Is an unborn embryo/fetus considered a life

[Beso]

An interesting question.

[Smithy]

Yes

1278173738316464128

[Niamh.]

Is this a covert abortion question?

[Firewire]

What do you think?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-48789836

[Beso]

Is this a covert abortion question?

I want to know the blm movements stance on abortion.

[user104658]

An interesting question.

The sensible answer:

Non-fetus human lives > early stage fetuses


The MAGA answer:

White men > Fetuses > White women and children > Everyone else.

[Niamh.]

I want to know the blm movements stance on abortion.

Why?

That's a totally different conversation really

[Liam-]

Are you actually Candace Owens?

[Beso]

Who exactly am i trolling..if tibb has blm members then perhaps you should let them answer, rather than doing some trolling of members and their simple questions for debate.

[Niamh.]

Who exactly am i trolling..if tibb has blm members then perhaps you should let them answer, rather than doing some trolling of members and their simple questions for debate.

You're basically saying that anyone who is Pro Choice can't think that BLM, it's an odd angle to come at and a ridiculous one

[The Slim Reaper]

I was against black people being killed for sh1ts and giggles, but now they believe in a woman's right to choose, I'm not so sure.

[Oliver_W]

Oh come on, Parm.

Bringing abortions into discussions about black lives mattering is just as petty as when people clap back with "what about refugees?" to "All Lives Matter".

[The Slim Reaper]

Oh come on, Parm.

Bringing abortions into discussions about black lives mattering is just as petty as when people clap back with "what about refugees?" to "All Lives Matter".

No. Refugees are people, aborted fetuses aren't.

[Beso]

You're basically saying that anyone who is Pro Choice can't think that BLM, it's an odd angle to come at and a ridiculous one

You mean interesting rather than ridiculous.

[Niamh.]

You mean interesting rather than ridiculous.

No I don't mean interesting, I mean ridiculous

[Liam-]

Cause only black people have abortions

[Beso]

Cause only black people have abortions



They dont care about anyone else, so why would I mention other colours.

[Smithy]

They dont care about anyone else, so why would I mention other colours.

I-

[Tom4784]

The pro-life people are not pro-life, they are pro-control because they only give a **** about limiting choice by feigning concern for a bunch of cells, when the actual baby comes along, they don't give a **** and they certainly don't give a **** about black pregnancies and mothers or their children.

Black lives matter and life begins at birth.

[Niamh.]

The pro-life people are not pro-life, they are pro-control because they only give a **** about limiting choice by feigning concern for a bunch of cells, when the actual baby comes along, they don't give a **** and they certainly don't give a **** about black pregnancies and mothers or their children.

Black lives matter and life begins at birth.

That's a great point, as you know we only had a referendum here on abortion a few years ago, and the vast majority of people campaigning against it were men and the only ones I spoke to in real life about it, I knew for a fact were the ones who had no idea what it took to raise a child. It's weird because when I was younger I was against abortion, it wasn't until I actually had a child myself and really understood in real terms what it all entailed did I switch very firmly to the pro-choice side

[Tom4784]

That's a great point, as you know we only had a referendum here on abortion a few years ago, and the vast majority of people campaigning against it were men and the only ones I spoke to in real about it, I knew for a fact were the ones who had no idea what it took to raise a child. It's weird because when I was younger I was against abortion, it wasn't until I actually had a child myself and really understood in real terms what it all entailed did I switch very firmly to the pro-choice side

It's never been about anything other than control. Just look at the southern states in the US that tried to implement tougher controls on Abortion last year. The people behind that movement probably saw the Handmaid's Tale as something to aspire to.

Children get taken into care where they are abused and discarded within the system because unfit parents couldn't take care of them but the pro-life people don't care about them. They'll call themselves pro-life yet ignore the fact that black lives are being killed by the police everyday, they'll ignore the ethnic cleansing that China is attempting on Uighur muslims (the latest attempt is that China is forcing birth control and abortions on them) and they'll ignore the south american children locked up in cages at the US border but the world will stop for a woman choosing to abort a bundle of cells that she is ill-equipped to care for.

If our biology were to suddenly change overnight and men were the ones who gave birth, abortion would go unopposed throughout the world.

[user104658]

It's weird because when I was younger I was against abortion, it wasn't until I actually had a child myself and really understood in real terms what it all entailed did I switch very firmly to the pro-choice side

This applies to me & my wife as well - we were anti-abortion until we had kids, which sound AWFUL as a standalone statement (like we wish we'd done it :umm2: ) but that's obviously not the case... just that we didn't understand how truly life-altering having a child is until we had children. Especially having a child with additional needs, if we had gotten pregnant again we would have had to strongly consider (and likely would have gone with) abortion purely because we know we simply wouldn't be able to give our youngest the time and attention she needs with another younger child in the mix. There are multiple, huge considerations for anyone bringing a child into the world.

I am still against late-stage abortions unless there are significant medical reasons for it (because being blunt, at that stage the "bundle of cells" argument is little more than a comfortable lie) but yeah I do find that most strongly anti-abortion people are either very naive (don't understand the implications) or very privileged (the implications are less, because they have the means to hire as much help as they need).

[Liam-]

Pro-lifers aren’t pro-life, they’re pro-birth, when kids are born they’re on their own and they couldn’t care less, they want people in all situations to give birth, then they cut funds from all available sources of help to raise said kid, they’re hypocrites

[Mystic Mock]

An interesting question.

Why wouldn't it?:laugh:

[Liam-]

Ironically the majority of these pro-lifers are the ones now against being asked to wear a mask, because it’s their choice not to

[Tom4784]

To be fair, you can oppose abortion and still be pro-choice. A lot of people who are pro-choice probably would never want or have an abortion but they don't want to force their choices on anyone else.

[Cherie]

That's a great point, as you know we only had a referendum here on abortion a few years ago, and the vast majority of people campaigning against it were men and the only ones I spoke to in real about it, I knew for a fact were the ones who had no idea what it took to raise a child. It's weird because when I was younger I was against abortion, it wasn't until I actually had a child myself and really understood in real terms what it all entailed did I switch very firmly to the pro-choice side

I agree with all that, the only thing I will add is that life does not begin at birth anyone who has felt a child kicking in the womb will know this , and that is why there is quite rightly a cap at 24 weeks

[user104658]

Pro-lifers aren’t pro-life, they’re pro-birth, when kids are born they’re on their own and they couldn’t care less, they want people in all situations to give birth, then they cut funds from all available sources of help to raise said kid, they’re hypocrites

I agree with that, I don't see how anyone can declare themselves "pro-life" and then happily oppose things like benefits to support children. No birth control is 100% effective so, really, anyone who is anti-abortion whilst simultaneously saying things like "If you can't afford kids, don't have them" is, more accurately, pro-abstinence.

[Niamh.]

This applies to me & my wife as well - we were anti-abortion until we had kids, which sound AWFUL as a standalone statement (like we wish we'd done it :umm2: ) but that's obviously not the case... just that we didn't understand how truly life-altering having a child is until we had children. Especially having a child with additional needs, if we had gotten pregnant again we would have had to strongly consider (and likely would have gone with) abortion purely because we know we simply wouldn't be able to give our youngest the time and attention she needs with another younger child in the mix. There are multiple, huge considerations for anyone bringing a child into the world.

Yes, absolutely goes for me as well. And I would still say on a personal level I probably still wouldn't have an abortion myself unless the baby had a severe disability - which also sounds awful but I don't think I could cope with being a full time carer and don't think it would be fair to my other children or the child itself, what quality of life would you be bringing them into and what happens if they out live me and my husband etc


I am still against late-stage abortions unless there are significant medical reasons for it (because being blunt, at that stage the "bundle of cells" argument is little more than a comfortable lie) but yeah I do find that most strongly anti-abortion people are either very naive (don't understand the implications) or very privileged (the implications are less, because they have the means to hire as much help as they need).

Absolutely 100% agree with this also

[Cherie]

This applies to me & my wife as well - we were anti-abortion until we had kids, which sound AWFUL as a standalone statement (like we wish we'd done it :umm2: ) but that's obviously not the case... just that we didn't understand how truly life-altering having a child is until we had children. Especially having a child with additional needs, if we had gotten pregnant again we would have had to strongly consider (and likely would have gone with) abortion purely because we know we simply wouldn't be able to give our youngest the time and attention she needs with another younger child in the mix. There are multiple, huge considerations for anyone bringing a child into the world.

I am still against late-stage abortions unless there are significant medical reasons for it (because being blunt, at that stage the "bundle of cells" argument is little more than a comfortable lie) but yeah I do find that most strongly anti-abortion people are either very naive (don't understand the implications) or very privileged (the implications are less, because they have the means to hire as much help as they need).


100 per cent

[Niamh.]

Pro-lifers aren’t pro-life, they’re pro-birth, when kids are born they’re on their own and they couldn’t care less, they want people in all situations to give birth, then they cut funds from all available sources of help to raise said kid, they’re hypocrites

Yep and probably are the same ones who complain about kids being raised by single moms etc etc

[user104658]

I agree with all that, the only thing I will add is that life does not begin at birth anyone who has felt a child kicking in the womb will know this , and that is why there is quite rightly a cap at 24 weeks

Beyond 24 weeks I think the limitation should quite strictly be to either the child having severe, heavily life-limiting/painful disabilities or a risk to the mother's physical health in continuing the pregnancy/birth.

Of course that needs to go hand-in-hand with quick, free access to early stage abortions with no "waiting lists".

[Niamh.]

I agree with all that, the only thing I will add is that life does not begin at birth anyone who has felt a child kicking in the womb will know this , and that is why there is quite rightly a cap at 24 weeks

Yes I agree 100%

[The Slim Reaper]

I went to an abortion place once and it was just full of kids. Or ghosts.

[thesheriff443]

I think there is something very wrong in countries like Africa where year in year out they have kids only for them to die of lack of food water disease or aids.

[Oliver_W]

To be fair, you can oppose abortion and still be pro-choice. A lot of people who are pro-choice probably would never want or have an abortion but they don't want to force their choices on anyone else.

This is pretty much my position. I don't think people should have abortions, but I also don't think it's my business what other people get up to :laugh:

[Niamh.]

This is pretty much my position. I don't think people should have abortions, but I also don't think it's my business what other people get up to :laugh:

Also, the people who go on like some women use abortion as a form of contraception clearly have no idea what it's like to get an abortion. I haven't had one myself but know people who have, it's not a pleasant experience emotionally, mentally or physically

[Tom4784]

It's not an easy choice to make, it's a heavy one which enrages me when you see people protesting outside of clinics and calling the women who have no choice but to have an abortion all sorts.

They're already making a difficult choice, to shame them for it is such cruelty ill-fitting of someone who claims to be 'pro-life'.

[user104658]

I think there is something very wrong in countries like Africa where year in year out they have kids only for them to die of lack of food water disease or aids.

I wonder what the problem is :think:

[user104658]

Also, the people who go on like some women use abortion as a form of contraception clearly have no idea what it's like to get an abortion. I haven't had one myself but know people who have, it's not a pleasant experience emotionally, mentally or physically

I did know a girl at my school who had 6 before she turned 18. Needless to say though, she was a troubled girl and there were obviously other things going on there. She was also exclusively sleeping with guys in their 30's and 40's.

No one would just casually use it as a replacement for normal contraception.

[Rob!]

It might be an interesting question if I believed you were making this thread for anything other than to try and cause arguments and get attention.

[Beso]

I've updated the op as there seems to be a bit of confusion.

[Oliver_W]

I did know a girl at my school who had 6 before she turned 18. Needless to say though, she was a troubled girl and there were obviously other things going on there. She was also exclusively sleeping with guys in their 30's and 40's.

No one would just casually use it as a replacement for normal contraception.

That rings really red flag bells. Usually such behaviour suggests abuse, I bet if she'd have had six kids by the age of 18 in the modern times her parents would get a knock at their door...

[Beso]

It might be an interesting question if I believed you were making this thread for anything other than to try and cause arguments and get attention.



Cause arguments amongst whom?


A thread maker looking for attention...
Whatever next.

Why not just answer the question seeing as you find it interesting?

Rather than looking for whatever it was you were looking for in your last reply

[Rob!]

Cause arguments amongst whom?


A thread maker looking for attention...
Whatever next.

Why not just answer the question seeing as you find it interesting?

Rather than looking for whatever it was you were looking for in your last reply

I don't find it interesting. It's a ridiculous question. The two matters are completely unrelated.

[AnnieK]

It's not an easy choice to make, it's a heavy one which enrages me when you see people protesting outside of clinics and calling the women who have no choice but to have an abortion all sorts.

They're already making a difficult choice, to shame them for it is such cruelty ill-fitting of someone who claims to be 'pro-life'.

I agree, when I was 18 two of my friends fell pregnant, both came to my mum for advice (they couldn't speak to their own mums for different reasons and my mum was cool). She didn't tell either what to do but listened and asked them what they wanted. One had the baby, one had an abortion. My mum said that the one who had the abortion had and made the hardest choice....and she still lives with the guilt now but knows she made the right decision.

[smudgie]

The pro-life people are not pro-life, they are pro-control because they only give a **** about limiting choice by feigning concern for a bunch of cells, when the actual baby comes along, they don't give a **** and they certainly don't give a **** about black pregnancies and mothers or their children.

Black lives matter and life begins at birth.

This really.

[DouglasS]

The pro-life people are not pro-life, they are pro-control because they only give a **** about limiting choice by feigning concern for a bunch of cells, when the actual baby comes along, they don't give a **** and they certainly don't give a **** about black pregnancies and mothers or their children.

Black lives matter and life begins at birth.

Life doesn’t begin at birth. Are you saying people should be able to abort at 38weeks old when the foetus is fully developed because it’s not born yet ? That is just extremely cruel and just crazy to me.

[Marsh.]

I think there is something very wrong in countries like Africa where year in year out they have kids only for them to die of lack of food water disease or aids.

Omg, REALLY?

[Beso]

I don't find it interesting. It's a ridiculous question. The two matters are completely unrelated.

No they ain't.. a black life is a black life wether it be in the womb or out..I merely want to know the BLM movements stance on black lives within the womb.


It ain't that ridiculous to ask.

[Marsh.]

No they ain't.. a black life is a black life wether it be in the womb or out..I merely want to know the BLM movements stance on black lives within the womb.


It ain't that ridiculous to ask.

It is ridicululous. You're trying to manufacture a "gotcha" moment where one doesn't exist and it's embarrassing.

[Beso]

It is ridicululous. You're trying to manufacture a "gotcha" moment where one doesn't exist and it's embarrassing.

Perhaps in that void you call a head of yours it may seem like that...but as usual, you're wrong.

[Marsh.]

Perhaps in that void you call a head of yours it may seem like that...but as usual, you're wrong.

That's right parm, make it about me because you have sod all to back up your stupid statements. Good lad. :thumbs:

[Rob!]

Perhaps in that void you call a head of yours it may seem like that...but as usual, you're wrong.

I rest my case.

[Oliver_W]

Basically don't try to argue against abortion unless you're that short Jewish guy who was really popular a few years ago.

[Cherie]

would be nice to have one thread where the topic is discussed rather than members, I can dream :hee:

[Marsh.]

would be nice to have one thread where the topic is discussed rather than members, I can dream :hee:

Oh so true.

[Liam-]

would be nice to have one thread where the topic is discussed rather than members, I can dream :hee:

You should really tell your friends that

[DouglasS]

would be nice to have one thread where the topic is discussed rather than members, I can dream :hee:

:clap1:

[Moniqua]

what a knob

[Cherie]

You should really tell your friends that

I am not responsible for anyone's views but my own Liam :nono:

[Liam-]

I am not responsible for anyone's views but my own Liam :nono:

No, but you can’t snipe at others while the people you like do the same

[Morgan.]

The ****, why isn’t this closed yet?

[Cherie]

No, but you can’t snipe at others while the people you like do the same

Did I quote anyone? I made a general comment, you are the one who has interpreted as your fwends being sniped at

[user104658]

That rings really red flag bells. Usually such behaviour suggests abuse, I bet if she'd have had six kids by the age of 18 in the modern times her parents would get a knock at their door...

I lived quite near her up until I was about 10, she was a very angry kid. I wouldn't want to speculate, though. But you know. Nuclear family in a detached 4 bedroom on a nice street so no one was really watching.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The ****, why isn’t this closed yet?

because you are not admin and your "opinion" is not that of anyone but yourself

i hope that is clear

[Crimson Dynamo]

No, but you can’t snipe at others while the people you like do the same

how on earth do you know who cherie likes?


:joker:

[Jigs]

If this is an attempt to catch people out by using abortion in order to highlight some sort of manufactured hypocrisy within the BLM movement then shame on you.

[Tom4784]

Life doesn’t begin at birth. Are you saying people should be able to abort at 38weeks old when the foetus is fully developed because it’s not born yet ? That is just extremely cruel and just crazy to me.

No one aborts fetuses at 38 weeks. You can only abort for medical reasons beyond 24 weeks.

Life does begin at birth, a fetus until it's ready to be born or delivered, cannot support it's own existence outside of the womb. For pretty much the entirety of the period when someone can choose to have an abortion, the fetus is just an bunch of cells and nothing more.

Your example just doesn't happen in the real world. No one can just decide to go full term and have an abortion.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Ironically the majority of these pro-lifers are the ones now against being asked to wear a mask, because it’s their choice not to

You have no evidence for this blanket statement

[user104658]

Life does begin at birth, a fetus until it's ready to be born or delivered, cannot support it's own existence outside of the womb.

Hmmm well that's not really true, a fetus can survive outside the womb from 22 weeks (just past the half way mark) and has a chance of survival without mechanical incubation from 26 weeks. A pretty good chance from 30 weeks. Full term being 38 - 42 weeks.

For pretty much the entirety of the period when someone can choose to have an abortion, the fetus is just an bunch of cells and nothing more.

This is also untrue beyond about 14 weeks, start of 2nd trimester... it's a recognisably-formed human at that point and has a "working" brain. I'm pro-choice but I don't see much point in telling pretty lies to make it more palateable... like meat eaters who are scared of knowing that their chicken nuggets used to cluck-cluck.

Not least because it means women end up getting a bit of a nasty shock when they have an abortion at 16 weeks and a fully formed (if small) baby comes out.

No need for anything but the facts :shrug:.

[rusticgal]

Hmmm well that's not really true, a fetus can survive outside the womb from 22 weeks (just past the half way mark) and has a chance of survival without mechanical incubation from 26 weeks. A pretty good chance from 30 weeks. Full term being 38 - 42 weeks.



This is also untrue beyond about 14 weeks, start of 2nd trimester... it's a recognisably-formed human at that point and has a "working" brain. I'm pro-choice but I don't see much point in telling pretty lies to make it more palateable... like meat eaters who are scared of knowing that their chicken nuggets used to cluck-cluck.

Not least because it means women end up getting a bit of a nasty shock when they have an abortion at 16 weeks and a fully formed (if small) baby comes out.

No need for anything but the facts :shrug:.


Correct. Which is why they won’t abort passed 24weeks.

[DouglasS]

Hmmm well that's not really true, a fetus can survive outside the womb from 22 weeks (just past the half way mark) and has a chance of survival without mechanical incubation from 26 weeks. A pretty good chance from 30 weeks. Full term being 38 - 42 weeks.



This is also untrue beyond about 14 weeks, start of 2nd trimester... it's a recognisably-formed human at that point and has a "working" brain. I'm pro-choice but I don't see much point in telling pretty lies to make it more palateable... like meat eaters who are scared of knowing that their chicken nuggets used to cluck-cluck.

Not least because it means women end up getting a bit of a nasty shock when they have an abortion at 16 weeks and a fully formed (if small) baby comes out.

No need for anything but the facts :shrug:.

Exactly what I was coming to say :clap1:

I have a biology degree and so it can be frustrating seeing people spread misinformation to fit their view

Abortion even at 24 weeks is crazy to me knowing that the foetus could survive in the real world at that point. I am also pro choice but only to a certain point and anything past 18-20 weeks i believe to be a little cruel and should only be aborted for extreme circumstances (if you don’t want the baby give it up for adoption)

[Tom4784]

Exactly what I was coming to say :clap1:

I have a biology degree and so it can be frustrating seeing people spread misinformation to fit their view

Abortion even at 24 weeks is crazy to me knowing that the foetus could survive in the real world at that point. I am also pro choice but only to a certain point and anything past 18-20 weeks i believe to be a little cruel and should only be aborted for extreme circumstances (if you don’t want the baby give it up for adoption)

Doubtful especially considering that you made that whole point about aborting full term pregnancies.

As for the second boldened point, what if you live in America where paid materinity leave isn't guaranteed and healthcare bankrupts people? What if you simply can't commit to a full term pregnancy for health or other reasons?

Pregnancy isn't easy, expecting someone to carry a baby for nine months and go through everything with the express purpose of giving the baby away is a lot.

[Tom4784]

Hmmm well that's not really true, a fetus can survive outside the womb from 22 weeks (just past the half way mark) and has a chance of survival without mechanical incubation from 26 weeks. A pretty good chance from 30 weeks. Full term being 38 - 42 weeks.



This is also untrue beyond about 14 weeks, start of 2nd trimester... it's a recognisably-formed human at that point and has a "working" brain. I'm pro-choice but I don't see much point in telling pretty lies to make it more palateable... like meat eaters who are scared of knowing that their chicken nuggets used to cluck-cluck.

Not least because it means women end up getting a bit of a nasty shock when they have an abortion at 16 weeks and a fully formed (if small) baby comes out.

No need for anything but the facts :shrug:.

Here's a fact for you, the vast majority of abortions tend to be done under 10 weeks, IE, in the first trimester when the fetus is just a bunch of cells which makes most of what you said pointless hair splitting for the sake of showing off.

Also, you misunderstood what I'm saying. Premature babies as early as you're saying cannot support their own existence without medical assistance, you can't just give birth to a 22 week old fetus and it'll be fine. A full term baby isn't going to die outside of the womb, a 22 week old fetus will die quickly without medical attention. Even being born three weeks prior to a due date can cause medical issues for the child so it's wrong to make out I'm lying to fit my agenda when you misunderstood what I was saying. Also most babies born at 22 weeks do not survive, it's rarer to survive at that age then it is to die so using that as an example to call me a liar is just plain incorrect.

Life begins at birth, whether it's an early birth or not but the truth is that a baby born during the time that abortion by choice is allowed simply won't survive in most cases.

[thesheriff443]

Hmmm well that's not really true, a fetus can survive outside the womb from 22 weeks (just past the half way mark) and has a chance of survival without mechanical incubation from 26 weeks. A pretty good chance from 30 weeks. Full term being 38 - 42 weeks.



This is also untrue beyond about 14 weeks, start of 2nd trimester... it's a recognisably-formed human at that point and has a "working" brain. I'm pro-choice but I don't see much point in telling pretty lies to make it more palateable... like meat eaters who are scared of knowing that their chicken nuggets used to cluck-cluck.

Not least because it means women end up getting a bit of a nasty shock when they have an abortion at 16 weeks and a fully formed (if small) baby comes out.

No need for anything but the facts :shrug:.

Yes, google is great for finding facts.

[Beso]

Dont nobody know the blm stance on this then?

I'm surprised.

[Nicky91]

Dont nobody know the blm stance on this then?

I'm surprised.

we don't know what the topic is :conf:

[Glenn.]

What the **** is this thread?

[Beso]

we don't know what the topic is :conf:

Does the life of a black child in the womb matter to the blm movements supporters and backers.

[Niamh.]

Dont nobody know the blm stance on this then?

I'm surprised.They don't need a stance on this entirely different debate

[bots]

does anyone know their stance on fruit scones?

[DouglasS]

Doubtful especially considering that you made that whole point about aborting full term pregnancies.

As for the second boldened point, what if you live in America where paid materinity leave isn't guaranteed and healthcare bankrupts people? What if you simply can't commit to a full term pregnancy for health or other reasons?

Pregnancy isn't easy, expecting someone to carry a baby for nine months and go through everything with the express purpose of giving the baby away is a lot.

What point did I make about terminating full term pregnancies? You have clearly misread/misunderstood my post. You were saying life doesn’t start til birth and so you are pro choice, I was saying well then if life doesn’t start til birth surely it’s okay to abort at 38 weeks by that logic then? clearly it’s not acceptable and so clearly life does not begin at birth and so I was just Calling out the hypocrisy of your statement and questioning

[user104658]

Here's a fact for you, the vast majority of abortions tend to be done under 10 weeks, IE, in the first trimester when the fetus is just a bunch of cells which makes most of what you said pointless hair splitting for the sake of showing off.

Now now, let's not start :idc:.

I'm aware that most abortions are before 10 weeks but you didn't say "most abortions that are carried out are just a bundle of cells" - you said that "For pretty much the entirety of the period when someone can choose to have an abortion, the fetus is just an bunch of cells". You can't revise that now to be more right, because your old post is still there. Darn you, internet :fist:.

Also, you misunderstood what I'm saying. Premature babies as early as you're saying cannot support their own existence without medical assistance, you can't just give birth to a 22 week old fetus and it'll be fine. A full term baby isn't going to die outside of the womb, a 22 week old fetus will die quickly without medical attention. Even being born three weeks prior to a due date can cause medical issues for the child so it's wrong to make out I'm lying to fit my agenda when you misunderstood what I was saying. Also most babies born at 22 weeks do not survive, it's rarer to survive at that age then it is to die so using that as an example to call me a liar is just plain incorrect.

I didn't misunderstand what you were saying. If you were unclear in what you were saying, that's on you, and if you're now revising what you're saying, that's fine too and I agree with the above. However, again, what you said was not "a fetus before X weeks", it was "a fetus until it's ready to be born or delivered, cannot support it's own existence outside of the womb". Ready to be born or delivered is 38 weeks gestation

Life begins at birth, whether it's an early birth or not but the truth is that a baby born during the time that abortion by choice is allowed simply won't survive in most cases.

You're obviously free to your opinion but this is not even in the realms of scientific fact. It is pure opinion. Your claim is that any parasitic entity that would die without a host body isn't alive, which in my opinion is clearly not a logical statement. It's a white lie. I'm not "calling you a liar" - a bit dramatic - I'm saying that in my opinion the ideology that "the point where life begins is birth" is rhetoric mostly used to make abortion less traumatic and more palatable. I'm pro-choice, like I said if we had gotten pregnant for a third time it's very likely we would have taken that option, but I don't see the point in not being honest with ourselves about what it is? Killing a fetus. I'm not hand-wringing or calling it murder either, it just is what it is... I love a fillet steak, nom nom, but I'm not going to pretend that someone didn't cut a cow's throat for it, or that the cow wasn't alive.

Your entire argument was based on the "bundle of cells" premise, which is demonstrably false. You've amended that to "viability of living independently" - and that's fine, certainly debatable, I still disagree but it's not INcorrect just a matter of opinion.

[Ammi]

...there is no definitive agreement as to where the point of life beginning is, surely...hence abortion always being such an emotive subject because there are things considered ..this is quite a good site for the varying views more simplistically...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

Unfortunately there's no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life.

That isn't surprising, because the idea that there is a precise moment when a foetus gets the right to live, which it didn't have a few moments earlier, feels very strange.

And when you look closely at each of the suggested dates, they do seem either arbitrary or not precise enough to decide whether the unborn should have the right to live.

Nonetheless, as a matter of practicality many abortion laws lay down a stage of pregnancy after which abortion is unlawful (because the foetus has a right to life), and the dates chosen are usually based on viability.


...this is also quite interesting when a pregnant female is murdered...is it a single murder of a pregnant woman or a double murder to include the killing of her unborn child...(...obviously there are some cases when an unborn child has been saved..)...and I don’t think there is any definitive answer to that either...it depends on the laws of the country/state etc...

https://theconversation.com/when-unborn-children-are-killed-how-does-the-law-deal-with-culpability-104222

[user104658]

...there is no definitive agreement as to where the point of life beginning is, surely...hence abortion always being such an emotive subject because there are things considered ..this is quite a good site for the varying views more simplistically...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

Unfortunately there's no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life.

That isn't surprising, because the idea that there is a precise moment when a foetus gets the right to live, which it didn't have a few moments earlier, feels very strange.

And when you look closely at each of the suggested dates, they do seem either arbitrary or not precise enough to decide whether the unborn should have the right to live.

Nonetheless, as a matter of practicality many abortion laws lay down a stage of pregnancy after which abortion is unlawful (because the foetus has a right to life), and the dates chosen are usually based on viability.


...this is also quite interesting when a pregnant female is murdered...is it a single murder of a pregnant woman or a double murder to include the killing of her unborn child...(...obviously there are some cases when an unborn child has been saved..)...and I don’t think there is any definitive answer to that either...it depends on the laws of the country/state etc...

https://theconversation.com/when-unborn-children-are-killed-how-does-the-law-deal-with-culpability-104222

Well exactly. I think there are (loosely) four schools of thought on when life begins

1) As soon as cell division begins (the moment of conception)

2) The beginning of conscious thought/sensory experience in some form

3) Viable unassisted survivability

4) Full term birth

"Life" in the biological sense begins as soon as cell division begins, in the same way that a plant or bacteria is alive. As for when "meaningful human life" begins, none of these is "wrong", it's a philosophical question so purely opinion based. As far as my thoughts on abortion go, I'm fully on board with it all the way up to point 3 but think that wherever possible we should ensure it's before point 2 - that means it being free and quickly/easily available. Women asking for an abortion at 10 weeks and not getting it until 14 weeks - which sometimes happens - is a disgraceful situation.

I'm also pro termination if there's a risk to the mother's life or health, at any point during pregnancy. That's a bit more morally "grey" as I do believe that in late stage pregnancy it's the choice between two lives - but the life of an "established" (for want of a better word?) human with thoughts, memories, experiences and connections has to always take precedence.


Of course what we do know to be biological fact is that a 2nd trimester fetus is not just a bundle of cells :think:. Well. I guess it IS just a bundle of cells, in the sense that any living thing is just a bundle of cells :umm2:.

Where it all gets complicated I guess is when you start introducing supernatural hocus-pocus like the concept of the "soul". When does the fetus/baby "have a soul". That's not a debate I can really enter into because my answer obviously is "never because the concept is nonsensical" :joker:.

[Crimson Dynamo]

does anyone know their stance on fruit scones?

Blackcurrant lives matter?

Defund Ribena :fist:

[Ammi]

...I don’t believe the concept of a soul is nonsensical when there is so much we just don’t know or understand...but I’ll fight you another time/day on that one..:laugh:..‘the point of life’ though, is something which will remain endless in terms of opinion because it varies so much, even in terms of from state to state in a country...it is the law that is determining that point, which is why I found the ‘murder’ one interesting...because in some areas of Australia for instance...?...the law follows the ‘born alive rule’... “This is a common law rule that states that a homicide can only be committed on a legally recognised person, and that a person is not legally recognised until they are “fully born in a living state”...And yet in other areas, killing an unborn child can carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment...

[Niamh.]

I think I'd be somewhere between 2 and 3 in TS's points of "life"

[DouglasS]

As for the second boldened point, what if you live in America where paid materinity leave isn't guaranteed and healthcare bankrupts people? What if you simply can't commit to a full term pregnancy for health or other reasons?

Pregnancy isn't easy, expecting someone to carry a baby for nine months and go through everything with the express purpose of giving the baby away is a lot.

Replying to this second point. I have already said I’m pro choice to a certain point. However yes I am against late terminations where the baby is killed when it is able to survive outside the womb and also when the baby has formed a well developed sensory system and is feeling pain at 18-20 weeks. So once it has reached 20 weeks you are already 5 months pregnant and I think terminating the child should only be for extreme circumstances (mothers life at risk etc), I do not believe financial burden to be a reason to be able to terminate between 18-24 weeks old, it’s incredibly selfish in my opinion when that baby is very developed and able to feel it’s pain of being killed

[Niamh.]

Replying to this second point. I have already said I’m pro choice to a certain point. However yes I am against late terminations where the baby is killed when it is able to survive outside the womb and also when the baby has formed a well developed sensory system and is feeling pain at 18-20 weeks. So once it has reached 20 weeks you are already 5 months pregnant and I think terminating the child should only be for extreme circumstances (mothers life at risk etc), I do not believe financial burden to be a reason to be able to terminate between 18-24 weeks old, it’s incredibly selfish in my opinion when that baby is very developed and able to feel it’s pain of being killed

Yeah I agree with all that actually, 18-24 weeks is too late except in extreme circumstances

[Cherie]

Replying to this second point. I have already said I’m pro choice to a certain point. However yes I am against late terminations where the baby is killed when it is able to survive outside the womb and also when the baby has formed a well developed sensory system and is feeling pain at 18-20 weeks. So once it has reached 20 weeks you are already 5 months pregnant and I think terminating the child should only be for extreme circumstances (mothers life at risk etc), I do not believe financial burden to be a reason to be able to terminate between 18-24 weeks old, it’s incredibly selfish in my opinion when that baby is very developed and able to feel it’s pain of being killed

Yep agree 24 weeks is very late and should be for extreme circumstances only

[user104658]

...I don’t believe the concept of a soul is nonsensical when there is so much we just don’t know or understand...but I’ll fight you another time/day on that one..:laugh:..‘the point of life’ though, is something which will remain endless in terms of opinion because it varies so much, even in terms of from state to state in a country...it is the law that is determining that point, which is why I found the ‘murder’ one interesting...because in some areas of Australia for instance...?...the law follows the ‘born alive rule’... “This is a common law rule that states that a homicide can only be committed on a legally recognised person, and that a person is not legally recognised until they are “fully born in a living state”...And yet in other areas, killing an unborn child can carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment...

The debate really is endless because it's all so relative, even beyond birth. Like the vast majority of modern societies would place a baby's life (a born, breathing, crying one) as being more precious than an adult life. Most adults, and certainly parents, would at the very least put themselves at extreme risk to save a baby. But that's not always been the case, at plenty of points in human history infant mortality has been very high and infant deaths even expected/normal. In ye olde cave man times the death of an infant would have been "sad but expected" but the death of an adult provider would have been a tragedy/potential disaster so adult lives would have been considered more important than infant lives even AFTER birth :umm2:. It's very much the case in a lot of the animal kingdom, even in mammals, where babies are sometimes killed (even eaten) if it benefits the parent.

Don't worry though, when the apocalypse comes I won't be firing up the barbeque... probably... :hee:.

[Tom4784]

Now now, let's not start :idc:.

I'm aware that most abortions are before 10 weeks but you didn't say "most abortions that are carried out are just a bundle of cells" - you said that "For pretty much the entirety of the period when someone can choose to have an abortion, the fetus is just an bunch of cells". You can't revise that now to be more right, because your old post is still there. Darn you, internet :fist:.



I didn't misunderstand what you were saying. If you were unclear in what you were saying, that's on you, and if you're now revising what you're saying, that's fine too and I agree with the above. However, again, what you said was not "a fetus before X weeks", it was "a fetus until it's ready to be born or delivered, cannot support it's own existence outside of the womb". Ready to be born or delivered is 38 weeks gestation



You're obviously free to your opinion but this is not even in the realms of scientific fact. It is pure opinion. Your claim is that any parasitic entity that would die without a host body isn't alive, which in my opinion is clearly not a logical statement. It's a white lie. I'm not "calling you a liar" - a bit dramatic - I'm saying that in my opinion the ideology that "the point where life begins is birth" is rhetoric mostly used to make abortion less traumatic and more palatable. I'm pro-choice, like I said if we had gotten pregnant for a third time it's very likely we would have taken that option, but I don't see the point in not being honest with ourselves about what it is? Killing a fetus. I'm not hand-wringing or calling it murder either, it just is what it is... I love a fillet steak, nom nom, but I'm not going to pretend that someone didn't cut a cow's throat for it, or that the cow wasn't alive.

Your entire argument was based on the "bundle of cells" premise, which is demonstrably false. You've amended that to "viability of living independently" - and that's fine, certainly debatable, I still disagree but it's not INcorrect just a matter of opinion.

You started by calling me a liar and don't backpedal now, you did say I was lying to further my own agenda. Choose your words better if you don't want to be called out on it.

Life begins when a life can support the basic act of living. A first trimester fetus cannot support itself, by your own admission, a fetus can survive at 22 weeks BUT I looked it up last night, the chances of survival are low and without immediate medical attention, it's non-existent. Can you really say life begins then when most of the time, it'll result in the likely immediate death of the fetus? I consider life to begin when a baby can live outside of the womb without dying and for me. A baby can survive before that point, yes, but it's not common enough to make out that a 22 week fetus is the same as a full term baby.

Stating 'that's your opinion' is redundant, everything in this topic is an opinion but my opinion, like yours, is backed up by the same method of googling as you and it's just as valid as yours. You are splitting hairs again and it won't work.

[Tom4784]

What point did I make about terminating full term pregnancies? You have clearly misread/misunderstood my post. You were saying life doesn’t start til birth and so you are pro choice, I was saying well then if life doesn’t start til birth surely it’s okay to abort at 38 weeks by that logic then? clearly it’s not acceptable and so clearly life does not begin at birth and so I was just Calling out the hypocrisy of your statement and questioning

But that's a ridiculous point to make. A full term baby can survive outside the womb but a 22 week old fetus is likely not to survive. To compare the two and say they are the same is just silly. They aren't.

[Tom4784]

Replying to this second point. I have already said I’m pro choice to a certain point. However yes I am against late terminations where the baby is killed when it is able to survive outside the womb and also when the baby has formed a well developed sensory system and is feeling pain at 18-20 weeks. So once it has reached 20 weeks you are already 5 months pregnant and I think terminating the child should only be for extreme circumstances (mothers life at risk etc), I do not believe financial burden to be a reason to be able to terminate between 18-24 weeks old, it’s incredibly selfish in my opinion when that baby is very developed and able to feel it’s pain of being killed

Good thing the vast majority of abortions happen at 10 weeks or under then. The whole focus on late term abortions is more of a pro-life dog whistle than anything. Most people aren't getting abortions at 5 months unless it's medically advised.

[user104658]

You started by calling me a liar and don't backpedal now, you did say I was lying to further my own agenda. Choose your words better if you don't want to be called out on it.


I said that calling a 2nd trimester fetus "a bundle of cells" is a pretty (or white) lie used to make abortion easier/more palateable. That's what it is. I'm not backpedaling - I still think the same - I think some people are worried that these opinions will be used by pro-lifers to discourage abortion, which they might be, but I don't and never will agree with manipulating the narrative to suit the outcome.

Taking this and making it into "How dare you call me a liar!!" is just utterly bizarre... and I'm not sure how you can ever engage in an open debate if you think that everyone who thinks your opinion is incorrect is "calling you a liar". You've gotten emotional and aggressive here with really little if any reason, I personally have absolutely ZERO time for it right now, I'm not here for nor have I ever been part of any "TiBB wars" so keep that where it belongs please Dezzy. If you can't keep the debate civilized I have no idea why you're doing it at all, it seems exhausting.

Life begins when a life can support the basic act of living.

So to ask a question... is a parasitic organism (let's say a tapeworm) alive? By your definition it is not alive - it cannot support itself without a host body to feed off of. But that seems to me to be an odd suggestion, I don't know many people who would argue that parasites are not alive. I suppose that's also down to opinion though. I strongly disagree?

A first trimester fetus cannot support itself, by your own admission, a fetus can survive at 22 weeks BUT I looked it up last night, the chances of survival are low and without immediate medical attention, it's non-existent. Can you really say life begins then when most of the time, it'll result in the likely immediate death of the fetus? I consider life to begin when a baby can live outside of the womb without dying and for me. A baby can survive before that point, yes, but it's not common enough to make out that a 22 week fetus is the same as a full term baby.

Stating 'that's your opinion' is redundant, everything in this topic is an opinion but my opinion, like yours, is backed up by the same method of googling as you and it's just as valid as yours. You are splitting hairs again and it won't work.

I actually have a relatively wide knowledge of issues surrounding pregnancy and gestation that I didn't "google last night", but I have little reason nor desire to share those, because it's not really relevant. I'm not trying to "win" or "make anything work". I'm just debating, I'm not accusing you of anything, calling you a liar, or expecting anything other than for people to share their own opinions... as is the purpose of debate. I'm not interested whatsoever in this paranoid victim-narrative nonsense, kindly keep it away. Or I can just not engage at all, I suppose. Probably the better option?

Or I guess, we can play if you want, but not 'til the kids are back at school, I just don't have the time or energy :laugh:.

[bots]

why stop at life during pregnancy, why bother having hospitals at all, because the people would be dead without treatment ..... so no need to bother

I despair .....

[The Slim Reaper]

why stop at life during pregnancy, why bother having hospitals at all, because the people would be dead without treatment ..... so no need to bother

I despair .....

Errrrr...what?

[bots]

Errrrr...what?

i'm referring to the ridiculous argument that a abortion is fine on a premature baby because it wouldn't survive without medical attention ... the same applies to many living/born animals that don't receive specialised care

[user104658]

why stop at life during pregnancy, why bother having hospitals at all, because the people would be dead without treatment ..... so no need to bother

I despair .....

To be fair I think that's an exaggeration, I do understand the argument that a 1st/2nd trimester fetus is clearly a very DIFFERENT form of life to an "active" human life. I just think it's undeniable that a fetus is "alive", by pretty much every measure of the definition of "life". I know it's a hard to swallow position, but I'm OK with abortion and OK with abortion being the process of ending a human life. That's just the warts'n'all truth, I don't believe in sanitizing the narrative for the sake of comfort.

[bots]

To be fair I think that's an exaggeration, I do understand the argument that a 1st/2nd trimester fetus is clearly a very DIFFERENT form of life to an "active" human life. I just think it's undeniable that a fetus is "alive", by pretty much every measure of the definition of "life". I know it's a hard to swallow position, but I'm OK with abortion and OK with abortion being the process of ending a human life. That's just the warts'n'all truth, I don't believe in sanitizing the narrative for the sake of comfort.

that's why the time limits are under constant review though. As our medical expertise improves, viability also improves which contracts the window for an abortion

[user104658]

i'm referring to the ridiculous argument that a abortion is fine on a premature baby because it wouldn't survive without medical attention ... the same applies to many living/born animals that don't receive specialised care

Being pro-choice I still prefer the tapeworm comparison because it allows for getting rid ... :umm2:.

Like... you find out you have a big ol' tapeworm, you're going to say "Ugh there's something living inside me" and you'll (obviously) want to kill it and get it out. You won't be morally opposed to "ending its life" because there is a damn good reason for doing so. BUT you also wouldn't say "Umm I'm not killing the tapeworm - it isn't alive because it wouldn't survive outside my body".

Unless people WOULD argue that a parasitic organism isn't alive :think:. I just think that would be a very difficult position to defend.

[Nicky91]

thank you for updating thread title :thumbs:

now i do understand it


and yes i do consider those a life, i'm against abortion

[The Slim Reaper]

i'm referring to the ridiculous argument that a abortion is fine on a premature baby because it wouldn't survive without medical attention ... the same applies to many living animals that don't receive specialised care

Then it becomes ideological, surely. Either abortion is ok with limits or it's not ok, but abortion versus providing any care post birth seems like a confligation of issues.

All abortions (apart from late term for medical reasons) involve premature babies. Personally I'm in favour of abortion, but it's also largely none of my business because women's healthcare is the business of women, not me.

[user104658]

that's why the time limits are under constant review though. As our medical expertise improves, viability also improves which contracts the window for an abortion

In practical terms though there is very little reason (and it really happens VERY rarely) that a pregnancy would get anywhere near even 18- 20 weeks and then be terminated without a very good medical reason, so I don't think in the "real world" sense there's a huge problem, the discussion is mainly academic, other than (as I've said before) it highlighting the reasons that access to abortions should be a simple and quick process. If the process is simple and streamlined (from request to process taking a few days at most) then there's very little risk of more than a miniscule number going past 12 weeks, given that the vast majority of people know they're pregnant by 8 weeks at most.

[user104658]

it's also largely none of my business because women's healthcare is the business of women, not me.

I don't know if I agree with that if you're being supportive of women's rights. "Women's rights are none of my business because I'm a man" is sort of akin to saying "BLM is none of my business because I'm not black". Most of the policy makers are blokes, and half of the female ones are infused with patriarchal values... us fellers who are supportive of the right to choose shouldn't side-step the issue as none of our business, because the men who are AGAINST abortion sure as **** aren't going to :laugh:.

[The Slim Reaper]

I don't know if I agree with that if you're being supportive of women's rights. "Women's rights are none of my business because I'm a man" is sort of akin to saying "BLM is none of my business because I'm not black". Most of the policy makers are blokes, and half of the female ones are infused with patriarchal values... us fellers who are supportive of the right to choose shouldn't side-step the issue as none of our business, because the men who are AGAINST abortion sure as **** aren't going to :laugh:.

It's not really the same though is it? Womens healthcare and a women's right to choose exist, and should be between her and her doctor, so unless that right is threatened, then it's factually none of my business. If that right was taken away, or threatened, then it becomes all of our business in the same way that BLM is about people not having the same rights or being treated equally.

[Niamh.]

I don't know if I agree with that if you're being supportive of women's rights. "Women's rights are none of my business because I'm a man" is sort of akin to saying "BLM is none of my business because I'm not black". Most of the policy makers are blokes, and half of the female ones are infused with patriarchal values... us fellers who are supportive of the right to choose shouldn't side-step the issue as none of our business, because the men who are AGAINST abortion sure as **** aren't going to :laugh:.

That's a point

I also understand where Slim's opinion comes from (in an ideal world)

[Niamh.]

It's not really the same though is it? Womens healthcare and a women's right to choose exist, and should be between her and her doctor, so unless that right is threatened, then it's factually none of my business. If that right was taken away, or threatened, then it becomes all of our business in the same way that BLM is about people not having the same rights or being treated equally.

And I truly believe that if it was men who had babies it would be an issue between them and their Doctor automatically

[The Slim Reaper]

And I truly believe that if it was men who had babies it would be an issue between them and their Doctor automatically

Absolutely no doubt about it, maybe if your lot had not gone scrumping in the garden of eden things would have been different :smug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Oh the thread title has been changed....

[Niamh.]

Absolutely no doubt about it, maybe if your lot had not gone scrumping in the garden of eden things would have been different :smug:

#Jesushatescider

[Tom4784]

I said that calling a 2nd trimester fetus "a bundle of cells" is a pretty (or white) lie used to make abortion easier/more palateable. That's what it is. I'm not backpedaling - I still think the same - I think some people are worried that these opinions will be used by pro-lifers to discourage abortion, which they might be, but I don't and never will agree with manipulating the narrative to suit the outcome.

Taking this and making it into "How dare you call me a liar!!" is just utterly bizarre... and I'm not sure how you can ever engage in an open debate if you think that everyone who thinks your opinion is incorrect is "calling you a liar". You've gotten emotional and aggressive here with really little if any reason, I personally have absolutely ZERO time for it right now, I'm not here for nor have I ever been part of any "TiBB wars" so keep that where it belongs please Dezzy. If you can't keep the debate civilized I have no idea why you're doing it at all, it seems exhausting.



So to ask a question... is a parasitic organism (let's say a tapeworm) alive? By your definition it is not alive - it cannot support itself without a host body to feed off of. But that seems to me to be an odd suggestion, I don't know many people who would argue that parasites are not alive. I suppose that's also down to opinion though. I strongly disagree?



I actually have a relatively wide knowledge of issues surrounding pregnancy and gestation that I didn't "google last night", but I have little reason nor desire to share those, because it's not really relevant. I'm not trying to "win" or "make anything work". I'm just debating, I'm not accusing you of anything, calling you a liar, or expecting anything other than for people to share their own opinions... as is the purpose of debate. I'm not interested whatsoever in this paranoid victim-narrative nonsense, kindly keep it away. Or I can just not engage at all, I suppose. Probably the better option?

Or I guess, we can play if you want, but not 'til the kids are back at school, I just don't have the time or energy :laugh:.

Yeah, I'm not being drawn into the goading. You know what you're doing.

A parasite like a tapeworm is a fully formed creature, a fetus is not. The difference is pretty clear.

[Kizzy]

Effectively this is ' the police didn't murder her baby because until it's born it's not a person'

You don't have to be a BLM member to see that's 50 shades of wrong.

[Zizu]

I think our ‘age’ should be calculated from 9 months before we pop out .. you can still celebrate the ‘birthday’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tom4784]

i'm referring to the ridiculous argument that a abortion is fine on a premature baby because it wouldn't survive without medical attention ... the same applies to many living/born animals that don't receive specialised care

Not what I'm saying but go off sis.

There's a difference between a typical premature baby that's born 30+ weeks into the pregnancy (8/10 babies are apparently premature in some way or another) and a fetus that's birthed at 22 weeks. The latter cannot survive without a lot of medical attention and plain luck and that's not even considering any permanent health concerns that would spring from such an early birth if the fetus survives.

I remember seeing a video a few weeks ago of a chicken embryo being grown in an egg that was chopped in half, and it grew from an embryo all the way to a fully fledged chick but a situation like that is so improbable that it just doesn't make sense to classify life starting at any other point then birth.

Maybe when technology advances to the point where fetuses in early stages can survive outside of the womb with high rates of survival, I'll change my mind but at the moment, it's dangerous to make out that a fetus at 22 weeks is a life when more often than not, it wouldn't be able to live outside of the womb because it's not ready to truly be alive yet.

[Tom4784]

And I truly believe that if it was men who had babies it would be an issue between them and their Doctor automatically

I think I said it earlier in the thread but if men gave birth, the whole pro-life vs pro-choice debate wouldn't exist.

Abortion would be seen differently if it was men that bore the children.

[Tom4784]

I think our ‘age’ should be calculated from 9 months before we pop out .. you can still celebrate the ‘birthday’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Life doesn't begin at conception, regardless of everything, I think that's something most of us can agree on.

[Niamh.]

I think I said it earlier in the thread but if men gave birth, the whole pro-life vs pro-choice debate wouldn't exist.

Abortion would be seen differently if it was men that bore the children.

Absolutely agree

[Kizzy]

I think I said it earlier in the thread but if men gave birth, the whole pro-life vs pro-choice debate wouldn't exist.

Abortion would be seen differently if it was men that bore the children.

Odd thing to say this dezzy, the vessel isn't the issue is it?
Effectively who has the child has no baring on the opinion as to what is right or wrong for the foetus imo.

[Tom4784]

Odd thing to say this dezzy, the vessel isn't the issue is it?
Effectively who has the child has no baring on the opinion as to what is right or wrong for the foetus imo.

The point is that the pro-life movement is less about being pro-life and more about controlling women's rights to choose. Pro-lifers stop caring after a baby is born, they don't care if the parents are ill equipped to be parents or if the baby is raised in homes and is discarded by the system.

If men were the ones who gave birth, the whole pro-life/pro-choice debate would look entirely different (IE, it would be non-existent).

It has no bearing on the discussion of when life begins, but it has bearing on the pro-life/choice discussion.

[user104658]

Yeah, I'm not being drawn into the goading. You know what you're doing.

That I do. Just making sure we're all on the same page :hee:

[Zizu]

Life doesn't begin at conception, regardless of everything, I think that's something most of us can agree on.



But there is LIFE fairly soon after .. certainly not 9 months later


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Zizu]

Not what I'm saying but go off sis.



There's a difference between a typical premature baby that's born 30+ weeks into the pregnancy (8/10 babies are apparently premature in some way or another) and a fetus that's birthed at 22 weeks. The latter cannot survive without a lot of medical attention and plain luck and that's not even considering any permanent health concerns that would spring from such an early birth if the fetus survives.



I remember seeing a video a few weeks ago of a chicken embryo being grown in an egg that was chopped in half, and it grew from an embryo all the way to a fully fledged chick but a situation like that is so improbable that it just doesn't make sense to classify life starting at any other point then birth.



Maybe when technology advances to the point where fetuses in early stages can survive outside of the womb with high rates of survival, I'll change my mind but at the moment, it's dangerous to make out that a fetus at 22 weeks is a life when more often than not, it wouldn't be able to live outside of the womb because it's not ready to truly be alive yet.



You make some fair points but why is the time it can survive ‘outside’ the womb the deciding factor ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tom4784]

But there is LIFE fairly soon after .. certainly not 9 months later


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Months later, not soon and even then, unless the baby is born 30+ weeks into the pregnancy, it's chances of survival are not great.

Until science discovers a way to consistently birth babies successfully from an earlier point then it's just pointless to say that life begins before birth.

[Tom4784]

You make some fair points but why is the time it can survive ‘outside’ the womb the deciding factor ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Because then it's a fully grown, fully fledged life. Fetuses can grow and survive outside of the womb at 22 weeks but even with medical assistance and good luck, there's still a low rate of survival. I don't think classifying a fetus before 30 weeks as a life is correct. To be uncouth, if you were to bake a cake but you pulled it out of the oven, it wouldn't a cake, it's a halfbaked bunch of ingredients.

I feel like the signifier for life for humans at least is the ability to exist outside the womb and not instantly die.

[Kazanne]

For me life begins at conception ,it's a living thing as it grows all the time and develops , when the brain and heart etc are all in place and they can the feel ,hear and move , and they are sentient ,then imo life definitely starts before birth, and in some cases has been proven to survive at a few months.

[Zizu]

For me life begins at conception ,it's a living thing as it grows all the time and develops , when the brain and heart etc are all in place and they can the feel ,hear and move , and they are sentient ,then imo life definitely starts before birth, and in some cases has been proven to survive at a few months.



Exactly !

I mean the clue is in the word LIFE ...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[user104658]

Because then it's a fully grown, fully fledged life. Fetuses can grow and survive outside of the womb at 22 weeks but even with medical assistance and good luck, there's still a low rate of survival. I don't think classifying a fetus before 30 weeks as a life is correct. To be uncouth, if you were to bake a cake but you pulled it out of the oven, it wouldn't a cake, it's a halfbaked bunch of ingredients.



I feel like the signifier for life for humans at least is the ability to exist outside the womb and not instantly die.I just have to wonder why you're so against the idea of a fetus being classed as alive? I mean by any definition it is alive; it's a distinct cellular entity with its own DNA separate to the mother/father, it consumes, the cells divide and grow. That's pretty much it for something being defined as "alive". The criteria for "being alive" isn't very high. Bacteria is alive. And a fetus is genetically human... Thus, it has to be human life. In some form. Whether or not its a PERSON is a totally separate question. I'd find it hard to define a fetus as a person until very late stage pregnancy, maybe even birth.

The question of course is why does it matter? Like I said you seem really against it being classed as life. Is that because you'd be less comfortable with abortion if you thought of it as human life? Or maybe because you think it would be used to bully women out of having an abortion when it would be the best choice for them?

I don't know if I'm unusual in considering it to be a human life l, but still nonetheless being quite comfortable with abortion.

I even understand the worry that it will be used to pressure or bully women. Undoubtedly, it is. I probably wouldn't be so blunt about it if I was discussing abortion with someone considering an abortion...I'd probably go with the white lie. I just don't see the point in refusing to explore the grittier side of the argument in a purely hypothetical discussion.

[Beso]

Effectively this is ' the police didn't murder her baby because until it's born it's not a person'

You don't have to be a BLM member to see that's 50 shades of wrong.

:clap1:

[Kazanne]

:clap1:

Yes there have been cases when pregnant women are killed that the unborn baby is also classed as being murdered, so yes it's a life.

[Nicky91]

same as with Lacy Peterson, whom was also pregnant at time of her murder

which also counted as a double murder if i remember correctly, murder of Lacy and unborn son Connor


so yes a unborn child is a life because his/her heart starts beating in the womb that too

[user104658]

You have to be verrrrrrrry careful when it comes to legal definitions though because you could accidentally end up making abortion illegal by precedent. Legal definitions are very different to scientific definitions or philosophical ponderings.

[Kizzy]

The point is that the pro-life movement is less about being pro-life and more about controlling women's rights to choose. Pro-lifers stop caring after a baby is born, they don't care if the parents are ill equipped to be parents or if the baby is raised in homes and is discarded by the system.

If men were the ones who gave birth, the whole pro-life/pro-choice debate would look entirely different (IE, it would be non-existent).

It has no bearing on the discussion of when life begins, but it has bearing on the pro-life/choice discussion.
If pro lifers were all men I'd agree but they aren't, however I agree with you in principle if you are pro life you need to be pro child too and ensure all kids are well cared for once here.

[Tom4784]

I just have to wonder why you're so against the idea of a fetus being classed as alive? I mean by any definition it is alive; it's a distinct cellular entity with its own DNA separate to the mother/father, it consumes, the cells divide and grow. That's pretty much it for something being defined as "alive". The criteria for "being alive" isn't very high. Bacteria is alive. And a fetus is genetically human... Thus, it has to be human life. In some form. Whether or not its a PERSON is a totally separate question. I'd find it hard to define a fetus as a person until very late stage pregnancy, maybe even birth.

The question of course is why does it matter? Like I said you seem really against it being classed as life. Is that because you'd be less comfortable with abortion if you thought of it as human life? Or maybe because you think it would be used to bully women out of having an abortion when it would be the best choice for them?

I don't know if I'm unusual in considering it to be a human life l, but still nonetheless being quite comfortable with abortion.

I even understand the worry that it will be used to pressure or bully women. Undoubtedly, it is. I probably wouldn't be so blunt about it if I was discussing abortion with someone considering an abortion...I'd probably go with the white lie. I just don't see the point in refusing to explore the grittier side of the argument in a purely hypothetical discussion.


Abortion is abortion, I'm not uncomfortable with it, it is what it is and it's a necessary part of life for a lot of people and we shouldn't interfere or make it harder for people who have to go through with it.

I just think it muddies the issue to class a fetus that can't exist outside the womb as alive. Babies survive quite regularly at 30+ weeks but unless the fetus is lucky, it's not likely to survive at the earliest possible times of birth because the science isn't quite there to make it viable yet because more babies die than live when they are delivered that early. As I said to Zizu, when science and technology progresses to a point where younger fetuses can be viably delivered consistently, I'll shift my definition but as things stand, I don't consider a fetus below 30 weeks to be alive.

[Beso]

Abortion is abortion, I'm not uncomfortable with it, it is what it is and it's a necessary part of life for a lot of people and we shouldn't interfere or make it harder for people who have to go through with it.

I just think it muddies the issue to class a fetus that can't exist outside the womb as alive. Babies survive quite regularly at 30+ weeks but unless the fetus is lucky, it's not likely to survive at the earliest possible times of birth because the science isn't quite there to make it viable yet because more babies die than live when they are delivered that early. As I said to Zizu, when science and technology progresses to a point where younger fetuses can be viably delivered consistently, I'll shift my definition but as things stand, I don't consider a fetus below 30 weeks to be alive.

Do you consider it to be dead?

[Kizzy]

Abortion is abortion, I'm not uncomfortable with it, it is what it is and it's a necessary part of life for a lot of people and we shouldn't interfere or make it harder for people who have to go through with it.

I just think it muddies the issue to class a fetus that can't exist outside the womb as alive. Babies survive quite regularly at 30+ weeks but unless the fetus is lucky, it's not likely to survive at the earliest possible times of birth because the science isn't quite there to make it viable yet because more babies die than live when they are delivered that early. As I said to Zizu, when science and technology progresses to a point where younger fetuses can be viably delivered consistently, I'll shift my definition but as things stand, I don't consider a fetus below 30 weeks to be alive.

Could you personally induce a pregnancy at 29 weeks and 6 days and sit back and watch that baby die knowing full well that with minimal intervention it would live?

[Tom4784]

Could you personally induce a pregnancy at 29 weeks and 6 days and sit back and watch that baby die knowing full well that with minimal intervention it would live?

You're not understanding what I'm saying if you think that's a logical question to ask.

[Tom4784]

Do you consider it to be dead?

It's in development. A fetus isn't dead and it's not alive in the same way you could class a fully formed baby.

[Beso]

That's just stupid.

[Cherie]

If something is growing its alive..if you are growing tiny seedlings you would consider them alive even though they need light and water to survive

Babies start kicking between 16 and 20 weeks they are most certainly alive at that point

[smudgie]

As the proud great aunt of a fit and healthy dance champion that was born at 26 weeks I have no doubt that the foetus is a fully born baby that can survive outside the womb at an earlier stage in pregnancy than 30 weeks.
Her baby brother was born at 26 weeks about a year before her and only survived for 6 hours unfortunately.
I am definitely pro choice, but unless there is a danger to the mother I feel 24 weeks is far too late for termination.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Any mother who unfortunately lost a baby before birth very much feels it was alive, I'd imagine

My mum did

[Oliver_W]

Any mother who unfortunately lost a baby before birth very much feels it was alive, I'd imagine

My mum did

Yup, try telling my best friend's mum that "Lucy" was just a bundle of cells, but only if you're willing to spend the rest of your day looking for your head.

Using whether or not someone can live without medical intervention is an odd goalpost; medical intervention is basically a given nowadays, and plenty of older people wouldn't be around today if it wasn't for machines.

[DouglasS]

It's in development. A fetus isn't dead and it's not alive in the same way you could class a fully formed baby.
And earlier you stating that a baby less than 30 weeks developed you do not consider a life..

This is just an uneducated view rather than even an opinion, in my opinion.

Here is a 28 week newborn baby as it’s just been born. It is very much alive...

k6Y5T-naysU

Hopefully you will feel a bit more educated now

[Kizzy]

You're not understanding what I'm saying if you think that's a logical question to ask.

It's more logical than writing any child off as unviable under 30 weeks.

[Cherie]

As the proud great aunt of a fit and healthy dance champion that was born at 26 weeks I have no doubt that the foetus is a fully born baby that can survive outside the womb at an earlier stage in pregnancy than 30 weeks.
Her baby brother was born at 26 weeks about a year before her and only survived for 6 hours unfortunately.
I am definitely pro choice, but unless there is a danger to the mother I feel 24 weeks is far too late for termination.

Agree with all that 24 weeks for anything other than medical reasons is too late in my book

[AnnieK]

The survival rates for premature babies are actually quite amazing

Chances of survival following preterm birth
Less than 22 weeks is close to zero chance of survival.
22 weeks is around 10%
24 weeks is around 60%
27 weeks is around 89%
31 weeks is around 95%
34 weeks is equivalent to a baby born at full term.

Granted some medical intervention will probably be required.....just as it is for anyone with medical conditions and they wouldn't be classed as not alive :shrug:

I'm pro-choice but do believe the time limits need changing as medical advances happen. The thought that you can still abort a baby that has around a 60% survival rate is quite shocking.

My child was alive to me the moment I knew I was pregnant, by the time he was born I "knew" him and I would imagine most parents feel that way so maybe my opinion is biased but to say a child under 30 weeks is not alive is a tough one to get my head around.

[Tom4784]

That's just stupid.

Good argument.

[Tom4784]

It's more logical than writing any child off as unviable under 30 weeks.

Again, not what I'm saying. Stop jumping to conclusions and focus on what I'm actually writing. Getting tired of people jumping down my throat because they are failing to understand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying a fetus is completely unviable below 30 weeks. I'm just saying that I personally don't class a fetus as a life until 30 weeks because pregnancies before then aren't consistently viable. When medicine progresses to the point that severely premature babies can survive then I'll change my definition but as it stands, I don't consider a fetus below 30 weeks to be alive in the same way as a fully grown baby is, I just don't.

[DouglasS]

Again, not what I'm saying. Stop jumping to conclusions and focus on what I'm actually writing. Getting tired of people jumping down my throat because they are failing to understand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying a fetus is completely unviable below 30 weeks. I'm just saying that I personally don't class a fetus as a life until 30 weeks because pregnancies before then aren't consistently viable. When medicine progresses to the point that severely premature babies can survive then I'll change my definition but as it stands, I don't consider a fetus below 30 weeks to be alive in the same way as a fully grown baby is, I just don't.

The point is you are incorrect, medicine already is showing that 26-30 week babies have a high chance of survival and are consistently. You are behind on the science, people are not jumping down your throat for the sake of it, we have read what you have written and just called you out because you’re incorrect and we are educating you

It’s crazy you do not class a foetus a life under 30 weeks that is just crazy to me.

[Tom4784]

The point is you are incorrect, medicine already is showing that 26-30 week babies have a high chance of survival. You are behind on the science, people are not jumping down your throat for the sake of it, we have read what you have written and just called you out because you’re incorrect and we are educating you

Except I'm not, it's an opinion and until successful birthrates of severely premature fetuses below 30 weeks match that of full term babies, it's a valid one whether you like it or not.

You have nothing to teach me, so don't try.

[user104658]

Rawdogging doesn't make you a medical expert either, TS.



Whether I have kids or not shouldn't make my opinions any less valid. Also I never said that a fetus is a bundle of cells until full term. Getting quite tired of people suddenly forgetting how to read competently so they can get a dig in instead of arguing against what I'm saying.It doesn't make your opinions invalid but it does make them less valid; ignoring lived experience entirely is foolish and arrogant. It's true of BLM, its true of feminist issues, and it's true here.

Your opinions on racial issues are less valid than a black person's, I assume you can concede that, so yes... Your opinions on gestation are less valid than those of a woman who has been pregnant.

[AnnieK]

Rawdogging doesn't make you a medical expert either, TS.

Whether I have kids or not shouldn't make my opinions any less valid. Also I never said that a fetus is a bundle of cells until full term. Getting quite tired of people suddenly forgetting how to read competently so they can get a dig in instead of arguing against what I'm saying.

I honestly don't think people are not getting what you are saying and are arguing against what you're saying. I personally don't agree that a fetus under 30 weeks is not alive. Under 20-24 weeks I agree they have little chance of survival but over that, as the stats show, a high percentage survive with little or no birth defects. Whether that is with medical intervention or not doesn't really matter in my opinion

[Tom4784]

It doesn't make your opinions invalid but it does make them less valid; ignoring lived experience entirely is foolish and arrogant. It's true of BLM, its true of feminist issues, and it's true here.

Your opinions on racial issues are less valid than a black person's, I assume you can concede that, so yes... Your opinions on gestation are less valid than those of a woman who has been pregnant.

Are you comparing medical knowledge, the kind of things you have to have years of training and education to practice, is the same as recognising social inequality? Really? I've had plenty of operations and medical procedures but it doesn't make me knowledgeable about the ins and outs of those procedures.

When have I ever said that my opinions on racial inequality as as valid as someone who has suffered it? You're just trying to stuff words down my throat now.

At the end of the day, my point is simple, my definition of a fetus being truly alive is 30+ weeks, when fetuses can survive as consistently as full term babies, then I'll change my mind but we're not at that point yet.

[Tom4784]

I honestly don't think people are not getting what you are saying and are arguing against what you're saying. I personally don't agree that a fetus under 30 weeks is not alive. Under 20-24 weeks I agree they have little chance of survival but over that, as the stats show, a high percentage survive with little or no birth defects. Whether that is with medical intervention or not doesn't really matter in my opinion

But my opinion is my opinion and nothing that's been said really contradicts what I'm saying. Does a fetus below 30 weeks have as much chance as surviving as a baby does after that point? No.

Science develops at a rapid rate, go back a few decades and premature babies had a far higher rate of mortality then they do now. I've no doubt that my mind will change as things progress but at this current moment in time, for the sake of argument. I don't consider a fetus under 30 weeks to be classed as alive in the same way a full term baby is. I just don't.

[AnnieK]

But my opinion is my opinion and nothing that's been said really contradicts what I'm saying. Does a fetus below 30 weeks have as much chance as surviving as a baby does after that point? No.

Science develops at a rapid rate, go back a few decades and premature babies had a far higher rate of mortality then they do now. I've no doubt that my mind will change as things progress but at this current moment in time, for the sake of argument. I don't consider a fetus under 30 weeks to be classed as alive in the same way a full term baby is. I just don't.

Fair enough...as you say it is your opinion. I can't agree and nothing you have said has convinced me that your point it right either so we are at an impasse. Its an emotive subject and as I said in an earlier post as a parent I may be biased by by the time I was that pregnant my child was very much alive to me. After 24 weeks a funeral and registering the death is a legal requirement and therefore to me that indicates the law and medical fields recognise a "life".

Anyway....its been interesting to read your thoughts, even if we cant agree.

[user104658]

Are you comparing medical knowledge, the kind of things you have to have years of training and education to practice, is the same as recognising social inequality? Really? I've had plenty of operations and medical procedures but it doesn't make me knowledgeable about the ins and outs of those procedures.

When have I ever said that my opinions on racial inequality as as valid as someone who has suffered it? You're just trying to stuff words down my throat now.

At the end of the day, my point is simple, my definition of a fetus being truly alive is 30+ weeks, when fetuses can survive as consistently as full term babies, then I'll change my mind but we're not at that point yet.I didn't say that the opinion of a woman who has been pregnant is more valid than that of a doctor or a biologist... But you're not either of those? You're a male layperson, your opinion is less valid than that of someone who has experienced a pregnancy, whose opinion is not medical or scientific.

... But to be fair, I doubt you'll find a biologist who would attempt to argue that a fetus of ANY gestation is not alive. I've literally never heard the claim that life that isn't self sustaining "isn't life" in any form, and you don't have to be a biologist for that one, basic high school biology will do, or even reading a dictionary.

Life

the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

A fetus is a distinct cellular entity that consumes in order to grow and is in a state of continuous cell division. That's literally the only qualification for "being alive". It's made up entirely of human DNA, thus it is human life.

Again, that doesn't mean it is "a meaningful person" in the philosophical sense and that's the part that's open to debate and interpretation. That a fetus is a form of life is simple biological fact.

[Tom4784]

I also want to say, since it seems like people are confusing me with my idea of 30 weeks = Truly alive with me defending late term abortions, judging from the likes of Kizzy's question earlier.

I've said very little on abortion limits other than the vast majority of abortions happen within the first 10 weeks which is true. My personal view is that abortion limits is dependant on the medical advances we've made and that it's ultimately not my right to decide when a woman should or should not have an abortion. If pushed for an answer, I'd say twenty weeks at most but then again, it's not something I have a right to dictate.

[DouglasS]

Except I'm not, it's an opinion and until successful birthrates of severely premature fetuses below 30 weeks match that of full term babies, it's a valid one whether you like it or not.

You have nothing to teach me, so don't try.

The survival rate is roughly 90% of pregnancies that are premature at 27%. You have been caught out on being uneducated and having an unsupported opinion and are continuing to go ahead with it rather than admit to being wrong :laugh:

Yep those 90% born at 27 weeks old are not lives! It’s dezzys opinion :joker:

I have a lot I could educate you on as someone who studied developmental biology at degree level, your opinion is proven misinformed and incorrect by science. Therefore it’s not an opinion in my eyes but just you having misinformed, uneducated views on an area you know little about. A 20-30 week foetus is considered alive, in fact any foetus is alive, but a 20-30 week foetus is definitely considered alive in terms of being almost fully developed for life outside the womb, and like many others have proven to you the majority of 24+ week foetus will survive If born premature. It’s ridiculous to say these foetus are not alive because theyre situated inside the mother

[Tom4784]

I didn't say that the opinion of a woman who has been pregnant is more valid than that of a doctor or a biologist... But you're not either of those? You're a male layperson, your opinion is less valid than that of someone who has experienced a pregnancy, whose opinion is not medical or scientific.

... But to be fair, I doubt you'll find a biologist who would attempt to argue that a fetus of ANY gestation is not alive. I've literally never heard the claim that life that isn't self sustaining "isn't life" in any form, and you don't have to be a biologist for that one, basic high school biology will do, or even reading a dictionary.



A fetus is a distinct cellular entity that consumes in order to grow and is in a state of continuous cell division. That's literally the only qualification for "being alive". It's made up entirely of human DNA, thus it is human life.

Again, that doesn't mean it is "a meaningful person" in the philosophical sense and that's the part that's open to debate and interpretation. That a fetus is a form of life is simple biological fact.

I never said I was a medical professional, pay attention. My whole point was having experience of a medical procedure or progress is not the same as being an expert on it. You're still trying to push something onto me that I've never said.

[Niamh.]

I also want to say, since it seems like people are confusing me with my idea of 30 weeks = Truly alive with me defending late term abortions, judging from the likes of Kizzy's question earlier.

I've said very little on abortion limits other than the vast majority of abortions happen within the first 10 weeks which is true. My personal view is that abortion limits is dependant on the medical advances we've made and that it's ultimately not my right to decide when a woman should or should not have an abortion. If pushed for an answer, I'd say twenty weeks at most but then again, it's not something I have a right to dictate.

As far as I'm aware later abortions are rare and can't be done in normal abortion clinics either

[Tom4784]

The survival rate is roughly 90% of pregnancies that are premature at 27%. You have been caught out on being uneducated and having an unsupported opinion and are continuing to go ahead with it rather than admit to being wrong :laugh:

Yep those 90% born at 27 weeks old are not lives! It’s dezzys opinion :joker:

I have a lot I could educate you on as someone who studied developmental biology at degree level, your opinion is proven misinformed and incorrect by science. A 20-30 week foetus is considered alive, in fact any foetus is alive, but a 20-30 week foetus is definitely considered alive in terms of being almost fully developed for life outside the womb, and like many others have proven to you the majority of 24+ week foetus will survive If born premature

I have a lot I could educate you on because I'm an astrophysicist with doctorates in a plethora of sciences and I currently live on Mars where I study it's landscapes and have BBQs with martians.

Saying you are something and trying to shut down someone by saying that alone is pointless online. There's no reason to believe you and you only really seem to parrot what other people are saying. Your first responses were highly emotional and then you jumped on TS's post and have been riding on it since.

There's absolutely no reason to believe you. Rely on your arguments, not who you say you are. Don't call people uneducated when it's clear that TS is carrying this argument for you.

I don't believe fetuses to be alive in the same way as full term babies are, no one has really been able to argue against my justification which is why TS seems content in shoving words down my throat and you're going on about how educated you are and how dumb I apparently am when you could basically be copying and pasting TS' posts.

[user104658]

I never said I was a medical professional, pay attention. My whole point was having experience of a medical procedure or progress is not the same as being an expert on it. You're still trying to push something onto me that I've never said.But I wasn't the one who brought medical professionals into it at all... My ONLY point originally was that your opinion, as a male layperson, is less valid than the opinion of a woman who has been pregnant. You countered that by saying "a woman who hasn't been pregnant isn't a medical professional!" but... I never said that they were. I said that they have more valid experience of the issue than you. Whilst we're talking of "shoving words down each others throats".

[Liam-]

I think anything after 24 weeks should be solely for medial complications

[Tom4784]

But I wasn't the one who brought medical professionals into it at all... My ONLY point originally was that your opinion, as a male layperson, is less valid than the opinion of a woman who has been pregnant. You countered that by saying "a woman who hasn't been pregnant isn't a medical professional!" but... I never said that they were. I said that they have more valid experience of the issue than you. Whilst we're talking of "shoving words down each others throats".

Well, no, that was aimed more at you for thinking you are automatically an expert on this because you're a parent because you tried to silence my view by basically saying I wasn't entitled to it because I don't have kids. I never specificied pregnant women, I was only ever talking about you.

Nah, you're still responsible for trying to shove a whole load of bull**** down my throat, trying to make out that I said all fetuses were just a bunch of cells when you know I never said that and all that terribly tonedeaf **** trying to compare this to racial inequality.

[DouglasS]

Except I'm not, it's an opinion and until successful birthrates of severely premature fetuses below 30 weeks match that of full term babies, it's a valid one whether you like it or not.

You have nothing to teach me, so don't try.

I have a lot I could educate you on because I'm an astrophysicist with doctorates in a plethora of sciences and I currently live on Mars where I study it's landscapes and have BBQs with martians.

Saying you are something and trying to shut down someone by saying that alone is pointless online. There's no reason to believe you and you only really seem to parrot what other people are saying. Your first responses were highly emotional and then you jumped on TS's post and have been riding on it since.

There's absolutely no reason to believe you. Rely on your arguments, not who you say you are. Don't call people uneducated when it's clear that TS is carrying this argument for you.

I don't believe fetuses to be alive in the same way as full term babies are, no one has really been able to argue against my justification which is why TS seems content in shoving words down my throat and you're going on about how educated you are and how dumb I apparently am when you could basically be copying and pasting TS' posts.

I mean someone who has studied developmental biology at degree level does make them more informed when posting about pre mature births/foetus life.. that’s like saying an online doctor/GP over Babylon/some other service to diagnose your medical condition is Pointless!! And why not just knock on neighbour Karen’s door instead as she will have an opinion of what that bruise/lump is!

I use my phone and don’t own a laptop so I do not have time to spend hours posting all the evidence why you are incorrect and misformed, but you are correct TS has already done a jolly good job of that

I am calling you uneducated on this matter.. because you clearly are.. I mean the forum can see that from reading your posts. Calling it an ‘opinion’ to get away from that does not count.

[Beso]

Good argument.

What's to argue ..you are plain and simply wrong

[Tom4784]

What's to argue ..you are plain and simply wrong

If you can't qualify why i'm wrong, your input is pointless. This is a debate after all.

[Tom4784]

I mean someone who has studied developmental biology at degree level does make them more informed when posting about pre mature births/foetus life.. that’s like saying an online doctor/GP over Babylon/some other service to diagnose your medical condition is Pointless!! And why not just knock on neighbour Karen’s door instead as she will have an opinion of what that bruise/lump is!

I use my phone and don’t own a laptop so I do not have time to spend hours posting all the evidence why you are incorrect and misformed, but you are correct TS has already done a jolly good job of that

I am calling you uneducated on this matter.. because you clearly are.. I mean the forum can see that from reading your posts. Calling it an ‘opinion’ to get away from that does not count.

The issue of abortion is as much philosophical one as medical when it comes to things like abortion rights. And my opinion, like others is backed up by stats. I consider life to begin at birth and birth tends to be most successful around 30+ weeks mark. When science and technology can guarantee the same level of success for severely premature babies then i'll change my mind but you nor anyone else has offered up anything compelling enough to change my mind.

You can claim to be anything you want but I just don't believe you, rely on your supposed knowledge, not bleating on about how you're a student and this supposedly makes you instantly correct.

Everything on this forum is an opinion, for someone who likes to call people uneducated, it says a lot you don't understand that.

[Ninastar]

It depends how far along but yes, I think so.

There’s so many women (couples actually) who find out they are pregnant and when they lose the baby/bundle of cells/fetus/whatever you wanna call it and it is absolutely heartbreaking for them

If I’m ever lucky enough to get pregnant, it is one of my greatest fears. I wouldn’t care if I was 3/4 weeks or 30+... it would absolutely kill me

Obviously the further along, the more heartbreaking it would be... but god, I couldn’t imagine anything worse

[Kizzy]

Again, not what I'm saying. Stop jumping to conclusions and focus on what I'm actually writing. Getting tired of people jumping down my throat because they are failing to understand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying a fetus is completely unviable below 30 weeks. I'm just saying that I personally don't class a fetus as a life until 30 weeks because pregnancies before then aren't consistently viable. When medicine progresses to the point that severely premature babies can survive then I'll change my definition but as it stands, I don't consider a fetus below 30 weeks to be alive in the same way as a fully grown baby is, I just don't.

Chances of survival following preterm birth
Medical advances mean that we are getting better at treating preterm babies but the chances of survival still depend on gestational age (week of pregnancy) at time of birth.

Less than 22 weeks is close to zero chance of survival
22 weeks is around 10%
24 weeks is around 60%
27 weeks is around 89%
31 weeks is around 95%
34 weeks is equivalent to a baby born at full term.

I am focusing on what your saying... its rubbish.


https://www.tommys.org/our-organisation/why-we-exist/premature-birth-statistics

[user104658]

]





Nah, you're still responsible for trying to shove a whole load of bull**** down my throat, trying to make out that I said all fetuses were just a bunch of cells when you know I never said that and all that terribly tonedeaf **** trying to compare this to racial inequality.

Nahh, having read back the first page, all of this started when you claimed that a fetus can't support its life outside of the womb until ready to be born, which is false, and that "pretty much for the entirety of" the period where abortion can be chosen (24 weeks) a fetus is a bundle of cells (when that's only even vaguely true for about 10-12 weeks). You then tried to wind that back and say that you meant the period when most abortions take place - before 10 weeks - but that's not what you said.



a fetus until it's ready to be born or delivered, cannot support it's own existence outside of the womb. For pretty much the entirety of the period when someone can choose to have an abortion, the fetus is just an bunch of cells and nothing more.

All I did was question these two demonstrably dubious statements... Not even aggressively... It was a perfectly civilised post in disagreement... And you responded by calling me a "show off" and complaining that I had "called you a liar".

Its just not any part of a reasonable debate, but I think the vast majority of people can see that for themselves so I'm not going to dwell on it. The thread's here to be read. In my opinion, you respond with defensiveness and aggression LONG before it's warranted and on a hair trigger, but you do you I suppose. I don't imagine it feels very good.

[Cal.]

Well, no, that was aimed more at you for thinking you are automatically an expert on this because you're a parent because you tried to silence my view by basically saying I wasn't entitled to it because I don't have kids. I never specificied pregnant women, I was only ever talking about you.

Nah, you're still responsible for trying to shove a whole load of bull**** down my throat, trying to make out that I said all fetuses were just a bunch of cells when you know I never said that and all that terribly tonedeaf **** trying to compare this to racial inequality.

!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tom4784]

]





Nahh, having read back the first page, all of this started when you claimed that a fetus can't support its life outside of the womb until ready to be born, which is false, and that "pretty much for the entirety of" the period where abortion can be chosen (24 weeks) a fetus is a bundle of cells (when that's only even vaguely true for about 10-12 weeks). You then tried to wind that back and say that you meant the period when most abortions take place - before 10 weeks - but that's not what you said.




All I did was question these two demonstrably dubious statements... Not even aggressively... It was a perfectly civilised post in disagreement... And you responded by calling me a "show off" and complaining that I had "called you a liar".

Its just not any part of a reasonable debate, but I think the vast majority of people can see that for themselves so I'm not going to dwell on it. The thread's here to be read. In my opinion, you respond with defensiveness and aggression LONG before it's warranted and on a hair trigger, but you do you I suppose. I don't imagine it feels very good.

Because you basically said I was lying for the benefit of my agenda and then you tried to walk it back and call it a white lie. Don't try to gaslight me, TS, it will not work.

It's obvious what I'm saying has got you wound up for some reason which is why you made out that I was lying and then you weirdly made it personal by suggesting I had some kind of problem with abortion based on absolutely **** all.

You're not subtle enough to gaslight someone effectively so don't even try.

[user104658]

Because you basically said I was lying for the benefit of my agenda and then you tried to walk it back and call it a white lie. Don't try to gaslight me, TS, it will not work.

It's obvious what I'm saying has got you wound up for some reason which is why you made out that I was lying and then you weirdly made it personal by suggesting I had some kind of problem with abortion based on absolutely **** all.

You're not subtle enough to gaslight someone effectively so don't even try.

You've outright admitted in the past that you think it's "for the greater good" to deny vaccine side effects, even those that exist, because of your concern that anti-vaxxers will use that to further their cause and it's better for people to believe in 100% safety and effectiveness because they're "too dumb" to vaccinate with informed consent.

So, I suspected (still suspect) that your refusal to even entertain the idea that early-stage fetuses are a form of human life - using dubious definitions to insist that they are "not alive" - is rooted in a similar worry that pro-life people will use any concession as "ammo" against abortion. That assumption isn't baseless.

Regardless, I wasn't "showing off", "accusing you of lying" or "gaslighting you" by not agreeing with you. I'm not wound up, I'm not agitated in the slightest, and it's sort of odd to have those claims made by someone who is making paranoid allegations and swearing at me. You do it a lot, I'm aware of that, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. I don't get upset, paranoid or feel oppressed by "forum stuff". I just don't respond well to bulldozing or stonewalling.

[Tom4784]

And I don't respond well to people prodding me for a reaction and then making out that I'm paranoid.

[Tom4784]

Also views on anti-vaxxers have absolutely jack**** to do with this, you're just, once again, shoving words down my throat and you did it again by making out that this is because you disagree with me. Annie disagrees with me but she didn't feel the need to add little jobs to her posts to get a reaction. you're trying to make out that I can't accept your opinion when it's anything but. You just keep constantly misrepresenting what I say and then you make out that i'm some paranoid psycho when I point it out.

[Beso]

If you can't qualify why i'm wrong, your input is pointless. This is a debate after all.



Not mine...crack on.

[DouglasS]

]





Nahh, having read back the first page, all of this started when you claimed that a fetus can't support its life outside of the womb until ready to be born, which is false, and that "pretty much for the entirety of" the period where abortion can be chosen (24 weeks) a fetus is a bundle of cells (when that's only even vaguely true for about 10-12 weeks). You then tried to wind that back and say that you meant the period when most abortions take place - before 10 weeks - but that's not what you said.




All I did was question these two demonstrably dubious statements... Not even aggressively... It was a perfectly civilised post in disagreement... And you responded by calling me a "show off" and complaining that I had "called you a liar".

Its just not any part of a reasonable debate, but I think the vast majority of people can see that for themselves so I'm not going to dwell on it. The thread's here to be read. In my opinion, you respond with defensiveness and aggression LONG before it's warranted and on a hair trigger, but you do you I suppose. I don't imagine it feels very good.

Dezzy this post literally proves your change in narrative throughout the thread once caught to be spreading Misinformation about foetal life and premature births, he has used your own quotes and nothing has been manipulated. You can’t hide between “manipulation” or stating that people know what you mean, almost everyone in this thread have stated a foetus clearly is a life form at 24 weeks. Just admit you got the biological facts wrong and stop digging yourself a further hole. He is not gaslighting you he is just proving what you have said throughout this thread to be Factually and scientifically incorrect (aka a foetus being ball of cells for up to 24 weeks, a foetus not being considered a life until 30 weeks / being able to survive out the womb). People aren’t shouting down your philipsopjical options we are just pointing out posts you made that are wrong by stating facts. You can’t argue with scientific facts.. I don’t understand why you are being so defensive, nothing wrong with not being uneducated on the science of developmental biology

[Tom4784]

Dezzy this post literally proves your change in narrative throughout the thread once caught to be spreading Misinformation about foetal life and premature births, he has used your own quotes and nothing has been manipulated. You can’t hide between “manipulation” or stating that people know what you mean, almost everyone in this thread have stated a foetus clearly is a life form at 24 weeks. Just admit you got the biological facts wrong and stop digging yourself a further hole. He is not gaslighting you he is just proving what you have said throughout this thread to be Factually and scientifically incorrect (aka a foetus being ball of cells for up to 24 weeks, a foetus not being considered a life until 30 weeks / being able to survive out the womb). People aren’t shouting down your philipsopjical options we are just pointing out posts you made that are wrong by stating facts. You can’t argue with scientific facts.. I don’t understand why you are being so defensive, nothing wrong with not being uneducated on the science of developmental biology

And you're calling me uneducated while riding on TS' tail coat yet again. Let's look at your posts, shall we?

Life doesn’t begin at birth. Are you saying people should be able to abort at 38weeks old when the foetus is fully developed because it’s not born yet ? That is just extremely cruel and just crazy to me.

Emotional and reactionary, and then after TS makes a more knowledgeable post your posting style changes a lot to mimic his. You also make a point of posting after TS' latest post every time just so you can basically repackage what he's saying. Calling people uneducated and then going on about how you're a medical student isn't compelling when it's plain to see you're reliant on TS' knowledge to prop yourself up.

I said it to you before and I'll say it again, it doesn't matter who you say you are, your logic and your knowledge is what counts.

I'm not going to change my opinion because I've seen nothing that compels me to do so and screeching at me to change my opinion won't do ****. It just reflects badly on you. If you can't convince me otherwise than that's on you for not offering forth a good argument. Learn from Annie's example, this ain't an argument you're going to win and screeching at me to change my opinion won't get you anywhere.