Death for Abortionists!

When a fetus develops to the point at which it can live outside the womb, it is no longer known as a fetus . . . we give another name, then . . .

. . . an infant.

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

Now, about cancer being a living cell... It ain't living once the host dies, and that can't be said about a fetus, can it?

:wink: PP

I believe that if the host were to die in the first, I don't know, 5 months then the fetus would likely die too, no?

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

OK, sometimes, but not always regarding fetuses, not regarding cancer.

:wink: PP

Actually, yes always. A human fetus has not ever survived without a host of some sort.

Um, I'm gonna skip the wink this time, my eye is being rebellious.

0 Replies

I think that the definition of when life begins is a question that is going to be tough to answer politically in the US because of so many different view points. I like the idea that we can choose what we want to do. If we are against doing it than do not perform the operation, but if people feel that it is ok then they should be able to.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

princesspupule wrote:

OK, sometimes, but not always regarding fetuses, not regarding cancer.

:wink: PP

Actually, yes always. A human fetus has not ever survived without a host of some sort.

Um, I'm gonna skip the wink this time, my eye is being rebellious.

OK, I seem to be wrong on this point. I could've sworn that Carol Stuart was dead before her c-section, but apparently not... http://dpsinfo.com/essays/charlie.html And when I looked back at the history of c-sections, where I was sure Caesar had been cut from his dead mother's womb, there was no evidence to prove this was fact...

But, no cancer ever lived on its own once it was removed fromthe host body, and many fetuses have...

Razz

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Kinda feels like getting knocked through a wave, whatta rush!

Smile

PP

0 Replies

So I think that it's safe to say that as a rule both cancers and fetuses cannot live without a host.

We've established that?

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

OK, I seem to be wrong on this point. I could've sworn that Carol Stuart was dead before her c-section, but apparently not... http://dpsinfo.com/essays/charlie.html And when I looked back at the history of c-sections, where I was sure Caesar had been cut from his dead mother's womb, there was no evidence to prove this was fact...

Please see the definition fo a fetus, you demonstrate a lacking understanding of the term.

For example, the legal definition (US) requires that a fetus remain in a womb ("a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb") and by all definitions (except the general "offspring" definition) it ceases to be a fetus outside a womb.

I will again assert:

A human fetus has not ever survived without a host of some sort.

And this remains unchallenged as your example was merely of a cesarean birth.

Setanta has already kindly pointed this out to you:

Setanta wrote:

When a fetus develops to the point at which it can live outside the womb, it is no longer known as a fetus . . . we give another name, then . . .

. . . an infant.

Quote:

But, no cancer ever lived on its own once it was removed fromthe host body

This is a falsehood, unless you determine that "on its own" excludes cultivating care that you do not exclude in your c-section examples.

Quote:

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Indeed.

0 Replies

Re: Death for Abortionists!

joefromchicago wrote:

Dr. Tom Coburn, a former Oklahoma congressman and now (after yesterday's primary election), the GOP candidate for senate in that state, has reiterated his support for imposing the death penalty for abortionists. "My contention for the death penalty is, if you intentionally take innocent life, you ought to be open to the death penalty," Coburn said in an interview. "That's what abortionists do" (story here). He has subsequently clarified his statement:
"In my comment last week, obviously I was not referring to current law, under which abortion is legal and those who perform them are not in violation of the law. My hope is that one day America will return to our historic standards which were to respect the life of the unborn. And when the unborn are protected in law, as they should be, then those who take their life should be punished the same as those who take any innocent life."
Which, I guess, is good news for Coburn, who is himself a former abortionist (for this and other position statements, as well as a chance to volunteer for Coburn's campaign, go here).

Perhaps it is only fitting that Coburn seeks to represent Oklahoma in the senate along with James Inhofe, widely regarded as the dumbest senator of them all.

Anyone from the Sooner State care to comment?

Since nobody OK seems to be here commenting, can I try another line of questions? What's wrong with him stating what he believes? What would you have him do? Separate politics from his beliefs? Which is supposed to change? The senator to match/represent what is popular- or is he supposed to stand up for what is right, at least as he sees it? I don't see him making that statement makes him stupid in any way.

And as for political ramifications... well, I admire a man who can say what he thinks without watching to see how it plays out to his constituents... Coburn strikes me as something of an idealist, which seems like a good thing to be, although perhaps not very compatible with being a senator...

0 Replies

I am in many respects an idealist, although i usually keep it to myself, because the vacuity or dirision of others is beneath contempt . . . however, there is a genuine distinction to be made between myself and the would-be Senator--my idealism does not lead me to believe i have any right to interfer in the private business of others. Although i could never argue against Joe's assertion that Inhofe is possibly the dumbest Senator (a signal distinction--in the House, they say that when a member is elected to the Senate, the average intelligence of both bodies rises), I would probably regard Mr. Coburn more as dangerous than dumb. When someone or something is dangerous, i don't consider a relative statement about intelligence to be of much moment.

0 Replies

Re: Death for Abortionists!

princesspupule wrote:

Since nobody OK seems to be here commenting, can I try another line of questions? What's wrong with him stating what he believes? What would you have him do? Separate politics from his beliefs? Which is supposed to change? The senator to match/represent what is popular- or is he supposed to stand up for what is right, at least as he sees it? I don't see him making that statement makes him stupid in any way.

First, there is nothing wrong, in a moral sense, with Coburn stating what he believes. It may be wrong in a practical political sense, but that's another issue.

Second, I suppose linking him with Inhofe gave the impression that I think he's stupid. In a way, I guess that's true. But maybe that's a bit too harsh. Coburn is, to say the least, an odd duck. Like many true believers in the Gingrich "Contract With America," he promised that he would serve only three terms in congress: unlike many of his fellows, however, after he completed his third term he actually retired. Like all of them, he opposed pork barrel politics: unlike them, he actually turned down money and federal projects for his own district. And like many conservatives he opposes abortion: unlike them, he actually tells the public what outlawing abortion will ultimately involve -- arresting, convicting, and executing abortionists. Perhaps, then, Coburn is dumb because he's too honest to be a successful politician.

But Coburn has some problems with the consistency of his position on abortion. Sure, he's more consistent than those who would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest, but he would permit "therapeutic" abortions -- just like the two abortions that he performed himself. And he still hasn't (as far as I know) clarified his position on how the women who authorize abortions should be treated by the law. If abortionists are murderers, then the women are, at the very least, accessories. If abortionists should be executed, the women should, at the very least, be put behind bars. Coburn needs to explain all the ramifications of his position, and he needs to declare whether he stands with the common hypocrites of the conservative movement who advocate death for abortionists and "understanding" for the women or whether he is true to his convictions and advocates prosecution for both.

0 Replies

Re: Death for Abortionists!

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, let's be clear: I think Coburn is absolutely correct -- at least insofar as he is following the implications of his position to their logical conclusion. It is abundantly clear that one should support the death penalty for abortionists if one believes that fetuses are persons, abortion is murder, and the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for murder (now, I happen to disagree with all of those points, but then I'm not running for the senate). It is people like Coburn who, with the stark honesty of their positions, highlight the base hypocrisy that masquerades as the "Right to Life" position of most conservatives.

Joe (or Arthur), what is this base hypocrisy of which you speak, and how does Coburn highlight it?

0 Replies

Re: Death for Abortionists!

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, let's be clear: I think Coburn is absolutely correct -- at least insofar as he is following the implications of his position to their logical conclusion. It is abundantly clear that one should support the death penalty for abortionists if one believes that fetuses are persons, abortion is murder, and the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for murder (now, I happen to disagree with all of those points, but then I'm not running for the senate). It is people like Coburn who, with the stark honesty of their positions, highlight the base hypocrisy that masquerades as the "Right to Life" position of most conservatives.

Joe (or Arthur), what is this base hypocrisy of which you speak, and how does Coburn highlight it?

0 Replies

Re: Death for Abortionists!

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Joe (or Arthur), what is this base hypocrisy of which you speak, and how does Coburn highlight it?

A couple of minor points.

First, there's no need to ask me twice. I'm not hard of seeing.

Second, who the hell is Arthur?

Now, as to your question: the "base hypocrisy" of which I speak is the hypocrisy of those who believe -- as Coburn believes -- that a fetus is a person, abortion is murder, and murderers should be executed, and yet who do not believe, or do not admit that they believe, that abortionists should be executed. And their hypocrisy is "base" because it is, I believe, actuated by base motives: the desire to gain votes through lies and self-deception.

Coburn highlights this hypocrisy by speaking his mind. It is hardly news when a right-to-lifer prevaricates on the issue of capital punishment for abortionists (or any kind of punishment for the women who authorize abortions);* in contrast, when Coburn said that he favored the death penalty for abortionists, it was reported on the major wire services and in the media. And that is how he highlighted the base hypocrisy that masquerades as a "right to life" position of most conservatives -- because Coburn said what they all should be saying but what they have neither the courage nor the intellectual honesty to admit.

*For a good example of this kind of prevarication, which, for the sake of convenience I'll dub the "Bush Straddle," here is an excerpt from the first Bush-Dukakis presidential debate of 1988:

LEHRER: Question for the vice president, Ann? GROER: Yes. Mr. Vice President, I'd like to stay with abortion for just a moment if I might. Over the years you have expressed several positions, while opposing nearly all forms of government payment for it. You now say that you support abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or threat to a mother's life, and you also support a constitutional amendment that if ratified would outlaw most abortions. But if abortions were to become illegal again, do you think that the women who defy the law and have them anyway, as they did before it was okayed by the Supreme Court, and the doctors who perform them should go to jail? BUSH: I haven't sorted out the penalties. But I do know, I do know that I oppose abortion. And I favor adoption. And if we can get this law changed, everybody should make the extraordinary effort to take these kids that are unwanted and sometimes aborted, take the - let them come to birth, and then put them in a family where they will be loved. And you see, yes, my position has evolved. And it's continuing to evolve, and it's evolving in favor of life. And I have had a couple of exceptions that I support - rape, incest and the life of the mother. Sometimes people feel a little uncomfortable talking about this, but it's much clearer for me now. As I've seen abortions sometimes used as a birth control device, for heavens sakes. See the millions of these killings accumulate, and this is one where you can have an honest difference of opinion. We certainly do. But no, I'm for the sanctity of life, and once that illegality is established, then we can come to grips with the penalty side, and of course there's got to be some penalties to enforce the law, whatever they may be.
Just compare that to Coburn's statement: "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."

0 Replies

Re: Death for Abortionists!

joefromchicago wrote:

Coburn highlights this hypocrisy by speaking his mind. It is hardly news when a right-to-lifer prevaricates on the issue of capital punishment for abortionists (or any kind of punishment for the women who authorize abortions);* in contrast, when Coburn said that he favored the death penalty for abortionists, it was reported on the major wire services and in the media. And that is how he highlighted the base hypocrisy that masquerades as a "right to life" position of most conservatives -- because Coburn said what they all should be saying but what they have neither the courage nor the intellectual honesty to admit.

*For a good example of this kind of prevarication, which, for the sake of convenience I'll dub the "Bush Straddle," here is an excerpt from the first Bush-Dukakis presidential debate of 1988:

LEHRER: Question for the vice president, Ann? GROER: Yes. Mr. Vice President, I'd like to stay with abortion for just a moment if I might. Over the years you have expressed several positions, while opposing nearly all forms of government payment for it. You now say that you support abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or threat to a mother's life, and you also support a constitutional amendment that if ratified would outlaw most abortions. But if abortions were to become illegal again, do you think that the women who defy the law and have them anyway, as they did before it was okayed by the Supreme Court, and the doctors who perform them should go to jail? BUSH: I haven't sorted out the penalties. But I do know, I do know that I oppose abortion. And I favor adoption. And if we can get this law changed, everybody should make the extraordinary effort to take these kids that are unwanted and sometimes aborted, take the - let them come to birth, and then put them in a family where they will be loved. And you see, yes, my position has evolved. And it's continuing to evolve, and it's evolving in favor of life. And I have had a couple of exceptions that I support - rape, incest and the life of the mother. Sometimes people feel a little uncomfortable talking about this, but it's much clearer for me now. As I've seen abortions sometimes used as a birth control device, for heavens sakes. See the millions of these killings accumulate, and this is one where you can have an honest difference of opinion. We certainly do. But no, I'm for the sanctity of life, and once that illegality is established, then we can come to grips with the penalty side, and of course there's got to be some penalties to enforce the law, whatever they may be.

Just compare that to Coburn's statement: "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."

Of course, I'm just guessing, but it may be he feels a woman's position is closer to self-defense, and in response to extreme circumstances; whereas an abortionist, who in all probability performs multiple procedures is coldly calculating the impact of his/her actions... The abortionist is taking life whereas the pregnant woman is more like an animal caught in a trap willing to chew its own foot off to get free... (now, of course, that is jmo, and I recognise that some women are completely rational while pregnant, but I've known too many who've experienced an attack of raging hormones...)

0 Replies

Re: Death for Abortionists!

princesspupule wrote:

Of course, I'm just guessing, but it may be he feels a woman's position is closer to self-defense, and in response to extreme circumstances; whereas an abortionist, who in all probability performs multiple procedures is coldly calculating the impact of his/her actions... The abortionist is taking life whereas the pregnant woman is more like an animal caught in a trap willing to chew its own foot off to get free... (now, of course, that is jmo, and I recognise that some women are completely rational while pregnant, but I've known too many who've experienced an attack of raging hormones...)

If there is any abortionist out there who is hunting down unwilling women and forcibly performing abortions on them, then I could understand your point. In those rare instances, we can conclude that the women should not be considered complicit in their abortions.

On the other hand, in the normal course of events, it is the woman who first approaches the abortionist and requests the abortion. For Coburn and others who view abortion as murder, this should make the woman complicit in the crime. In this respect, the woman seeking an abortion is no different from a woman who solicits a hit man to murder her spouse. In both cases, the woman makes the initial contact, pays for the deed, and singles out the victim, even if she is ultimately not the one who commits the killing.

Thus, once the legislature determines that abortion is murder, I expect that the position of the woman seeking an abortion would be (or, to be more precise, should be) no different from the woman who hires a hit man to kill her husband. Both would be complicit in murder, both should face some sort of punishment for their roles in those crimes.

Now, of course, in murder-for-hire schemes we might choose to excuse the woman because she was "irrationally hormonal" or that she "felt trapped." Granted, I have never heard anyone actually put forward these excuses, but I suppose anything is possible. But those are the kinds of issues that we typically reserve for juries to decide. If the jury finds that a woman who sought an abortion is not mentally competent, then she should be absolved of her responsibility for her role in the murder of her fetus. On the other hand, if she is found to be competent, then no amount of hormones should protect her from a just punishment.

0 Replies

Oh, the choices....

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

How do you feel about financially supporting a child. If a woman wants to have the child and the father doesn't should he still be held financially responsible for that child? Even if it was HER CHOICE? It seems to me that there were two people involved in making the baby... shouldn't there be two people involved in choosing weather or not to destroy it.

Hi jpin:

This discussion is off topic, but I'll address it nonetheless.

If you have a man and a woman who cannot agree on the issue of abortion, which person has the "right" to trump the other person? Should it be the man who doesn't want to be held financially responsible for the consequences of continuing the pregnancy or should it be the woman who wants to continue the pregnancy?

In my opinion, the person who must undergo the medical procedure must be the person to decide whether the procedure should be invoked or not.

If the man does not want to be "held responsible" for the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, perhaps he should visit his own doctor and undergo a medical procedure called a vasectomy. Or maybe he should utilize condoms and spermicide. Or maybe he should abstain from sex. Or maybe he should find a woman who is incapable of conceiving. He has many options and choices for himself. He simply cannot force his female partner to undergo a medical procedure that she does not want.

A family court will not allow you to escape financial responsibility for an unwanted child simply because your views on abortion differ from your female partner's views on abortion.

The argument, "Hey judge, I told her to get an abortion but she wouldn't do as I told her," doesn't relieve you of your financial responsibilities.

It's tough to be a man under those circumstances, but too bad, so sad.

In attempt to get back on topic, I agree with Joe on this issue. If we are going to hold abortionists (the hit men) criminally responsible for murder and execute them, then we must also hold the mother criminally responsible---and we must also hold the father criminally responsible.

Under the wannabe senator's political platform, what would you rather have happen? Do you want to be held financially responsible for the unwanted embryo that is growing in the woman's womb or do you want to be strapped to an execution table and be given the needle?

Curious minds want to know.

0 Replies

Re: Death for Abortionists!

joefromchicago wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Joe (or Arthur), what is this base hypocrisy of which you speak, and how does Coburn highlight it?

A couple of minor points.

First, there's no need to ask me twice. I'm not hard of seeing.

Second, who the hell is Arthur? -

Oops - meant Roger (Sorry Roger)

Now, as to your question: the "base hypocrisy" of which I speak is the hypocrisy of those who believe -- as Coburn believes -- that a fetus is a person, abortion is murder, and murderers should be executed, and yet who do not believe, or do not admit that they believe, that abortionists should be executed.

What you are describing is inconsistency not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is professing a belief one doesn't actually hold.

It is inconsistent for those who say that abortion is murder and that murderers should be executed to then say that abortionists should not be executed.

It's only hypocrisy ("base hypocrisy" is somewhat redundant unless you believe there is virtuous or elevated hypocrisy) if the speaker doesn't actually believe abortion is murder or that murderers should be executed.

And it is only inconsistent if the speaker believes that all abortion is murder and that all murders should be executed.

There are plenty of people who believe abortion is murder who do not believe Capital Punishment is an appropriate punishment for all murderers

There are also people who believe that while abortion is murder, it is also, unfortunately, illegal and that until it is made illegal an abortionist, while perhaps deserving of death, cannot and should not be executed.

It seems to me that it is inconsistent too that someone might believe abortion is murder, but still allow for it to be conducted in the cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother. I don't think this is hypocrisy though, simply an inconsistency spawned of trying to reconcile an extreme aversion for the premeditated killing of an unborn baby and compassion for an innocent mother.

And their hypocrisy is "base" because it is, I believe, actuated by base motives: the desire to gain votes through lies and self-deception.

Speaking of inconsistency, here you have linked your ire to those who are being hypocritical to gain votes, and yet in your original posting you defined the base hypocrisy as 'the "Right to Life" position of most conservatives.' There's an inconsistency here unless you are of the opinion that most conservative are running for one election or another.

I suppose there are a few actual hypocrites out there who are posing as Right to Lifers, just to somehow feather their nests, and if you think Colburn's comments can help you spotlight and expose them, good for you, but if you continue to hold that he has exposed the hypocritical nature of the anti-abortion position of most conservatives, you have allowed your politics to cloud your reason.

Coburn highlights this hypocrisy by speaking his mind. It is hardly news when a right-to-lifer prevaricates on the issue of capital punishment for abortionists (or any kind of punishment for the women who authorize abortions);* in contrast, when Coburn said that he favored the death penalty for abortionists, it was reported on the major wire services and in the media. And that is how he highlighted the base hypocrisy that masquerades as a "right to life" position of most conservatives -- because Coburn said what they all should be saying but what they have neither the courage nor the intellectual honesty to admit.

I guess you do intend to stick with it.

The premise of your overreaching charge rests upon your absolute assurance and insistence that most conservatives believe that all murders should be executed and that all abortion is murder. Is this merely your impression or can you substantiate such a claim?

What is particularly courageous about calling for abortionists to be executed or women who seek abortions to be jailed, particularly if one doesn't belive either should happen?

And just like hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty requires that the perpetrator knows full well that an argument is flawed or false and yet continues to press it.

Your argument that most conservatives views on abortion are hypocritical would be intellectually dishonest if you recognized its fallacious nature, but apparently you do not and so, in this instance, you can't be accused of intellectual dishonesty.

As for the so-called Bush Straddle:

GROER: Yes. Mr. Vice President, I'd like to stay with abortion for just a moment if I might.

Over the years you have expressed several positions, while opposing nearly all forms of government payment for it.

You now say that you support abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or threat to a mother's life, and you also support a constitutional amendment that if ratified would outlaw most abortions.

It's unfortunate that Bush wasn't quick enough on his feet to attack the utterly specious nature of Ms Groer's question/attack:

There is no inconsistency (let alone hypocrisy) in opposing nearly all forms of government payment for abortion, supporting abortion in the cases of rape incest or threat to a mother's life, and also supporting the outlawing of most abortions.

Bush opposes nearly all forms of government funding for abortion (Note this doesn't even refer to the legality of abortion, and by logical extension means that he supports some forms of government funding)

Bush supports abortion for three (some) specific cases

Bush supports the outlawing of most abortions

No inconsistency, and no sign of hypocrisy.

But if abortions were to become illegal again, do you think that the women who defy the law and have them anyway, as they did before it was okayed by the Supreme Court, and the doctors who perform them should go to jail?

BUSH: I haven't sorted out the penalties. But I do know, I do know that I oppose abortion. And I favor adoption. And if we can get this law changed, everybody should make the extraordinary effort to take these kids that are unwanted and sometimes aborted, take the - let them come to birth, and then put them in a family where they will be loved. And you see, yes, my position has evolved. And it's continuing to evolve, and it's evolving in favor of life. And I have had a couple of exceptions that I support - rape, incest and the life of the mother. Sometimes people feel a little uncomfortable talking about this, but it's much clearer for me now. As I've seen abortions sometimes used as a birth control device, for heavens sakes. See the millions of these killings accumulate, and this is one where you can have an honest difference of opinion. We certainly do. But no, I'm for the sanctity of life, and once that illegality is established, then we can come to grips with the penalty side, and of course there's got to be some penalties to enforce the law, whatever they may be.[/[/u]list]

Just compare that to Coburn's statement: "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."

I'm happy to.

Although not quite as pithy as Coburn, Bush's answer reveals no inconsistency or hypocrisy. It does reveal a measured consideration of the issue.

How is it cowardly or intellectually dishonest to say that one believes most abortions should be illegal but that one hasn't sorted out the penalties that should attend the crime? Do you have evidence of a speech given the day before where Bush called for the execution of abortionists and the jailing of women who sought abortions? Do you have evidence that supports that notion that when Bush provided this answer that he had, indeed, already sorted out the penalties issue?

He very clearly states that he is not for criminalizing abortion in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother, and then goes on to identify the abortions that he does wish to see made illegal - those that take the place of birth control.

You may (or may not) find it acceptable that abortion be allowed without restriction, but others do not, and, by definition, this precludes them from hypocrisy or intellectual dishonesty when they argue that abortion with or without exceptions should be banned.

You have made the insinuation that Bush's answers are, somehow, proof of his dissembling to secure votes. The cited section in no way supports such an insinuation. I didn't bother to connect to the link, because if you are going to make charges like this you should be able to cite the pertinent sections, and not rely on us to find your evidence for you. Did Bush comment previous to the answer you cited that he believed abortion was murder, and that all murderers should be executed? If he did, then Groer did a good job in making him sorely contradict himself. If he did not, what's your point?

0 Replies

Re: Death for Abortionists!
While I agree with many of the points Finn made I'd like to point out that the following statement of his is untrue (my wanting to is unsurprising because I'll occasionally use this term in its intended meaning within logic):

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

And just like hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty requires that the perpetrator knows full well that an argument is flawed or false and yet continues to press it.

Intellectual dishonesty is not the same thing as dishonesty. Adding the modifier (intellectual) to it is done for a reason, and it is to delineate between mere dishonesty and a class of intellectual bankrupcy in critical thought that the logical term references.

Quote:

Intellectual dishonesty is an ethical blunder that stems from self-deception or a covert agenda, which is expresses through a misuse of various rhetorical devices. The unwary reader may be deceived as a result, but whether the intention to deceive the reader can be proved or not is immaterial.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Intellectual%20dishonesty

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

princesspupule wrote:

OK, I seem to be wrong on this point. I could've sworn that Carol Stuart was dead before her c-section, but apparently not... http://dpsinfo.com/essays/charlie.html And when I looked back at the history of c-sections, where I was sure Caesar had been cut from his dead mother's womb, there was no evidence to prove this was fact...

Please see the definition fo a fetus, you demonstrate a lacking understanding of the term.

For example, the legal definition (US) requires that a fetus remain in a womb ("a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb") and by all definitions (except the general "offspring" definition) it ceases to be a fetus outside a womb.

I will again assert:

A human fetus has not ever survived without a host of some sort.

And this remains unchallenged as your example was merely of a cesarean birth.

Setanta has already kindly pointed this out to you:

Setanta wrote:
When a fetus develops to the point at which it can live outside the womb, it is no longer known as a fetus . . . we give another name, then . . .

. . . an infant.

Quote:
But, no cancer ever lived on its own once it was removed fromthe host body

This is a falsehood, unless you determine that "on its own" excludes cultivating care that you do not exclude in your c-section examples.

Quote:
When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Indeed.

Craven

I respect your logical prowess, but I fail to see how your argument concerning whether or not a "fetus" has ever survived outside of the womb is anything more than quibbling semantics. Perhaps I missed something in the thread.

And just to throw in my own, possibly, quibbling semantics, if the use of "host" in describing the mother implies the fetus is a parasite, it is a misuse of the word.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Craven

I respect your logical prowess, but I fail to see how your argument concerning whether or not a "fetus" has ever survived outside of the womb is anything more than quibbling semantics. Perhaps I missed something in the thread.

I agree wholeheartedly in that it is quibbling semantics. Thing is, we probably part company on whether the semantics is appropriate.

I can't, at the moment, think of a moral debate that is characterized by semantics to a greater degree than is the abortion debate.

Semantics it is, but not by my choosing, as the framework of the issue itself forces it.

My arguments about abortion tend to center on quality of life, and not definitions. I adopted this position after living in a country where abortion is illegal. I used to think abortion was murder.

Thing is, Stateside, this debate is reduced to semantics and definitional tug-o-war. The realities of the implications of this issue on quality of life do not resonate with Americans as strongly as it might under the backdrop of less fortunate populace.

People who oppose abortion may well think they are doing the infant a favor, hell I used to. But they neglect to consider the implications of a life led devoid of quality and the implications birth control has on said quality of life for many.

Millions of children are born into situations that make me think abortion is more charitable in many instances.

Just as we sometimes justify putting an animal "out of its misery" I contend that the same can be true of humans.

But many find that appaling. Our empathy with humans is such that such logic in ethics when applied to humans instead of animals is off putting to many because of what I believe is a collective survival instinct within our species.

My arguments on this issue center on my preference toward minimizing quantity of suffering than minimizing the concept of death, and improving quality of life rather than quantity.

But to get a debate like that in America is hard, and in America people seem to think the morality boils down to definitional incompatibilities on what a fetus is, and when life begins and whether it's pro choice or pro life or....

Me, I'm anti-suffering, I think a life of suffering is worse than death. I just never find abortion debates on that issue, and often end up supporting my positions on abortion under the rules of the game as played Stateside:

Semantics and quibbling

Here in the US, it's all about moving the goalposts of definitions and precedents a certain way.

And let me point out that while I agree with some of your objections to the particular way Joe couched things I think he brings a valid point.

In moving the goalposts toward pro-life there is an appeal to formulating arguments on the basis of conceptual terms of life and death and minimizing the focus on consequence.

Joe points out the traditional minimization of the consequence that would be enforecement of changed legislation.

I think he's right to call it intellectual dishonesty, as people are more predisposed to agree that X is bad when the negatives of combating X (unwanted births, backalley abortionists....) are unspoken.

Similarly, positions on any issue are often more nuanced than people think. And when they might oppose something they may find that they oppose it less within the context of enforcing its proscription.

For example, more people think pot is a bad substance than those who think it is both bad and worth the consequences of proscription.

Some will argue that pot may be harmful but that a negative of enforcing its proscription (say, taxing of law enforcement resources for example) makes proscription unattractive.

Similarly, the pro-life camp tends to focus on the conceptual life/death and avoid focus on the consequences of unwanted children and also the consequences on changing a law to proscription.

One of said consequences is penalties, and I think Joe is right to point out that the pro-life camp generally keeps the focus on the life/death versus the greater picture of sociological impact (which includes the penalties to enforce proscription).

Quote:

And just to throw in my own, possibly, quibbling semantics, if the use of "host" in describing the mother implies the fetus is a parasite, it is a misuse of the word.

It wasn't intentional, it came from someone else using cancer as a basis of comparison and the way it became couched had more to do with the transition from what is a parasite to any desire to characterize a baby as a parasite.

But I'll note that for personal reasons I am probably predisposed to seeing a baby as parasitical to a far greater degree than are you.

0 Replies

Death for Abortionists!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know