North Dakota -- Gettin' Tough on Abortion!

[dies-l]

'Abortion' refers to any termination of pregnancy, whether intentional or not.

My goodness, you're feeling pedantic today!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My goodness, you're feeling pedantic today!

In any other context, the error in treating 'abortion' and 'miscarriage' as antonyms isn't worth bringing up, but his post was specifically asserting such a distinction. In the context of semantic pedantry, a pedantic response seems legitimate.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Not really my argument. No naturalistic fallacies here.

I simply take Christians at their word when they say God is in control of everything.

I just wish they'd be consistent and treat their deity like the ultimate abortionist he is

Christian don't say God is in control of everything, so I guess He is not the ultimate abortionist.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

'Abortion' refers to any termination of pregnancy, whether intentional or not.

In the cold medical sense, sure, although even the coldest doctor will still gently tell a woman who was pregnant who wanted her child that she miscarried.

 

[Skaloop]

In the cold medical sense, sure, although even the coldest doctor will still gently tell a woman who was pregnant who wanted her child that she miscarried.

And just as empathetic towards a woman who got an abortion.

 

[Tom White]

A single silk worm is not a dress, a blastocyte is not a person.

When does a bombyx mori become a bombyx mori?

When does a homo sapiens become a homo sapiens?

From Wikipedia (and no, I don't care if it's the most reliable authoritative source on this subject or not):

"A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development."

​

Unique organism... individual... I still don't see why it's inappropriate to view human - or Homo sapiens, to be obsessively precise - life as beginning at conception. And thus, to defend its human rights against excessive use of force. It infuriates me how we are so inconsistent on this matter in Western countries, though Ireland has the right idea in making abortion legal in life threatening situations (it used to blanket ban abortions altogether, which again is going too far.) If ND follows suit, good.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When does a bombyx mori become a bombyx mori?

Arguably, at the end of metamorphosis.

When does a homo sapiens become a homo sapiens?

Inasmuch as 'a H. sapiens' is biologically alive, the moment of conception.

When do the two individuals in a pair of monozygotic twins become individual H. sapiens? Does the original blastocyte count as a double-person, as it has the potential to be two people?

If a zygote has the potential to become monozygotic triplets, does that mean aborting that zygote constitutes triple homicide?

From Wikipedia (and no, I don't care if it's the most reliable authoritative source on this subject or not):

"A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development."

​

Unique organism... individual... I still don't see why it's inappropriate to view human - or Homo sapiens, to be obsessively precise - life as beginning at conception.

Aaaaand pause. Whoever said life doesn't begin at conception? Not I. I've consistently stated that zygotes are biologically alive (as are sperm and ova). My point is that biological metabolism is insufficient to qualify for personhood - if it doesn't give single-celled spermatozoa the rights of sapient adult, then it doesn't give single-celled zygotes those rights either.

And thus, to defend its human rights against excessive use of force. It infuriates me how we are so inconsistent on this matter in Western countries,

Again, in the pro-choice camp, this inconsistency really doesn't exist. "Life begins at conception" is the chant of the pro-life, but the pro-choice have never argued this. The response, instead, is the perplexed response of "Yes, and?".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In the cold medical sense, sure,

Clinical jargon exists for a reason, so shouldn't be dismissed as 'cold'.

although even the coldest doctor will still gently tell a woman who was pregnant who wanted her child that she miscarried.

I'd like that to be the case, but "the coldest doctor" would probably be quite callous. Most doctors would be gentle, though.

 

[Francois Mostert]

God is surely in control. I have counseled many woman who have had an abortion! This is not only an ethical theoretical debate but leave deep scars in any woman who have had an abortion; not only physical scars (if any?) but most definitely emotional and spiritual scars! To see how to resolve these scars please send an email to cstudy@tastelifeconsultancy.com and you will receive a link of a free transcribe session that follows the journey of a woman who aborted a child at age 21 and now at age 66 finally found the relief she was looking for. May all who have suffered the trauma of abortion be encouraged and healed! (and forgiven)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God is surely in control. I have counseled many woman who have had an abortion! This is not only an ethical theoretical debate but leave deep scars in any woman who have had an abortion; not only physical scars (if any?) but most definitely emotional and spiritual scars! To see how to resolve these scars please send an email to cstudy@tastelifeconsultancy.com and you will receive a link of a free transcribe session that follows the journey of a woman who aborted a child at age 21 and now at age 66 finally found the relief she was looking for. May all who have suffered the trauma of abortion be encouraged and healed! (and forgiven)

1) This borders on spam or advertising, so enjoy having your account terminated.

2) There is little to no evidence to substantiate the claim that abortion creates large and lasting physical and mental trauma.

 

[Tom White]

My point is that biological metabolism is insufficient to qualify for personhood - if it doesn't give single-celled spermatozoa the rights of sapient adult, then it doesn't give single-celled zygotes those rights either.

And my point is that human rights should be granted to humans, which by definition are individual members of the species Homo sapiens, whose life begins at conception. Not simply sapient humans, otherwise they should be called "sapient human rights", or whatever other qualifier a person wants to add in addition to humanity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And my point is that human rights should be granted to humans, which by definition are individual members of the species Homo sapiens, whose life begins at conception.

Why? Why do you not push for ovum rights?

Not simply sapient humans, otherwise they should be called "sapient human rights", or whatever other qualifier a person wants to add in addition to humanity.

Why? If you can add the arbitrary qualifier of 'genetically unique', why can't I add the arbitrary qualifier of 'sapient'? Indeed, since nociception, sapience, etc, are rather necessary for most human rights (the right not to be tortured, the right to religious freedom, etc), those qualities are justified in being the criterion by which we judge whether an instance of biological life has those rights. But no right requires genetic uniqueness (just ask twins).

 

[Tom White]

Why? Why do you not push for ovum rights?

Because an ovum is not a human.

Why? If you can add the arbitrary qualifier of 'genetically unique', why can't I add the arbitrary qualifier of 'sapient'? Indeed, since nociception, sapience, etc, are rather necessary for most human rights (the right not to be tortured, the right to religious freedom, etc), those qualities are justified in being the criterion by which we judge whether an instance of biological life has those rights. But no right requires genetic uniqueness (just ask twins).

Rot. You might as well say that a man in a coma also does not qualify, that you may act aggressively towards his body because he cannot consciously experience suffering, if you want to be consistent with that position.

 

[Belk]

Because an ovum is not a human.

It is as human as any other cell in your body. So why does it suddenly deserve rights the second it becomes fertilized?

Rot. You might as well say that a man in a coma also does not qualify, that you may act aggressively towards his body because he cannot consciously experience suffering, if you want to be consistent with that position.

If a man in a coma has no brain function we then start to consider if we should keep them alive do we not? So why is it different for a zygote?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because an ovum is not a human.

So what is it? A rhino? A plant? It's quite obviously human, it's quite obviously alive, but we don't confer rights onto it - why not?

Rot. You might as well say that a man in a coma also does not qualify, that you may act aggressively towards his body because he cannot consciously experience suffering, if you want to be consistent with that position.

Comatose is not the same as non-sapient. A better example would be a brain-dead body, or a corpse. You can't kill a corpse, and though you can end the biological life of a brain-dead body it doesn't qualify as murder.

 

[Dave Ellis]

He is the author and creator of Life, so it gets to be his decision when he brings us home to heaven.

It is NOT our decision to make.

And don't pretend to care what "my god" does or doesn't do, since you don't believe in him.

So what happens if it's God's choice that the aborted fetuses should get a free ride into heaven, and the legislation in North Dakota is preventing God's will by having the pregnancies carried to full term?

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is as human as any other cell in your body. So why does it suddenly deserve rights the second it becomes fertilized?

Cells are not humans, cells are parts of humans. My skin cells by themselves do not have equal rights to a human being.

By the time fetuses are aborted, they likewise are not self sufficient or remotely self aware. When abortions are carried out they are for the most part a collection of cells.

 

[prmath]

If the liberal left so condones aborting these innocent little babies...... that have harmed NO ONE............

why not perform a late term abortion on the beast that murdered and maimed all those people in Boston?

 

[Belk]

Cells are not humans, cells are parts of humans. My skin cells by themselves do not have equal rights to a human being.

By the time fetuses are aborted, they likewise are not self sufficient or remotely self aware. When abortions are carried out they are for the most part a collection of cells.

Uh, yes. I'm aware of that, but thank you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If the liberal left so condones aborting these innocent little babies...... that have harmed NO ONE............

why not perform a late term abortion on the beast that murdered and maimed all those people in Boston?

You can't abort a pregnancy that doesn't exist.

Besides, I'm not in favour of late term abortion unless it threatens the health of the mother. Which is fine, because late term abortions are illegal, as they should be.

Early term abortions is what's up for debate here.