Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not sure what kind of honest discussion could be had in the first place when the OP's thread title is "Why Pro-Abortion is Anti-Science."

Funny, I've never met a Pro-Abortion person in my life. Words have meaning, and in this case they are used to mischaracterize the position of those who the author disagrees with even before the discussion is started.

Why do pro abortionist keep saying this?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny, I've still never met a single person that is "Pro" abortion.

So you don't know anyone that's had one then? Is a woman who has one 'pro abortion' in your view then? Or are you naively stating that no one is pro abortion even though there are millions of them going on every year in this country?

what are you talking about? did he SAY he never knew anyone who had one?

No one is PRO abortion. People are PRO choice. Which means they're PRO you keeping your religious beliefs out of other people's bodies.

There are only three positions available in this debate, you are either for (pro), neutral, or against (anti) abortions. Some people are to squeamish to be honest about this and attempt to re-brand themselves as pro choice, or por life, or any of the myriad of other labels that get applied, but the reality is pretty simple.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny, I've still never met a single person that is "Pro" abortion.

Sure you have. They either lie to you, or you lie to yourself about it. Not being a mind reader I have no idea which is true, but one of them is.

Bullshit fail

I'm decidedly Anti-abortion AND Pro-Choice.

And I'm not lying to anyone, let alone myself.

I did offer an alternative, it is not my fault that you guilty conscious prohibited you from acknowledging the possibility that others were lying to you. That is pretty telling, if you ask me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some don't see the difference between that and 'if you don't want to go on a shooting spree at school, don't'

Yes, we already got one of those.

Both involve the unilateral ending of other human lives.

I missed where you explained why you have more rights than the baby. Is it because you can vote?

When did you gain the right to life? When you were two? When you were born? When our mama's water broke? How ere you fundamentally any different than the day before?

Tell us what changed everything.

Only if a person is an idiot.

Ectopic pregnancies always result in miscarriages, and are always medical emergencies that often result in the death of the mother when untreated.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

An ectopic pregnancy has no chance to produce a live birth and it is almost certain it will cause serious medical problems for the woman. In my opinion that would not be an abortion

Your 'opinion' means jack shit.

It's an abortion by definition.

Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.

Abortion definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms

1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation—compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus of a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy—see contagious abortion, trichomoniasis b, vibrionic abortion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/abortion

Abortion of a healthy, normal embryo is generally a purely elective procedure however, and the tax payer should not have to subsidize that.

Are you retracting your earlier statement?[/quote]

So is a miscarriage. If you are so ignorant that you do not understand the difference between an induced and a spontaneous abortion you should not even be discussing the issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What he said.

Science cannot answer the question
"when do we give a fetus the right to not be killed?"

No, it can't. What it CAN do is provide us with the facts to base our decision on . . . unless they contradict what someone is determined to do anyway, in which case that person can pretend that moral and ethical questions are made in a scientific vacuum.

What's odd is that those most vociferously insisting that science can't make this decision also feel free, when they wish, to accuse the other side of being "anti-science". Please don't just gloss over THAT little tidbit and pretend it isn't there.

It really comes down to whether that developing baby is a human being or it isn't. And for myself, I can't think of any point in that development, in or out of the womb, that is more or less important and/or necessary to the man or woman it will be than is any other stage of that development.

And that is why I am staunchly pro life. There are means to prevent starting a baby, but once one is on the way, for me the issue involves two lives, not one.

But I don't want my government getting involved in the matter except at the local level on the expressed votes of the people. If a community doesn't want abortions, it should not have to allow them. But that community should not have the ability to dictate matters of conscience for the next community.

The Federal government should not be involved at all other than to secure the rights of the people and then leave it to them to work out the sort of society they wish to have.

Actually, I agree. Moreover, I will say that at whatever level of government this issue is decided, it should ALWAYS be decided by the people of society at large, not by a handful of unelected officials decreeing what is right and proper for everyone. If we wanted that sort of society, we wouldn't live in America. I believe that one of the biggest reasons that abortion is such a touchy, hot-button issue is because the people have been cut out of the process entirely and had it imposed on them by fiat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Legislature IS the representative of the people.

The problem is they haven't Legislated, but have instead allowed the courts to decide the legal question of abortion.

constitutional rights are not up for majority vote.

that issue HAS been explored and HAS been legislated and corrected by the Courts.

Actually, dumbass, they are. Ever hear of a little procedure called "Constitutional Amendment"? I realize that leftists never use it, favoring the illegal judicial fiat instead, but it does exist, and does involve voting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From what I understand, abortion was quite common in those times. And based on biblical principals, a non-quickening fetus was not a living being.

If the founders cared about the issue at all they would have addressed it.

Nope. They had the ability to separate the role of government from those matters of conscience that they cared about. They were extricating the American people from a long history of governments dictating what people must care about and allowing the people to govern themselves.

Um...the Constitution has been ammended to include a few things the founders did not address.......

Why don't anti-abortionsts simply amend the consitution, making abortion illegal?

I believe that IS on their possible agenda, although frankly, pro-lifers tend to also be small government sorts who don't really believe this issue belongs on a federal level.

 

[geauxtohell]

Nope. They had the ability to separate the role of government from those matters of conscience that they cared about. They were extricating the American people from a long history of governments dictating what people must care about and allowing the people to govern themselves.

Um...the Constitution has been ammended to include a few things the founders did not address.......

Why don't anti-abortionsts simply amend the consitution, making abortion illegal?

I believe that IS on their possible agenda, although frankly, pro-lifers tend to also be small government sorts who don't really believe this issue belongs on a federal level.

Why was it not even attempted once from 2000 to 2006 when the GOP had the House, Senate, Presidency, and 7/9 SCOTUS nominees?

Face reality, the GOP is never going to do away with abortion, because it is not politically expedient to do so.

Single issue voters on the issue of abortion should form their own party. That is the only way they are going to change the status quo.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not in favor of any government funds for abortions. None at all.

So if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and no insurance (or, for some reason, her insurance doesn't cover it), we let her die in an alley?

An ectopic pregnancy has no chance to produce a live birth and it is almost certain it will cause serious medical problems for the woman. In my opinion that would not be an abortion but would be a medical emergency and would be fully covered by the woman's hospitalization insurance no matter what insurance it was.

Abortion of a healthy, normal embryo is generally a purely elective procedure however, and the tax payer should not have to subsidize that.

And here we have yet another example of just how unscientific and illogical the pro-aborts truly are: JB's specious "all-or-nothing" argument. As if the abortion debate is about fatally flawed, doomed-from-the-start embryos such as ectopic pregnancies, and basing opinions about abortion on the scientific fact that human life begins at conception requires letting pregnant women die in alleys.

God forbid anyone have a serious, rational discussion of abortion rather than finding an emotional button and hammering that fucker.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy." Joel Feinberg Joel Feinberg, Abortion

Yes, we're all well aware of the gist of the "personhood" argument, and just for the record, citing the "personhood" argument as validation OF the "personhood" argument is exactly the sort of circular, illogical, unscientific debate I was talking about in my OP.

How about instead of citing "personhood" as an argument, you try explaining to us WHY it's a valid argument at all? Where does "personhood" appear in science? What are its objective standards, by which everyone can ascertain the exact same moment at which "personhood" begins? If there aren't any, how can it be a valid argument?

"Another error is the moment-of-conception fallacy. The joining of a human egg and sperm defines a new and unique human genotype. It does not produce any human hopes and fears and memories or anything else of moral importance implied by the term human. The newly fertilized egg may have the potential for a fully human existence, but that potential was there even before fertilization. The same can be said of all the fertilizations that might have been. The penetration of that egg by one sperm meant an early death for millions of competing sperm. It destroyed all hope for those millions of other unique human genotypes.

Once again, your ability to find someone to speak as though their parameters for the debate have already been set and accepted doesn't make it true. Before arrogantly telling us that our arguments are a "fallacy", not because they're untrue but because they don't meet YOUR debate parameters, perhaps you should first convince us that your debate parameters - hopes and fears and memories and "moral importance" - should be accepted by anyone as valid, let alone the ONLY valid ones.

And again, I have to point out that it takes a certain special level of idiocy to answer an OP accusing you of being unscientific and trying to shift the debate to fuzzy, subjective topics by citing those very same fuzzy, subjective topics.

In other words, I started this talking about what utter bullshit the "personhood" argument is. And you respond by telling me your position is right BECAUSE of the "personhood" argument. And you probably don't even realize how ignorant that sounds.

The moment-of-conception fallacy implies that fertilization is a simple process with never a doubt as to whether it has or has not happened. In reality, the "moment" is a matter of some hours of complex activity. There are elaborate biochemical interactions between the sperm and various layers of the egg membrane. The sperm gradually breaks up, and only its nucleus is established in the egg. Then both egg and sperm nuclei initiate radical changes before the fusion of the two nuclei. Many of the developmental events following this fusion were predetermined during the production of the egg. Genes provided by the sperm do not have discernible effects until embryonic development is well under way. A strictly biological definition of humanity would have to specify some point in this elaborate program at which the egg and sperm have suddenly been endowed with a single human life." From The Pony Fish's Glow and Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature, by George C. William.

Really? Fertilization/conception is a bad choice of time to mark the beginning of life, not because it's scientifically true, but because it's not simple and straightforward enough for you? You mean as opposed to marking the beginning of life by some subjective, apocryphal "moment of personhood", which doesn't even have a universal definition? Seriously? That's seriously the position you want to go with?

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION

I want to start by saying this: Feminist.com?! REALLY?!

Having said that, let me say this: A million ILLEGAL abortions a year in the 1950s? A thousand women dying each year from them? Prove it, and I DON'T mean by citing me another source like Feminist.com. Find a real source, if you can get someone to define the term for you.

What complete, utter, unadulterated HORSESHIT.

Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson

And your point with this opinion piece would be what?

Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion

You're going to have to help me out here, because I have no intention of downloading anything to my computer just because you decided to link it in a post.

Why Francis Beckwiths Case Against Abortion Fails

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

Ooh. You can cite inflammatory, non-factual quotes. All that proves is that you're not the only illogical, unscientific panderer out there, and I already knew that.

Thanks for proving my OP point in spades, though: pro-abortion is completely anti-science. It's ALL about subjectivity and emotion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not sure what kind of honest discussion could be had in the first place when the OP's thread title is "Why Pro-Abortion is Anti-Science."

Funny, I've never met a Pro-Abortion person in my life. Words have meaning, and in this case they are used to mischaracterize the position of those who the author disagrees with even before the discussion is started.

Why do pro abortionist keep saying this?

Because they're ashamed to own their true position and want to hide it from others and themselves behind euphemisms. Wouldn't you, if you were in their shoes?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Um...the Constitution has been ammended to include a few things the founders did not address.......

Why don't anti-abortionsts simply amend the consitution, making abortion illegal?

I believe that IS on their possible agenda, although frankly, pro-lifers tend to also be small government sorts who don't really believe this issue belongs on a federal level.

Why was it not even attempted once from 2000 to 2006 when the GOP had the House, Senate, Presidency, and 7/9 SCOTUS nominees?

Face reality, the GOP is never going to do away with abortion, because it is not politically expedient to do so.

Single issue voters on the issue of abortion should form their own party. That is the only way they are going to change the status quo.

Stop trying to hijack my thread with your partisan political bullshitl. This is about an actual issue, not about your hatred of the GOP.

Answer the accusation of pro-abortionists - or pro-choicers, if you prefer - running away from science, or shut up and go bother someone else with your one-trick pony act.

 

[geauxtohell]

Stop trying to hijack my thread with your partisan political bullshitl. This is about an actual issue, not about your hatred of the GOP.

Your thread? I didn't realize you owned the joint. At any rate, pointing absolute fact out to you is very inconvenient isn't it? Abortion is a matter of law, and not science. Most scientists and physicians would rather shy away from something so subjective as how abortion should be classified. Though it's cute to watch you try and come up with some sort of quantitative logic to support your own personal opinion on the matter.

If abortion is a matter of science, what is the ACOG's position on the matter?

http://lobby.la.psu.edu/_107th/094_...ts/NARAL/NARAL_and_leading_medical_groups.pdf

I rest my case.

Oh, let me guess, the ACOG is corrupt because they make soooooooo much money on abortions right? Despite the fact that most OB's rarely, if ever, perform abortions.

As always, it's amusing to watch you try and pervert science to bash others about the head and neck with your personal opinion. I suppose the absolutely dense might buy your bullshit.

As it stands, abortion is a legal issue. There was never a better opportunity to rectify the situation then when "conservatives" ran the show. Not only did they not change a damn thing, they didn't even try.

You guys bitch about liberals, at least we don't act like we give a fuck about your pet causes when in actuality we are just stringing you along for votes and donations.

Sorry to break the hard truth to you.

Answer the accusation of pro-abortionists - or pro-choicers, if you prefer - running away from science, or shut up and go bother someone else with your one-trick pony act.

If I felt you or anyone had fiat over what constitutes sound science over a policy manner, I might be tempted to play your Reindeer Games.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Stop trying to hijack my thread with your partisan political bullshitl. This is about an actual issue, not about your hatred of the GOP.

Your thread? I didn't realize you owned the joint. At any rate, pointing absolute fact out to you is very inconvenient isn't it? Abortion is a matter of law, and not science. Most scientists and physicians would rather shy away from something so subjective as how abortion should be classified. Though it's cute to watch you try and come up with some sort of quantitative logic to support your own personal opinion on the matter.

I started this thread because I wanted to discuss the science of the abortion issue. I didn't start it because I wanted to hear you whine and kvetch about your little personal hatreds. If you want to start a thread about what a sniveling nancyboy you are, go ahead. THIS thread isn't about that, so take it elsewhere.

If abortion is a matter of science, what is the ACOG's position on the matter?

http://lobby.la.psu.edu/_107th/094_...ts/NARAL/NARAL_and_leading_medical_groups.pdf

I rest my case.

You should. Something that small and fragile probably needs a lot of rest.

Please try and learn to differentiate between "scientific fact" and "statement of political group's political opinion".

Oh, let me guess, the ACOG is corrupt because they make soooooooo much money on abortions right? Despite the fact that most OB's rarely, if ever, perform abortions.

Once again, please learn to differentiate between "scientific fact" and "political opinion". Or perhaps you could just learn to tell the difference between "reliable source" and "NARAL".

As always, it's amusing to watch you try and pervert science to bash others about the head and neck with your personal opinion. I suppose the absolutely dense might buy your bullshit.

As always, it's boring to watch you flatter yourself that your meaningful, relevant, or sporting more than two brain cells.

As it stands, abortion is a legal issue. There was never a better opportunity to rectify the situation then when "conservatives" ran the show. Not only did they not change a damn thing, they didn't even try.

And yes, we all know that, just as leftists don't believe in basing "moral" decisions on fact, they also don't believe in basing legal decisions on it. This is why you so often hear leftists say, "Legal issue" as though it precludes anything else.

There is never a better time for you to take your obsessive hatred of Republicans to its own thread and stop trying to shoehorn it into others.

You guys bitch about liberals, at least we don't act like we give a fuck about your pet causes when in actuality we are just stringing you along for votes and donations.

I bitch about leftists, and touting your politicians' honesty it proclaiming that they're only interested in votes and donations only impresses people like you.

Sorry to break the hard truth to you.


I'm quite happy to break the hard truth to you, to whit: your obsessive hatred of the GOP is not the topic here, and is not welcome. Get on topic or go away.

Answer the accusation of pro-abortionists - or pro-choicers, if you prefer - running away from science, or shut up and go bother someone else with your one-trick pony act.

If I felt you or anyone had fiat over what constitutes sound science over a policy manner, I might be tempted to play your Reindeer Games.[/QUOTE]

In other words, you have nothing to say on the subject of science except "So-and-so told me THIS was the correct scientific position that ALL the smart people accept, and I believe it and you don't, so I'm smart and you aren't. Nyah nyah!"

As usual (although you're consistently too stupid to realize it despite being told), you no longer warrant a response on this thread until you say something worthwhile . . . I won't expect to address you here again.

 

[Ravi]

No, it can't. What it CAN do is provide us with the facts to base our decision on . . . unless they contradict what someone is determined to do anyway, in which case that person can pretend that moral and ethical questions are made in a scientific vacuum.

What's odd is that those most vociferously insisting that science can't make this decision also feel free, when they wish, to accuse the other side of being "anti-science". Please don't just gloss over THAT little tidbit and pretend it isn't there.

It really comes down to whether that developing baby is a human being or it isn't. And for myself, I can't think of any point in that development, in or out of the womb, that is more or less important and/or necessary to the man or woman it will be than is any other stage of that development.

And that is why I am staunchly pro life. There are means to prevent starting a baby, but once one is on the way, for me the issue involves two lives, not one.

But I don't want my government getting involved in the matter except at the local level on the expressed votes of the people. If a community doesn't want abortions, it should not have to allow them. But that community should not have the ability to dictate matters of conscience for the next community.

The Federal government should not be involved at all other than to secure the rights of the people and then leave it to them to work out the sort of society they wish to have.

Actually, I agree. Moreover, I will say that at whatever level of government this issue is decided, it should ALWAYS be decided by the people of society at large, not by a handful of unelected officials decreeing what is right and proper for everyone. If we wanted that sort of society, we wouldn't live in America. I believe that one of the biggest reasons that abortion is such a touchy, hot-button issue is because the people have been cut out of the process entirely and had it imposed on them by fiat.

It's always a fiat when it goes against what you want.

I wonder if you think no longer preventing blacks and whites marriage was imposition by fiat.

 

[Ravi]

The Legislature IS the representative of the people.

The problem is they haven't Legislated, but have instead allowed the courts to decide the legal question of abortion.

constitutional rights are not up for majority vote.

that issue HAS been explored and HAS been legislated and corrected by the Courts.

Actually, dumbass, they are. Ever hear of a little procedure called "Constitutional Amendment"? I realize that leftists never use it, favoring the illegal judicial fiat instead, but it does exist, and does involve voting.

I bet she has. Constitutional amendments are voted on by the representatives of the people. The people do not directly vote on civil rights...it is unconstitutional.

Dumbass.

 

[geauxtohell]

<snip>
As usual (although you're consistently too stupid to realize it despite being told), you no longer warrant a response on this thread until you say something worthwhile . . . I won't expect to address you here again.

LMAO. My post went straight over your head. Saying something like "pro-abortion is anti-science" is an asinine statement that same sort of bullshit pseudo-science babble that people have used to make other social issue claims over the years like "Blacks are meant to be slaves" and "women aren't smart enough to vote". You can claim you are arguing the "scientific" side of any issue. That doesn't make it so.

Let's see, what peer-reviewed scientific publication (the standard for scientific publications) was this tripe posted in?

Oh, "Human Events" a conservative website that does OPED.

And who is the noble scientist that submitted this work?

Nancy Pearcey is a bestselling author, editor at large of The Pearcey Report, and fellow of the Discovery Institute. She has published a new book, Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning. To inquire about media interviews, please contact Katie Morgan of the Pinkston Group at 703-260-1915 (email: [email protected]).

What a shocker, a "fellow" at Discovery, the same institution that tried to corrupt biology curriculum across the nation by claiming intelligent Design was a scientific theory before they got their sorry asses kicked in court. Pearcey is not a scientist and her highest degree is a Masters in Biblical Studies.

The Pearcey Report: About

This isn't a scientific position paper. It's the opinion of a single person who is undeniably biased towards a religious approach to abortion.

Meanwhile, the people in the field who actually deal with women's reproductive issues as a profession has stated that abortions should be available to women and if you didn't like that it was in NARAL, you are smart enough to cross reference the primary source which is the ACOG position paper. Of course, it is your habit to to ignore things that are inconvenient to your position and then throw temper tantrums. You are nothing without your rage.

I pointed out the GOP vignette simply because it's too relevant to ignore. Nothing will happen on abortion until a one issue part is formed. Then the GOP will be forced to do more than pay lip service to the cause.

Or sit here and bitch about it for the next 40 years. I don't care. Just don't expect to win over anyone who knows anything about how the real scientific process with the statement that a policy issue is really a scientific one.

As usual, when I lay the heat on you. You inform me that you won't talk to me anymore on the issue and do your dead level best to make it seem that it's simply because I am a nuisance and not that your strawman arguments are easily knocked over.

So run away, little girl. I take satisfaction in knowing that you are, in fact, this easy.

 

[manifold]

Sure you have. They either lie to you, or you lie to yourself about it. Not being a mind reader I have no idea which is true, but one of them is.

Bullshit fail

I'm decidedly Anti-abortion AND Pro-Choice.

And I'm not lying to anyone, let alone myself.

I did offer an alternative, it is not my fault that you guilty conscious prohibited you from acknowledging the possibility that others were lying to you. That is pretty telling, if you ask me.

I already acknowledged the point, at least implicitly, that a woman who chooses to abort for no reason other than convenience can be fairly characterized as pro-abortion.

Where I say you fail is insisting that Pro-Choice = Pro-Abortion. It does not.

 

[Hister]

manifold, is that your real picture or do you just like pictures of poofters?