Abortion - Is it really the womans right to choose?

[2NaFish]

then what is the non-emotive, scientific reasonoing that supports he/she not being a human? educate me oh great chicken of the sea

read what i wrote please. i never said it was not a human. i said that it is an emotive, unscientific answer. It says, "it looks like what i consider to be a human form, therefore its human."

a scientific answer would be that it lacks central nervous system and functioning organs, but thats not the point. The point is, if you are going to try and answer a difficult question you can't purely rely on what you feel.

[LostInTheGarden]

by that logic someone who's nervous system is damaged or whose organs go into failure is no longer human 

and of course you can't rely solely on your emotions to make all your big decisions, especially if those emotions are strong enough to overwhelm you and thereby cause you to fuck up and do something stupid. by the same token not everything is as simple as a cut and dry scientific answer either. if your gf or wife were pregnant and trying to decide wether to keep it or not, I'm sure you wouldn't say "well it's not a person so i dont care either way". you'd tell her ho you FEEL and ask how she FEELS and take into consideration those FEELINGS as well as financial situations and compatibility... etc. it kinda seems there's no point in continuing this conversation because I know you've completely lost the point I was trying to make initially which wasn't really even about wether abortion is right or wrong it was about your sense of superiority and how you support your claims. And you dont really seem to have a point at all other than getting the last word in, so go ahead and feel free to do so

[2NaFish]

I know you've completely lost the point I was trying to make initially which wasn't really even about wether abortion is right or wrong it was about your sense of superiority and how you support your claims. And you dont really seem to have a point at all other than getting the last word in, so go ahead and feel free to do so

and what chance does that give me of explaining myself then? grow up.

[Bonnie]

In most cases a fetus is not considered a person until approximately 10 weeks  when it "outgrows" (for lack of a better word) the embryonic stage, according to some US Laws a fetus is not even a person until the fetus has been born and taken a breath.  Whether or not the fetus feels pain prior to that 10 weeks is still up for scientific debate and also why most doctors (at least here) are reluctant to perform and abortion past the first trimester without it being considered a medical emergency.

However if we are discussing something past abortion for example the murder of the mother while the fetus is in utero, it does not matter what developmental stage the fetus is in... the fetus enjoys the same protections as the mother under the law in terms of being murdered... it's a very gray subject.

[LostInTheGarden]

However if we are discussing something past abortion for example the murder of the mother while the fetus is in utero, it does not matter what developmental stage the fetus is in... the fetus enjoys the same protections as the mother under the law in terms of being murdered... it's a very gray subject.

wow, you know what, I remember knowing this now it hadn't occured to me until you said it. why do you think this is bonnie? personally I think one aspect to consider is that nobody makes any money off of a mother being murdered, so "they" decided to go ahead and rightly call the fetus a person and give it rights. I simply do not understand how this differs at all, if the mother kills her child it's not murder, if a stranger kills the same child then it is. I'm sure if you don't know why this is 2na can explain why there is no Irony here, and how this is scientifically proper.

[2NaFish]

i don't know that irony is the word i'd use, but its certainly not wrong to say there is a sense of irony. irony does not play a part in morality and legality, these being the headings that this scenario is under; science plays no role.

morally speaking, should a mother decide to abort her foetus then she has made a decision destroy something that isnt human. It is hers to do with as she pleases. The difference with someone killing the mother and the foetus dieing too is that the murdered has taken the decision out of the mother's hands and denied the mother's wish to eventually have a child. A fairly subtle distinction.

legally speaking, this could be either for the moral reason or it could also be a sense of retribution that is brought out through the intuitive human belief that this is a child being killed and a desire to therefore see 'natural' justice done. morality and legality are not necessarily the same thing and in this case there is a possibility that legality deviate.

[Bonnie]

I'm not sure completely how to explain it because as I said its a gray area of law mostly for the reason that it brings up the same question you asked, but if I am understanding it correctly, it becomes murder when another person violates the right of the parent to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy... or at least that's the interpretation of it I get... check out Fetal Homicide Laws... it's actually an interesting read... if only for the further debate it causes... each state specifies it's own legislation as to when it becomes murder however, some like Texas believe its at conception, others not until 24 weeks of gestation, others at 7-8 weeks

[LostInTheGarden]

but it's either a person... or it isn't. there shouldn't be a double standard just so the people who made the law can get "retribution" or ease their guilty consiences over allowing abortions to happen. basically, If a fetus is scientifically proven to not be a person (which i don't agree ith, but that's the reason that abortions are allowed to take place) then it shouldn't matter if the mother pays someone to kill him/her or if it's done by some lunatic with a steel toed boot to the mothers gut.  I see where you're going with said lunatic denying the mothers wish to eventually have a child. Eventually being the key word there, as by law it isn't a child. To anyone with half a brain, or half a buckets worth of common sense these two laws are highly contradictory. Of course I'd expect the standard "It's on paper so it's the way it should be" argument from ya at this point.

How can you say science doesn't play a role in this discussion? wether or not a fetus is a person is the issue in question. That has to be assumed as a yes if it's killer can be prosecuted for murder. on the other hand, If the mother pays someone to do it ,the answer is no. and herein lies the contradiction I was speaking of. Keep in mind, someone in the government gets money if an abortion is performed, and if someone gets sent to prison. I'm sure that played a factor in their decision making process. probably a rather large one.

[LostInTheGarden]

I'm not sure completely how to explain it because as I said its a gray area of law mostly for the reason that it brings up the same question you asked, but if I am understanding it correctly, it becomes murder when another person violates the right of the parent to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy... or at least that's the interpretation of it I get... check out Fetal Homicide Laws... it's actually an interesting read... if only for the further debate it causes... each state specifies it's own legislation as to when it becomes murder however, some like Texas believe its at conception, others not until 24 weeks of gestation, others at 7-8 weeks

taking away someone's decision making ability as a parent amounts to custodial interference. But that too would require a human child to be involved. and a 10 week old baby is not actually a *cough*human*cough*

[Bonnie]

ahhh but by law it is... which is ultimately what decides whether we are cretins or part of civilized society...

custodial interference is an interesting concept in itself... while in definition it speaks to  violating parental rights (this I know because we dealt with it in regards to my Mr's oldest child)... it does not cover the violation of rights... as set out by Roe vs Wade... which allows a parent the inalienable right to decide whether or not they choose to terminate a pregnancy or continue with it, within of course certain restrictions in regards to time frames of said termination...   

[LostInTheGarden]

right. im not trying to dispute what the laws say. I'm asserting that the laws themselves are contradictory and therefore flawed for existing.

you said "but by law it is" which is exactly my point. one law (the one about a 3rd party murderer) says it is a human, and another, contradictory law (the one that says a mother is allowed to pay someone else to murder her child) says it is not a person.

[Bonnie]

that is determined by individual States, some as I have read and mentioned follow the same definition of when a fetus ceases to be just an embryo and becomes a person as they would for the decisions set out by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade or as close to it as they can...

it's definitely a flawed system, but one can't expect it not to flawed when we are by nature flawed

[2NaFish]

but it's either a person... or it isn't. there shouldn't be a double standard just so the people who made the law can get "retribution" or ease their guilty consiences over allowing abortions to happen.

you seem to under the impression that all laws are perfect. they're not. furthermore, i didnt actually make the law, so why you're questioning me as though i have anything to do with the situation is absurd.

science doesnt play a role in the comparison of the two scenarios. within each scenario it plays a part, but placed up against eachother it doesnt matter as it stands the same in both cases.

[LostInTheGarden]

you seem to under the impression that all laws are perfect. they're not. furthermore, i didnt actually make the law, so why you're questioning me as though i have anything to do with the situation is absurd.

no. I was thinking that must have been the impression that you are under, as you are the one who uses the laws to support your theory. The law says that a fetus is not a person, therefore abortion can be legal. you take it as fact and adopt it as your own belief. I'm definitely not of the belief that laws are perfect, far from it. if you look at the post i made before yours I state this more than clearly by saying "the laws themselves are contradictory and therefore flawed". but you must not have read my post before simply rambling on making the same statements you've been making all along. they are highly unconvincing. what you need to do, if you want to win this debate i suppose, is use your next post to clearly state your opinion on the issue, and clearly offer your reasons for believing that opinion to be correct. for all your rambling, this is one thing you have yet to do