Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Actually that is all the comfort a person should need Not really. If there's one reasonably intelligent person on the board who doesn't think that a 9 month old fetus is a person, then it's a matter of time before we have doctors who think that way. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
stopstaaron Posted March 20, 2012 Author Report Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Not really. If there's one reasonably intelligent person on the board who doesn't think that a 9 month old fetus is a person, then it's a matter of time before we have doctors who think that way. Doctors don't abort fetuses at 9 months.. unless shes in trouble of dying.. that is a fact.. therefore you don't need to change the laws to make it illegal Edited March 20, 2012 by stopstaaron Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
msj Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 That's a different issue. Whether or not there is a law in place doesn't speak to the morality or ethics of the issue. Morally, I'm okay with the law as it is. Such as ? I think it would be reasonable to place limits on abortion to a certain degree. I'm not opposed to that. I don't need to believe that a 36 week fetus is a "person" to buy into that argument. I don't even need to believe that a 36 week fetus is a cat, a dog, or some other kind of life form to buy into that. However, I think the law currently works fine so I don't see the point. I do think life starts at conception, however I don't think that terminating a fertilized egg is the same as ending the life of a nine month old fetus, nor would I be comfortable with anybody else ending that life. It doesn't matter to me if the person is in the womb of another person, it's not right and shouldn't be allowed. It makes as much sense to me as allowing people to make their own judgments about fertilized eggs that are only a few weeks old. Fair enough. I don't buy the "life begins at point X" argument. Life begins in the scrotum sack and men who buy viagra for casual sex purposes should be thrown in jail for spilling becomes the logical outcome of that thinking. Which all goes back to why I like the idea of there not being a law - people (really women) can figure it out for themselves when/why to terminate. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
msj Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Not really. If there's one reasonably intelligent person on the board who doesn't think that a 9 month old fetus is a person, then it's a matter of time before we have doctors who think that way. Are you talking about me? ARE YOU talking about ME? I'm not reasonably intelligent so you can't be talking about me. Could you? Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Doctors don't abort fetuses at 9 months.. unless shes in trouble of dying.. that is a fact.. therefore you don't need to change the laws to make it illegal That's a strange take on it. If nobody has broken the law yet, we don't need the law... I don't think that applies across the board. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Shady Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Doctors don't abort fetuses at 9 months.. unless shes in trouble of dying.. that is a fact How is that a fact? Are you denying a woman a so-called right to an abortion, even in the 9th month, when no law exists forbidding it? You monster! Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 I don't need to believe that a 36 week fetus is a "person" to buy into that argument. As long as the snip of an umbilical chord doesn't change this entity's rights, I guess we're on the same page. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 I'm not reasonably intelligent so you can't be talking about me. I'm sorry, maybe I was mistaken then. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
stopstaaron Posted March 20, 2012 Author Report Posted March 20, 2012 That's a strange take on it. I find your take on it stranger. Reminds me of the republicans view. Scary. Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Doctors don't abort fetuses at 9 months.. unless shes in trouble of dying.. that is a fact.. therefore you don't need to change the laws to make it illegal There are more ways to cause the death of a fetus, which in and of itself cannot be a crime in Canada because of the Magical Birth Canal. Sounds a lot crazier than a bill in Tennessee. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 I find your take on it stranger. Reminds me of the republicans view. Scary. You're afraid of Republicans? Strange... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Guest American Woman Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Doctors don't abort fetuses at 9 months.. unless shes in trouble of dying.. that is a fact.. therefore you don't need to change the laws to make it illegal Why would a doctor have to abort it at 9 months, even if she's in trouble of dying? A c-section would end the pregnancy just as effectively. Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 20, 2012 Author Report Posted March 20, 2012 You're afraid of Republicans? Strange... A lot of people are afraid of the republicans Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Why would a doctor have to abort it at 9 months, even if she's in trouble of dying? A c-section would end the pregnancy just as effectively. This perfectly distills and exposes the mindset of baby fetus killing on demand. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
stopstaaron Posted March 20, 2012 Author Report Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) This perfectly distills and exposes the mindset of baby fetus killing on demand. Its not fetus killing that I am in the mindset of. Its the "choice" I am in the mindset of. Edited March 20, 2012 by stopstaaron Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
Guest American Woman Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Its not fetus killing that I am in the mindset of. Its the "choice" I am in the mindset of. You won't find anyone more "pro choice" than I am - but I believe there has to be limits. In other words, it's not reasonable to abort at nine months. What would be the purpose? At that point it's no longer about "choice," as the choice has already been made to carry the pregnancy to a viable term. Edited March 20, 2012 by American Woman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Its not fetus killing that I am in the mindset of. Its the "choice" I am in the mindset of. No problem...I get it...the choice to kill babies no matter what mindset. Even if it has to be done in Kansas or Tennessee. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
stopstaaron Posted March 20, 2012 Author Report Posted March 20, 2012 You won't find anyone more "pro choice" than I am - but I believe there has to be limits. In other words, it's not reasonable to abort at nine months. What would be the purpose? At that point it's no longer about "choice," as the choice has already been made to carry the pregnancy to a viable term. In other words youre not as pro choice as you think you are Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
stopstaaron Posted March 20, 2012 Author Report Posted March 20, 2012 No problem...I get it...the choice to kill babies no matter what mindset. Even if it has to be done in Kansas or Tennessee. Right wingers want every fetus to live but after they are born they dont care about them until they are old enough to join the military.. then after that they dont care about you anymore Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Right wingers want every fetus to live but after they are born they dont care about them until they are old enough to join the military.. then after that they dont care about you anymore So that's a good reason to kill them? Give your head a shake (That's Canada speak, no matter how silly.) Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) In other words youre not as pro choice as you think you are I'm as pro choice as anyone needs. I don't believe any woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer my question, though, so I'll ask again - and if you don't answer again, it'll tell me all I need to know about your presence here. How does whether or not it's an abortion or a c-section, once the fetus has reached the point in the pregnancy that it is viable, affect that choice? Edited March 21, 2012 by American Woman Quote
msj Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 As long as the snip of an umbilical chord doesn't change this entity's rights, I guess we're on the same page. I can see where you're coming from but I just don't see all these women and doctors doing abortions at that point so I see framing the argument in this way to be pointless and meaningless (if not pushing the boundaries of strawpersonhood ). For me, legal rights do not depend on personhood - we extend certain legal rights to animals and animals clearly are not people. We extend legal rights to corporations and other legal entities even though they are clearly not people (contra Mitt Romney). So for me, to claim that I don't see a 36 week fetus as a person doesn't necessarily conflict with whether or not one ought not to abort it. I find the personhood argument to be BS. We can "protect" the "person" or the "non-person" at however many weeks our elected politicians decide based on whatever BS arguments they come up with. For me, I have no problem allowing women/doctors to determine what is best for them based on the current laws we have in Canada. It's not broke so don't fix it. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Author Report Posted March 21, 2012 So that's a good reason to kill them? Give your head a shake (That's Canada speak, no matter how silly.) Just explaining the right wing hypocrisy Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 ...How does whether or not it's an abortion or a c-section, once the fetus has reached the point in the pregnancy that it is viable, affect that choice? Let's just call that Choice on Steroids: The reasons for a third-trimester abortion: * In 40%, an earlier test indicated that a defect existed but not how serious it was. Doctors delayed and re-tested to see if the defect was serious enough to be life-threatening. Some genetic conditions can be mild or severe, so to prevent unnecessary abortions the doctors waited. * In 37%, an earlier test failed to find the serious defects that showed up later. * In 18%, a diagnosis for this kind of defect can’t be made until the third trimester. This often seems to include anencephaly, a fatal birth defect. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Just explaining the right wing hypocrisy No, you're only explaining your rational for killing viable fetuses up to 36 weeks. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.