Gunman shooting at abortion clinic in the US - multiple victims

[DieselDaisy]

I would think the reason people are against abortion is they recognize the presence of a baby child, recognizing the hypothetical futurity of that child (do not abort and it can be ''this and this'', raise a family, do this; abort and it is merely another stat ). What if you were aborted soul? You after all were merely a similar collection of cells, a ''tumour'' (as described by you), at a similar age?

[Dan H.]

I pretty much see it the same way as Soul. Don't see how an understanding of basic science is at all comparable to the behavior of the SS though lol

He was a little crude about it, but in essence a fetus and a tumor aren't all that different biologically, and neither have conciousness or self awareness.

Granted, I'm not sure I would ever advise someone I care about to get an abortion, and the idea of abortion does make me a little uneasy. However I don't feel that my thoughts on the issue have any bearing on other people's rights to their body

Edited November 29, 2015 by Dan H.

[DieselDaisy]

I pretty much see it the same way as Soul. Don't see how an understanding of basic science is at all comparable to the behavior of the SS though lol

You don't? Soul has advocated sterilisation (in order to curb spiraling demographics) on this very forum. He tried to avoid the subject before but it is true. 1930s Germany utilised sterilisation against 'non-desirables' (in fairness, so did the Americans). The reason I bring it up is Soul's ideology is typical of a certain period in modern western (atheistic) thinking which believed everything can be controlled by the cold ruthless hand of science; 1930's Germany, granted, is an extreme example of this ideology, and the ideology predates the Nazi party (e.g. Thomas Malthus and Bentham), but it is an example.

I'm going to make this analogy because A/ he is Nordic, B/ unbelievably smug and C/ a Manchester United supporter.

At what point does somebody decide when a fetus is barren of 'intellect' (and yes, if you are religious, a 'soul') and tantamount to a 'tumour' - this is the offensive word here. Considering the natural trajectory of all living tissue consists of a cycle of cellular growth and decline, in utero is clearly one stage of that cycle, preceding our acquirement of motive functions (one stage), puberty (another stage) and menopause (if you are female). Certainly (I jest) I could make the argument that teenagers should be killed off, aborted, based on their intellectual capacity and love of shit music - and I am not necessarily ignoring my own teenage years here - but...

Is there really such a difference between the cognitive, emotional and intellectual abilities of a new born child - or even a toddler - and a child in utero? Who draws that line here? Emotionally, it has long been established that the matrimonial cord is established in utero. Anyone who has had any experience around babies knows there is this inherent draw between mother and child. This is surely established in the womb as it exists upon day one of the delivery? We can therefore infer that a child can reach a heightened stage of emotional development. We also know that a child is vulnerable to pain and anxiety (cf. recent comparative studies on pregnant non-smokers and smokers).

Ironically I'm certainly not a staunch pro-life support (as I am not an advocate of religion). I merely fundamentally disagree with Soul's argument - on many different levels.

Edited November 29, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

I would think the reason people are against abortion is they recognize the presence of a baby child, recognizing the hypothetical futurity of that child (do not abort and it can be ''this and this'', raise a family, do this; abort and it is merely another stat ). What if you were aborted soul? You after all were merely a similar collection of cells, a ''tumour'' (as described by you), at a similar age?

Yes, they see the potential in the fetus, and many mistake it for a baby or a human.

Yes, what about it? I simply wouldn't have been here now, then. There are an indefinite other scenarios where I wouldn't exist. More likely than planned abortion is spontaneous abortion, since the majority of fertilized egg cells fail to develop and are aborted without anyone knowing it.

If you are going to argue that we can't be pro abortion because that could mean we, ourselves, might not have been here today, you must expand that argumentation to include all other instances where we limit the amount of possible live births. Like male masturbuation that ends 250 million potential human beings. The only difference, of course, is that a fetus has come further along on its way to becoming a human, but they all represent terminating what could have been.

This makes me think about how damn lucky we are to be alive. What are the odds that the fertilized egg didn't spontaneously abort, or that exactly that sperm cell suceeded the raise, or that that particular ejaculate ended up inside a female and not in some tissues, etc etc. Chances are each and every one of us shouldn't be here. We have won the lottery...bigtime. Does that mean abortion is wrong? Nah, not really, it is just another out of so many ways each theoretical human being is never realized.

[SoulMonster]

I pretty much see it the same way as Soul. Don't see how an understanding of basic science is at all comparable to the behavior of the SS though lol

You don't? Soul has advocated sterilisation (in order to curb spiraling demographics) on this very forum.

This is an errenous representation of what I have said previously. You keep stating this falsehood over and over again, in various threads. It is funny to some extent because it only demonstrates your inability to get my point and because it paints you in a rather petty and vindictive light. No matter how many times I correct you, you keep coming back some weeksor months later with the same pathetic accusations.

Yet, here I go again.

Now pay attention: What I said was: if we ever find ourselves in the unfortunatel situation where we EITHER have to face uncrontrolled population collapse (i.e. because of pandemics, irreversible claimate change that make Earth inhospitable, global wars with nuclear weapons) that decimates and potentially extincts (is that actually a verb?) our species, OR have the possibility of preventing this by controlling the human growth, then we MUST take the second option to keep in control of what is happening and minimize loss, even if that would have to include forced population growth, and in absolute last resort sterilization after 1. child born.

This is VERY different from what you have been saying about me again and again ad nauseum. I actually think you are bright enough to grasp the seriousness of the dilemma we are facing in my purely theoretical scenario, and that it is a "lesser evil" situation. Sadly, that would mean you go out of your way to repeatedly lie about my opinions in some childish smear campaign.

[SoulMonster]

Is there really such a difference between the cognitive, emotional and intellectual abilities of a new born child - or even a toddler - and a child in utero? Who draws that line here? Emotionally, it has long been established that the matrimonial cord is established in utero. Anyone who has had any experience around babies knows there is this inherent draw between mother and child. This is surely established in the womb as it exists upon day one of the delivery? We can therefore infer that a child can reach a heightened stage of emotional development. We also know that a child is vulnerable to pain and anxiety (cf. recent comparative studies on pregnant non-smokers and smokers)

What a load of bollocks.

Yes, there is a continuum in development of cognitive abilities. A baby is not AT ALL fully developed in that sense. BUT, that doesn't mean we can't say that, e.g. the development of certain neural features, is a good marking point for when certain abilities can even begin. And that is more or less what has been done when it has been decided that abortion can only take place before certain weeks of gestaltion. Who draws that line? Who decided that week 22 of gestation is the limit? Politicians with the aid of relevant scientists and philosophers etc.

I have no idea what your point was about the emotionla bond between fetus and mother. Sure, as soon as a woman discovers she is pregnant, she will become bonded. Thatg is one of the reasons abotion will always be considered a failure. There is no win scenario in the cases where a fetus is terminated. It is always the least awful solution. But just because a bond is formed isn't an argument in against abortion in principle. It can only be an argument against specific cases of abortion. And this is something every woman who considers abortion may take into account and undoubtedly in most cases make the decision much harder for them.

Yes, fetuses at a certain stage of development have a somewhat functioning neural system. No one has claimed otherwise. Whether thay can feel pain before week 22 is not something scientists have agreed upon. Naturally, this is not a topic that lends itself to scientific scrutiny easily. But this is irrelevant because what I have been saying is that whatever fetuses have of cognitive, emotional, abilities is way below what humans have. It is what is remarkable about humans that must be protected and hold sacred, not rudimentary abilities to feel pain or fear. If so, the logical extention of that argument would be that we can't kill animals because they too happen to be able to feel pain and fear. Again, you fail to see the implications of your argumentation.

Edited November 29, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

Everything is more or less a collection of cells isn't it?

[SoulMonster]

Ironically I'm certainly not a staunch pro-life support (as I am not an advocate of religion). I merely fundamentally disagree with Soul's argument - on many different levels.

That is because you have a very fuzzy foundation for many of your opinions expressed here, more formed by tradition, culture, society, and pure romaticism and a pitiful yearn for what was before, than by facts and evidence that must necesarrily be the scaffold in any structure of opinion.

And then, when I happen to have opinions based on facts and evidence, you argue that must mean I am some cynical, soul-less machine, bereft of any emotions, as if having opinions based on facts somehow removes all possibilties for emotions and feelings. Take abortion as an example. I merely argue for why women should have the option, I would never argue for what the outcome should be in any case where a poor women struggles with this dilemma. That MUST be the women's choice based on their exact life situation. But at least I give them the option, because I believe women are better off with this option because I find few good reasons to make abortion illegal. Again, I have feelings and emotions on the issue, and care for women in this situation, but these feelings and emotions must take the backseat when we are discussing the various arguments that exist for being anti-abortion (I refuse to call it "pro-life" because that fails to take into account the potentially negative effects going through with a pregnancy may have on the mother's life). THAT is a technical discussion with the intent of terminating flawed arguments to simplify the question so we might easier arrive at an answer.

If, on the other hand, you are so unable to think through things logically that you are sidetracked by a simple comparison between tumours and fetuses, or can't free yourself from societal and religious conditioning into believing fetuses = babies/humans, then you lose the ability to think clearly and maybe you aren't in a position to decide whether the right to abortion is good or bad?

Everything is more or less a collection of cells isn't it?

Not unicellular organisms like bacteria, But yeah, everything biological that is visible to the eye would be a collection of cells.

[DieselDaisy]

Ironically I'm certainly not a staunch pro-life support (as I am not an advocate of religion). I merely fundamentally disagree with Soul's argument - on many different levels.

That is because you have a very fuzzy foundation for many of your opinions expressed here, more formed by tradition, culture, society, and pure romaticism and a pitiful yearn for what was before, than by facts and evidence that must necesarrily be the scaffold in any structure of opinion.

And then, when I happen to have opinions based on facts and evidence, you argue that must mean I am some cynical, soul-less machine, bereft of any emotions, as if having opinions based on facts somehow removes all possibilties for emotions and feelings. Take abortion as an example. I merely argue for why women should have the option, I would never argue for what the outcome should be in any case where a poor women struggles with this dilemma. That MUST be the women's choice based on their exact life situation. But at least I give them the option, because I believe women are better off with this option because I find few good reasons to make abortion illegal. Again, I have feelings and emotions on the issue, and care for women in this situation, but these feelings and emotions must take the backseat when we are discussing the various arguments that exist for being anti-abortion (I refuse to call it "pro-life" because that fails to take into account the potentially negative effects going through with a pregnancy may have on the mother's life). THAT is a technical discussion with the intent of terminating flawed arguments to simplify the question so we might easier arrive at an answer.

If, on the other hand, you are so unable to think through things logically that you are sidetracked by a simple comparison between tumours and fetuses, or can't free yourself from societal and religious conditioning into believing fetuses = babies/humans, then you lose the ability to think clearly and maybe you aren't in a position to decide whether the right to abortion is good or bad?

Everything is more or less a collection of cells isn't it?

Not unicellular organisms like bacteria, But yeah, everything biological that is visible to the eye would be a collection of cells.

I'm not deciding the right! I'm not even an advocate of pro-life! I am objecting to the redundancy of an unborn fetus to the level of a 'tumour' and a 'collection of cells'', to be eradicated.

Edited November 29, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

Ironically I'm certainly not a staunch pro-life support (as I am not an advocate of religion). I merely fundamentally disagree with Soul's argument - on many different levels.

That is because you have a very fuzzy foundation for many of your opinions expressed here, more formed by tradition, culture, society, and pure romaticism and a pitiful yearn for what was before, than by facts and evidence that must necesarrily be the scaffold in any structure of opinion.

And then, when I happen to have opinions based on facts and evidence, you argue that must mean I am some cynical, soul-less machine, bereft of any emotions, as if having opinions based on facts somehow removes all possibilties for emotions and feelings. Take abortion as an example. I merely argue for why women should have the option, I would never argue for what the outcome should be in any case where a poor women struggles with this dilemma. That MUST be the women's choice based on their exact life situation. But at least I give them the option, because I believe women are better off with this option because I find few good reasons to make abortion illegal. Again, I have feelings and emotions on the issue, and care for women in this situation, but these feelings and emotions must take the backseat when we are discussing the various arguments that exist for being anti-abortion (I refuse to call it "pro-life" because that fails to take into account the potentially negative effects going through with a pregnancy may have on the mother's life). THAT is a technical discussion with the intent of terminating flawed arguments to simplify the question so we might easier arrive at an answer.

If, on the other hand, you are so unable to think through things logically that you are sidetracked by a simple comparison between tumours and fetuses, or can't free yourself from societal and religious conditioning into believing fetuses = babies/humans, then you lose the ability to think clearly and maybe you aren't in a position to decide whether the right to abortion is good or bad?

Everything is more or less a collection of cells isn't it?

Not unicellular organisms like bacteria, But yeah, everything biological that is visible to the eye would be a collection of cells.

I'm not deciding the right! I'm not even an advocate of pro-life! I am objecting to the redundancy of an unborn fetus to the level of a 'tumour' and a 'collection of cells'', to be eradicated.

Fetuses share many bological similarities, not the least that they both lack the cognitive and emotional abilities found in humans. That is the extent of my comparison bwteen the two. Whether either should be "eradicated" relies on numerous other factors - but at least they should not NOT be eradicated because "they are humans". Usually there are many good reasons for proceeding with a pregnancy, and that is the reason why many women struggle with this decision.

[Gordon Comstock]

Ironically I'm certainly not a staunch pro-life support (as I am not an advocate of religion). I merely fundamentally disagree with Soul's argument - on many different levels.

That is because you have a very fuzzy foundation for many of your opinions expressed here, more formed by tradition, culture, society, and pure romaticism and a pitiful yearn for what was before, than by facts and evidence that must necesarrily be the scaffold in any structure of opinion.

And then, when I happen to have opinions based on facts and evidence, you argue that must mean I am some cynical, soul-less machine, bereft of any emotions, as if having opinions based on facts somehow removes all possibilties for emotions and feelings. Take abortion as an example. I merely argue for why women should have the option, I would never argue for what the outcome should be in any case where a poor women struggles with this dilemma. That MUST be the women's choice based on their exact life situation. But at least I give them the option, because I believe women are better off with this option because I find few good reasons to make abortion illegal. Again, I have feelings and emotions on the issue, and care for women in this situation, but these feelings and emotions must take the backseat when we are discussing the various arguments that exist for being anti-abortion (I refuse to call it "pro-life" because that fails to take into account the potentially negative effects going through with a pregnancy may have on the mother's life). THAT is a technical discussion with the intent of terminating flawed arguments to simplify the question so we might easier arrive at an answer.

If, on the other hand, you are so unable to think through things logically that you are sidetracked by a simple comparison between tumours and fetuses, or can't free yourself from societal and religious conditioning into believing fetuses = babies/humans, then you lose the ability to think clearly and maybe you aren't in a position to decide whether the right to abortion is good or bad?

Everything is more or less a collection of cells isn't it?

Not unicellular organisms like bacteria, But yeah, everything biological that is visible to the eye would be a collection of cells.

I'm not deciding the right! I'm not even an advocate of pro-life! I am objecting to the redundancy of an unborn fetus to the level of a 'tumour' and a 'collection of cells'', to be eradicated.

Just because you're offended doesn't make the comparison to a tumour untrue.

[DieselDaisy]

Ironically I'm certainly not a staunch pro-life support (as I am not an advocate of religion). I merely fundamentally disagree with Soul's argument - on many different levels.

That is because you have a very fuzzy foundation for many of your opinions expressed here, more formed by tradition, culture, society, and pure romaticism and a pitiful yearn for what was before, than by facts and evidence that must necesarrily be the scaffold in any structure of opinion.

And then, when I happen to have opinions based on facts and evidence, you argue that must mean I am some cynical, soul-less machine, bereft of any emotions, as if having opinions based on facts somehow removes all possibilties for emotions and feelings. Take abortion as an example. I merely argue for why women should have the option, I would never argue for what the outcome should be in any case where a poor women struggles with this dilemma. That MUST be the women's choice based on their exact life situation. But at least I give them the option, because I believe women are better off with this option because I find few good reasons to make abortion illegal. Again, I have feelings and emotions on the issue, and care for women in this situation, but these feelings and emotions must take the backseat when we are discussing the various arguments that exist for being anti-abortion (I refuse to call it "pro-life" because that fails to take into account the potentially negative effects going through with a pregnancy may have on the mother's life). THAT is a technical discussion with the intent of terminating flawed arguments to simplify the question so we might easier arrive at an answer.

If, on the other hand, you are so unable to think through things logically that you are sidetracked by a simple comparison between tumours and fetuses, or can't free yourself from societal and religious conditioning into believing fetuses = babies/humans, then you lose the ability to think clearly and maybe you aren't in a position to decide whether the right to abortion is good or bad?

Everything is more or less a collection of cells isn't it?

Not unicellular organisms like bacteria, But yeah, everything biological that is visible to the eye would be a collection of cells.

I'm not deciding the right! I'm not even an advocate of pro-life! I am objecting to the redundancy of an unborn fetus to the level of a 'tumour' and a 'collection of cells'', to be eradicated.

Just because you're offended doesn't make the comparison to a tumour untrue.

...in your opinion. I believe it is a horrific comparison.

[Dazey]

Ironically I'm certainly not a staunch pro-life support (as I am not an advocate of religion). I merely fundamentally disagree with Soul's argument - on many different levels.

That is because you have a very fuzzy foundation for many of your opinions expressed here, more formed by tradition, culture, society, and pure romaticism and a pitiful yearn for what was before, than by facts and evidence that must necesarrily be the scaffold in any structure of opinion.

And then, when I happen to have opinions based on facts and evidence, you argue that must mean I am some cynical, soul-less machine, bereft of any emotions, as if having opinions based on facts somehow removes all possibilties for emotions and feelings. Take abortion as an example. I merely argue for why women should have the option, I would never argue for what the outcome should be in any case where a poor women struggles with this dilemma. That MUST be the women's choice based on their exact life situation. But at least I give them the option, because I believe women are better off with this option because I find few good reasons to make abortion illegal. Again, I have feelings and emotions on the issue, and care for women in this situation, but these feelings and emotions must take the backseat when we are discussing the various arguments that exist for being anti-abortion (I refuse to call it "pro-life" because that fails to take into account the potentially negative effects going through with a pregnancy may have on the mother's life). THAT is a technical discussion with the intent of terminating flawed arguments to simplify the question so we might easier arrive at an answer.

If, on the other hand, you are so unable to think through things logically that you are sidetracked by a simple comparison between tumours and fetuses, or can't free yourself from societal and religious conditioning into believing fetuses = babies/humans, then you lose the ability to think clearly and maybe you aren't in a position to decide whether the right to abortion is good or bad?

Everything is more or less a collection of cells isn't it?

Not unicellular organisms like bacteria, But yeah, everything biological that is visible to the eye would be a collection of cells.

I'm not deciding the right! I'm not even an advocate of pro-life! I am objecting to the redundancy of an unborn fetus to the level of a 'tumour' and a 'collection of cells'', to be eradicated.

Just because you're offended doesn't make the comparison to a tumour untrue.

...in your opinion. I believe it is a horrific comparison.

Yet not necessarily incorrect.

[DieselDaisy]

Ironically I'm certainly not a staunch pro-life support (as I am not an advocate of religion). I merely fundamentally disagree with Soul's argument - on many different levels.

That is because you have a very fuzzy foundation for many of your opinions expressed here, more formed by tradition, culture, society, and pure romaticism and a pitiful yearn for what was before, than by facts and evidence that must necesarrily be the scaffold in any structure of opinion.

And then, when I happen to have opinions based on facts and evidence, you argue that must mean I am some cynical, soul-less machine, bereft of any emotions, as if having opinions based on facts somehow removes all possibilties for emotions and feelings. Take abortion as an example. I merely argue for why women should have the option, I would never argue for what the outcome should be in any case where a poor women struggles with this dilemma. That MUST be the women's choice based on their exact life situation. But at least I give them the option, because I believe women are better off with this option because I find few good reasons to make abortion illegal. Again, I have feelings and emotions on the issue, and care for women in this situation, but these feelings and emotions must take the backseat when we are discussing the various arguments that exist for being anti-abortion (I refuse to call it "pro-life" because that fails to take into account the potentially negative effects going through with a pregnancy may have on the mother's life). THAT is a technical discussion with the intent of terminating flawed arguments to simplify the question so we might easier arrive at an answer.

If, on the other hand, you are so unable to think through things logically that you are sidetracked by a simple comparison between tumours and fetuses, or can't free yourself from societal and religious conditioning into believing fetuses = babies/humans, then you lose the ability to think clearly and maybe you aren't in a position to decide whether the right to abortion is good or bad?

Everything is more or less a collection of cells isn't it?

Not unicellular organisms like bacteria, But yeah, everything biological that is visible to the eye would be a collection of cells.

I'm not deciding the right! I'm not even an advocate of pro-life! I am objecting to the redundancy of an unborn fetus to the level of a 'tumour' and a 'collection of cells'', to be eradicated.

Just because you're offended doesn't make the comparison to a tumour untrue.

...in your opinion. I believe it is a horrific comparison.

Yet not necessarily incorrect.

As incorrect as anything that has been incorrect before.

[Dazey]

Ironically I'm certainly not a staunch pro-life support (as I am not an advocate of religion). I merely fundamentally disagree with Soul's argument - on many different levels.

That is because you have a very fuzzy foundation for many of your opinions expressed here, more formed by tradition, culture, society, and pure romaticism and a pitiful yearn for what was before, than by facts and evidence that must necesarrily be the scaffold in any structure of opinion.

And then, when I happen to have opinions based on facts and evidence, you argue that must mean I am some cynical, soul-less machine, bereft of any emotions, as if having opinions based on facts somehow removes all possibilties for emotions and feelings. Take abortion as an example. I merely argue for why women should have the option, I would never argue for what the outcome should be in any case where a poor women struggles with this dilemma. That MUST be the women's choice based on their exact life situation. But at least I give them the option, because I believe women are better off with this option because I find few good reasons to make abortion illegal. Again, I have feelings and emotions on the issue, and care for women in this situation, but these feelings and emotions must take the backseat when we are discussing the various arguments that exist for being anti-abortion (I refuse to call it "pro-life" because that fails to take into account the potentially negative effects going through with a pregnancy may have on the mother's life). THAT is a technical discussion with the intent of terminating flawed arguments to simplify the question so we might easier arrive at an answer.

If, on the other hand, you are so unable to think through things logically that you are sidetracked by a simple comparison between tumours and fetuses, or can't free yourself from societal and religious conditioning into believing fetuses = babies/humans, then you lose the ability to think clearly and maybe you aren't in a position to decide whether the right to abortion is good or bad?

Everything is more or less a collection of cells isn't it?

Not unicellular organisms like bacteria, But yeah, everything biological that is visible to the eye would be a collection of cells.

I'm not deciding the right! I'm not even an advocate of pro-life! I am objecting to the redundancy of an unborn fetus to the level of a 'tumour' and a 'collection of cells'', to be eradicated.

Just because you're offended doesn't make the comparison to a tumour untrue.

...in your opinion. I believe it is a horrific comparison.

Yet not necessarily incorrect.

As incorrect as anything that has been incorrect before.

Not true.

[Len Cnut]

I dunno, something thats a few weeks from being a human being is already a human being as far as I'm concerned...or close enough to one for me to not want it on my consience.

Its more than a fucking tumour, when your missus misscarriages or comes back from having had an abortion emotionally shattered does it confuse you as to why, I mean seeing as we're talking about something equivalent to a tumour, the bitch should feel like shes got a new lease of life.

'What you crying about love, when my Great Uncle Cyril had his tumour removed he pulled a 32 yr old cocktail waitress and went up West, why we hadn't seen him this happy since they signed the Armistice!'

[DieselDaisy]

Ironically I'm certainly not a staunch pro-life support (as I am not an advocate of religion). I merely fundamentally disagree with Soul's argument - on many different levels.

That is because you have a very fuzzy foundation for many of your opinions expressed here, more formed by tradition, culture, society, and pure romaticism and a pitiful yearn for what was before, than by facts and evidence that must necesarrily be the scaffold in any structure of opinion.

And then, when I happen to have opinions based on facts and evidence, you argue that must mean I am some cynical, soul-less machine, bereft of any emotions, as if having opinions based on facts somehow removes all possibilties for emotions and feelings. Take abortion as an example. I merely argue for why women should have the option, I would never argue for what the outcome should be in any case where a poor women struggles with this dilemma. That MUST be the women's choice based on their exact life situation. But at least I give them the option, because I believe women are better off with this option because I find few good reasons to make abortion illegal. Again, I have feelings and emotions on the issue, and care for women in this situation, but these feelings and emotions must take the backseat when we are discussing the various arguments that exist for being anti-abortion (I refuse to call it "pro-life" because that fails to take into account the potentially negative effects going through with a pregnancy may have on the mother's life). THAT is a technical discussion with the intent of terminating flawed arguments to simplify the question so we might easier arrive at an answer.

If, on the other hand, you are so unable to think through things logically that you are sidetracked by a simple comparison between tumours and fetuses, or can't free yourself from societal and religious conditioning into believing fetuses = babies/humans, then you lose the ability to think clearly and maybe you aren't in a position to decide whether the right to abortion is good or bad?

Everything is more or less a collection of cells isn't it?

Not unicellular organisms like bacteria, But yeah, everything biological that is visible to the eye would be a collection of cells.

I'm not deciding the right! I'm not even an advocate of pro-life! I am objecting to the redundancy of an unborn fetus to the level of a 'tumour' and a 'collection of cells'', to be eradicated.

Just because you're offended doesn't make the comparison to a tumour untrue.

...in your opinion. I believe it is a horrific comparison.

Yet not necessarily incorrect.

As incorrect as anything that has been incorrect before.

Not true.

Even by the confines of your own ideology which is science and materialism (as opposed to philosophy and religion), a tumour has little resemblance to a human being! If you are too dumb enough to understand your own ideology, there is nothing much I can do for you I am afraid!

[DieselDaisy]

I dunno, something thats a few weeks from being a human being is already a human being as far as I'm concerned...or close enough to one for me to not want it on my consience.

Its more than a fucking tumour, when your missus misscarriages or comes back from having had an abortion emotionally shattered does it confuse you as to why, I mean seeing as we're talking about something equivalent to a tumour, the bitch should feel like shes got a new lease of life.

'What you crying about love, when my Great Uncle Cyril had his tumour removed he pulled a 32 yr old cocktail waitress and went up West, why we hadn't seen him this happy since they signed the Armistice!'

A tumour is a neoplasm, an abnormal cellular growth. A fetus is an embryonic human being, that is a human being in its formative state (It is not normally designated as abnormal although looking at some of the people in this very thread...); it is a much more complex organism.

The analogy is incorrect scientifically, morally, spiritually - however you care to analyse it - it is simply incorrect.

[Dazey]

Even by the confines of your own ideology which is science and materialism (as opposed to philosophy and religion).

So logic and reason as opposed poncing about in coffee shops in cardigans or invisible men in the sky?

[The Glow Inc.]

I think you should think of it more in terms of whether "it" has consciousness or not instead of whether it is just a collection of cells.

[DieselDaisy]

Even by the confines of your own ideology which is science and materialism (as opposed to philosophy and religion).

So logic and reason as opposed poncing about in coffee shops in cardigans or invisible men in the sky?

If that is your description of your criteria, the answer still is incorrect.

I would have thought you, a believer in science and a parent, would have repudiated this clap trap of Soul Monster. Please do not allow my own arguments with you over religion sway you here. He is arguing that a cellular abnormality, a disgusting growth basically, is the equivalent of a formative human being, the continuation - the very survival - of our human specie and a being with boundless capacity for genius and intellect. And the consequence of this is of course that it can be surgically removed with nordic precision!

This is science - your thing here!

[Apollo]

I think you should think of it more in terms of whether "it" has consciousness or not instead of whether it is just a collection of cells.

Great post.

And you didn't need to insult people and type 22 paragraphs of nonsense in yet another attempt to "educate" and "ridicule" people.

[MB.]

I am just curious to what's your idea of an early fetus Soulmonster?

To me, when not for medical reasons the time to make it possible should be brought back drasticly.

In fact Soul is a good example of what happens when you allow atheism to run amok: a complete absence of spirituality or humanity.

Maybe I understand it incorrect, but humanity and religion goes hand in hand you think? Sorry, but I so not agree. Edited November 29, 2015 by MB.

[SoulMonster]

I dunno, something thats a few weeks from being a human being is already a human being as far as I'm concerned...or close enough to one for me to not want it on my consience.

Its more than a fucking tumour, when your missus misscarriages or comes back from having had an abortion emotionally shattered does it confuse you as to why, I mean seeing as we're talking about something equivalent to a tumour, the bitch should feel like shes got a new lease of life.

'What you crying about love, when my Great Uncle Cyril had his tumour removed he pulled a 32 yr old cocktail waitress and went up West, why we hadn't seen him this happy since they signed the Armistice!'

A tumour is a neoplasm, an abnormal cellular growth. A fetus is an embryonic human being, that is a human being in its formative state (It is not normally designated as abnormal although looking at some of the people in this very thread...); it is a much more complex organism.

The analogy is incorrect scientifically, morally, spiritually - however you care to analyse it - it is simply incorrect.

Why do you insist on not getting the limited extent of the comparison? I have never clamed a tumor and a fetus are IDENTICAL. But they are about equally far away from being humans in the sense of lacking those peculiar traits that seperates humans from other living organisms and is the basis for human rights and protection.

People read the words "tumours" and "fetuses" in the same sentence and their ability to think disappears.

Edited November 30, 2015 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

I think you should think of it more in terms of whether "it" has consciousness or not instead of whether it is just a collection of cells.

Yes, and as I have stated many times fetuses lack consciouness and oher of those amazing ablities humans have. Hence, they are not humans. They are "humans in development". That's not a clever expression, they ARE humans in development. It's the best way of phasing it. But they are not humans, yet. And the main emotional argument used by those opposed to abortion is "it is killing babies!". But fetuses are not human babies. They are lumps of cells that are in the early stages of developing into humans. Abortion takes place at a sufficiently early stage where the fetus has not developed the neural system required for those characteristics that distinguishes humans, including conscienceness. In fact, many of these things are barely fully developed by birth. At week 22 or earlier, when abortion is allowed, they have the emotional and cognitive capacity of a zucchini, or something.