[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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 .

[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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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 ... .

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 . I just think that would be a very difficult position to defend.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

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 .

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 .

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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 .

That's a point

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Zizu

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 .

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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