Are Autistics whom are Pro-Abortion hypocrits?

Post Reply New Topic

There are several issues I have with this.

1. You claim that only your view is based on an objective moral standard. It has been pointed out that the pro-life argument strips rights from adult women - women who are most definitely human persons. It could be argued, then, that your "objective moral standard" sacrifices the rights of one person for (what you view as) another person. Looked at through the lens of another "objective moral standard", that could be viewed as immoral.

2. Since when has the "burden of proof" shifted squarely onto the shoulders of the pro-choice argument? This has been a recurring theme in this and other threads regarding abortion. Get over yourselves. You can't claim that only your opponents have something to prove. This is especially true when you react to opposing viewpoints by either ignoring them, dismissing them, or claiming that only your argument is based on an objective moral standard.

3. It is both fair and reasonable to expect that society should be conservative when deciding if reproductive rights should be controlled. Today the argument is whether or not we should ban abortions; tomorrow the argument could be should we prohibit individuals from having children, or force other individuals to have children against their will. Don't think it could happen? Think again, especially considering how often and blantanly power has been abused in the past.


Finally, I can't speak for everyone else who has taken part in this discussion, but my goal is not to get you to agree with me. My goal is for those deeply entrenched on the "pro-life" side of the argument to accept that there may be some room for disagreement, and that the "pro-choice" side has valid arguments as well.

Personectly clear topic

I see now what being a person means. I too have children. I was under the impression that personhood implied getting medical care after viable birth [not abortion] (and when the cord is cut), separating the infant from the mother.

In that case, regarding existential beingness, and the memory of this (being self aware), I suppose this does not happen until after the second year of life.

My son was born (not aborted) at 33 weeks. He is a fine, strapping, bright, 19 year old NT college-attending young man, who has been technically a person since about age 24 months.

Except that the opposition hasn't reasonably defended a view of what is human, so claiming a failing on the part of those who promote choice is rather absurd.

Even further, the notion that being a person is a matter of having certain traits is not bizarre, nor is it just subjective or ad hoc, particularly if it can be found that these traits evoke notions of "being human" reliably in other contexts, and they do. Having a heartbeat isn't relevant, and people can cry at an android dying. Having advanced cognitive processes is needed though.


Umm... how about cancer? Cancer can be human. Cancer is alive. Cancer has potential. Even further, every sperm has potential as well, so are they also covered?

The inherent arbitrariness of your position has already been attacked. In fact, it has been attacked multiple times at this point, so... why on earth do you think your rehash of a dead argument is meaningful?


No, if I want you to change your mind, I have to show that you have to be a ret*d to stick to your sophistry. This notion has been proved sufficiently. As I have stated many times before, it is sufficient to know where life does not begin to have an opinion, and in order to do that, one does not need to know exactly when life begins, only that certain points are entirely unlike when we can say that personhood begins. This has been shown to a sufficient degree.

As for "begging the question" on making personhood the objective basis? Umm... couldn't you be said to do the same on making "human life" the basis? Unlike your standard, ours is intuitive, ours deals with a lot of situations even in science fiction, ours is actually clear(you do realize that speciation does not deal with objective lines, but rather subjective cut-off points for effective measurement), in short, ours actually makes some degree of real sense, while yours is divorced of any real understanding of biology.

"Potential" is in many ways vague. It is also ad hoc, as I don't see any real intuition that any body but a pro-life advocate has that is being gotten at. Morally important non-humans are found throughout literature, even in most religions, but "potentiality" just isn't anywhere.

In any case, I still think that your failing to understand that there is a real argument on your opposition is a personal failing on your part. Also, the reason I don't take this situation seriously is because I don't have a stick up my ass, and because I think your position is entirely stupid, and just not to be taken seriously.


No, there really isn't more to your argument. It's a pile of nonsense and has been exposed as such thoroughly. My statement, while mocking, was no deception.


Umm.... 91? You have no real ability to understand reality do you? Obviously I am not saying that any person must have been a person in the past, as that just makes no sense given other statements that things can become human. The issue is that I accept that continuity is valid in establishing a being as a person. This is in no ways bizarre, and fits back in with coma vs persistent vegetative state.

In any case, your claim on my "cognitive dissonance" is unwarranted. Then again, you are disgustingly dishonest as a person, so what can I expect?

Actually it does, and quite frankly you look foolish to argue the point further, since a study from 1964 proves your statements to be wrong.



Here is me addressing your supposed points, kinda sad that someone whom hasn't taken a biology course since Freshman year in High School pretty much schooled two people that went to college whom majored biology. I have a bachelor's of science degree in Computer Graphics Technology not biology, and I managed pretty much debunked what both of you are saying.



Funny, it looks more like you just can't wrap your head around the fact you are wrong.





Funny, I actually managed to get my college degree, albiet in a field where we actually worked with things and not simply staring at equations all day. Furthermore, I will have you know that I was the researcher for my group for the senior project. You just finally annoyed me enough to start doing some serious digging.

THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IS A CREDIBLE SOURCE!



Actually, it seems more of you can't comprehend the fact you are wrong. You pretty much got schooled by someone that in your view is inferior to you. Your arrogance is your weakness, you had the opportunity to admit that it was something you didn't know and stood corrected, instead you chose to double down and attack me like an idiot calling the Journal of the American Medical Association a partisan hack site.

You just unintentionally described yourself. That statement itself is arrogant, and then you claim your opponent is arrogant? You silly little hamster!

LKL already addressed that paper. She did so before you even brought it up. Citing something that has already been rejected without giving a solid answer to the criticisms doesn't help your case; it makes you look like an obstinate fool.




You haven't addressed any of the biology.


An outdated and debunked article is not, though. Respected scientific journals regularly publish results that later turn out to be mistaken.


You quoted a number of pro-life sites, which based their claim on an outdated and debunked study from 1964. That you eventually managed to find their source doesn't make much diffference.

I don't view anyone here as inferior to me, I do take issue with intellectual dishonesty like what Orwell and LKL are practicing.

Orwell has admitted that he has no knowledge on the subject yet is saying I don't know what I am talking about after I have presented research that verifies my statements.

That the fetus begins to move early in development is well-known and
is used as an indicator of fetal well-being!‘ Fetal movements are
detected by the mother from approximately 16 to 18 weeks of gestation.
lt has been determined by ultrasound, however, that the earliest
movements occur at 5.5 weeks gestational age.23a2S4y stematic studies
have been made of both spontaneous movements made by fetuses in
utero and reflex responses elicited by stimulating fetuses ex u t e r ~ . ' ~T he
first movements detectable were described as tjust discernible' and
occur between 5 and 6.5 weeks of gestation.
BURGESS, J. A. and TAWIA, S. A. (1996), WHEN DID YOU FIRST BEGIN TO FEEL IT? — LOCATING THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS. Bioethics, 10: 1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1996.tb00100.x

Author Information
1Department of Philosophy University of Wollongong, NSW
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 100.x/full

2Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Monash Medical Centre
--------------------------------------------------
5 weeks = 35 days, so we're looking at movements being detectible fairly early.

Gestational age is the age of an embryo or fetus (or newborn infant). In humans, a common method of calculating gestational age starts counting either from the first day of the woman's last menstrual period (LMP)[1] or from 14 days before conception (fertilization).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestational_age

So it could technically be even earlier than the time we are being given of 40 days. Further, I would argue that the fact brain waves can be detected so early is being purposefully ignored is out of Political Correctness, not out of good science. Also while I know the article I sourced just now tries to hide or dismiss the movements at such an early age, the fact is those movements are there and supposedly they can't feel anything? Excuse me, but this looks more like people in the medical field are being dishonest with themselves.

Last edited by Inuyasha on 07 Mar 2011, 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have admitted not having specialist knowledge. I'm interested in theoretical/mathematical biology, and that takes me in directions other than physiology, embryology, or human development, but I still have a much stronger general knowledge of biology than you do.

LKL & Orwell both addressed the brain wave issue, so who is really skirting the issue?



They are not being dishonest

That's why I actually did research and looked stuff up, and what I found quite frankly is appalling. It seems that ethics and honesty have taken a huge downturn since the 1960s, though I imagine it is partially so they can sleep at night after performing an abortion.



No, they did not, they simply dismissed it based on what they said things are, which neither one of them have any qualifications to do. It really doesn't matter how complex the EEG readings are, all that matters is that the brainwaves are present.



Uh, they are either being dishonest or too lazy to read take your pick. Though Orwell seems as though he's starting to realize he may be wrong.

LKL explained in detail the problems with that paper, before you even cited it. Until you've addressed those criticisms, you have nothing here.


Not actually true, but whatever.


You're mental.

How by Zeus' beard do you get that he's 'starting to realize he may be wrong'? And why won't you uffda your uh statements instead, it would make a bored Quebec man's day

Actually I could care less what LKL or you say at this point until you present a reputable source to contradict my source. Further LKL was claiming a different source wasn't accurate, so I countered LKL's statements with that Journal article.

UNTIL THEN NEITHER OF YOU HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON.








Whatever, glad you're not my physician.

Oh by the way, if your source is going to try to argue that brainwaves aren't brainwaves all you will have proved is the medical profession's standard of ethics have gone downhill. You ticked off someone that is extremely good at researching when I put my mind to it.

Losing sleep topic

Really Inuyasha, why are you losing sleep regarding a woman's private matter that is frankly none of your business?

I usually do not preach, but now I am fed up with this harrassment of people who are prochoice.

If you are trying to convince others with your pictures and your brainy waves, you have not succeeded. I could show you some of the most shocking pictures of what was aborted, from medical files, and all of these fetuses would not have been viable anyway. They are for teaching purposes, though there are some who like to look at them as freaks.

I cannot upload the pictures onto this website, as this would be against TOS. But if you google pictures of fetal defects, you will see them, and maybe you will wish you did not.

Botched abortions are horrendous, for the woman. Any of these explosed zefs you see on Prolife websites are botched and photoshopped to give the impression of murder. False appeal to emotion.

Women do not give a tinker's damn about what the zef in her body looks like. Her body is hers, and the condition in which an unwanted pregnancy has occurred is what is troubling her. If she chooses to abort, it is her right. You assume the woman made a conscious choice to get pregnant. You assume the woman should carry a fetus that she does not want.

Who appointed you a catcher in the rye?

Well actually, it can be argued that legalized murder of innocent children out of conveinence is something society should be worried about. Is a child a person or are they property.



To counter, I am fed up with the misrepresentation, the outright lieing, etc. spewed from people that are pro-abortion. Being for abortion is not being pro-choice it is being pro-denial of choice.



Yeah, and as I pointed out earlier, were those actual defects or were they signs of the trauma they endured during the abortion, among which include missing limbs (because abortionists use "tools" to rip the child's arms and legs off of the body).



Again I pose the question, were they defects or were they inflicted on the child by the abortionist?



Sure... Prolifers all must be real pros when it comes to CG, and they all have to be working in the film industry.



A woman makes a conscious choice to have sexual intercourse, as does the man.

Furthermore, a child is not a slave, it is a person and the results of an action by a man and a woman. If you don't want the child after it is born, there is such a thing known as adoption.


Not sure I understand the reference, and further not sure that I'd want to.

Inuyasha exposed topic

Of course. You are pro-rape. I should have seen it before.

And deluded.

Next.