Stopping abortion

[butterfoot]

Since when did blokes have wombs?

It was more or less a statement of faith. While we want abortion to stop we can only do so much. It has to be in peoples hearts.


-cw

 

[Tangnefedd]

No one will ever stop abortion, but I do think that there should be a much earlier cut off point like 12 weeks, except for exceptional circumstances!

 

[AcadiaMoon]

It was more or less a statement of faith. While we want abortion to stop we can only do so much. It has to be in peoples hearts.


-cw

A statement of faith includes an action to prove faith. A statement of faith is not saying you'd do something that you would not do.

 

[DieHappy]

Yeah, you love it so much that once it's born, you couldn't care less about it. Just so long as it IS born, into you don't care what sort of life.

You don't know me so stop being a conceited wad. Maybe you could give some of us the benefit of the doubt since we have shown a compassion you don't even understand and perhaps allow the thought that some of us actively participate in charitable work to care for these unwanted children to permeate into your closed off cerebrum. You might even grow, like the grinch before you, a heart.

 

[AcadiaMoon]

When all other arguments fail, accuse your opponent of having no heart or compassion, imply they're stupid, and insert a name in there somewhere. Everybody who agrees with you is brilliant everybody who doesn't is heartless.

Same ol', same ol'. Could have hoped for better but expected no less from this sort of debate.

 

[Archivist]

Maybe you could give some of us the benefit of the doubt since we have shown a compassion you don't even understand...

And where is your compassion for the pregnant woman, who may well a victim of rape, a victim in a physically abusive relationship or whose very life may be in danger?

 

[Lucretius]

The pictures show what an aborted human looks like. People can think about them however they wish. If they get emotional then so be it. Viewers can always seek out additional info.

This is nothing more than a shock tactic used to frighten people, or try to make them feel immoral. I've seen aborted fetuses, having just attended a session on embryology at the UWHSC — no one in the audience cried at it.

Does that make us all inhuman monsters?

 

[DieHappy]

When all other arguments fail, accuse your opponent of having no heart or compassion, imply they're stupid, and insert a name in there somewhere. Everybody who agrees with you is brilliant everybody who doesn't is heartless.

Same ol', same ol'. Could have hoped for better but expected no less from this sort of debate.

Because the comment I was replying to was so chock full of logic and devoid of negative implications, right?

 

[AcadiaMoon]

Because the comment I was replying to was so chock full of logic and devoid of negative implications, right?

Oh ye of guilty conscience notice I didn’t use your name and I wasn’t talking just to you, though your conscience reveals that you believe yourself to be more guilty of what I’ve said than what the guy before you said.

 

[TheDag]

1.) sex education should not be in schools for teachers to teach........thats up to the parents....who else knows them better!2.)Teaching them this as a child will only make said child more curious as to what the fuss is for them to be taught.....and then decide to try it so they can better understand it.3.)I've talked to many kids from different schools...have you? No?....ok then ...THEY SAID"cool....now they can save some of they're money.....some talked about having a partner(someone other than theyare dating) to have sex without getting caught.........so what do you see that they are learning?How to be decietfull for one.....kids want to grow p to fast.....what ever in in there face is what they'll focus on because they are not experienced in life enough yet to see their are other things to focus on......so lets teach them arts, language, even the Einstien theory is better or how to be successful in buisness(more detailed), how to rapidly gain a better life. First we must equip ourselves with a better education so our kids, grandkids and so on can gain a better stronger knowledge understanding on life....and not how to be sneaky and have sex "properly" before they have gained "ADULTHOOD".

Many parents are too embaressed to teach their kids about sex properly. I know many people who when asking their parents about sex got a wrong answer. Sex education in my school did not encourage people to go out and have sex. The people who were deceitful before were still deceitful after the class. It had nothing to do with sex ducation. Kids often are deceitful.
You said kids want to grow up too fast. Does that mean you don't support showing pictures of aborted fetuses that young kids will see? If young kids see them they will be forced to grow up faster after all.

 

[gladiatrix]

(even though it is simply an attempt to shift the burden of proof from yourself). Here's an expert on reproduction, stem cell research and bioethics, Dr. Arthur L. Caplan:

There's a reason for this kind of failure rate. Ironically evidence for just why so many fail was uncovered during in vitro fertilization (IVF). Bear in mind that doctors go to great pains to insure that the woman's body is optimally prepared to receive the zygotes generated by IVF (her temperature, uterine lining, and hormonal state are peak). However, despite their best efforts, the success rate of IVF at producing a pregnancy is only marginally better than that of getting pregnant the old-fashioned way (~25%). When one actually looks at cells from these embryos we now know why, most of them have chromosomal defects that make them non-viable. Or as the reseachers here have observed:

This says nothing to support your numbers. Any researcher who thinks an in vitro observation can be transfered to an in vivo situation and then actually claim that as "proof" is not being honest with himself.

More handwaving from you.....

Why not honest? All you have done here is ASSERTED that these researchers are not "being honest" without one dram of justification, i.e., that what one observes with the in vitro studies isn't applicable to the in vivo situtation. On what scientific grounds would you dismiss the data? This kind of handwaving again is NOT an argument against the numbers observed DIRECTLY. The extrapolations are based on the assumption that an artifically implanted embryo is equivalent to a naturally implanted embryo a "ready" uterus. There is no apparent reason that it shouldn't be, so this is a reasonable assumption. If you think otherwise then let's here something other than assertions of NOT! based on nothing.

The process of fertilization and implantation here is quite literally under observation (fiber optics, microscopically, etc.) The last thing that one would expect would be a high failure rate, especially when one can impregnate a woman at a time when her body should be optimally ready to receive and support a pregnancy. This ability to observe the process directly and manipulate it is simply one of the best possible kinds of laboratory situations. What you have also done is simply ignored the data from studies of other mammals that show that most conceptions fail to produce a live birth (journal articles completely ignored by you).

The question to you is, what kind of experimental data would one have to present to convince you that the vast majority of conceptions fail? The case of in vitro conception allows us to study this phenomena first hand. Do tell us on what grounds you would dismiss this data, other than you don't like what the data tells you? Simply asserting that it's "not proof" doesn't begin to work as an argument. If you are expecting 100% proof here then there's no way I will ever be able to "prove it". Again, since you dismiss the evidence, on what scientific grounds do you justify dismissing it? Simply yelling the equivalent of NOT! doesn't qualify.

BTW, I also see you ignored all of the reason why most conceptions are doomed to fail (bad timing, defective eggs or sperm, hostile uterine environment). These facts are not in scientific dispute that I am aware of. If you have any scientific evidence that would disprove these, feel free to post your data (yet to see ONE iota of evidence for any claim made by you).

There is no proof that that many pregnancies end early and your list of embryologists willing to take a guess at it doesn't offer proof.

Guess? On what scientific grounds would you assert the claim that they are only "guessing"? More assertion without the slightest hint of supporting evidence. One thing is for certain is that you haven't bothered to do anything but give the excerpt from the article a posted more than a cursory glance. Perhaps you would care to tell all of the experts in the field that DieHappy asserts that they are all wrong....based on what evidence would they be "guessing" or "not being honest"?. If you or any of you antichoice buds could actually come up with some evidence that these scientists were wrong about these numbers then that would be big news to the scientific world. I can promise you instant publication of such a result (nothing can make a scientific reputation faster than having disproof of a currently accepted paradigm). Even scientists who are antichoice don't simply try to handwave away the myriad studies from animals and now humans (the IVF observations are only one part of it) that show that most conceptions never result in a live birth.

Questions to you:
1. Do you assert ALL conceptions result in pregnancies or just "most" of them? If you assert "most" you will have to define that (50% and up)? On what grounds would you set a number to begin with?

2. What kind of scientific study would you design to test your hypothesis? Do you have any scientific evidence AT ALL that would call into question the current theory so far? (Definition of a scientific theory...don't even try the equivocation that a scientific theory is the equivalent of a "guess or a hunch)

3. Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that would disprove the current prevailing observations? It is you who are asserting the affirmative, but YET have not produced one single, solitary argument or piece of experimental data to confirm your claim.

What I am not about to do is let any reader miss out on the FACT that you have YET to offer any evidence of ANY KIND to support your assertions.

IVF has so many errors because we've intorduced human error into the equation.

It's not IVF (the procedure) that has "errors". It is the chromosomal errors, due to the process of meiosis, that produce the chromosomal defects observed in the embryos (could come either the sperm, egg or both). You have just demonstrated that you've got no idea what the article was about.

It's success rate was nearly zero for decades and we've gotten better at it. That means exactly zero when you want to compare it to real life.

Evidence that the success rate of IVF was nearly zero for decades(?) would be what? The first live birth was in 1978, and based on over 75 years of research prior to any attempts to do this sort of thing in humans. If it were as much of a failure as you allege, then it would never have gotten off the ground or passed scientific or ethical muster. Let's see your evidence for this assertion (success rate was zero for "decades").

Furthermore, it is antichoicers like you

Is it ok if I call you a baby killer, or shall we return to the accepted pro-life, pro-choice terminoology?

No, I am NOT about to grant you the appellation of "pro-life" for the simple reason the anti-abortionists have done little to nothing to justify application of this term.

• You are AGAINST, (hence the prefix "ANTI") a woman having the choice to end an unwanted pregnancy, therefore ANTI-choice.
• What you have NOT done is demonstrate that what is being ended is a human being, therefore a "life".
• What is more, most antichoicers don't care a rats patootie for that "life" once they've forced it into the world, pretending that "adoption" or "God will provide" will solve the problem of caring for these individuals.

"Pro-life"?!...not by a long chalk. My choice of terminology has everything to do with the accuracy of the label..it is not an attempt to insult. "ANTI" has a lot of unnecessary baggage in that the people don't like to be seen as "against" something. Too bad that what your side is peddling is simply a "NO choice" position and that's more that enough justification for the description of "anti-choice".

However, I will apologize for the tone (antichoicers like you)...it was unnecessarily hostile.

Hey, if it make you feel good, call me a baby killer. The problem you will have is demonstrating that prochoicers are "baby" killers. Care to give some evidence to support your claim that "babies" are being "killed" (murdered)? You merely assert it. The scientific evidence doesn't support your claim and you certainly haven't bothered to produced any that does. Again, you have the affirmative position so your case should be much easier to find evidence to support it. I will continue to remind readers of how little you have done in the way of supporting your claims.

and livingproofGM who assert that human BEING is present from conception. The burden of proof is on YOU (the one with the affirmative claim has the burden of proof). However, the scientific evidence (gestational development, so many conceptions "expendable") is disproof of such a claim which is why the vast majority of embryologists, ob/gyns, and biologists (myself included) don't hue to the bogus notion that a human being is present at conception (also in my references).

1. You are claiming that your opinion is more valuable than mine.

2.Most of the country actually does believe the fetus is a human being, they just disagree when the life should be granted the protection of human rights.

3. I would like to see some sort of reason that the embryo is not a human being besides the spurious claim that some die early. I have to ask questions that you will, no doubt, dismiss out of hand because they expose the faults of the arguments. Blacks overwhelmingly die before reaching 70. Does that mean that all blacks cease to be human beings after reaching 70 years old? (numbering added)

1. WHERE did I ever make any such claim? That's a strawman on your part. You can have any "opinion" you want. The question then arises on WHAT do you BASE that opinion? From what I see, all we have is a bunch of appeals to emotion and little in the way of substance. I can present a scientific case for my "opinion". Where's yours?

2. And your evidence supporting the claim you make here is WHAT? It is irrelevant what people "believe". Scientific cases are not made on either beliefs nor are they decided by "popular vote", but on the evidence.

3. Again with the strawman. I NEVER rested my case on the fact that most conceptions fail. It's plain that you have either not read or simply ignored what I have posted so here's my just my BASIC case (both scientific/sociological) again.

Post #66/PART 1--The Personhood Argument

Post #67/PART2--The "Life Begins at Conception" Myth (Is there any Scientific Basis?)

Post #68/PART 3--The "Life Begins at Conception" Myth (Historical Aspects) You might be surprised to learn that this definition of "life" is a recent one.

Part 4--The Implications for Anti-choice for the Woman Perhaps you will tell us just what plans anti-choicers propose for supporting all those children they plan on forcing women to have?

Why he only real "pro" in the "pro"-life (what false advertising!) movement is just "pro" -punishment

 

[katautumn]

Okay, so this debate was progressing quite well until a few people decided to post their misinformed .02.

http://homepage.mac.com/cgnaughton/images/8week.jpg

There. That is a picture of an eight week old fetus. That is not what anti-abortion protestors show on their posters. They show a picture of what looks like a fetus at full-term all bloody and mangled and claim its eight weeks old. And whoever it was who mentioned the surgery at two months into gestation...does that two month old fetus look like it has fingers that can cling to a surgeon's finger? Nope.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

You don't know me so stop being a conceited wad.

I know the 'you' you present on this forum; that entitles me to comment on that which you present.

Your ad hominem is noted.

Maybe you could give some of us the benefit of the doubt since we have shown a compassion you don't even understand

If it were compassion you were showing, I would, indeed, give you the benefit of the doubt. Compassion would be about helping the mothers, not shoving pictures of aborted fetusses in their face outside clinics.

and perhaps allow the thought that some of us actively participate in charitable work to care for these unwanted children to permeate into your closed off cerebrum.

If you do so, from what I have seen, you are in the minority. In any case, I suggest (if you do) that you spend more time doing that and less time terrorising pregnant women.

Your ad hominem is, again, noted.

You might even grow, like the grinch before you, a heart.

I have a heart, thank you. It pumps blood.

Your constant use of ad hominem and insult is indicative of the strength of your argument.

 

[Archivist]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Electric Sceptic again.

An excellent post!

 

[invisible trousers]

i think it's an even better indication of his heart.