possibly man) to have a baby they aren't ready for isn't doing that child any favors.

My opinion is that, yes, giving that child life is indeed a favor.  Refusing that child any ability to do anything is not doing it any favors.  I understand what they are getting at, but still, I think it is an awful way to approach the subject.

I believe this is a horrible precedent to set and makes the projected quality of life a qualifying factor in the right to life.  I can empathize with many of the pro-choice arguments, but this one actually makes me a little bit angry about the flippant-ness with which some people approach this issue.

Click to expand...

I think you are way off base because the phrase "isn't doing [insert subject] any favors" is a figure of speech. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's saying that the solution results in a bad situation. 

Granted, it's okay to say the bad situation is better than not living, but given the high rate of suicide of kids with deadbeat parents, that's not a given. 

Jayrod said:

I read a pro-choice argument today that really bothered me.  Curious to know if I'm way off base here, or if this bothers other people as well.

The argument stated that forcing a young woman (and possibly man) to have a baby they aren't ready for isn't doing that child any favors.

My opinion is that, yes, giving that child life is indeed a favor.  Refusing that child any ability to do anything is not doing it any favors.  I understand what they are getting at, but still, I think it is an awful way to approach the subject.

I believe this is a horrible precedent to set and makes the projected quality of life a qualifying factor in the right to life.  I can empathize with many of the pro-choice arguments, but this one actually makes me a little bit angry about the flippant-ness with which some people approach this issue.

Click to expand...

I wasn't going to bring this up yet again but your post has prompted me to.

I still find the whole abortion debate to be backwards from what I would expect on a logical level.  My understanding of the position of most religious people who believe abortion is wrong as it pertains to the death of the fetus/baby is that this "person" will be aborted and go to heaven or the afterlife of their choosing.  I've never heard any of them say the baby goes to hell.  One of the main goals of a Christian is to get others to be Christians and to go to heaven.  So, if aborted babies go to heaven at 100% clip then isn't that a good result from a bad thing?  On the flip side - if you are atheist and don't believe in the after life then this life we have is all we get - there's nothing else.  In that case I would think that should be sacred to people because once you abort that "person" there's nothing left for them - it's over.  Granted you still get the idea or argument of when the fetus is viable but in general I've always thoughts the logic was kind of backwards.

I'm sure I'm thinking about this wrong so please correct me.

AAABatteries said:

I wasn't going to bring this up yet again but your post has prompted me to.

I still find the whole abortion debate to be backwards from what I would expect on a logical level.  My understanding of the position of most religious people who believe abortion is wrong as it pertains to the death of the fetus/baby is that this "person" will be aborted and go to heaven or the afterlife of their choosing.  I've never heard any of them say the baby goes to hell.  One of the main goals of a Christian is to get others to be Christians and to go to heaven.  So, if aborted babies go to heaven at 100% clip then isn't that a good result from a bad thing?  On the flip side - if you are atheist and don't believe in the after life then this life we have is all we get - there's nothing else.  In that case I would think that should be sacred to people because once you abort that "person" there's nothing left for them - it's over.  Granted you still get the idea or argument of when the fetus is viable but in general I've always thoughts the logic was kind of backwards.

I'm sure I'm thinking about this wrong so please correct me.

Click to expand...

I’ve always thought atheists have more to live for sans afterlife, so it makes sense to extend that to the unborn baby. But it’s hard to imagine them losing much if they haven’t achieved sentience.

On the flip side, I don’t understand why every believer doesn’t want to die young. Same goes for their loved ones.

Politician Spock said:

I think you are way off base because the phrase "isn't doing [insert subject] any favors" is a figure of speech. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's saying that the solution results in a bad situation. 

Granted, it's okay to say the bad situation is better than not living, but given the high rate of suicide of kids with deadbeat parents, that's not a given. 

Click to expand...

The suicide rate in the US is 0.014%.  Even if this demographic is ten times more likely to commit suicide (unlikely), you are looking at 0.14%.  That is a pretty low percentage to try and justify abortion.

I believe this same argument has been used against the elderly and even against certain races of people.  I'll say it again; I don't believe quality of life is not a qualifier for right to life.

AAABatteries said:

I wasn't going to bring this up yet again but your post has prompted me to.

I still find the whole abortion debate to be backwards from what I would expect on a logical level.  My understanding of the position of most religious people who believe abortion is wrong as it pertains to the death of the fetus/baby is that this "person" will be aborted and go to heaven or the afterlife of their choosing.  I've never heard any of them say the baby goes to hell.  One of the main goals of a Christian is to get others to be Christians and to go to heaven.  So, if aborted babies go to heaven at 100% clip then isn't that a good result from a bad thing?  On the flip side - if you are atheist and don't believe in the after life then this life we have is all we get - there's nothing else.  In that case I would think that should be sacred to people because once you abort that "person" there's nothing left for them - it's over.  Granted you still get the idea or argument of when the fetus is viable but in general I've always thoughts the logic was kind of backwards.

I'm sure I'm thinking about this wrong so please correct me.

Click to expand...

For a Christian, the argument is primarily around the killing of the innocent, or murder.  It is a 10 commandment issue.  Yes, we believe the baby is instantly with God in heaven, but it doesn't absolve the experience it likely went through in it's death or the life and experience it was never allowed.  Heaven will be great for all, but it won't be the same for all.  There is certain things to be gained from living a full life on earth prior to entering into eternal rest.

Terminalxylem said:

I’ve always thought atheists have more to live for sans afterlife, so it makes sense to extend that to the unborn baby. But it’s hard to imagine them losing much if they haven’t achieved sentience.

On the flip side, I don’t understand why every believer doesn’t want to die young.

Click to expand...

"To live is Christ, to die is gain."  -Paul the Apostle

This is basically the slogan regarding this very issue.  Yes, death will be sweet, but there is a mission to be accomplished for every person on earth and we don't ever want to short change that.  We are hear to be a salt and light to the earth, preserving it until the day of Christ's return.  If all the believers go early, there will soon be no more believers.

Jayrod said:

I read a pro-choice argument today that really bothered me.  Curious to know if I'm way off base here, or if this bothers other people as well.

The argument stated that forcing a young woman (and possibly man) to have a baby they aren't ready for isn't doing that child any favors.

My opinion is that, yes, giving that child life is indeed a favor.  Refusing that child any ability to do anything is not doing it any favors.  I understand what they are getting at, but still, I think it is an awful way to approach the subject.

I believe this is a horrible precedent to set and makes the projected quality of life a qualifying factor in the right to life.  I can empathize with many of the pro-choice arguments, but this one actually makes me a little bit angry about the flippant-ness with which some people approach this issue.

Click to expand...

You're not off base.  As soon as you start to get into arguments along the lines of "This group of people has so many social disadvantages that they would be better off not being born," it's not too hard to see how that can go off the rails pretty quickly.

Jayrod said:

I read a pro-choice argument today that really bothered me.  Curious to know if I'm way off base here, or if this bothers other people as well.

The argument stated that forcing a young woman (and possibly man) to have a baby they aren't ready for isn't doing that child any favors.

My opinion is that, yes, giving that child life is indeed a favor.  Refusing that child any ability to do anything is not doing it any favors.  I understand what they are getting at, but still, I think it is an awful way to approach the subject.

I believe this is a horrible precedent to set and makes the projected quality of life a qualifying factor in the right to life.  I can empathize with many of the pro-choice arguments, but this one actually makes me a little bit angry about the flippant-ness with which some people approach this issue.

Click to expand...

First, you're calling it a child before it's really a child.  Second, yeah, why not let god put that baby spirit into to an embryo when they are ready, responsible and can afford a child so that family isn't a burden on the rest of society.

tonydead said:

First, you're calling it a child before it's really a child.  Second, yeah, why not let god put that baby spirit into to an embryo when they are ready, responsible and can afford a child so that family isn't a burden on the rest of society.

Click to expand...

One could argue illegal immigrants are a burden on society.  Is that where you want to put the bar? 

jon_mx said:

One could argue illegal immigrants are a burden on society.  Is that where you want to put the bar? 

Click to expand...

So are many citizens.

jon_mx said:

One could argue illegal immigrants are a burden on society.  Is that where you want to put the bar? 

Click to expand...

Yes. They are a burden too. Build the wall already. 

Jayrod said:

Politician Spock said:

I think you are way off base because the phrase "isn't doing [insert subject] any favors" is a figure of speech. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's saying that the solution results in a bad situation. 

Granted, it's okay to say the bad situation is better than not living, but given the high rate of suicide of kids with deadbeat parents, that's not a given. 

Click to expand...

The suicide rate in the US is 0.014%.  Even if this demographic is ten times more likely to commit suicide (unlikely), you are looking at 0.14%.  That is a pretty low percentage to try and justify abortion.

I believe this same argument has been used against the elderly and even against certain races of people.  I'll say it again; I don't believe quality of life is not a qualifier for right to life.

Click to expand...

I'm not using suicide rates to justify abortion. I'm using suicide rates to show that the pro-life solution (abortion should be illegal) results in a bad situation. It may be the better solution, but too many pro-lifers fail to recognize the negative issues with their solution, and even worse, refuse to support the social services that would be needed by the lives they believe they are saving.

Perhaps if we labeled social services "favors" that these saved lives need, it would make more sense. 

Politician Spock said:

I'm not using suicide rates to justify abortion. I'm using suicide rates to show that the pro-life solution (abortion should be illegal) results in a bad situation. It may be the better solution, but too many pro-lifers fail to recognize the negative issues with their solution, and even worse, refuse to support the social services that would be needed by the lives they believe they are saving.

Perhaps if we labeled social services "favors" that these saved lives need, it would make more sense. 

Click to expand...

Yes, babies that would have been aborted are likely to have life disadvantages.  Life disadvantages are better than no life.  For the collective lives being saved its an easy answer.  We'll kill you now because you might be unhappy and kill yourself later is not compelling.

djmich said:

Yes, babies that would have been aborted are likely to have life disadvantages.  Life disadvantages are better than no life.  For the collective lives being saved its an easy answer.  We'll kill you now because you might be unhappy and kill yourself later is not compelling.

Click to expand...

Then pro-lifers need to support social services for them. Most don't. 

This is the most complex argument I think that exists today.  There is no absolute right or wrong in my view.

You look at things that were acceptable decades ago or hundreds of years ago today and you say "my god" humans were, and still are, disgusting.  Slavery, genocide of indigenous people, persecution of LGBT., etc, etc  We have become more "progressive".  Killing of animals for food is on its way out.  Us animal eaters will not be looked upon kindly by our 2200 counterparts.  I do believe that abortion is the one argument that "progressives" are on the wrong side of when future generations look back and judge.  We are accepting of killing living beings as a life choice. 

That being said, I'm a creature of today and not a few centuries from now.  I understand that the impact of an unwanted pregnancy is enormous on the mother, the father (whos rights seem to be completely irrelevant in this discussion, which I can't reconcile but thats a different debate), the state and on the child itself.

I frankly don't care about a womans or a mans choice when it comes to making a life or death decision on behalf of another person.  And the idea that you are "a drag on society" is not an acceptable reason for execution.  The fact that you're attached to me and/or dependent upon me is not an acceptable reason for execution.

I am accepting of "a date" by which abortion can be performed.  A date at which "being" is established.  I don't know exactly what that date is, just haven't evaluated it, but this is entirely where the argument should focus in my mind.  Arguing that upon conception it is life and must be protected I think is the right answer in a vacuum but based on all of the other mitigating circumstances is not tenable to me, in todays world.  Arguing that its my choice to terminate an 8 month old baby is not tenable to me in any circumstance.  The date I would choose would be too late for the hardcore pro-choicers and too early for the hardcore pro-lifers.  It will probably be a date that future generations are aghast is acceptable to me.  I hope by then they have a means to get to a better answer than I do today.

Politician Spock said:

Then pro-lifers need to support social services for them. Most don't. 

Click to expand...

Way too much of a generalization, which also seems to have driven by broader political bias, to respond to.

djmich said:

Way too much of a generalization, which also seems to have driven by broader political bias, to respond to.

Click to expand...

I could post data on how many pro-life politicians fail to support social service. But honestly if you need to see that, then life experience has taught me you're not someone I would want to discuss this with. 

The terrorists have won. :(

Politician Spock said:

I could post data on how many pro-life politicians fail to support social service. But honestly if you need to see that, then life experience has taught me you're not someone I would want to discuss this with. 

Click to expand...

Social services are not the only way to support lives.  I posted this earlier in the thread.  The conservative/pro-life people are vastly supportive of non-profits like these and limiting your comments to social services is simply ignorant at best.  We do care about these people and provide a myriad of services for them...far beyond funding the extremely ineffective and inefficient governmental social services.

Jayrod said:

Social services are not the only way to support lives.  I posted this earlier in the thread.  The conservative/pro-life people are vastly supportive of non-profits like these and limiting your comments to social services is simply ignorant at best.  We do care about these people and provide a myriad of services for them...far beyond funding the extremely ineffective and inefficient governmental social services.

Click to expand...

I was a devout evangelical christian for 30+ years of my life. Participated in small groups and volunteer opportunities. And in my experience getting people in church to help the poor in our own city.was like pulling teeth. But make some week long missionary trip to a foreign country available and they'll line up with their checkbooks out.