Originally Posted by Freedom

So 5-6 months?.

Thereabouts.

Brain dead is brain dead, you can't say that about fetuses with operational brains just because they are partially operational, although I will accept that there is no cognition before the cerebral cortex.

I didn't say that early term fetuses are brain dead, just that they have more in common with the brain dead than the sleeping or comatose.

My problem is with the pro choicers who see abortion as a solution rather than a failure.
Killing a fetus quickly before it gets a brain isnt much better than killing it after it becomes sentient.
Every termination should be seen as a result of a failure somewhere along the line

Originally Posted by gansao

My problem is with the pro choicers who see abortion as a solution rather than a failure.

Now I thought they saw it as a choice. Are all choices solutions?

Killing a fetus quickly before it gets a brain isnt much better than killing it after it becomes sentient.

I disagree.

Every termination should be seen as a result of a failure somewhere along the line.

Even when the pregnancy is the result of rape?

Originally Posted by sinjin

Now I thought they saw it as a choice. Are all choices solutions?

No

Originally Posted by sinjin

I disagree.

So denying a potential child a chance to realise its potential is a OK ?

Originally Posted by sinjin

Even when the pregnancy is the result of rape?

You think that a rape which results in a pregnancy that itself results in a potential child being destroyed does not indicate that somewhere along the line there was a failure? You think that aborting the fetus and throwing it away makes it ok?I doubt that the pregnant woman does and it certainly doesnt make it ok for the unborn child( with or without an ' operational brain').

Originally Posted by gansao

So denying a potential child a chance to realise its potential is a OK ?

One cannot unfairly deny anything to a non-entity. "Its" implies possession.
There is no one to possess. No one to deny that to which "they" have a right.

You think that a rape which results in a pregnancy that itself results in a potential child being destroyed does not indicate that somewhere along the line there was a failure?

I don't pretend to understand each individual situation. I can think of scenarios where an abortion would not be a "failure".

You think that aborting the fetus and throwing it away makes it ok?

I'm not sure what you mean by "ok"?

I doubt that the pregnant woman does and it certainly doesnt make it ok for the unborn child( with or without an ' operational brain').

Part of the problem is that men like you have no problem speaking for women. And again, the "unborn" has no standing even though you'd like to give it a voice.

Originally Posted by sinjin

One cannot unfairly deny anything to a non-entity. "Its" implies possession.
There is no one to possess. No one to deny that to which "they" have a right.

I don't pretend to understand each individual situation. I can think of scenarios where an abortion would not be a "failure".

I'm not sure what you mean by "ok"?

Part of the problem is that men like you have no problem speaking for women. And again, the "unborn" has no standing even though you'd like to give it a voice.

Part of the problem is that men like you see an unborn child as a problem when it suits you . A fetus it is always a victim when its aborted.
People like you label the fetus as a nonentity and even a parasite to justify the act of destroying it
You need to dehumanise the fetus and use emotional and extremely rare cases of pregnancy through rape to justify the act of abortion itself.

The 'unborn' does have a standing and there are people that believe quite rightly that it should have a voice and do even though you'd like them not to.
People like you think that destroying an early fetus..getting in quick before the fetus inevitably becomes sentient makes it 'ok'( oh I forgot you dont know what this means)
Whereas I cant see the act of destroying an unborn child ever being ok and can only been seen as a failure even if it is deemed the best decision out of number of bad ones.. Maybe you would think this as a success
I never speak for women whereas you do. Your dishonesty is noted

Originally Posted by gansao

Part of the problem is that men like you see an unborn child as a problem when it suits you.

How any man sees it is of no consequence.

A fetus it is always a victim when its aborted.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

People like you label the fetus as a nonentity and even a parasite to justify the act of destroying it.

Wrong. I cannot claim the fetus is something other than it is as a means to limit a woman's right to self-determination.

You need to dehumanise the fetus and use emotional and extremely rare cases of pregnancy through rape to justify the act of abortion itself.

Do not those sorts of cases need to be considered when making law? The point being that the individual circumstances that might lead to a woman's decision to abort are none of my, or your, business.

The 'unborn' does have a standing and there are people that believe quite rightly that it should have a voice and do even though you'd like them not to.

What I like has nothing to do with it and "quite rightly" is merely your opinion. One not shared by a majority of women.

People like you think that destroying an early fetus..getting in quick before the fetus inevitably becomes sentient makes it 'ok'( oh I forgot you dont know what this means)

Ok by whose standard and for whom was what I was getting at.

Whereas I cant see the act of destroying an unborn child ever being ok and can only been seen as a failure even if it is deemed the best decision out of number of bad ones.

The "best decision out of number of bad ones" is not my definition of a "failure".

Maybe you would think this as a success?

How I think of it is of no consequence.

I never speak for women whereas you do.

You said, "You think that aborting the fetus and throwing it away makes it ok? I doubt that the pregnant woman does..."

Originally Posted by sinjin

How any man sees it is of no consequence. ..."

What?

Originally Posted by sinjin

Assumes facts not in evidence...."

The fetus is the only one that is destroyed in an abortion. How the hell can that be an assumption ?

Originally Posted by sinjin

Wrong. I cannot claim the fetus is something other than it is as a means to limit a woman's right to self-determination...."

There is more than just the woman involved. You claim the fetus has no rights or status until YOU feel it should.

Originally Posted by sinjin

Do not those sorts of cases need to be considered when making law? The point being that the individual circumstances that might lead to a woman's decision to abort are none of my, or your, business...."

You contradict yourself in the same post. First you want the extremes to be the default way to consider policy then you insist its only the womans decision and no ones elses anyway. Make your mind up.

Originally Posted by sinjin

What I like has nothing to do with it and "quite rightly" is merely your opinion. One not shared by a majority of women. ..."

What ' you like' has everything to do with your mere opinion too.
The ' majority' of women can share their opinion..the destroyed fetus does not have that privilege.
I dont agree that the majority of women would believe that a fetus has no standing and an abortion should be considered anything other than a failure...have you access to a poll that says otherwise?

Originally Posted by sinjin

Ok by whose standard and for whom was what I was getting at...."

You want a standard to help you understand ' ok'? Jeez

Originally Posted by sinjin

The "best decision out of number of bad ones" is not my definition of a "failure"...."

You dont see a bad decision as a failure? Jeez again

Originally Posted by sinjin

How I think of it is of no consequence...."

So you dont think of it as a failure then say how you think of it is of no consequence? You are probably right then

Originally Posted by sinjin

You said, "You think that aborting the fetus and throwing it away makes it ok? I doubt that the pregnant woman does..."

You think that saying ' I doubt that the pregnant woman does' means that I am ' speaking for women'?
Read it again and check your dictionary.

Originally Posted by sinjin

Wrong. I cannot claim the fetus is something other than it is as a means to limit a woman's right to self-determination.

No one does. The point pro-lifers (the rational ones) make is that pain and cognition are not the values which needs to be protected life is, human life; and the value of human life is inseparable from the potential of that life.

If you kill a man when he's thirty all you have destroyed is his potential life after that point. All he did and was before then remains inviolate. If it's not a real value you destroyed then whats the problem? The point is that the principle we act on in general is that you do not harm human life regardless of what temporary and arbitrary values you place on it. As a homosexual advocate might say 'only difference is genitals' I say the only difference is age.

You may content yourself with your arbitrary identification of the thalmo cortical complex as the signifier of rights, but it obviously does not produce a functioning adult human. There is vast development left, and you are ultimately still drawing a line in the sand. As the OP makes clear... unless you can tell me why they are wrong about babies and 1/50 (random guess) the brain power of adult is sufficient but 1/60 is not.

Originally Posted by gansao

My problem is with the pro choicers who see abortion as a solution rather than a failure.
Killing a fetus quickly before it gets a brain isnt much better than killing it after it becomes sentient.
Every termination should be seen as a result of a failure somewhere along the line

Ya'know; in some principle you are right. That is not the question however, nor is it the reason for Roe v Wade. The answer, whether we like it or not, is that abortion has existed for generations; as far back as you'd like to go probably. So, what do we: US do about that? We make it safe, that's what. And we save as many lives as we can: not every woman who wants an abortion takes that route, and we have Planned Parenthood and the clergy to thank for that,

Originally Posted by jet57

Ya'know; in some principle you are right. That is not the question however, nor is it the reason for Roe v Wade. The answer, whether we like it or not, is that abortion has existed for generations; as far back as you'd like to go probably. So, what do we: US do about that? We make it safe, that's what. And we save as many lives as we can: not every woman who wants an abortion takes that route, and we have Planned Parenthood and the clergy to thank for that,

You may know that I have never stated that abortion should be illegal per se.
I have stated that the fetus should have at least some consideration.
I , like Sinjin, believe that an early termination should be granted to a pregnant woman on demand.
What I do not believe is that it should be seen as anything other than a failure, a failure of society to prevent this situation.
I do not subscribe to the view that a fetus should be either dehumanised, considered a parasite or a manifestation of the rapists seed( as the mad Simone seems to insist it is if it was a product of sexual assault).

Originally Posted by gansao

You may know that I have never stated that abortion should be illegal per se.
I have stated that the fetus should have at least some consideration.
I , like Sinjin, believe that an early termination should be granted to a pregnant woman on demand.
What I do not believe is that it should be seen as anything other than a failure, a failure of society to prevent this situation.
I do not subscribe to the view that a fetus should be either dehumanised, considered a parasite or a manifestation of the rapists seed( as the mad Simone seems to insist it is if it was a product of sexual assault).

I agree.

char/10

No matter how you slice this apple it's ultimately going to come down to who gets more consideration from the politicians crafting the laws. Do they favor those that are not yet born and thus not full life forms and with no guarantee of making it to conception? Or do they favor the mothers that are fully developed, are recognized as people, are capable of functioning independently, and actually have birth certificates?

Maybe more importantly is the question of should they be making their political decisions based on the possibility of repercussions from the voting public? How far does the sanctity of life extend and how dedicated are they to it?

Originally Posted by Tabbi

No matter how you slice this apple it's ultimately going to come down to who gets more consideration from the politicians crafting the laws.

They are influenced by the people who vote for them

Originally Posted by Tabbi

Do they favor those that are not yet born and thus not full life forms and with no guarantee of making it to conception?

I must point out this is about a fetus that has already made it past conception. A fetus can be a tiny collection of cells and a viable baby.Do we consider both extremes in the same way?

Originally Posted by Tabbi

Or do they favor the mothers that are fully developed, are recognized as people, are capable of functioning independently, and actually have birth certificates?

The women can only be mothers when the fetus is born Tabbi.I would not use the term mother to the woman who destroys her own fetus

Originally Posted by Tabbi

Maybe more importantly is the question of should they be making their political decisions based on the possibility of repercussions from the voting public? How far does the sanctity of life extend and how dedicated are they to it?

Exactly