Rational Abortion Support

[jess7396]

OK, I am jumping in very late after :banghead: through the entire thread.

Tlaloc- as a pro-life activist, I am always trying VERY hard to see the other side. I have many pro-choice friends who allow me to see their POV, which in general, are the result of misguided compassion. I do see your point, you have made it clearly, I disagree completely with it. Do I see it as a rational argument? I mean, I think that was your point, to have pro-lifers see that there is another rational argument. No- I don’t see it as rational, mainly because, you have decided on your own definitions of terms like human being. I do not agree that there can be different definitions of that term. I know that human being and Homo Sapiens are the same thing, you make a distinction which is not there. All of that said, I can tell from reading through all of these posts that you simply do not see that, so there is little point in arguing it as far as I can tell.

What I did want to write to say was 3 things- #1- some of us truly did try to get something of value out of what you said, I do seek to understand the other side. #2- Did you ever address the issue of your user-name? I know that is off-topic, but it is simply all too ironic given the discussion, and I for one, would LOVE to hear an explanation. #3- Are you a Catholic or considering becoming a Catholic, after all- this site is “Catholic Answers”, so the purpose of the forum should be clear. If you are a Catholic (or considering becoming one) would you consider the Church’s teachings on this subject? This isn’t your average everyday abortion debate board- HERE we discuss the Church’s teachings on all things.

It seems your intentions are less than genuine for this site.

 

[Mycroft]

so tlaloc you say that its murder once the baby could have survived on its own outside of the womb. well that would make all abortions murder because the baby cant survive on its own out of the womb till at least 3 years old…do you also think its ok to kill children when they cant survive on their own? i guess their just a burden on their parents who are forced to take care of them right?the babies still dependent on the parents for the same thing that it was dependent on in the womb.

 

[Lisa_N]

Mycroft:

so tlaloc you say that its murder once the baby could have survived on its own outside of the womb. well that would make all abortions murder because the baby cant survive on its own out of the womb till at least 3 years old…do you also think its ok to kill children when they cant survive on their own? i guess their just a burden on their parents who are forced to take care of them right?the babies still dependent on the parents for the same thing that it was dependent on in the womb.

Mycroft you are correct. The essential error in all of these “until it can survive outside the womb” theories of justifying abortion is that the very same logic would be usable to justify killing any human being who was temporarily unable to care for himself or herself. After all, being very young is always a temporary condition. No one remains a two week old unborn child forever. Although Tlaloc stoops quite low in his disregard for the sacredness of life, so far he has not advocated killing people who are unconscious, mentally or physically handicapped, very young, very old or very fragile. There may be hope for him.

However his abortion “logic” is completely irrational and depends on individual opinions as to what characteristics constitute viability. He finds his opinion quite compelling. The rest of us are underwhelmed. Logic however, never works when discussing anything with Tlaloc as he bases his arguments on his own opinion, ignoring science, logic and truth. I do wish you luck if you wish to continue the discussion.

Lisa N

 

[Tlaloc]

Mycroft:

so tlaloc you say that its murder once the baby could have survived on its own outside of the womb. well that would make all abortions murder because the baby cant survive on its own out of the womb till at least 3 years old…do you also think its ok to kill children when they cant survive on their own?

A child less than three most certainly can survive as a separate organism. They do all the time. They can process foods, excrete wastes, etc. They do need to be provided with food as they lack motor coordination but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a complete organism.

Here’s the difference:
You give a baby a bottle or let it “latch on” the baby swallows food and proceeds to digest it. A fetus (before a given point) cannot do this. It’s digestive track (as an example) is not developed enough to support it. It relies on the mother to process food for it and then deliver the processed food directly into it’s blood stream.

i guess their just a burden on their parents who are forced to take care of them right?the babies still dependent on the parents for the same thing that it was dependent on in the womb.

As above a dependent organism is entirely different than a tissue. A baby may be helpless but it is an organism unto itself. An early fetus is not.

 

[Mycroft]

Tlaloc:

A child less than three most certainly can survive as a separate organism. They do all the time. They can process foods, excrete wastes, etc. They do need to be provided with food as they lack motor coordination but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a complete organism.

Here’s the difference:
You give a baby a bottle or let it “latch on” the baby swallows food and proceeds to digest it. A fetus (before a given point) cannot do this. It’s digestive track (as an example) is not developed enough to support it. It relies on the mother to process food for it and then deliver the processed food directly into it’s blood stream.

k you base everything on your own opinion except when the fetus actually becomes human. the “early fetus” as you call it is dependent on the mother, but it keeps on depending on her until it is born too. i dont understand the difference.
the umbilical cord still feeds it and takes its waste away the whole time its in the womb. its still an independent organism when its in the womb, the only difference is that its in the mother. when its born it still depends on her. your last post really didnt conclude anything.

 

[Mycroft]

Tlaloc:

As above a dependent organism is entirely different than a tissue. A baby may be helpless but it is an organism unto itself. An early fetus is not.

your pretty much basing it all off the baby being inside the mom or outside. that shouldnt make any difference as to deciding if its human. one second cant make the difference. the babies still the same.

 

[Tlaloc]

Mycroft:

k you base everything on your own opinion except when the fetus actually becomes human.

For defining “human being” we only have our opinions.

the “early fetus” as you call it is dependent on the mother, but it keeps on depending on her until it is born too. i dont understand the difference.

The fetus is indeed dependent on the mother until it’s born, but in early pregnancy that dependincy is due to the undeveloped nature of the fetus. In later pregnancy it is only dependent because it happens to be physically inside the mother and if removed is a separate organism by itself.

the umbilical cord still feeds it and takes its waste away the whole time its in the womb. its still an independent organism when its in the womb, the only difference is that its in the mother. when its born it still depends on her. your last post really didnt conclude anything.

Is it clearer now? I hope so as I won’t be at work most of next week so i won’t be back for some time.

 

[Mycroft]

Tlaloc:

For defining “human being” we only have our opinions.

The fetus is indeed dependent on the mother until it’s born, but in early pregnancy that dependincy is due to the undeveloped nature of the fetus. In later pregnancy it is only dependent because it happens to be physically inside the mother and if removed is a separate organism by itself.

Is it clearer now? I hope so as I won’t be at work most of next week so i won’t be back for some time.

its still not clear because you wont actually say when you think the human life begins. you wont distinguish between early and late pregnancy. all this does is prove that you dont actually have a definition or that it doesnt make sense. once again the only thing that makes sense is that its a human from conception.

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

Please Tlaloc tell me when (in your view) human life accually begins.

 

[Mycroft]

too late, he conveniently had to leave when everyone started asking him to actually give out his view.

 

[jess7396]

I think he has said a bunch of times that he doesn’t have an actual point, but he seems to equate it with the ability to take in food and excrete it on one’s own. Not sure how he decided that the digestive system functioning makes one human vs. non-human .

 

[Mycroft]

jess7396:

I think he has said a bunch of times that he doesn’t have an actual point, but he seems to equate it with the ability to take in food and excrete it on one’s own. Not sure how he decided that the digestive system functioning makes one human vs. non-human .

yeah its really weird, but he also said that its human at some point in the womb…he just wouldnt specify when…i started getting a little confused toward the end. his definition didnt fit what he was claiming.

 

[aspawloski4th]

mr tlaloc. 2 points first the baby(fetus) is a separate life for from mother. one person cant have 2 blood types, fetuses on occasion do have a different blood type from mother. example both of my parents are a+, both grandmothers are o+. means separate human even when my parents were unborn. second this personhood stuff is malarky. I saw an ultrasound of an abortion before, and the fetus suffered imensely I saw it with my own eyes! which work perfectly fine by the way. we dont allow that kind of cruelty to animals, we shouldnt to fetuses either!

 

[Lisa_N]

jess7396:

I think he has said a bunch of times that he doesn’t have an actual point, but he seems to equate it with the ability to take in food and excrete it on one’s own. Not sure how he decided that the digestive system functioning makes one human vs. non-human .

Yes there was a point when Tlaloc decided that digestion was what meant the child was truly human. We pointed out that the unborn child ingests, and digests amniotic fluid. Babies are born with digested food that they excrete just like real human beings. What a concept!

I think he may have abandoned the digestive test. Facts kept getting in the way of his pronouncements

LIsa N

 

[enanneman]

Tlaloc:

Abortion is the removal of a fetus from a woman thus ending a pregnancy. Whether this is seen as murder depends entirely on how we define a person. In this case i would not define a fetus before a scertain stage of pregnancy as a person for the simple reason that they are not a separate living organism. They are an extension of the mother’s body. And hence removing them is no more unethical than removing a mole, or a cyst, or a damaged kidney.

An true extension of the mother’s body wouldn’t have separate and distinct DNA.

 

[Tlaloc]

Tyler Smedley:

Please Tlaloc tell me when (in your view) human life accually begins.

Go back and reread the very first post. Human life begins once the fetus becomes a fully fledged organism.

 

[Tlaloc]

Mycroft:

too late, he conveniently had to leave when everyone started asking him to actually give out his view.

I post from work, if you notice on the days I’m here and posting I “conveniently” tend to leave at about the same time every day. Since people have been asking me that same question since the beginning (and I’ve answered it since the beginning) of the thread there’s no reason for me to run away from it now.

Of course we could skip the issue if you bothered to read the half dozens times I’d already covered it…

 

[Tlaloc]

jess7396:

I think he has said a bunch of times that he doesn’t have an actual point,

Well you got closer than anyone else to the correct answer so you get the prize. I’ve said that I don’t personally know when that point would be reached but that I’d have to rely upon the opinions of medical experts in the field.

but he seems to equate it with the ability to take in food and excrete it on one’s own. Not sure how he decided that the digestive system functioning makes one human vs. non-human .

The issue of digestion is meant as one simple example of a way an early fetus is not a complete organism. I’m sure that there are many more. I used digestion as an easy example that everyone should be able to “get.” Unfortunately people took it to mean that digestion was the only issue rather than an example.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Yes there was a point when Tlaloc decided that digestion was what meant the child was truly human. We pointed out that the unborn child ingests, and digests amniotic fluid. Babies are born with digested food that they excrete just like real human beings. What a concept!

I think he may have abandoned the digestive test. Facts kept getting in the way of his pronouncements

LIsa N

See above post for a correction. I’m pretty comfortable with the facts, they don’t seem to contravene my position at all.

 

[Tlaloc]

enanneman:

An true extension of the mother’s body wouldn’t have separate and distinct DNA.

So a transplant is not part of a person’s body? It has separate DNA and yet we consider it a part of the person. Furthermore as before naturally occuring human chimeras have turned out rather more common than was once thought which means that a goodly number of people have distinct DNA sequences throughout their body.