Abortion - Free Will and Responsibility of Women, NOT Mankind

reply to post by Quadrivium

I know that assigning VALUE to a Fertilized Egg may seem Cold and Calculated...but it is the only true way to be able to determine what is a Fact and what is Hoped to be a Fact out of a persons Deep Feelings and Beliefs.

FACT...A Fertilized Egg is NOT a HUMAN BEING.
FACT...A Fertilized Egg MAY develop into a Human Being.
FACT...A Fertilized Egg MAY NOT develop into a Human Being.
FACT...A Fertilized Egg does not exist with a 100% Probability of becoming a Human Being.
FACT...A Living Human Being existing has a 100% Probability of being a Human Being.

Thus a Human Being can be established as H=100%
A Fertilized Egg can be represented as E

Originally posted by SaturnFX

ok frankenstein.
Sure, its alive in the same way a braindead vegetable on life support is alive.
pull the plug and its not..and remove the mothers influence on the fetus..same thing.
alive is not living, and certainly not a person at 5 weeks.
heart does not determine consciousness...a active brain does.

Our laws don't condone euthanasia.

Our laws don't condone assisted suicide.

Therefore our laws should not condone abortion.

(some may argue a cow is a far better tradeoff than some people however)

You should gain some principles...your morals are blinding your logic.

There is no logic without morals.

reply to post by Bone75


When my father had a stroke, my mother called the EMT's who provided emergency CPR and took him to the ER where he was placed on life support. As soon as the doctor's realized he had "Do Not Resuscitate" order, they took him off all life support and nutritional support except water. He died 5 days later.

When my mother choked on a pill the EMT's put a tube down her throat, to keep it open so she could breath until they got to the ER. When I got to the hospital, the doctor explained to me that she had "DNR" also, and therefore, they were forbidden to save her life by clearing her airway. She died 7 hours later.

Our medical legal system is not easy peasy, black and white.

You should gain some principles...your morals are blinding your logic.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Which principles do you speak of? Is that the one that engineers guilt free arguments for killing life because it is inconvenient? Is that the principle that allows the person who got themselves into the situation to not be inconvenienced by the result? Just curious.

There is a cause and effect to everything in life. Terminating life is is not a question of whether it is alive or not because that is a mute argument as it clearly is alive. If it were not alive it would not be developing as a living entity. People are trying to get around the facts because the truth of it is uncomfortable.

If you were in a court of law and the judge asked you "is your fetus alive"?

answer: yes

Question by Judge: Did you terminate the fetus? Did you not terminate something living?

Answer: yes

Question by Judge: Did you kill the fetus?

Answer: Yes

Is that not murder? Is that not killing life, something that is living?

Answer: Yes

That is murder. How is there an argument against this? This is baffling to me because it couldn't be anymore obvious.


Without morals there are no principles.

Windwood I am too sorry for your terrible loss and how terrible that was for all of you.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75

 

When my father had a stroke, my mother called the EMT's who provided emergency CPR and took him to the ER where he was placed on life support. As soon as the doctor's realized he had "Do Not Resuscitate" order, they took him off all life support and nutritional support except water. He died 5 days later.

When my mother choked on a pill the EMT's put a tube down her throat, to keep it open so she could breath until they got to the ER. When I got to the hospital, the doctor explained to me that she had "DNR" also, and therefore, they were forbidden to save her life by clearing her airway. She died 7 hours later.

Our medical legal system is not easy peasy, black and white.

My sincerest apologies for your losses and any offenses you may have taken from my comment.

reply to post by Bone75

LOGIC and MORALITY are two different things. They are independent and one has no dependence upon the other. How you can group them together is beyond me.

Morality is relative to ones beliefs thus what is Moral or Immoral for one person is not so for another. You can not use the assumption that there is a Moral Constant that should be a Standard for all people and all issues because what your Standards may be will not be the Standards for someone else. To believe that YOUR Moral Standards should be EVERYONE'S Moral Standards is not only INSULTING it is also SELF DEFEATING for you to have any chance whatsoever to state your reasoning in a way that people might take heed.

Split Infinity

reply to post by Bone75


It's okay. Your comment didn't offend me, this time.

I just wanted to inject some medical legal aspects of death, that you may not have known about, since we're discussing the ethics of life and death.

Without a "Living Will" or a "DNR" it's up the the nearest relative to decide when to pull the plug on unresponsive patients on life support.

As for my mother, they could have saved her if it wasn't for her prearranged legal request.

Me, I have a verbal arrangement with my daughter. She's a medical research doctor with access to the best "knock out" drugs available and knows when to use them, should the time come.

reply to post by Egyptia


Actually a person who has had an abortion would not be in a Court Room as abortion is LEGAL.

Thus your entire statement which is based upon the premise that a person who had an abortion would have a Judge ask or even answer as you have posted is Fantasy.

You also base the Questions and answers upon the concept that what this person has done is illegal...it is not. You could state that you find such acts Morally Wrong...but you cannot say that this scenario would occur as it would not.

Split Infinity

reply to post by Egyptia


Thanks for your condolences. It all happened 6 and 4 years ago. The point is that they both choose to die, and put it in a legal document that was registered with the hospital, way before the events of their demise. It was their choice and the doctors were legally bound to honor it.

In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization

In your hypothetical conversation with a judge, you mention a fetus. Does this mean that you're okay with contraception that cause the fertilized egg to abort, the Morning after Pill and other such alternatives? Are you okay with early terminations of zygotes and embryos?

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Egyptia

 

Actually a person who has had an abortion would not be in a Court Room as abortion is LEGAL.

Thus your entire statement which is based upon the premise that a person who had an abortion would have a Judge ask or even answer as you have posted is Fantasy.

You also base the Questions and answers upon the concept that what this person has done is illegal...it is not. You could state that you find such acts Morally Wrong...but you cannot say that this scenario would occur as it would not.

Split Infinity

Duhhh


( I couldn't think of a more appropriate response)

Originally posted by windword

Me, I have a verbal arrangement with my daughter. She's a medical research doctor with access to the best "knock out" drugs available and knows when to use them, should the time come.

I'm 66. I've raised my kids and grandkids.

I don't believe anyone has the right to force me to live beyond when I think its time.

I 100% support the right to choose euthanasia - - assisted suicide - - and do not resuscitate.

These should be the choice of the individual - - just as abortion is.

Physician aid-in-dying (PAD), or assisted suicide, is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Montana. The key difference between euthanasia and PAD is who administers the lethal dose of medication. Euthanasia entails the physician or another third party administering the medication, whereas PAD requires the patient to self-administer the medication and to determine whether and when to do this. en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Egyptia

 

Actually a person who has had an abortion would not be in a Court Room as abortion is LEGAL.

Thus your entire statement which is based upon the premise that a person who had an abortion would have a Judge ask or even answer as you have posted is Fantasy.

You also base the Questions and answers upon the concept that what this person has done is illegal...it is not. You could state that you find such acts Morally Wrong...but you cannot say that this scenario would occur as it would not.

Split Infinity

Duhhh


( I couldn't think of a more appropriate response)

Man....you really cannot handle even the idea that someone might not agree with your beliefs. Being disrespectful is always the avenue for those who have no ability to have a civil debate or ability to agree to disagree. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Egyptia

 

Actually a person who has had an abortion would not be in a Court Room as abortion is LEGAL.

Thus your entire statement which is based upon the premise that a person who had an abortion would have a Judge ask or even answer as you have posted is Fantasy.

You also base the Questions and answers upon the concept that what this person has done is illegal...it is not. You could state that you find such acts Morally Wrong...but you cannot say that this scenario would occur as it would not.

Split Infinity

Duhhh


( I couldn't think of a more appropriate response)

Man....you really cannot handle even the idea that someone might not agree with your beliefs. Being disrespectful is always the avenue for those who have no ability to have a civil debate or ability to agree to disagree. Split Infinity

She gave you a hypothetical scenario as I'm sure you are aware. So from my perspective, your technical mumbo jumbo response was just as disrespectful as my duhhh. By the way how do you calculate that?

Agreeing to disagree is pointless.

reply to post by Bone75

You state agreeing to disagree is pointless because you have ZERO RESPECT for anyone else's beliefs. You believe it is pointless as you access ZERO VALUE upon others concepts and beliefs as you only see value in your concepts and beliefs.

This is tragic...just plain sad. It is also the reason why there is so much strife in the World as people such as yourself would rather FORCE others to believe as you do rather than have mutual respect of the VAST numbers of varying beliefs.

Intolerance is a trait that CHILDREN and FANATICS have. It also goes against Christian Doctrines as well as very much the opposite of the teachings of Jesus. Whether a person believes that Jesus was or was not the Son of GOD is not necessary to agree with much of his teachings such as having Love, Tolerance, Compassion and ones ability to turn the other cheek and also HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN SHOULD CAST THE FIRST STONE...which is something that VERY MUCH APPLIES to this topic.

You are CASTING A STONE at Women who in your mind have done something that you find objectionable. You are JUDGING THEM and let's not forget...LEAST YE NOT JUDGE.

You are going against everything that you hold so dear and have become what your Moral Standards are based upon. I wish you could see this. Split Infinity

Originally posted by Bone75
There is no logic without morals.

Morals are a burden that hampers understanding and logic.

It used to be a moral imperative to burn so called witches, to beat and kill homosexuals, to insult, slay, etc people who are different, misunderstood, or just foreign.

Morals aren't worth a lick.

Principles is what is key in a civil society..morals is your personal driving force that is subject to change repeatedly in your life, but principles should remain.

Originally posted by Egyptia

You should gain some principles...your morals are blinding your logic.

reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Which principles do you speak of? Is that the one that engineers guilt free arguments for killing life because it is inconvenient?

Killing life is what all life does, it be for hunger (moo), inconvenience(damn ants), etc.
There is no law against killing life, there is however laws against killing specific forms of life..in this subject, the subject being people.

So we can skip ahead and ignore most of what you said considering your argument could also be said the same for a weed.

That is murder. How is there an argument against this? This is baffling to me because it couldn't be anymore obvious.

The definition of life is pretty simplistic...again, a vegetable in a hospital is technically alive, but is it a person at that point?
What is a person?
A person is more than a heartbeat..it is the thoughts, experiences, etc.
This is housed in the brain
no brain activity = no person.
Its a principled stance, your counter will never match the solid principle I have on it
Protect people...this I agree to
And by using a touch of science, we can then evaluate when life becomes something more than just a fungus equal...its the thing that got us on top of the food chain..its the brain.

Without morals there are no principles.

Morality has nothing to do with principles.
You will find many people whom morally object to killing life(abortion) are curiously fine with death sentence and war (I oppose both..but sometimes war is necessary to self preservation).

Are you one of those? Do you equally strongly oppose the death penelty?

Morals is complex and ineffective..principles however is solid and rarely is cause for cognative dissidence.

The only thing that makes sense to me is accountability and responsibility for our actions. That is something we can't evade even as children growing up. I don't believe any one of us can evade the consequences of everything we choose and how it has negatively or positively affected the stream of life that we have inadvertantly or advertantly touched.

I think we humans complicate things that we do not want to face. We are good at evading via intellectualizing the arguments that complicate our spiritual accountability. We all make choices for what ever reasons whether they are justified or not. The truth is that we always find a way to argue the things we don't want to look at head on. We have all done that.

Guilt is something incredible that no amount of intellectualizing can erase. Each person has to bear the burden and consequences of what those choises are and that is an incredibly personal journey. I'm not here to judge anyone but I stand by what I believe in.

For me there is no argument here because life is life, so how can I argue that a life is dead if it is alive? I cannot find any way around that. For me that is not logical.

Just because we are flesh does not mean we should ignore the spirit. Morals have a deep relationship with what a person feels spiritually. We are more than just meat. Otherwise nothing would mean anything and if life isn't sacred than nothing is.

reply to post by SaturnFX

You know I have noticed that those who appose abortion are to a vast degree Pro Death Penalty. I personally am Pro Death Penalty but only in cases where there is not a SHRED OF REASONABLE DOUBT...as well as OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE...such as MULTIPLE WITNESSES.

This reality that the Majority of those who are against Abortion but are Pro Death Penalty seem to be in conflict with the concept of PRO LIFE.

I have asked some people who hold these beliefs why they have no issue with the Death Penalty but are outraged by the idea of abortion or a person who is Terminally Ill having the ability to End their Life with Dignity. Their responses where boarder line VIOLENT.

I find that these types of responses are typical of people who profess their Morality based upon their Religious Beliefs yet their responses and actions are in TOTAL CONFLICT with those Religious Beliefs. To make matter worse they actually have made an argument that in their mind JUSTIFIES violent action against those who they vilify such as Planned Parenthood Doctors or Doctors or Government Leaders and U.S. Judges who create Laws or create president of Law that goes against their Moral Beliefs.

Such attitudes are central to a wide variety of problems created by such intolerance in the World.
Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

I know that assigning VALUE to a Fertilized Egg may seem Cold and Calculated...but it is the only true way to be able to determine what is a Fact and what is Hoped to be a Fact out of a persons Deep Feelings and Beliefs.

FACT...A Fertilized Egg is NOT a HUMAN BEING.
FACT...A Fertilized Egg MAY develop into a Human Being.
FACT...A Fertilized Egg MAY NOT develop into a Human Being.
FACT...A Fertilized Egg does not exist with a 100% Probability of becoming a Human Being.
FACT...A Living Human Being existing has a 100% Probability of being a Human Being.

Thus a Human Being can be established as H=100%
A Fertilized Egg can be represented as E

reply to post by Quadrivium

A Fetus becomes a Human Being the Moment it achieves Sentience. Such sentience is limited yet it still exists.
Split Infinity