Seems like just another excuse to me. How do you know that an unborn baby is not sentient? How is it less sentient than a baby? Is an infant (that has already been born) truly independent? Could he survive without someone to look after him and provide him with nourishment? I do not see how the fact that the placenta is attached to the uterine wall has anything to do with whether it is okay to treat the fetus like something that isn't human.
Can the neonate breathe on it's own? Can it's heart pump blood on it's own? Can it sustain life without the need of it's mother to provide oxygen through the blood and by taking prenatal vitamins and so on? Then the neonate is physically independent of it's mother. It is socially dependent on others to feed it, change it's diaper, and raise it. I don't know how lifers continue to confuse physically independent with socially independent, it is not that hard. Physical dependence requires the life support system of another body (the woman) or a machine. Social dependence requires someone to nourish and care for you. That is the difference.
Even if I was to post all the relevant scientific data showing that a fetus is not sentient you would deny it or shoot of on a tangent to something else, so whats the point .. it doesn't matter what you read you are so myopic in your opinion that nothing else matters, you are not interested in debate you are only interested in your voice being the one that is heard regardless of the evidence.
If the fetus is not yet conscious, it is because it is merely asleep. Just as grown adults can toss and turn in their sleep without really being conscious of what they are doing, the same is true of the fetus. http://www.eheart.com/cesarean/babies.html Recent research on infants shows that even at birth the child has mastered many sophisticated physical and psychological skills (Descriptions of these findings in "Infant Culture", by Jane and Joseph Jackson). It is increasingly clear that the infant develops these skills in the prenatal period. In "The Secret Life of the Unborn Child" by Thomas Verny, M.D., it is reported (page 12) that: "the unborn child is not the passive, mindless creature of the traditional pediatrics texts. We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps even earlier) leads an active emotional life. Along with this startling finding we have made these discoveries: The fetus can see, hear, experience, taste and, on a primitive level, even learn in utero . . . Most importantly, he can feel -- not with an adult's sophistication, but feel nonetheless."
Ah right we have a book published by a psychiatrist. How about some counter evidence by proper doctors; http://digitaljournal.com/article/293847 http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911?journalCode=jmf or one from a Dr Lisa Bortolotti a research associate in the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy (School of Law) at the University of Manchester. Her research interests are in philosophy of mind,philosophy of science, philosophy of psychology and applied ethics. http://www.academia.edu/163044/Stem_cell_research_personhood_and_sentience
The days when choicers are able to claim the fetus does not have a brain are numbered: http://mindhacks.com/2009/09/08/brain-scanning-unborn-babies/ This may be another interesting read: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...of-consciousness-in-some-vegetative-patients/ Just because the subject appears to be brain dead does not mean they lack consciousness.
Tell me do you actually read the items you link to before you proclaim support for your position - Bold is my emphasis. This doesn't give one iota of proof to the assertion that a fetus prior to 21 weeks are sentient, I haven't seen anyone disagree that after that time a fetus does not display some characteristics of being sentient. Why do you think that in most countries where abortion is legal there is a 24 week limit except in medical circumstances, it is because of studies such as the one you have linked to, this doesn't support your position at all it bolsters the position of most pro-choice people.
Here's another one: These comments coming from "pro-choicers" sound an awful lot like the ones during slavery.
So are the ones saying eating meat is okay usually but this doesn't make eating meat wrong. Just because arguments sound similar does not make the situation comparable. It's not that hard to understand as a concept that you are to actually debunk an argument instead of making comparisons that are nothing to do with the argument, doing so is bordering on a red herring.
Does the unborn constitute a race? Interesting. If this is so, could we expect that the unborn would be the beginning of those who will constitute the next generation?
Here's the latest one, what Fugazi think about an unborn human being: I think this is what they said about Blacks during slavery. In fact, some of our more illustrious members are still asserting this in the race relations section. Seems like the real racists on this forum are in the abortion section, however.
So you can't defeat our arguments as they are presented to you and you must instead build up strawmen on unrelated topics and tear those down in order to feel like you won the debate? Do you think you or any other lifer here would be able to have a real debate with us without using the Guilt by Association fallacy (constantly bringing up liberals/Dem policies on other things than abortion), the Reductio Ad Hitlerum fallacy (constantly mentioning Hitler and the Holocaust) or building up straw men and making fallacious comparisons (slavery)? I bet you cannot go for a week without using one of these fallacies in this forum.
Actually you are wrong, in the start of slavery black people were not even considered to be homo sapien, they were thought to be some form of under evolved human (funny even the church thought this and they don't believe in evolution) You do realize that your comments have no effect on the debate, apart from making you look like an idiot .. go away, grow up a bit and actually do some research, instead of just googling what you want to see and then posting it as fact .. I and others have already pulled apart most of your "facts" for the lies they are.
How exactly does this prove I am racist again? You quoted a link from another forum. Why do that? I posted the same thread in this forum: http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/192575-do-not-care-one-way-other.html If you cared to go back, you would see that the post was the first post I ever made in the abortion section, and I made it two years ago. After learning more about the subject since that time, I have since become more pro-life. I no longer believe this. I have since realized this is a pro-choice lie. The fact that the baby may not be able to survive outside the mother does not make it less of a baby. It's organs are simply not developed enough to be able to breathe on its own, and the skin is very fragile and sensitive to bacteria getting in and causing pneumonia. But the brain is still there. I have also since learned that some babies can survive outside of the mother before 6 months. So obviously I was wrong. This makes me racist? Even most conservatives want to allow abortion for any rape. And I don't even have to mention the outrage we would see coming from pro-choicers if abortion became illegal for rape. Don't fall for the Liberal lie of "equality", Sam, it's hypocrisy, as I am sure you well know. Oh no, how horrible of me to racially discriminate a little bit, as if that were so terrible. Have we really gotten to the point where "racism" has become even worse than KILLING the intended victim?!? Although I may not hold all fetuses as equals, I certainly seek to give far more equality to even the least of these than pro-choicers do. Pro-choicers have absolutely no standing to complain. They are ridiculously far more guilty than I of what they accuse me of. You know, part of this all is just me being provocative, trying to point out the Liberal hypocrisy here. Get them complaining about racism and then catch them in a logical contradiction. Fugazi apparently sees racial discrimination, even just a little bit, as completely awful, even when it is applied to the unborn— the very entity whom he denies any equality to. Fugazi's moanings are pure hypocrisy. He wants any of them to be killed if they are not convenient for the woman. The system that Fugazi would seek to impose would see far more of the allegedly "oppressed" be terminated than what I advocated for in that old "racist" post. All this should not be too surprising. The twisted ideological logic in many Liberal minds would rather see injustice perpetrated against ALL, than "unfairly" perpetrated against some. We have to be "fair" after all. Letting the woman abort her interracial fetus that resulted from a brutal rape is bad, but letting ALL the fetuses be aborted, whether they resulted from rape or not, is better??
Here's some proof of your racism. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t811175-3/ http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?83899-Outbreeding-Depression-in-Human-populations http://defenderofprecioustruth.blog...d-by-anders-hoveland.html?zx=adf3b34da039b3c6 http://anarchynation.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=4glp4fa4i3llo7dlgq7bsukoi5&topic=3861.msg56779#msg56779
So I am racist for wanting to save white retarded babies from being aborted? Pro-choicers discriminate by age. Abortion moderates discriminate by age, with the additional criteria that the fetus either has to be retarded or have had resulted from rape. Is it so bad to add even more additional criteria? btw, that third link was probably quoted out of context, I never posted on that site. I already responded to my content in your fourth link in my previous post. How horrible of me to say that abortion in the case of rape is only okay if the fetus was interracial. How many members here are okay with all rape fetuses being aborted?
The only contradiction is you trying to squirm your way out of your own comments, I disagree with your idea that abortion purely on racial grounds is ok, I support abortion regardless of race, not because of the color of the fetus (unlike you) but because I believe up to viability the choice should rest purely with the woman, after viability I believe that the fetus (due to it's consistent brain wave activity) should have some rights .. however those rights should not over-rule the womans in cases of rape, incest, life threats to the female or fetal disability incompatible with life. The above is pretty much what Roe Vs Wade established. your own comments condemn you, no matter how you try to justify them by attempting (and failing) to turn the spotlight away from yourself. Perhaps you would like to have a go at explaining away the following; Sandpaper shoved up a womans vagina Euthanasia for Down's Syndrome newborns Free abortion for interracial pregnancies only Dropping condoms in black neighborhoods Sterilization of all women who have more than one abortion
But I never stated this. I just suggested using race-based criteria in addition to another long list of strict criteria in determining who can be aborted. I also pointed out that, since you want to get rid of babies who will be unwanted, and since all these "unwanted" babies are actually non-white, it doesn't make much sense to be killing the white ones. I want to save the white ones. And you accuse me of racism because you want to have the white ones aborted, to make it "fair" and "equal". In this case, "not discriminating" means DEATH, more of it. Even though these babies would be desperately wanted by loving families seeking to adopt. I hope anyone reading this realizes that this type of discrimination is far worse than anything I suggested. Fugazi, you seek to discriminate against 100 times more fetuses than I do. Sure, "racism" has negative connotations. But it's better than what you are advocating. I think your allegations of racism is just a distract from the fact that you want to allow all of these Black fetuses to be aborted. Even I don't support that.
Is that somehow worse? Sam, do you believe abortion is okay in the case of rape or retardation? Do believe that some pro-lifers are bad because they don't want to allow abortion in the case of rape or retardation? Now, if I suggested abortion should only be banned with some of these rape/retardation cases, how would that make me any worse than those who want to allow abortion for any case of rape or retardation? You might disagree with my suggested application of an additional criteria, but if you think about it logically, it is really a very moderate concept, and not entirely unreasonable.
Don't try to justify your immoral beliefs just because pro-choicers have some immoral beliefs also. Abortions should not be allowed, even in the instances of rapes or retardation. How could you even believe something as sick as that?
Do you think it is better to kill all those white babies too, to make things more "fair" ? Do you think racial discrimination is worse than killing? And for pro-choicers, I will ask this question: You say it's not a person, and yet you still think it's wrong to discriminate against them?? But many of them do discriminate with abortions based on geographical location. And age. Fugazi's views are full of rampant unabashed ageism.
I am only discriminating against the rape and retarded babies, nothing the majority of "pro-life" Americans do not already do. The only difference between me and them, is that I want to save some of them (well, actually most) using criteria you do not agree with.
Fugazi does believe in ageism, yes, and that's very immoral and wrong. But so is your racism. Two wrongs does not make a right. I am strongly opposed to both your statements as well as Fugazi's statements.
