abortion

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 16:41:49

Different55 wrote:

No. Atilla, that's not a reason. All you're doing is saying "I don't know why, but some other people do and I trust them pretty well." Yes, I know that the highly qualified people behind the law drew their line at cognition but I want to know why they drew it there. They weren't able to run away and say "I-IT'S THE LAW" so what did they say when asked "Where do we draw the line?"

The legal status is reasoned here here.

Different55 · 2016-11-29 18:43:20

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Different55 wrote:
No. Atilla, that's not a reason. All you're doing is saying "I don't know why, but some other people do and I trust them pretty well." Yes, I know that the highly qualified people behind the law drew their line at cognition but I want to know why they drew it there. They weren't able to run away and say "I-IT'S THE LAW" so what did they say when asked "Where do we draw the line?"
Here you go.

Should I be surprised that you're full of crap again?

Roe v Wade decided that the third trimester was the cutoff:

Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

The brain starts coming online at the end of the first/beginning of the second trimester, so I have no idea where you got the idea that Roe v Wade decided that cognition = life. And immediately after this quoted passage is this one:

Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.

Still nothing at all to be said about neural development or activity.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 20:35:45

I had never stated that Roe v. Wade argues in favour of anything besides the constitution.
I had only linked to that because it is the most substantial relation, as it allows abortion to be legal federally, otherwise it'd be left in the hands of the states.

You're asking for the legal statue that explicitly determines when a person is legally dead, the only available thing is the Uniform Determination of Death Act to my knowledge.
In essence, the doctor determines whether the patient is dead and provides the relevant paperwork, which is subject to vary on a state by state basis.

If you read it over, you'll notice that it states "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem", vis-a-vis cognition.

sthegreat · 2016-11-30 01:21:47

Different55 wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
What difference is there between a flower and a fetus that has no, and never had, cognition?
The difference is pretty obvious. Wait a few weeks and that fetus will be cognitive. Wait as long as you like, that flower's not going anywhere.

However, until that happens they are essentially the same. I view abortion as simply never allowing the baby to exist in the first place, which is exactly what is happening with abortion regardless of what would happen in a few weeks. Besides, where would you draw a line? Is a single cell that has just been fertilized "alive"? After all, wait a few months and it will be cognitive.

mrjawapa · 2016-11-30 03:37:25

is anyone else really **** confused?

Different55 · 2016-11-30 04:19:15

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I had never stated that Roe v. Wade argues in favour of anything besides the constitution.
I had only linked to that because it is the most substantial relation, as it allows abortion to be legal federally, otherwise it'd be left in the hands of the states.

Atilla, that's not what I asked for. You've gone and made up your own question and responded to that again. Don't do that.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

You're asking for the legal statue that explicitly determines when a person is legally dead, the only available thing is the Uniform Determination of Death Act to my knowledge.
In essence, the doctor determines whether the patient is dead and provides the relevant paperwork, which is subject to vary on a state by state basis.
If you read it over, you'll notice that it states "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem", vis a vis cognition.

There's a keyword in there, and that's "cessation" and only involves death, specifically brain death. And in any case that has nothing at all to do with abortion.

Again, the question I asked was:

Different55 wrote:

All you're doing is saying "I don't know why, but some other people do and I trust them pretty well." Yes, I know that the highly qualified people behind the law drew their line at cognition but I want to know why they drew it there. They weren't able to run away and say "I-IT'S THE LAW" so what did they say when asked "Where do we draw the line?"

Different55 · 2016-11-30 04:26:09

sthegreat wrote:

Different55 wrote:
XxAtillaxX wrote:
What difference is there between a flower and a fetus that has no, and never had, cognition?
The difference is pretty obvious. Wait a few weeks and that fetus will be cognitive. Wait as long as you like, that flower's not going anywhere.
However, until that happens they are essentially the same. I view abortion as simply never allowing the baby to exist in the first place, which is exactly what is happening with abortion regardless of what would happen in a few weeks. Besides, where would you draw a line? Is a single cell that has just been fertilized "alive"? After all, wait a few months and it will be cognitive.

Well that's what I'm asking, where do we draw the line? I'm not saying that just because it will always be cognizant soon that it should always be protected, please don't fall into the same hole that Atilla's visited twice now. I'm just saying there's a massive difference between a flower and a human fetus.

Doodle · 2016-11-30 06:22:52

Responses

Bobithan wrote in the 1st forum thread second page:

"Sorry, do you mean to tell me that a single stem cell is just as valuable an entity as I am? It can't think. It doesn't have a personality. It doesn't have emotions. It's just a cell. And if that cell is likely to destroy the life of some woman/couple, there's no reason to let that cell do so. Your faith isn't enough reason to force that kind of decision onto somebody."

It is not uncertain when human life begins. Decades of scientific evidence has contradicted that belief. Its just that, that belief is so deeply engrained in our national mind that it's still widely believed.
Suidmack quotes the American College of Pediatricians’ 2004 policy statement:

"… The body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception – fertilization… Scientific and medical discoveries over the past 3 decades (since Roe versus Wade) have only verified and solidified this age-old truth."

Check out this news resource, its not long http://liveactionnews.org/former-aborti … feel-pain/
And here's the more clear proof http://naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/

And if you still don't understand how there's life or why that life should be valued, please read this as the best explanation i can provide and i couldn't have said it any better, quoted from a book called
Why Pro-Life, Caring for the unborn and their mothers, by Randy Alcorn.

Ch.3 IS THE UNBORN REALLY A HUMAN BEING?
Section - Complex and Human

"The newly fertilized egg contains a staggering amount of
genetic information, sufficient to control the individual’s
growth and development for his entire lifetime. A single
thread of DNA from a human cell contains information
equivalent to a library of one thousand volumes.7
The cells of the new individual divide and multiply
rapidly, resulting in phenomenal growth. There’s growth
because there’s life. Long before a woman knows she’s
pregnant there is within her a living, growing human being.
Between five and nine days after conception the new
person burrows into the womb’s wall for safety and
nourishment. Already his or her gender can be
determined by scientific means. By fourteen days the
child produces a hormone that suppresses the mother’s
menstrual period. It will be two more weeks before
clearly human features are discernible, and three more
before they’re obvious. Still, he is a full-fledged member
of the human race.
At conception the unborn doesn’t appear human to us
who are used to judging humanity by appearance.
Nevertheless, in the objective scientific sense he is every
bit as human as any older child or adult. He looks like a
human being ought to at his stage of development.
At eighteen days after conception the heart is forming
and the eyes start to develop. By twenty-one days the
heart is pumping blood throughout the body. By twentyeight
days the unborn has budding arms and legs. By
thirty days she has a brain and has multiplied in size ten
thousand times.
By thirty-five days, her mouth, ears, and nose are
taking shape. At forty days the preborn child’s brain
waves can be recorded and her heartbeat, which began
three weeks earlier, can already be detected by an
ultrasonic stethoscope. By forty-two days her skeleton is
formed and her brain is controlling the movement of
muscles and organs.
No matter how he or she looks, a child is a child. And,
always, abortion terminates that child’s life. The earliest
means to cause abortion, including Mifepristone (RU-486)
and all abortion pills, are too late to avoid taking a life."

Now about that argument to save the women's life,

Ch.12 IS ABORTION RIGHT WHEN PREGNANCY RISKS TO THE MOTHER'S LIFE?
Intro quote -
"Is abortion justified when a woman’s life or health is
threatened by pregnancy or childbirth? It’s an
extremely rare case when abortion is required to save
the mother’s life. While he was U.S. Surgeon General,
Dr. C. Everett Koop stated that in thirty-six years as a
pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single
situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken
in order to save the mother’s life. He said the use of this
argument to justify abortion was a “smoke screen.” Dr.
Landrum Shettles claimed that less than 1 percent of all
abortions are performed to save the mother’s life.1"

~ (1.): Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983), 129.

Section - Save the Life that Can be Saved
"A woman with toxemia will have adverse health
reactions and considerable inconvenience, including
probably needing to lie down for much of her pregnancy.
This is difficult, but normally not life-threatening. In
such cases, abortion for the sake of “health” would
not be lifesaving but life-taking.
However, if the mother has a fast-spreading uterine
cancer, the surgery to remove the cancer may result in
the loss of the child’s life. In an ectopic pregnancy the
child is developing outside the uterus. He has no hope of
survival and may have to be removed to save his mother.
These are tragic situations, but even if one life must be
lost, the life that can be saved should be. More often
than not that life is the mother’s. There are rare cases in
later stages of pregnancy when the mother can’t be saved
but the baby can. Again, one life saved is better than two
lives lost.
Friends of ours were faced with a situation where
removing the mother’s life-threatening and rapidly
spreading cancer would result in their unborn child’s
death. The pregnancy was so early that there wasn’t time
for the child to develop sufficiently to live outside the
womb before both mother and child would die. The surgery
was performed. But this was in no sense an
abortion. The surgery’s purpose wasn’t to kill the child
but to save the mother. The death of the child was a
tragic side-effect of lifesaving efforts. This was a
consistently pro-life act, since to be pro-life does not
mean being pro-life just about babies. It also means
being pro-life about women."

If i knew all the science to the development of a baby, this book took the words right out of my mouth. And you said " my faith isn't enough to force that kind of decision onto somebody", How is my faith involved in this? And how am i forcing decisions onto anybody when i state facts and opinions that can't physically yield someone to doing something?
I extremely recommend that book for people seeking to understand the Pro-Life argument which many people are ignorant of including me of the science to it.

Btw, there goes XxAtillaxX argument that it's a "religious debate" not worth debating, and that the "Science Community" reject the Pro-Life debate, and that life begins when there's neural activity. Even before neural activity, there is clear signs of humanity. I don't know if there's neural activity at the moment of conception or after but that doesn't matter to me from what i've read that there is life. But i have more to say about what he has said after one response.

Hummerz5 wrote:
"The baby could have lived"
I mean, if you want to generate as much life (which is apparently this all-good) as possible, shouldn't it be a societal goal that everyone reproduces as much as possible for their peak years? Clearly we cap it somewhere.
I guess that's another avenue I don't really see discussed (perhaps because it's frivolous). If abortion is denied on the grounds of "life is this all good" then why do we stop at "you can't abort your child?" Why not "you must have children" if it's that important? Yes, it's a floating comment but I feel the notion does extend.

Nobody needs to ask a women when to stop having babies. In America as in almost every country, you can have as many as you want! Or can handle. Really if your going to talk about birth control, that would be a type of system similar to the one in China. Because of their huge amount of population, couples are limited to one, however there's exceptions as in where you had your baby. And we are not in the days of a small amount of humans on earth as in the days of Adam and Eve's close genealogy siblings where we are to be fruitful by filling the earth. Population control is evil, by killing a large amount of people. If you seen Avengers Winter Soldier, they fought for the very reason to stop that. Indeed there are people thinking of this. Scary?

XxAtillaxX
My word.., you are the greatest slander i've ever chat with so far. I'm surprised you were not muted from this conversation. Let me expose all your bitterness not only for religious people but for those who disagree with you.

There's no debate to be had beyond a religious one.
It's ultimately futile to debate those who lack logical scientific reasoning on an issue that requires it.

You claim all religious people are mentally retarded. (That was said in your first comment of this new forum)

It's rather disturbing as well, considering they are inherently against human rights, wishing to force others to endure severe unnecessary pain.

You lie, you think i wish to control other peoples lives if i had the ability? No. I stick with the designed order of FREE WILL.

They are unable to draw the line because they are simply morons who lack the basic understanding of neurology.

You continue to mock.

It's incredibly pathetic, these morons should be mocked and ridiculed, not treated as intellectuals.

And your the true definition of a bigot; a hater. Definition of bigot: (1.) One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. (2.) a person who is extremely intolerant of another's creed, belief, or opinion. ~thefreedictionary.com
Come on, who entices people to mock others unless they hate them.

Sorry if it seems to you that i'm mocking you, but if i am wrong somewhere, do so explain and i will immediately take back what i've said what you are, or just in the moment acting like.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-30 10:38:44

Hacked wrote:

XxAtillaxX
My word.., you are the greatest slander i've ever chat with so far. I'm surprised you were not muted from this conversation. Let me expose all your bitterness not only for religious people but for those who disagree with you.
The worst in the world has always been those who wish to control the lives, and infringing the rights of others, typically women.
Your a sexist. You said that in the first Abortion debate thread. I wouldn't be surprised if Zoey stopped the thread for that reason...
There's no debate to be had beyond a religious one.
It's ultimately futile to debate those who lack logical scientific reasoning on an issue that requires it.
You claim all religious people are mentally retarded.
It's rather disturbing as well, considering they are inherently against human rights, wishing to force others to endure severe unnecessary pain.
You lie, you think i wish to control other peoples lives if i had the ability? No. I stick with the designed order of FREE WILL.
They are unable to draw the line because they are simply morons who lack the basic understanding of neurology.
You continue to mock.
It's incredibly pathetic, these morons should be mocked and ridiculed, not treated as intellectuals.
And your the true definition of a bigot; a hater. Definition of bigot: (1.) One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. (2.) a person who is extremely intolerant of another's creed, belief, or opinion. ~thefreedictionary.com
Come on... who entices people to mock others unless they hate these people...
Sorry if it seems to you that i'm mocking you, but if i am wrong somewhere, do so explain and i will immediately take back what i've said what you are, or just in the moment acting like.

You're surprised, are you? I can't say I'm very surprised - you do seem like the type of person who has been sheltered from differing opinions.

I don't typically engage in trivial name-calling however I'll give you a quick education on what bigotry truly is.
"How do we maintain the right to criticize ideas openly and freely without also perpetuating bigotry against people? Is there a divide between the two?
There is a divide, but I also believe there needs to be. Ideas are not people—criticizing the former does not by default imply a criticism of the latter." - Christopher Hitchens

To be put clearly, I'm intolerant of and criticising of religion itself not the people who choose to believe in it.
You, on the other hand are both those things towards me, a person, not an idea. You, are the bigot.

"The worst in the world has always been those who wish to control the lives, and infringing the rights of others, typically women."
"Your a sexist. You said that in the first Abortion debate thread. I wouldn't be surprised if Zoey stopped the thread for that reason..."

I'm a sexist for defending the rights of women to not endure unnecessary procedures against their will?
Well, aren't you for womens rights? If not, you're the sexist.
I'd recommend keeping your disgusting and loath-worthy comments against those who disagree with you, to yourself - or resignate them to the roasting topic.

Hacked wrote:

There's no debate to be had beyond a religious one.
It's ultimately futile to debate those who lack logical scientific reasoning on an issue that requires it.
You claim all religious people are mentally retarded.

Where did I claim that? Don't make yourself look like an idiot by misquoting others.

Doodle · 2016-11-30 22:21:56

I misunderstood what you said about women. Removed comment.
I didn't misquote you, that was said in your first comment of this new forum. I guess you didn't mean what i said.
It was alot of work to put that together but i didn't type all that, it was mainly copy and pasting quotes and that script from a book i've read a little.
All that for the cause of trying to prove that at the moment of conception, there is life.
Disgusting? I feel weary about my responses to you, like they were unnecessary or rude, but i put them there to show how rude your being.
Your saying its the idea but you say things like "It's incredibly pathetic, these morons should be mocked and ridiculed, not treated as intellectuals."
It's not that it seems that i've been sheltered from differing beliefs, that's nothing new to me, it's that im passionate to share certain things like why pro-life matters.

Different55 · 2016-12-01 03:41:49

Different55 wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
I had never stated that Roe v. Wade argues in favour of anything besides the constitution.
I had only linked to that because it is the most substantial relation, as it allows abortion to be legal federally, otherwise it'd be left in the hands of the states.
Atilla, that's not what I asked for. You've gone and made up your own question and responded to that again. Don't do that.
XxAtillaxX wrote:
You're asking for the legal statue that explicitly determines when a person is legally dead, the only available thing is the Uniform Determination of Death Act to my knowledge.
In essence, the doctor determines whether the patient is dead and provides the relevant paperwork, which is subject to vary on a state by state basis.
If you read it over, you'll notice that it states "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem", vis a vis cognition.
There's a keyword in there, and that's "cessation" and only involves death, specifically brain death. And in any case that has nothing at all to do with abortion.
Again, the question I asked was:
Different55 wrote:
All you're doing is saying "I don't know why, but some other people do and I trust them pretty well." Yes, I know that the highly qualified people behind the law drew their line at cognition but I want to know why they drew it there. They weren't able to run away and say "I-IT'S THE LAW" so what did they say when asked "Where do we draw the line?"

Bumping for visibility, at this point barely even interested in the answer. I just want to know if it's even possible to get Atilla to answer to a question you've actually asked.

mrjawapa · 2016-12-01 12:51:34

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I don't typically engage in trivial name-calling

XxAtillaxX wrote:

they are simply morons

XxAtillaxX wrote:

they very much deserve to be called foolish.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

If they're being stupid, I have no issue with calling them stupid.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-12-01 13:07:42

MrJaWapa wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
I don't typically engage in trivial name-calling
XxAtillaxX wrote:
they are simply morons
XxAtillaxX wrote:
they very much deserve to be called foolish.
XxAtillaxX wrote:
If they're being stupid, I have no issue with calling them stupid.

It's not trivial when they are actively attempting to change the law and enact crimes against humanity.

Different55 wrote:

Bumping for visibility, at this point barely even interested in the answer. I just want to know if it's even possible to get Atilla to answer to a question you've actually asked.

It has become readily apparent that nothing fits your criteria for an answer. I've already answered you numerous times, and you continue to exhibit tactical stupidity.
At this point, I'm done debating you and ultimately this topic, as I've expressed my thoughts, and hopefully educated others upon doing so.

Different55 · 2016-12-01 16:04:23

XxAtillaxX wrote:

It has become readily apparent that nothing fits your criteria for an answer. I've already answered you numerous times, and you continue to exhibit tactical stupidity.

Darn, gone back to childish name calling and insulting? Well, you've got to say something since you obviously don't have any actual answers to back yourself up. You say you have the law and everyone who made that law behind you but you can't show me a single law or a single anything from anyone stating that cognition matters for something to be considered alive. Not dead, alive. You haven't answered "why?"

▼Replay

Different55 wrote:

I'm asking you why choose cognition as the cut off over any other possible cut off point? Skullz said it better than I can:
skullz17 wrote:
why is cognition used as criteria for deciding whether to kill something or not?

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Cognition is, by the very definition, the inability to sense, to experience, to have thought.
This is the very thing that separates living entities from non-living entities. If it is a non-living entity then it is not unethical to destroy it.
You are in-fact alive by the common interpretation of the term, when you have cognition.
Anything further is pure philosophical nonsense, such as the ethicality of preventing an action that would otherwise occur.

What I asked for: Why is cognition the cutoff point?
What I got: Well the first sentence here is actually some legit philosophical "nonsense." I would have totally accepted it if you were stating it as your opinion. Unfortunately you seem to think you're backed by law, science, and the human race collectively. Nobody else thinks that cognition = life because it isn't. That idea is patently false yet you nearly seem to have that statement on a loop.

Different55 wrote:

Why cognition over any other point in time?

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I'm not against killing flowers, therefore I'm not against killing undeveloped fetuses.

What I asked for: Why is cognition the cutoff point?
What I got: In my opinion, fetuses are no more alive than flowers, and I don't have a problem killing flowers.
What's wrong: Again, totally fine if that was just your opinion and you were off in your own little world. But according to you, cognition is an actual cutoff point for abortion used by actual people. Who are these people? What is their reasoning? The world may never know. At least if all we have to rely on is Atilla, anyway.

Different55 wrote:

That's not an answer.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I've provided the reason: cognition in humans is required to be considered alive legally.

What I asked for: Why is cognition the cutoff point?
What I got: "Because the law said so." Okay, great. This is actually a step in the right direction. A statement that cognition is required to be alive legally. A statement that really needs follow up questions to actually be an answer to the question. Which law and what was the reasoning of the people who made that law?

Different55 wrote:

No. Atilla, that's not a reason. All you're doing is saying "I don't know why, but some other people do and I trust them pretty well." Yes, I know that the highly qualified people behind the law drew their line at cognition but I want to know why they drew it there. They weren't able to run away and say "I-IT'S THE LAW" so what did they say when asked "Where do we draw the line?"

XxAtillaxX wrote:

The legal status is reasoned here here.

What I asked for: Which law and what was the reasoning of the people who made the law that said cognition is the cutoff?
What I got: Roe v Wade, a notable case where at no point in time did they decide that cognition mattered for abortion. When questioned about this:

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I had never stated that Roe v. Wade argues in favour of anything besides the constitution.
I had only linked to that because it is the most substantial relation, as it allows abortion to be legal federally, otherwise it'd be left in the hands of the states.

So apparently what I actually got: "Abortion is legal federally up until viability, which has nothing to do with cognition and everything to do with the fetus's odds of survival."

Different55 wrote:

Atilla, that's not what I asked for. You've gone and made up your own question and responded to that again. Don't do that.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Literally nothing

Darn, and we were getting so close to an actual answer. Closer than we've been the rest of the topic anyway.

Different55 wrote:

Bumping for visibility

XxAtillaxX wrote:

ur dum

And you're triggered.

You talk about my "tactical stupidity" but you're the one dodging questions like you're in the matrix.

mrjawapa, Swarth100, mutantdevle, N1KF

SmittyW · 2016-12-01 17:34:47

Diff: What is the cutting point for life?
Atilla: cognition
Diff: That's not what I asked.... Why is cognition the cutting point for life?
Atilla: Because it's what separates living/non-living
Diff: That's not what I asked...
Repeat 10 times

I get that you want Atilla to link a law stating "life begins at cognition" but the way you ask it is roundabout. I don't think there's a law stating that brain-dead = dead (don't quote me on that) but I did find this interview interesting.

Q. Can a person who's been declared brain-dead be revived?
A. No. Brain death is death, plain and simple.

Obviously cognition is not the cut off point for abortion in all states. I think it should be since cognition is what mainly separates us from other species (besides mating). That means I don't really agree with Bobithan's excerpt. I understand on a biological standpoint that it's living (it has cells) but it's not life that I care about. Though maybe I'm coming off as a huge ignoramus, I do know I don't care about an embryo and I wouldn't feel guilty about pulling the plug on a brain-dead person

XxAtillaxX · 2016-12-01 17:42:09

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_D … _Death_Act

If you are against abortion because of cellular life, then you should be exiled for stepping on flowers and insects.
Additionally, go protest on the streets about organ donations since it contains cellular life despite them not having cognition.

Different55 · 2016-12-02 15:47:18

SmittyW wrote:

Diff: What is the cutting point for life?
Atilla: cognition
Diff: That's not what I asked.... Why is cognition the cutting point for life?
Atilla: Because it's what separates living/non-living
Diff: That's not what I asked...
Repeat 10 times
I get that you want Atilla to link a law stating "life begins at cognition" but the way you ask it is roundabout. I don't think there's a law stating that brain-dead = dead (don't quote me on that) but I did find this interview interesting.

You're right, I'm not doing a great job at organizing my thoughts here, but the question has always been "why is cognition the cutoff?" Like I mentioned in the recap, if it was just "cognition is what separates the living from the dead" that'd be totally fine. It's an interesting philosophical viewpoint. But he's not using it as a philosophical viewpoint, he's delusional enough to think it's some sort of fact, or that he's backed by law and science and "the common interpretation of life." He's not. That's what I'm getting triggered by. He can't show me any law relevant to cognition and abortion in any state or country.

SmittyW wrote:

Obviously cognition is not the cut off point for abortion in all states.

Well, that's the thing. It doesn't seem to be the cut off for any state or country anywhere. If I just have the name of the law or court case it was decided I can go and found out their reasoning on my own, but as far as I can tell this doesn't exist anywhere. No qualified group of people or ethical committee anywhere has sat down and made an official decision that "When the fetus becomes cognizant, we can no longer abort it as it is human and alive."

SmittyW wrote:

I think it should be since cognition is what mainly separates us from other species (besides mating). That means I don't really agree with Bobithan's excerpt. I understand on a biological standpoint that it's living (it has cells) but it's not life that I care about. Though maybe I'm coming off as a huge ignoramus, I do know I don't care about an embryo and I wouldn't feel guilty about pulling the plug on a brain-dead person

See this is absolutely lovely. Someone can come in and say "I disagree, I think X would be a better cut off because Y, which I find better than your cut off because Z." You're not making any claims that your opinion is the One True opinion backed by Unassailable Logic and guarded by Unwavering Pretentiousness and that anyone who possibly disagrees in any way is a fool and should not be classified as human.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

If you are against abortion because of cellular life, then you should be exiled for stepping on flowers and insects.
Additionally, go protest on the streets about organ donations since it contains cellular life despite them not having cognition.

This might shock you but I'm not against abortion. At all. In my ideal world there'd be no abortion but this world isn't ideal. Personally I'm a fan of viability as a cut off, which comes after your cognition cut off.

The uniform death act is entirely irrelevant to abortion. Nobody on this green earth is using that law to show that cognition is or should be the cut off for abortion but you. And that's fine. That's totally. Absolutely. Fine. But either show me an abortion law that says cognition is its cut off or stop saying that you're backed by the law and science and biology and the universe when all you have is your own "philosophical nonsense."

XxAtillaxX · 2016-12-02 17:18:07

Different55 wrote:

This might shock you but I'm not against abortion. At all. In my ideal world there'd be no abortion but this world isn't ideal. Personally I'm a fan of viability as a cut off, which comes after your cognition cut off.
The uniform death act is entirely irrelevant to abortion. Nobody on this green earth is using that law to show that cognition is or should be the cut off for abortion but you. And that's fine. That's totally. Absolutely. Fine. But either show me an abortion law that says cognition is its cut off or stop saying that you're backed by the law and science and biology and the universe when all you have is your own "philosophical nonsense."

Within the United States, Roe v. Wade is entirely backed by the constitution and not by scientific precedence, however the United States isn't the entire world.
As far as I'm aware, there haven't been any nations' governments developed to the extent where they truly accept litigations based upon scientific reasoning.

My understanding is that, from within the United States, it is the doctors choice whether to provide the procedure.
If that is the case, it would be arguable that they'd typically do so with the understanding of biological factors associable with, and limited by, the U.D.D.A.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#51 2016-11-29 16:41:49, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-29 16:56:51)

Re: abortion

#52 2016-11-29 18:43:20

Re: abortion

#53 2016-11-29 20:35:45, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-29 20:40:33)

Re: abortion

#54 2016-11-30 01:21:47

Re: abortion

#55 2016-11-30 03:37:25

Re: abortion

#56 2016-11-30 04:19:15

Re: abortion

#57 2016-11-30 04:26:09

Re: abortion

#58 2016-11-30 06:22:52, last edited by Doodle (2016-11-30 22:08:56)

Re: abortion

#59 2016-11-30 10:38:44

Re: abortion

#60 2016-11-30 22:21:56, last edited by Doodle (2016-11-30 22:37:16)

Re: abortion

#61 2016-12-01 03:41:49

Re: abortion

#62 2016-12-01 12:51:34

Re: abortion

#63 2016-12-01 13:07:42

Re: abortion

#64 2016-12-01 16:04:23

Re: abortion

#65 2016-12-01 17:34:47

Re: abortion

#66 2016-12-01 17:42:09, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-12-01 17:44:07)

Re: abortion

#67 2016-12-02 15:47:18

Re: abortion

#68 2016-12-02 17:18:07

Re: abortion

Board footer