Abortion Protesters Who Get Abortions

[Sun Countess]

Any difference between the newly-formed zygote, and an embryo, between an embryo and a fetus, between a fetus and an infant, between an infant and a toddler, between a toddler and an adolescent, between an adolescent and an adult; are all only a matter of growth and development, and not of anything new suddenly coming into existence that didn't previously exist. From zygote to adult, it is the very same organism, at different stages of its life and development.

I've held human zgotes, embryos and fetuses in my uterus, and I've held human toddlers, adolescents, and adults in my arms. I can tell the difference. Is it so difficult to see a difference between something living inside somebody else's body and something that's able to live outside of it? If a pregnant woman dies before the point of fetal viability, anything in her womb dies as well. If a mother dies, her delivered children are able to continue living without her.

Every single woman who undergoes pregnancy, labor, and childbirth is putting her body through a variety of health risks, ranging from mildly annoying to life-threatening. It's not a trifling matter. How many men have faced serious health risks due to their pregnancies?

 

[Puppycow]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This is an easy claim for the reporter (or for Tiller) to make. It's an extremely difficult claim to support, without access to Tillman's medical records, or a "whistleblower" from the picket lines, or both.

Instead of speculating on all the implications that flow from the claim, if it is true, I prefer to remain skeptical until such time as credible corroborating evidence is provided.

Patient confidentiality. This cannot be corroborated for specific people without violating it. However, it is not an "extraordinary claim" because nothing about it violates the known laws of physics or for that matter common sense.

 

[theprestige]

Patient confidentiality. This cannot be corroborated for specific people without violating it.

The difficulty of corroboration doesn't absolve the claim of requiring corroboration.

However, it is not an "extraordinary claim" because nothing about it violates the known laws of physics

I'm pretty sure "violates the known laws of physics" isn't the only way a claim can be extraordinary.

or for that matter common sense.

Really? The claim is that a woman pickets an abortion clinic, gets an abortion from the same clinic she picketed, and then goes back to picketing the same clinic she got an abortion from, and that this happened more than once.

If this behavior were commonsensical, I doubt this thread would even exist. It is, in fact, the extreme silliness (or hypocrisy, as others in this thread have called it) that I find so extraordinary, and which prompts in me a sceptical desire for further corroboration.

 

[Puppycow]

Tiller's claim is, I think, substantially more extreme. His claim--which actually we only get second-hand from a reporter who alleges she got it from him--is that of the subset of anti-abortion women who also participated in protests of his clinic, some of those women went to him for an abortion, and then returned to protesting his clinic.

Peer pressure could explain it. Not wanting one's pro-life friends to have any cause to question why the individual suddenly decided to stop coming to protests.

I freely admit that I cannot offer proof, but I contend that this does not defy reasonably conceivable circumstances or motives.

 

[Slimething]

I assert that this line needs to be drawn at a place where something has come into existence that is clearly, indisputably, different in a meaningful way than what existed before — a point where something now exists that wasn't there a moment ago.

That's all the time, really. I am a minute older than I was when I first read your post. I am "indisputably, different in a meaningful way than what existed before — a point where something now exists that wasn't there a moment ago."

The other point in the human life cycle that produces something that is clearly different than what existed before is syngamy, where the DNA of two gametes are combined to form a new, unique genetic pattern, that defines the product of this union as a new organism, distinct from its parents. This, I say, is the moment that a new human being comes into existence.

Bolding mine. Excuse me if I'm underwhelmed by your "objectivity" here. Merely because a stage of development is reached that would potentiate further development does not acutalize the final stage of said process. I am also amazed by your failing to mention the host who must endure the demands of bringing this process to a successful conculsion.

What would happen if you left a newborn infant to fend for himself, with nobody to care for him? Would he survive?

That would be a crime because, at that point, the newborn is a human being. See the difference yet? We have laws that compell people to make sure the infant survives. Notably, that does not have to be the mother. It can be anyone. Maybe that nuance is lost on you.

 

[Delscottio]

snip



That would be a crime because, at that point, the newborn is a human being. See the difference yet? We have laws that compell people to make sure the infant survives. Notably, that does not have to be the mother. It can be anyone. Maybe that nuance is lost on you.

Out of interest how premature can a child be and survive and what is the cut off point for abortions?

If the two don't overlap there's no real debate, if there is I am not so sure.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Is sperm a human? Why or why not?

Is an egg from a human woman a human? Why or why not?

Is a finger, separate from the rest of the body, a human? Why or why not?

Is a fertilized egg, without a womb, a human? Why or why not?

None of these is an answer to my question. To what species does a fetus belong?

I say none of those are humans because they cannot live under their own power.

Which raises the question: to what species do "people" on life support belong?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What would happen if you left a newborn infant to fend for himself, with nobody to care for him?

That would be a crime because, at that point, the newborn is a human being. See the difference yet? We have laws that compell people to make sure the infant survives. Notably, that does not have to be the mother. It can be anyone. Maybe that nuance is lost on you.

So, in your view, the difference between a human being and a nonhuman, at this point, is whether the mother has the option of passing the care for that child on to another person? What if the mother doesn't want the child, and nobody else is willing to take over its care? Does that child then become nonhuman? What if we had the technology to transplant a preborn child from its mother to a different woman; would this then make that child human?


It's a simple fact of life that up until a certain point in development, a human being cannot survive without the support of older humans to help care for him. This point is long after birth. I simply do not see how it becomes relevant to a child's humanity who may or may not take responsibility for the care of that child.

A newborn infant, dying in a trash dumpster where his mother abandoned him is every bit as much a human being as you or I. So is the unborn child that is about to be savagely killed in an abortion procedure.

if there is any difference at all, it is this: After birth, it becomes much easier for a mother to abandon her child. Before birth, doing so involves a deliberate, barbaric procedure that must be actively sought and performed. After birth, all that it takes to accomplish the very same result is a passive lack of effort toward the child's care.

 

[Sun Countess]

<snipped the misogyny>

After birth, it becomes much easier for a mother to abandon her child.

Unlike men, who can easily abandon their children before conception has even occurred, and who have never suffered a moment's discomfort due to pregnancy.

 

[Whiplash]

What is the purpose of an abortion? What is it's goal? What does the act accomplish?

I still think painting it as "not a person, now" is completely disingenious, or rationalizing to ones self. The point of an abortion is quite clear and undeniable. Trying to say it's not a big deal because it's just a lump of cells or whatever is trying to have your cake and eat it too. The point of the abortion is, ultimately, to keep said person from having a child. Sometimes for good reason too. But I have alot of impatience for the intellectual desire to make it into something other than what it really is.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The purpose of an abortion is the terminate the medical condition called pregnancy.

 

[theprestige]

Peer pressure could explain it. Not wanting one's pro-life friends to have any cause to question why the individual suddenly decided to stop coming to protests.

Peer pressure could also explain going to another clinic, that you don't regularly picket, and whose staff won't recognize you as a constant feature outside their front door.

I freely admit that I cannot offer proof, but I contend that this does not defy reasonably conceivable circumstances or motives.

Conceivable? Obviously, since you just conceived of it. Reasonable? Now that's a matter of opinion.

I mean, if you want to believe the claim on hearsay, without any corroboration, because it "makes sense" to you for whatever reason, that's fine. Knock yourself out. To me, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. So I'm still a little skeptical.

It's not like I'm disputing a well-established physical principle. It's not like I'm questioning the findings of a paper published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. I'm simply skeptical of a second-hand, uncorrobrated report of people behaving with what strikes me as a little more than ordinary wackiness.

 

[shawmutt]

The purpose of an abortion is the terminate the medical condition called pregnancy.

Unless there was a miscarriage, then the purpose of an abortion is to remove the dead fetal tissue.

 

[Morrigan]

What is the purpose of an abortion? What is it's goal? What does the act accomplish?

I still think painting it as "not a person, now" is completely disingenious, or rationalizing to ones self. The point of an abortion is quite clear and undeniable. Trying to say it's not a big deal because it's just a lump of cells or whatever is trying to have your cake and eat it too. The point of the abortion is, ultimately, to keep said person from having a child. Sometimes for good reason too. But I have alot of impatience for the intellectual desire to make it into something other than what it really is.

Still parroting that nonsense already refuted in another thread? What a surprise.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How many men have faced serious health risks due to their pregnancies?

So far as I am aware of, just the one.

I did learn something interesting in this thread though, we can finally resolve the eternal dilemma of which came first, the chicken or the egg, as we can show that there is no difference between a chicken and an egg it is a false dichotomy.

 

[Phage0070]

By any rational interpretation of the definition that Phage0070 gave, the child doesn't become a human being until that point is reached.

No, my definition was based on something's ability to survive independent of the bodily functions of another human being. An infant can survive if provided proper food and shelter, which I will point out does not require you to take someone's body. That is a very clear and sharp dividing line.

 

[Phage0070]

None of these is an answer to my question. To what species does a fetus belong?

Human, as is the finger, and the sperm, and the egg. Is this relevant?

Which raises the question: to what species do "people" on life support belong?

Again, human, and again is this relevant? You seem to be proposing that it would be acceptable to care for someone with say, kidney failure, by going out and capturing people and imprisoning them in the hospital so you can force them to let your patient use their kidneys. Just because someone has a need, even a life or death need, does NOT mean that they have the right to other people's body or even property.