Babies or tissue?

[layoutshooter]

"has made a distinction between born and unborn, between hatched and unhatched,"


Not entirely true under US Fish and Wild Life law and most state laws. Unhatched eggs are OFTEN protected to insure their hatching. One cannot even say that it is ONLY "endangered species" eggs that are protected. Even nuisance population eggs, like resident geese, are generally protected and permission from state wildlife commissions are needed for addling programs to control populations. Almost all nests are protected, regardless of the species. That includes unhatched turtle eggs.

 

[xiggi]

Yes, that certainly would change everything I wrote. But that's not the question. "Is the unborn child a tap dancer?" would also change everything I wrote. I can think of several hundred questions that all would change what I wrote. They would, of course, change entirely the context of what I wrote. Let's stay in context, shall we?

Even the question, "Is an unborn child life or not?" isn't the question, beyond being rhetorical, as most reasonable and intelligent people will conclude that life begins at conception. The question isn't even, "Is the unborn child human life?" since the same conclusion will be reached by the same people.

The question, however, "Is the unborn child a person?" The answer to that is obvious: of course not, not until it is born, not anymore than an unhatched chicken is a chicken. All life on this planet, and the entire history of human legalities and morality, has made a distinction between born and unborn, between hatched and unhatched, between conception and fruition. The very term "unborn" is itself a qualifier of something yet to come, something not yet realized. When women are pregnant they are going to have, future tense, a baby, but they don't have one yet. An unborn baby isn't a baby, or a person. It will be, but it ain't yet, not as long as it remains unborn.

But it's good to know that, to you, the simple question of, "is a woman property, or a person?" is one you are unable or unwilling to answer. It's a touchy question for a lot of men, so I understand your reticence to answer it, since it'll open a can of parthenogenetic worms.

Honestly I don't have an answer on how I feel about the entire abortion debate. Of course a women is not property but i am not convinced your argument has to end with that conclusion if one is against abortion which is what I was pointing out. It would depend on why a person was against abortion. I also don't believe personally that saying an unborn is not a person is as cut and dry as you suggest. Many have a strong belief life begins way before birth I cannot fault them or the women who decides on abortion.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[layoutshooter]

"Many have a strong belief life begins way before birth I cannot fault them or the women who decides on abortion."


Which is EXACTLY why the government, at all levels, should stay out of, not only abortion, but health care in general. ALL health care is STRICTLY a personal matter and ALL decisions on health care SHOULD be made ONLY by the individual, their doctor and or their appointed health care advocate.

 

[Turtle]

"has made a distinction between born and unborn, between hatched and unhatched,"


Not entirely true under US Fish and Wild Life law and most state laws. Unhatched eggs are OFTEN protected to insure their hatching. One cannot even say that it is ONLY "endangered species" eggs that are protected. Even nuisance population eggs, like resident geese, are generally protected and permission from state wildlife commissions are needed for addling programs to control populations. Almost all nests are protected, regardless of the species. That includes unhatched turtle eggs.

Are you trying to say that US Fish and Wildlife laws make no distinction whatsoever between hatched and unhatched eggs, because they think there is no difference?

The fact that unhatched eggs are protected means there is a distinction between hatched and unhatched. The fact that something is protected, be it hatched or unhatched, doesn't mean there is no distinction between them. Both or neither can be protected, or not.

 

[layoutshooter]

Are you trying to say that US Fish and Wildlife laws make no distinction whatsoever between hatched and unhatched eggs, because they think there is no difference?

The fact that unhatched eggs are protected means there is a distinction between hatched and unhatched. The fact that something is protected, be it hatched or unhatched, doesn't mean there is no distinction between them. Both or neither can be protected, or not.

The eggs, and nests, are both protected because they are 100% sure that doing so helps to insure the continuation of the species. There is NO difference in most laws that I am aware of, in the penalties for killed a hen on her nest, the eggs in the nest, or a drake out of season. Just how it is. The individual egg is as important as the hen that lays it, under most wildlife law that is.

Even anti-hunters know this and have used this section of the migratory game act to protect invasion species, such as European Mute Swans, regardless of the damage they are doing. Up until now, in Michigan at least, they have won most court case. Thanks to a change in Michigan law, that will likely come to an end and sanity will return and the vermin can be removed.

Note change:

Mute swans were removed from federal migratory protection in 2004. It is still required in Michigan to get permits from the DNR to disturb nests. My mistake.

 

[Turtle]

Honestly I don't have an answer on how I feel about the entire abortion debate.

I'll give you mine, if you like. I think abortion is an abomination, an abhorrent affront to the most precious thing in the entire universe. But I also think forcing someone to do something against their will is a really close second. I don't believe that certain people should have the right to tell other people what to think and how to live their lives, because that greatly diminishes the value of the most previous thing we know.

Of course a women is not property but i am not convinced your argument has to end with that conclusion if one is against abortion which is what I was pointing out. It would depend on why a person was against abortion.

I don't think it matters at all why they think they can tell other people what to do and how to think. If you don't believe in abortion, then by all means don't have one.

I do think it's important to never lose sight of the fact that in the 150 years or so that anti-abortion sentiment has been pushed onto societies, that it has been done and is being primarily by men who are controlling women, by men who are attempting to treat women as property, and the history of anti-abortion almost exactly mirrors that of women demanding to be treated not as property but as persons. The more women have been treated as persons, the stronger the anti-abortion sentiment has become.

I also don't believe personally that saying an unborn is not a person is as cut and dry as you suggest. Many have a strong belief life begins way before birth I cannot fault them or the women who decides on abortion.

You must first define person, and look at its etymology and use throughout history, both morally and legally.

 

[Turtle]

The eggs, and nests, are both protected because they are 100% sure that doing so helps to insure the continuation of the species. There is NO difference in most laws that I am aware of, in the penalties for killed a hen on her nest, the eggs in the nest, or a drake out of season. Just how it is. The individual egg is as important as the hen that lays it, under most wildlife law that is.

Good grief. Show me one US Fish and Wildlife law that protects both the hatched and the unhatched without mentioning both. If there is no distinction, there would be no need to mention both, as just one or the other is fine. In other words, they do, in fact, make a distinction between them. The fact that the law provides the same penalties for harming hatched versus unhatched doesn't meant that there isn't any difference between them.

In real people laws the penalties for the unlawful killing of a pregnant woman will get you charged with two murders, but that doesn't mean her and her unborn child are exactly the same thing. The reason you can be charged with two murders is not because the unborn child was a person, but because even though it is unborn it can still be a victim. And that's the same reason the penalties for the hatched and the unhatched exist.

It's also the reason that you would be charged with the murder of the unborn if you killed an unborn child, but the mother is not charged for murder when having an abortion. The Pipling Plover isn't prosecuted under US Fish and Wildlife laws for destroying its own eggs, even though you would be, because it's hers to do with what she will.

 

[layoutshooter]

I can hardly read this tonight, my eye is closed, again. I THINK we may be trying to say the same thing in different ways though. Either way, I will resign for the evening.

 

[cheri1122]

Turtle makes the excellent point that abortion is about control. The old saying 'keep them barefoot & pregnant" is proof: control a woman's freedom [to leave] and reproductive choices, and you control that woman. All you need to accomplish the first though, is the second.
Men have been losing a lot of the power and control they've enjoyed for a long time, and they really don't like it. Can't blame them, but when the power and control weren't rightfully theirs to begin with, it's past time for them to give it up.
Women may not handle it any better, but that's irrelevant: it's their power to use.

 

[cheri1122]

Unable to live outside their "container". OK, fine. Then all astronauts in space and all scuba divers underwater are no longer real living beings. By your definition they can't sustain their lives on their own. And as already mentioned, those less than several years old are not "life" either as they can't sustain themselves. Many many seniors are the same.

The problem is that any argument made to try to justify the murder of innocent life does nothing but prove the other side right and the arguing side wrong.

Certainly the woman is live and as mentioned is welcome to cut off her breasts, get eventually if not immediately ugly tattoos, pierce any and all parts of her body, whatever ridiculous things she wants to do that only affect HER body and HER life.

Jane Doe is pregnant. Jane Doe decides to murder me. Pleased as that would make some people, she doesn't have that right. My life is my own. It's no different for John/Mary Doe/Smith, the boy or girl who will be born to Jane Doe. That life is the baby's, not the mother's.

When you caannot refrain from using emotion-laden words, it's a clear indication that you cannot think rationally on that particular subject. Emotion is not how important issues are decided by reasonably intelligent people trying to resolve differing perspectives. Emotion is appealed to when reason and logic are not in your favor.
Just like those billboards that don't show the actual 'baby' that is aborted at 6 or 8 weeks, but one that is guaranteed to appeal to one's emotions. There's nothing honest about that, and it's despicable, attempting to induce guilt in women who are already as vulnerable as they can be.

 

[LDB]

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

 

[muttly]

I don't buy that 'men want to keep women barefoot and pregnant' statement. Seems like a ignorant statement to me. Being against abortion isn't about men wanting power over women. For the most part its about their beliefs that abortion is the killing of an innocent person . Regarding the pictures posted, the fact that they were posted to invoke emotion and to some regarded as despicable is irrelevant. If they cause a person to get emotional about them, its on you. The pictures posted are are at different stages of pregnancy that can be aborted. If some don't want to look at the truth in those pictures, they can lie to themselves I guess.

 

[asjssl]

Unable to live outside their "container". OK, fine. Then all astronauts in space and all scuba divers underwater are no longer real living beings. By your definition they can't sustain their lives on their own. And as already mentioned, those less than several years old are not "life" either as they can't sustain themselves. Many many seniors are the same.

The problem is that any argument made to try to justify the murder of innocent life does nothing but prove the other side right and the arguing side wrong.

Certainly the woman is live and as mentioned is welcome to cut off her breasts, get eventually if not immediately ugly tattoos, pierce any and all parts of her body, whatever ridiculous things she wants to do that only affect HER body and HER life.

Jane Doe is pregnant. Jane Doe decides to murder me. Pleased as that would make some people, she doesn't have that right. My life is my own. It's no different for John/Mary Doe/Smith, the boy or girl who will be born to Jane Doe. That life is the baby's, not the mother's.

Nobody said life is pretty....I all ways say..who remembers being in your mothers womb...but being born unwanted.... abused...etc. I would go with the 1st....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[LDB]

I love how so many of you make a big outcry that it's forcing one's will on a woman to say she isn't allowed to murder another person but think nothing of the absolute ultimate forcing of one's will on that innocent person that's murdered. Then to eliminate any remaining doubt, after basically demanding abortion on demand turn around and decry capital punishment for guilty criminals. Talk about mental defectives and hypocrites.

 

[Turtle]

I love how so many of you make a big outcry that it's forcing one's will on a woman to say she isn't allowed to murder another person but think nothing of the absolute ultimate forcing of one's will on that innocent person that's murdered. Then to eliminate any remaining doubt, after basically demanding abortion on demand turn around and decry capital punishment for guilty criminals. Talk about mental defectives and hypocrites.

No person, innocent or otherwise, is murdered in an abortion.

There are a few people who have a deep-seeded need to tell other people what to do, how to live, what to think. In the case of abortion the only way to do that is to either (a), start redefining terms (person, baby, child, human being), or (b), treat women not as persons but as property, such as, like, you know, a container.

 

[asjssl]

I love how so many of you make a big outcry that it's forcing one's will on a woman to say she isn't allowed to murder another person but think nothing of the absolute ultimate forcing of one's will on that innocent person that's murdered. Then to eliminate any remaining doubt, after basically demanding abortion on demand turn around and decry capital punishment for guilty criminals. Talk about mental defectives and hypocrites.

Fine..do away with abortions..where are all these childern going...hopefully your house...because if the mother was going for an abortion..the child has very little chance of a good life...so now that you are telling her what to do..you need to open your home and wallet.. because all of these kids that will be born need food beds HUGS LOVE ..so if mom is flipping thru the "A's" in the yellow pages..not much hope..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[xiggi]

Fine..do away with abortions..where are all these childern going...hopefully your house...because if the mother was going for an abortion..the child has very little chance of a good life...so now that you are telling her what to do..you need to open your home and wallet.. because all of these kids that will be born need food beds HUGS LOVE ..so if mom is flipping thru the "A's" in the yellow pages..not much hope..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

Really you don't think many who bear a child considered the abortion option? I would disagree and say the majority who decided against it successfully raised their child. Just because a person decides to abort does not mean they wouldn't have successfully raised a child. There are many factors that brings one to that decision and just as often as not it has nothing to do with ability to parent, money, environment or other things you seem to assume.

Maybe we would have less unwanted pregnancies if abortion wasn't so readily available. With the low cost of birth control I can't help but think carelessness is the cause of many unplanned pregnancies.

To tell people they need to open their home or wallet is a fools argument. How about people who are pro abortion open their wallet without force to pay for abortions.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[xiggi]

Nobody said life is pretty....I all ways say..who remembers being in your mothers womb...but being born unwanted.... abused...etc. I would go with the 1st....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

Who remembers being 6 months or a year old? Not sure what the who remembers argument has to do with it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Ragman]

I know nothing! (Go for it Ragman!)

 

[aquitted]

No person, innocent or otherwise, is murdered in an abortion.

There are a few people who have a deep-seeded need to tell other people what to do, how to live, what to think. In the case of abortion the only way to do that is to either (a), start redefining terms (person, baby, child, human being), or (b), treat women not as persons but as property, such as, like, you know, a container.

Out of the mouth of a turtle comes Bible prophesy.