USSC, Partial Birth Abortion

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I will continue to believe a person starts when the egg is completely fertilized by the sperm.

Embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent.

What do you propose we should do to save all those human beings? Lives lost to abortion are nothing, number wise, compared to that. 60%!
[/quote]

Does that mean we should allow the murder of fully formed unborn babies mere days or weeks before their due date?

People die of many causes everyday. That does not mean we should legalize murder.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Does that mean we should allow the murder of fully formed unborn babies mere days or weeks before their due date?[/quote]

But we’re not talking about fully formed babies here, but of embryos, zygotes and blastocysts.

According to some people’s determination, all these are complete human beings and should enjoy all the rights and privileges of one.

Example: A fire declares itself in a fertility clinic. A fireman, present on the scene must evacuate immediately because the roof is collapsing. Before him, he sees a baby in a carseat (with handle for easy transport) and a box containing a dozen frozen embryos. Unfortunately, he can only carry one or the other. Which one should he take?

If embryos are human beings in the same way the baby is, then the fireman should save the 12 frozen embryos and leave the baby. Better to save 12 and lose 1 than the other way around, right?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

To what extent can we consider a ruling that dictates to murderers what procedures they can and cannot do, as “keeping the federal government off your back”?[/quote]

Unless you’re just playing devil’s advocate this is begging the question.

I find it terribly ironic that the pro-life crowd is almost always the pro-war crowd as well, at least they are so far here at T-Nation. Pot…kettle… anyone?

It’s also pretty damn absurd that the debate became framed in terms of ‘pro-choice’ vs. ‘pro-life’, who came up with that bullshit anyway? As if it were that simple.

So, let’s say you are ‘pro-life’, does that include supporting the unborn baby AND the mother after the baby is born? a mother that has to get an abortion so late into her pregnancy, outside of a medical emergency, would only ever be doing that if she literally could not support the child at all. So what, it gets put up for adoption? abandoned in a trash can? or otherwise forgotten? how far does your noble and moral ‘pro-life’ stance REALLY go?

Choice is the ONLY acceptable answer in a free society. That is undeniable, we established this nation to allow people to choose, and if you don’t like that, you can leave.

But here’s the catch. In a free society, you are free to choose whatever you want, but that does not excuse you from the consequences of your choices.

So, what is the consequence of a partial-birth abortion, or even a late-term abortion? that depends on the infraction, and your sense of justice

Is it murder? does that mean we establish a life-sentence or the death penalty for it? Where do either of these fit in with someone who is “pro-life”, why is it okay to ruin or end a life that broke the law?

These terms are retarded, no one really cares outside of political leverage and reactionary bullshit.

Besides, everyone knows that life doesn’t begin till you’re 9 years old.

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I will continue to believe a person starts when the egg is completely fertilized by the sperm.

Embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent.

What do you propose we should do to save all those human beings? Lives lost to abortion are nothing, number wise, compared to that. 60%!
[/quote]

A) That doesn’t mean it was or wasn’t a human being.
B) I am not worried about things we can’t control, only things we can.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Does that mean we should allow the murder of fully formed unborn babies mere days or weeks before their due date?

But we’re not talking about fully formed babies here, but of embryos, zygotes and blastocysts.

According to some people’s determination, all these are complete human beings and should enjoy all the rights and privileges of one.

Example: A fire declares itself in a fertility clinic. A fireman, present on the scene must evacuate immediately because the roof is collapsing. Before him, he sees a baby in a carseat (with handle for easy transport) and a box containing a dozen frozen embryos. Unfortunately, he can only carry one or the other. Which one should he take?

If embryos are human beings in the same way the baby is, then the fireman should save the 12 frozen embryos and leave the baby. Better to save 12 and lose 1 than the other way around, right?

[/quote]

I am against fertility clinics, too. They are person farms. Also the toss out fertilzed embyos like dog turds. In my opinion is a human or at least to close to take the risk of killing it.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
I am against fertility clinics, too. They are person farms. Also the toss out fertilzed embyos like dog turds. In my opinion is a human or at least to close to take the risk of killing it. [/quote]

I’m sure you are. But that wasn’t the question.

Who should the fireman save? The baby or the 12 embryos? It’s not a hard question.

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I am against fertility clinics, too. They are person farms. Also the toss out fertilzed embyos like dog turds. In my opinion is a human or at least to close to take the risk of killing it.

I’m sure you are. But that wasn’t the question.

Who should the fireman save? The baby or the 12 embryos? It’s not a hard question.
[/quote]

You save the baby first. It has the best chance at survival. Then save the embryos if there is time.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:

You can beleive in what religious superstition you want to believe in.

If you force other people do live as they were somehow special untill they can disprove your special version of Santa you are a 21th century taliban.

You are actually advocating that human people are put into cages because they disagree with your mystical BS.

I am sure you are very proud of yourself.

He believes an unborn child is still a human being and has a righ to live. You say that is “mystical BS”?

[/quote]

If it has to do with a " soul" that one receives at the moment of conception…

Well, yes…

Being a libertarian means that your personal believes mean shit.

I have my opinions concerning abortions but I am not willing to force other people to live by them.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Whoopie!!! Finally a step in the right direction. Yes, I am pro-life. That is the only reason, and I mean only reason any republican gets my vote. This is a great ruling in that finally the line between life and not-a-life is not defined by the moment of birth.

Inadvertently, given all the big news this week, this slid quietly under the radar. The pro-abortion folks should be afraid. Soon it will go the way of slavery.

And finally you will have organized violence, aka government, enforce your beliefs, opening thousands of ways other people can force you to obey their more or less irrational beliefs.

Bow to Baal Sir, and be glad that your dreams came true…

I believe abortion to be murder. I happen to think murder is a bad thing and should be illegal. Until some one manages to prove at what point life begins, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the fetus and fight for the rights of the unborn. If you don’t like it, you can kiss my ass.

You can beleive in what religious superstition you want to believe in.

If you force other people do live as they were somehow special untill they can disprove your special version of Santa you are a 21th century taliban.

You are actually advocating that human people are put into cages because they disagree with your mystical BS.

I am sure you are very proud of yourself.

Yes, I am quite proud of myself. I never mentioned religion or mystical anything. I merely want solid concrete proof that a fetus of any stage is not a human being.

Once proof is provided I will support any abortion prior to that point. Up until that point, I will continue to believe a person starts when the egg is completely fertilized by the sperm. Seems to me the most logical point.

Yes, anybody who wantingly and willingly commits murder should be jailed. If that is what you mean by “cages”.[/quote]

I believe in different things, and I believe for equally valid reasons.

I do not want you to be jailed for living your opinions yet you want people like me to be jailed for mine.

You think that this is going to fly?

Dream on.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
You save the baby first. It has the best chance at survival. Then save the embryos if there is time.
[/quote]

My “what-if” scenario guarantees that whoever you save will survive. The baby as a baby and the embryos will remain frozen embryos until implanted…

Why are you saving 1 human being when you could save 12?

Partial Birth Abortion is an immoral act, and I’m glad to see SOMEONE with a spine in D.C.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Besides, everyone knows that life doesn’t begin till you’re 9 years old.[/quote]

Thank you, Mr. Huntington.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
But here’s the catch. In a free society, you are free to choose whatever you want, but that does not excuse you from the consequences of your choices.
[/quote]

You are free to choose not to have sex. You are free to use contraception. You are free to use the morning-after pill. You are free to get a vasectomy, tubal ligation, castration, hysterectomy, whatever else. No one is telling you that you cannot have sex, that you cannot choose not to have a child, that you cannot be as promiscuous or as chaste as you want to be.

Once you create a child, you have introduced another interested party.

Trying to reduce the situation to “free choice” is just silly and intellectually dishonest.

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
You save the baby first. It has the best chance at survival. Then save the embryos if there is time.

My “what-if” scenario guarantees that whoever you save will survive. The baby as a baby and the embryos will remain frozen embryos until implanted…

Why are you saving 1 human being when you could save 12?
[/quote]

You can’t garauntee a thing like that because it denies the reality of what an embryo is.
A human embryo is a delicate thing and requires very exact circumstances to survive. As someone stated earlier 60% percent are lost even in perfect circumstances for a variety of reasons. You could save all twelve and yet not one survive anyway.

The baby has developed the faculties to survive a broad spectrum of circumstances. It’s need food, shelter and clothing. The embryos need a great deal more to even have a chance. You save the one with the greatest chance of survival. I’d save the baby over 12 90 year old people too.

[quote]orion wrote:

I believe in different things, and I believe for equally valid reasons.

I do not want you to be jailed for living your opinions yet you want people like me to be jailed for mine.

You think that this is going to fly?

Dream on.
[/quote]

I am not the thought police. You can have what evr opinion you want. It’s actions I am concerned with. Why do you care anyway. You live in Austria, you can have all the abortions you want despite our laws.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
But here’s the catch. In a free society, you are free to choose whatever you want, but that does not excuse you from the consequences of your choices.

You are free to choose not to have sex. You are free to use contraception. You are free to use the morning-after pill. You are free to get a vasectomy, tubal ligation, castration, hysterectomy, whatever else. No one is telling you that you cannot have sex, that you cannot choose not to have a child, that you cannot be as promiscuous or as chaste as you want to be.
[/quote]

You are free to pierce your nipples. You are free to shit on your neighbors lawn. You are free to piss on a church. You are free to listen to Yanni. You are free to like Yanni. You are even free to kill someone, even if it is someone you are growing inside of you.

What happens after you do any of those things… you are not free from. That is the limit of freedom. It is not in controlling people’s choices, it is in balancing their rights with the rights of others.

You are right, it is not a question of choice. That is all there is to it. Anything else is unamerican.

But no one ever said you can get away with abortion, if it is indeed murder(which after so many weeks, it might as well be).

I more or less support banning partial-birth abortions, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is still upto the woman with the baby to make the choice. She just has to be able to face the consequence of her choice as determined by the law.

Whether the law is just, is another discussion entirely.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Does that mean we should allow the murder of fully formed unborn babies mere days or weeks before their due date?

But we’re not talking about fully formed babies here, but of embryos, zygotes and blastocysts.


[/quote]

The topic is partial birth abortion. That the murder of third trimester fully formed human beings.

Also it does not matter how many babies are not carried to term. Everyone dies but that does not mean murder should be legal.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
I find it terribly ironic that the pro-life crowd is almost always the pro-war crowd as well, at least they are so far here at T-Nation. Pot…kettle… anyone?

[/quote]

What really amazes me is that the people the oppose the killing of terrorists are in favor of killing unborn babies.