Unreal: YES on 2 and NO on 4

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="Nude" date=1226025112][quote author="WINEX" date=1226019456][quote author="Nude" date=1226018506][quote author="WINEX" date=1226016056][quote author="Nude" date=1226013393][quote author="WINEX" date=1226006591]While economics is behind a lot of my political belief system, I think focusing on money issues here is wrong. The rights of abortion victims should be the primary concern.</blockquote>
Not if you are pro-choice, as I am.</blockquote>


When do you believe that life begins?</blockquote>
At birth, whenever that occurs during gestation.</blockquote>


What's your opinion of partial-birth abortion?</blockquote>
Let me be clear so you can quit trying to draw me into whatever trap you think I am falling into here.



Life begins at birth. In humans, the period of gestation is ~9 months. It is possible to give birth to a child sooner and have it survive naturally (meaning normal respiration, feeding, growing, etc.) or be "viable" if you like, but anything earlier than ~7 1/2 months into the gestation period would require massive amount of medical assistance to survive. Depending on where one lives, that assistance may or may not be available which means the fetus may or may not be viable. And now to your question and it's point: If a fetus is aborted prior to it being naturally viable, then the process (no matter how graphically one wishes to describe it) is not murder because it would not be living outside of the womb either. After the point of natural viability, it is my belief that an abortion procedure would be a murder of a child.



Medical advances might one day make possible in vitro gestation and we can all re-define life to suit current technology if we wish, but until a human fetus can live and develop outside of the womb with no medical assistance, it cannot be considered "life" in my mind.</blockquote>


I'm not trying to "draw you into any trap". I'm just trying to find where you stand on this issue.



I must admit that I'm somewhat confused by the maze of confusion behind your opinion. In the post I am replying to alone, you have an interesting juxtaposition of the terms "living" and "viable". Any biological definition of the word "life" ( or "living" ) is independent of "natural viability".



What do you think of the Scott Peterson case? Personally I felt that by only finding Peterson guilty of second degree murder in the death of his unborn son Conner, the state discounted the value of his life. He should have been convicted of two counts of first degree murder.



Since Conner wouldn't have been viable outside the womb without artificial support, do you feel that only one murder took place? Or was there a crime involved in the death of Conner as well as Lacey?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1226058757][quote author="Nude" date=1226025112]Let me be clear so you can quit trying to draw me into whatever trap you think I am falling into here.



Life begins at birth. In humans, the period of gestation is ~9 months. It is possible to give birth to a child sooner and have it survive naturally (meaning normal respiration, feeding, growing, etc.) or be "viable" if you like, but anything earlier than ~7 1/2 months into the gestation period would require massive amount of medical assistance to survive. Depending on where one lives, that assistance may or may not be available which means the fetus may or may not be viable. And now to your question and it's point: If a fetus is aborted prior to it being naturally viable, then the process (no matter how graphically one wishes to describe it) is not murder because it would not be living outside of the womb either. After the point of natural viability, it is my belief that an abortion procedure would be a murder of a child.



Medical advances might one day make possible in vitro gestation and we can all re-define life to suit current technology if we wish, but until a human fetus can live and develop outside of the womb with no medical assistance, it cannot be considered "life" in my mind.</blockquote>


I'm not trying to "draw you into any trap". I'm just trying to find where you stand on this issue.



I must admit that I'm somewhat confused by the maze of confusion behind your opinion. In the post I am replying to alone, you have an interesting juxtaposition of the terms "living" and "viable". Any biological definition of the word "life" ( or "living" ) is independent of "natural viability".



What do you think of the Scott Peterson case? Personally I felt that by only finding Peterson guilty of second degree murder in the death of his unborn son Conner, the state discounted the value of his life. He should have been convicted of two counts of first degree murder.



Since Conner wouldn't have been viable outside the womb without artificial support, do you feel that only one murder took place? Or was there a crime involved in the death of Conner as well as Lacey?</blockquote>
Life, in a biological sense, is a chemical reaction. You can't compare a mustard seed to a chicken egg because on requires no outside support from it's parents and the other does, both before and after birth.



Lacey was 7 1/2 months pregnant and therefore killing the baby inside her was murder in my book, as the baby would have been able to live had it been born anywhere near any of the hospitals in the area, which I mentioned in my post. As to the charge, I'll leave that to the Distric Attorney.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1226059578][quote author="WINEX" date=1226058757][quote author="Nude" date=1226025112]Let me be clear so you can quit trying to draw me into whatever trap you think I am falling into here.



Life begins at birth. In humans, the period of gestation is ~9 months. It is possible to give birth to a child sooner and have it survive naturally (meaning normal respiration, feeding, growing, etc.) or be "viable" if you like, but anything earlier than ~7 1/2 months into the gestation period would require massive amount of medical assistance to survive. Depending on where one lives, that assistance may or may not be available which means the fetus may or may not be viable. And now to your question and it's point: If a fetus is aborted prior to it being naturally viable, then the process (no matter how graphically one wishes to describe it) is not murder because it would not be living outside of the womb either. After the point of natural viability, it is my belief that an abortion procedure would be a murder of a child.



Medical advances might one day make possible in vitro gestation and we can all re-define life to suit current technology if we wish, but until a human fetus can live and develop outside of the womb with no medical assistance, it cannot be considered "life" in my mind.</blockquote>


I'm not trying to "draw you into any trap". I'm just trying to find where you stand on this issue.



I must admit that I'm somewhat confused by the maze of confusion behind your opinion. In the post I am replying to alone, you have an interesting juxtaposition of the terms "living" and "viable". Any biological definition of the word "life" ( or "living" ) is independent of "natural viability".



What do you think of the Scott Peterson case? Personally I felt that by only finding Peterson guilty of second degree murder in the death of his unborn son Conner, the state discounted the value of his life. He should have been convicted of two counts of first degree murder.



Since Conner wouldn't have been viable outside the womb without artificial support, do you feel that only one murder took place? Or was there a crime involved in the death of Conner as well as Lacey?</blockquote>
Life, in a biological sense, is a chemical reaction. You can't compare a mustard seed to a chicken egg because on requires no outside support from it's parents and the other does, both before and after birth.



Lacey was 7 1/2 months pregnant and therefore killing the baby inside her was murder in my book, as the baby would have been able to live had it been born anywhere near any of the hospitals in the area, which I mentioned in my post. As to the charge, I'll leave that to the Distric Attorney.</blockquote>


Well, it's a life is more than just a chemical reaction. But from the strict biological definition, metabolism, growth/cell division, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism are all present after the moment of conception.



According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus">Wikipedia</a>, viability outside the womb is possible after about the 5th month. By definition, late term abortions (including partial birth abortions) are any abortions performed after the 20th week. Would it be safe to assume that you oppose late term abortions?



Also, just a thought exercise, but let's say that Lacey Peterson was only 4 1/2 months pregnant at the time she was murdered by Scott. Do you think that two crimes were committed? Or just one? If two, what would those crimes be?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1226060615]Well, it's a life is more than just a chemical reaction. But from the strict biological definition, metabolism, growth/cell division, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism are all present after the moment of conception.



According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus">Wikipedia</a>, viability outside the womb is possible after about the 5th month. By definition, late term abortions (including partial birth abortions) are any abortions performed after the 20th week. Would it be safe to assume that you oppose late term abortions?



Also, just a thought exercise, but let's say that Lacey Peterson was only 4 1/2 months pregnant at the time she was murdered by Scott. Do you think that two crimes were committed? Or just one? If two, what would those crimes be?</blockquote>
From a strict biological standpoint, two cells dividing into four is no more a human being than 4 cells of skin from my left toe. I gave you my cutoff date the last time you asked me about partial birth abortions (scroll up) and killing a woman 4 1/2 months pregant is only one crime because the fetus is not yet viable outside the womb no matter what wikipedia claims.



I'm done talking about this. If you can't reason out where I stand by now, I can't help you.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1226063477][quote author="WINEX" date=1226060615]Well, it's a life is more than just a chemical reaction. But from the strict biological definition, metabolism, growth/cell division, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism are all present after the moment of conception.



According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus">Wikipedia</a>, viability outside the womb is possible after about the 5th month. By definition, late term abortions (including partial birth abortions) are any abortions performed after the 20th week. Would it be safe to assume that you oppose late term abortions?



Also, just a thought exercise, but let's say that Lacey Peterson was only 4 1/2 months pregnant at the time she was murdered by Scott. Do you think that two crimes were committed? Or just one? If two, what would those crimes be?</blockquote>
From a strict biological standpoint, two cells dividing into four is no more a human being than 4 cells of skin from my left toe. I gave you my cutoff date the last time you asked me about partial birth abortions (scroll up) and killing a woman 4 1/2 months pregant is only one crime because the fetus is not yet viable outside the womb no matter what wikipedia claims.



I'm done talking about this. If you can't reason out where I stand by now, I can't help you.</blockquote>


Wow. All I can say is that it you that needs help here.
 
I voted no on prop 4 as i am tired of this stupid law coming on the ballot over and over again. This is another attempt to add more hurdles against abortion rights and to ultimately try to turn over Roe vs Wade. I believe in a womans right to choose period. You can argue for and against all day long and never have the right decision but it is the woman who has to live with this for the rest of her life so it is her decision. And yes, i voted yes 2 to free the chickens! Woo Hoo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top