Law Requires Ultrasound Before Abortion

DeafCaroline said:
And at what point is an embryo no longer considered an embryo but a human?
Click to expand...

Only when they feel like it, apparently. Otherwise it is the last lady standing in a good ole free-for-all who is right. :giggle:
 
KarissaMann05 said:
Does it have head, limbs, fingers, and toes as a human being? Hence 23 chromosomes is not a human being. Of course, you'll say arms are or heart is 46, which is undeniably correct. Again, I discuss about a whole human at any stage of the human development... Which arms or heart don't have head, legs, or arms...
Click to expand...

A sequence of DNA isn't human, either. If I extract a strand of DNA and store it in a test tube, I haven't made a clone of myself, and there's not a trapped "uncloned but still fully human human being" in the test tube.

The real question, to me, is neural activity, since that's where the personality and basically everything identifiable to an individual's identity comes from. That's why identical twins (who have the same DNA) or two cloned humans (who also have the same DNA) or you and me (who don't have the same DNA) are still unique individuals. And an 8-week old fetus doesn't have any neural activity, let alone non-random detectable activity which could at least possibly be indicative of some precursor process to "consciousness" or "experience" or "thoughts".
 
Daredevel7 said:
A person who has no arms and legs is not a human being.....?

:)
Click to expand...

Are you referred to born persons, right? If in a case, then yes, he or she is a person. I never said born persons can't be humans or persons just because no limbs or something. I said no such thing. When they, sperm and egg, met, it'll create an another human being, new one. Netrox already mentioned; Life begins at conception. That is how it works.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
Are you referred to born persons, right? If in a case, then yes, he or she is a person. I never said born persons can't be humans or persons just because no limbs or something. I said no such thing. When they, sperm and egg, met, it'll create an another human being, new one. Netrox already mentioned; Life begins at conception. That is how it works.
Click to expand...

According to what definition of "life"?
 
KarissaMann05 said:
Are you referred to born persons, right? If in a case, then yes, he or she is a person. I never said born persons can't be humans or persons just because no limbs or something. I said no such thing. When they, sperm and egg, met, it'll create an another human being, new one. Netrox already mentioned; Life begins at conception. That is how it works.
Click to expand...

Ummm, sperm is life, is it not?
 
StSapphire said:
I gotcha. My claim wasn't quite that they don't look like human beings at all. I was saying that I don't think they look distinctly like humans, compared to other animals at similar developmental stages. If you showed me that image, without any context at all, I could easily be convinced that I was actually looking at a prenatal monkey, mouse, etc. (Of course, without context, I could have just as easily be convinced that it was an extremely disgusting chunk of snot that someone thought looked like a person, like those people who see Mary in pieces of toast.)
Click to expand...

For clarification, I don't consider a developing fetus to be even worth consideration as an individual, at the specific moment, until nonrandom neural activity can be measured. (And for those playing the "twist my words to mean something other than what I meant" game, this doesn't mean that I think there should be no punishment for, say, harming someone and causing a miscarriage of a wanted pregnancy. I would view that as similar to, say, smashing a support pillar of a building which has laid the foundation and started putting up support pillars - it's not the same as demolishing someone's fully built house, but if they're intentionally building it, then destroying what's already been built while it's done in the middle is still reprehensible.)
Click to expand...

A sequence of DNA isn't human, either. If I extract a strand of DNA and store it in a test tube, I haven't made a clone of myself, and there's not a trapped "uncloned but still fully human human being" in the test tube.

The real question, to me, is neural activity, since that's where the personality and basically everything identifiable to an individual's identity comes from. That's why identical twins (who have the same DNA) or two cloned humans (who also have the same DNA) or you and me (who don't have the same DNA) are still unique individuals. And an 8-week old fetus doesn't have any neural activity, let alone non-random detectable activity which could at least possibly be indicative of some precursor process to "consciousness" or "experience" or "thoughts".
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough; it seems it is enough for now. I already showed few stuff from netural websites several times and her photo, too. But I'll think we'll disagree to agree. But I don't understand why you really think I punish her?? I don't agree it is punishment for women who lost their miscarriages. Why do you think I would support that? :confused:
 
Beowulf said:
Ummm, sperm is life, is it not?
Click to expand...

No. Neither is an egg, all by its lonesome.

The union of sperm and egg creates life when it implants into the uterus.

I'm not saying abortions should be always wrong because of that, but I don't see how you can deny that life exists at that point. Cells are dividing, the embryo/fetus is growing. Assuming there is nothing physically to prevent that, nine months later you've got a baby.

However, just as the law provides for certain justifiable reasons for killing, including self-defense, personally I've got no problem with abortion being totally legal up until the fetus would be viable. After that, to me it's much harder to justify, but still could be justifiable in some situations.

Is there anyone here who unequivocally supports the right to an abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy? Up to and including, say, the day before the baby would normally be born, no questions asked?
 
KarissaMann05 said:
Okay, fair enough; it seems it is enough for now. I already showed few stuff from netural websites several times and her photo, too. But I'll think we'll disagree to agree. But I don't understand why you really think I punish her?? I don't agree it is punishment for women who lost their miscarriages. Why do you think I would support that? :confused:
Click to expand...

Sorry if I missed the other stuff, the only link I saw you post was to a pro-life website, and the picture you posted, which... I'm honestly not certain how either of those supported your opinion (which from the first page or so, seems to be that abortions are immoral/bad), but okay? I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but I honestly can't even say that I know what your argument in favor of your position is.

However, I don't think that you specifically (or Reba, or anyone else in particular here) wants to punish women for having sex. I only mentioned that I know many religious people whose religious views do include wanting to punish women for being sexually active by restricting access to abortions. I also don't think I said anything about miscarriages and punishments, so if it appeared that I did, then I'm sorry for being unclear.

Feel free to ask me any other questions you'd like to either clarify your own position or to clarify my position.
 
If it's not fertilized, yes, it becomes dead matter. An egg gets dissolved once a month, normally. No one weeps for that.

DURING that, maybe, but not FOR that. The women here will know what I mean!
 
Beach girl said:
If it's not fertilized, yes, it becomes dead matter. An egg gets dissolved once a month, normally. No one weeps for that.

DURING that, maybe, but not FOR that. The women here will know what I mean!
Click to expand...

An embryo is not always brought to term. No one should weep over that, either.
 
Beowulf said:
An embryo is not always brought to term. No one should weep over that, either.
Click to expand...

I hope that's just awkward wording on your part. I have known many women who wept, indeed, when their embryos were not brought to term, because they dearly wanted their babies.

Even when women have abortions, they will, sometimes, weep over what might have been. It's not such an emotionless decision as you may think, every time.
 
Beach girl said:
The union of sperm and egg creates life when it implants into the uterus.
Click to expand...

Again, according to what definition of life? Prenatal development cannot perform homeostasis and generally has no response to stimuli.

Beach girl said:
I'm not saying abortions should be always wrong because of that, but I don't see how you can deny that life exists at that point. Cells are dividing, the embryo/fetus is growing. Assuming there is nothing physically to prevent that, nine months later you've got a baby.
Click to expand...

That's making massive amounts of assumptions, such as "the embryo/fetus is implanted into a uterus", "the body of the uterus is being maintained by a healthy adult human being" and any number of other things. A fetus isn't a self-contained miracle-grow plant, it requires significant amounts of outside (outside of the embryo and/or fetus) aid/input to fully develop.

Beach girl said:
However, just as the law provides for certain justifiable reasons for killing, including self-defense, personally I've got no problem with abortion being totally legal up until the fetus would be viable. After that, to me it's much harder to justify, but still could be justifiable in some situations.

Is there anyone here who unequivocally supports the right to an abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy? Up to and including, say, the day before the baby would normally be born, no questions asked?
Click to expand...

I'm iffy beyond both the points of viability and the point at which nonrandom neural activity can be measured. That's an ethically grey area, but I wouldn't favor a law outright banning it after either of those points simply because the law is an extremely blunt object and doesn't allow for individual consideration.
 
Beach girl said:
I hope that's just awkward wording on your part. I have known many women who wept, indeed, when their embryos were not brought to term, because they dearly wanted their babies.

Even when women have abortions, they will, sometimes, weep over what might have been. It's not such an emotionless decision as you may think, every time.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I offended anyone. I could never understand those feelings without experiencing them, which is impossible for me to do since I'm a guy.
 
StSapphire said:
Sorry if I missed the other stuff, the only link I saw you post was to a pro-life website, and the picture you posted, which... I'm honestly not certain how either of those supported your opinion (which from the first page or so, seems to be that abortions are immoral/bad), but okay? I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but I honestly can't even say that I know what your argument in favor of your position is.

However, I don't think that you specifically (or Reba, or anyone else in particular here) wants to punish women for having sex. I only mentioned that I know many religious people whose religious views do include wanting to punish women for being sexually active by restricting access to abortions. I also don't think I said anything about miscarriages and punishments, so if it appeared that I did, then I'm sorry for being unclear.

Feel free to ask me any other questions you'd like to either clarify your own position or to clarify my position.
Click to expand...

Ah, don't worry. I now understood. :ty: for clarity.

Yes, I well aware that Jill's blog is a pro-life that I read hers sometimes. Some blogs have actual photos in there. They're pretty similar to a few of my old friends' pictures of their miscarrages. Same with youtube, through YT is overwhelmingly pro-choice and a several websites (EHD for one explain). So I just came to that and picked that photo. I'm sorry if you feel uneasy when you see the pro-life blogs. It is not my intention to show you a blog, my intention is show you a picture.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
Ah, don't worry. I now understood. :ty: for clarity.

Yes, I well aware that Jill's blog is a pro-life that I read hers sometimes. Some blogs have actual photos in there. They're pretty similar to a few of my old friends' pictures of their miscarrages. Same with youtube, through YT is overwhelmingly pro-choice and a several websites (EHD for one explain). So I just came to that and picked that photo. I'm sorry if you feel uneasy when you see the pro-life blogs. It is not my intention to show you a blog, my intention is show you a picture.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm not uneasy reading pro-life blogs. I like to read many blogs and articles by people who I disagree with very strongly, both so I can find out if there is any new information to support the other side that I've not considered which might change my mind on a subject, and so that when I'm discussing a subject with others, I'm able to have thought about points that they're likely to make already, and be able to respond without standing around saying "Durr... uh... I dunno..." and then half an hour later (after the conversation's done) think and realize "Oh, duh, that's why you're wrong, I knew something seemed off!"

I only mentioned that blog being pro-life because I wasn't sure if I missed any other links from you, or if that was the only one in this thread.
 
Banjo said:
I'm sorry, but the government shouldn't be forcing moral values upon the people.
Click to expand...

Oh? Morality is against the law? Everything that is good and right is against the law? I guess that means we should dissolve the Government, Courts & Police.

Let America be a lawless land and anything goes.....

Yiz
 
StSapphire said:
Nah, I'm not uneasy reading pro-life blogs. I like to read many blogs and articles by people who I disagree with very strongly, both so I can find out if there is any new information to support the other side that I've not considered which might change my mind on a subject, and so that when I'm discussing a subject with others, I'm able to have thought about points that they're likely to make already, and be able to respond without standing around saying "Durr... uh... I dunno..." and then half an hour later (after the conversation's done) think and realize "Oh, duh, that's why you're wrong, I knew something seemed off!"

I only mentioned that blog being pro-life because I wasn't sure if I missed any other links from you, or if that was the only one in this thread.
Click to expand...

Ah, heh. Good to know. I'm glad we are clear now. :)
 
yizuman said:
Oh? Morality is against the law? Everything that is good and right is against the law? I guess that means we should dissolve the Government, Courts & Police.

Let America be a lawless land and anything goes.....

Yiz
Click to expand...

Can't fault you on that one.

"The government should not be forcing moral values on people" always seems like such an odd argument. I bet even people who make that argument are all in favor of enforcing moral values regarding theft, murder (of those who are born, leaving out the abortion debate), safety requirements for food, lots of other things that come down to "moral values."

Seems like really they want to say "The government should not force moral values I don't agree with" but that is far from being the same thing as not "forcing moral values" at all.
 
Back
Top