Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

beejee wrote: »

Calling it names is all I can do? I can't rebut anything?

If you say so. My point is more than you HAVE NOT done so. Whether you actually CAN do so or not remains to be seen. All I have to go on is what you have done so far and as I said IF all you do is fling name calling at it THEN it would seem you can not rebut the points with reason.

beejee wrote: »

You once again revert to social construct, again try to muddy the waters by bringing in philosophy and ethics

You are distorting again. Abortion and the morality and ethics of abortion ARE ethical issues and social constructs already. It is not me making them so.

It is not that I am muddying anything therefore. Rather you are trying to conflate two disparate and distinct things into one, in order to distort them.

No one here is taking issue with the biological fact of "life". While your description of it is simplistic, it is irrelevant. It is when Life rather than life begins.... when it is Human rather than human.... that should be relevant to the discussion.

beejee wrote: »

All to counter a simple biological fact?

Who is countering a biological fact? I certainly have not. You are making stuff up now.

beejee wrote: »

My explanation is concise, efficient and coherent. Your position is destroyed. It was an untenable position to begin with, and it looks hokier the more paragraphs you add to it.

Yeah self praise is no praise. To rebut a position you have to actually rebut it, not just declare it rebutted or "destroyed".

My position is simple enough to describe. The fact something is "alive" is not in and of itself relevant to the question of whether it is moral or ethical to kill it or not.

If you want to suggest it is immoral or unethical to discontinue it's biological life, then you need to construct an argument to that effect. This you have yet to do. Pretending to have a crystal ball into the future will not do it for you. Make your argument based on data you have NOW, not data you imagine having in the future.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you say so. My point is more than you HAVE NOT done so. Whether you actually CAN do so or not remains to be seen. All I have to go on is what you have done so far and as I said IF all you do is fling name calling at it THEN it would seem you can not rebut the points with reason.



You are distorting again. Abortion and the morality and ethics of abortion ARE ethical issues and social constructs already. It is not me making them so.

It is not that I am muddying anything therefore. Rather you are trying to conflate two disparate and distinct things into one, in order to distort them.

No one here is taking issue with the biological fact of "life". While your description of it is simplistic, it is irrelevant. It is when Life rather than life begins.... when it is Human rather than human.... that should be relevant to the discussion.



Who is countering a biological fact? I certainly have not. You are making stuff up now.



Yeah self praise is no praise. To rebut a position you have to actually rebut it, not just declare it rebutted or "destroyed".

My position is simple enough to describe. The fact something is "alive" is not in and of itself relevant to the question of whether it is moral or ethical to kill it or not.

If you want to suggest it is immoral or unethical to discontinue it's biological life, then you need to construct an argument to that effect. This you have yet to do. Pretending to have a crystal ball into the future will not do it for you. Make your argument based on data you have NOW, not data you imagine having in the future.

Listen, when you're trotting out sentences like " it is when Life begins not life begins..."

You may as well be telling me the sun is green. It isn't, and no amount of wafflling bs is going to make me respect such a crazy position.

And yet I'm the one conflating two separate things? Come on now.

A rock is a rock except when it isn't. Pure shoite, and I have no problem reverting to base description because there is no reason to humour such claptrap. The very proposition is insulting.

Then again, if you spew enough of it, eventually it wears anyone down. Which, I strongly suspect, is the point.

RobertKK wrote: »

That is all I am saying on the matter, this is what people voted for, the choice to end the life in the womb. "my body, my choice", I don't believe this couple was forced to have an abortion, it is not China we live in.

Can't disagree with that. This single decision, even if it was done in error, does not invalidate the right of others to make the same decision for themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you want to suggest it is immoral or unethical to discontinue it's biological life, then you need to construct an argument to that effect. This you have yet to do. Pretending to have a crystal ball into the future will not do it for you. Make your argument based on data you have NOW, not data you imagine having in the future.

I don't think it takes a crystal ball to see what a human fetus may develop into if left undisturbed...

(I'm not getting into a quote war here)

RobertKK wrote: »

These topics, from experience, inevitably leads to nowhere as no one on either side will ever agree and they end up a waste of time

I beg to differ. We had discussions on this topic EN MASSE not that long ago, and the large majority of the country DID agree at the end of that process.

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I don't think it takes a crystal ball to see what a human fetus may develop into if left undisturbed...

Nor do I. However I see no argument that suggests that what something MIGHT be in the future is morally or ethically relevant. What it is NOW is.

For example you will likely die some day. Should my moral and ethical concern towards you be based on the person you are here today? Or on the corpse you likely some day will be?

The only thing the words "may develop into" tell me about it, is that it is not that thing now! A point we seemingly both agree on therefore, so common ground is worth highlighting.

Can we change the title to "fetus"
If a baby was aborted at 15 weeks it is murder as it had been born and alive for 15 weeks.

Titclamp wrote: »

Funny no one cares much about what Parent's or that child was unnecessarily aborted.

Just their stupid beliefs to be heard.

That's quite disingenuous. Many people, myself included, have expressed their sorrow MONTHS AGO that cases like this occur. They have made their feelings on that known already. The fact the conversation has moved on SINCE then does not mean they did not, or do not, care. What do you want from them exactly? A constant expression of that emotion in every post they make?

Giving the choice of abortion is the morally and ethically RIGHT thing to do in my view. Alas there will of course be a minority of tragic cases like this one. The best thing we can do is minimise them ever happening, learn from them when they do happen, and support anyone emotionally affected by them where and when we can.

If someone chooses abortion based on false information, and later they suffer when the correct information comes to light.... they absolutely genuinely have my sympathy and concern, and should have any support we can reasonably offer them.

Titclamp wrote: »

Rational justification politician word speak doesn't erase their suffering which if it had happened 12 months previously the child be alive.

Well since I said nothing about erasing suffering, I'm not sure who's post you imagine you are replying to. What I very clearly ACTUALLY said was that we should absolutely be concerned for their suffering and well being.

As for your "12 months" comment you simply do not know that to be true. Many people 12 months previously STILL had abortions. They just had to take the added stress, added expense, added risk, of travelling to another country to do so. Thankfully NIMBYism lost the election.

So imagining what would have happened 12 months previously is just that: imagination.

beejee wrote: »

My point was and is that people like to warp "when life begins" to suit their agenda. Simple.

And the counter point was and is that pretty much no one seems to be ACTUALLY doing that. Which "people" do you refer to here specifically? It is quite vague.

Rather people seemingly make the distinction between biological life and the life of a human PERSON, and they discuss the latter while you pretend it is the former. SImple.

beejee wrote: »

Life, not "my convenient version of life", begins at one single point in time, and it will never be any different.

Again: Irrelevant. When you imagine a life starting has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion any more than when you imagine the life of a cow starting has anything to do with the ethics of eating meat.

The ONLY thing that is important is a question like "Is there any reason anyone can come up with at the moment we are killing a biological entity, for us to morally or ethically NOT do so?"

And with a fetus at 12 weeks the answer seems so far to be "no, they cant".

beejee wrote: »

Answer me this. Including all your belief systems, when do you consider "life" begins? Taking your morality and ethics and philosophies into account.

Again it depends if we are talking biology or philosophy.

In terms of biology I do not really disagree MUCH with your simplistic "fusion" notion. The biological life of a new individual entity pretty much can be said to start there. No one appears to be disagree with you on that. We could get pedantic, talking about how it is not yet distinct from the mother, or how it is not really the beginning of life but just one step in an ongoing life CYCLE. But it would be pointless. I think we can flag that as common ground.

In terms of philosophy, which is actually what is relevant to abortion in a way biology is not, I think Life (again, capital L here to make the distinction) starts when the entity attains the faculty of sentience. The biological starting point is simply not ethically relevant to my mind, nor has anyone in over 20 years discussing and researching this debate given me a single argument why it might/should.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And the counter point was and is that pretty much no one seems to be ACTUALLY doing that. Which "people" do you refer to here specifically? It is quite vague.

Rather people seemingly make the distinction between biological life and the life of a human PERSON, and they discuss the latter while you pretend it is the former. SImple.



Again: Irrelevant. When you imagine a life starting has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion any more than when you imagine the life of a cow starting has anything to do with the ethics of eating meat.

The ONLY thing that is important is a question like "Is there any reason anyone can come up with at the moment we are killing a biological entity, for us to morally or ethically NOT do so?"

And with a fetus at 12 weeks the answer seems so far to be "no, they cant".



Again it depends if we are talking biology or philosophy.

In terms of biology I do not really disagree MUCH with your simplistic "fusion" notion. The biological life of a new individual entity pretty much can be said to start there. No one appears to be disagree with you on that. We could get pedantic, talking about how it is not yet distinct from the mother, or how it is not really the beginning of life but just one step in an ongoing life CYCLE. But it would be pointless. I think we can flag that as common ground.

In terms of philosophy, which is actually what is relevant to abortion in a way biology is not, I think Life (again, capital L here to make the distinction) starts when the entity attains the faculty of sentience. The biological starting point is simply not ethically relevant to my mind, nor has anyone in over 20 years discussing and researching this debate given me a single argument why it might/should.

So, for all your attempts to squeeze in philosophy and morals etc, and now that I've allowed you carte blanche to include whatever you want..... You don't have any answer?

I'll ask again, combining all these belief systems together, which you deem paramount, what is the sum total of it all? When does life begin for you?

beejee wrote: »

So, for all your attempts to squeeze in philosophy and morals etc, and now that I've allowed you carte blanche to include whatever you want..... You don't have any answer?

Ehhhhh I gave you TWO answers. Pretending I did not answer when I blatantly did has sent you beyond dishonest at this point.

beejee wrote: »

I'll ask again, combining all these belief systems together, which you deem paramount, what is the sum total of it all? When does life begin for you?

See above, already answered.

Millicently wrote: »

I don't know why anyone bothers to argue with these anti abortion loons. They can't accept that women have the right to bodily autonomy

To keep them talking! I suspect that a large part of our victory in the referendum was not because we WON it, but they LOST it. We talked to them, and they hung themselves with their own answers and points.

I keep talking to them, because they keep doing it! It is like drawing the chalk outline of a dead body on the pavement, and they just come along and lie down in it.

beejee wrote: »

I wouldn't consider myself necessarily "anti abortion", but it is interesting to pressure certain opinions and watch them fall asunder.

I am not sure ignoring a persons answer and then claiming they did not answer is suggesting that it is THEIR position "falling asunder" to be honest