Miscarriage = baby; Abortion = "mass of cells"

No, you don't.

You've gained the ability to read minds now?

1) the anti-abortion movement is now Obamacare - congrats "Mission Accomplished"

Ummm....okay. I'll admit I don't know ^this one. What point are you attempting to make?

2) I don't believe in the choice to kill a human but in the fallibility of government and force (my "pro choice" is nothing like your faux choice past)

Yep. I've heard ^that one.

3) the pro-life movement has near zero appetite to prosecute murder as murder and the liberty minded do not rush to the defense of increased regulatory authority of the medical markets

Yep. I've heard ^that one.

4) the stats do not seem to support your prohibitions as effective - if we could reduce murders, of adults, by eliminating laws against murder, I would seriously consider it

Yep. I've heard ^that one too.
 
My wife was pregnant with twins. One was miscarried and the other was born healthy but after 11 months got cancer. Both events were equally devastating.
 
I said
Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
I'm making a general observation that non-religious society treats babies who die from miscarriages differently from those who die from abortion.

And you said:

Not true, IMO. My family and relatives are extremely Catholic with few exceptions. They've held a FULL funeral for a miscarriage (long, complicated story). In your world, the DA would have to clear this as a natural miscarriage or something. They'd exume the little guy's casket looking for evidence of foul play.

Please explain why you believe your family and relatives who are "extremely Catholic" are "non religious." :confused:

Neither is no biggie in my non-religious opinion. Wanting and not getting can be just as bad just as not wanting and killing.

Ummmm....huh?

Regardless, you commit the fallacy of thinking through this issue emotionally and trying to come to the right decision and enforcing that with government force. My position is that the mother is in best position to defend a fetus, not the government. If I'm wrong, that she ought not be a mother, then the problem is largely self correcting.

I haven't committed any "fallacy". You've committed the fallacy of trying to make more of the thread then it is. My simple point in this thread is that it's inconsistent to say a fetus is a "person" if there is a miscarriage but not a "person" if there is an abortion. The implications of that fact or the application of that implication is beyond the scope of the thread.

Here is another,

5) Not supporting government where it hasn't been effective historically, deeply interferes in our personal lives, and the issue itself creates artificial divisions (congrats)

Not a single reason of mine regarding abortion has to do with some 'clump of cells' arguments. Why YOU ever thought that way or would ascribe that position to others is beyond belief.

Then I'm not talking to you and you had no reason to respond to the thread. Seriously. I was talking strictly about those who claim that you have to be "religious" to believe life begins before birth. If you're of the opinion that a fetus is a human being, but you still don't think the state should protect it, that's a different conversation altogether. Some people don't think the state should even enforce laws against murder with regards to adults. That's a totally different thread entirely. And let me add that you certainly have the right to respond in this thread if you desire, but your response just doesn't make sense for what was being discussed.
 
You've gained the ability to read minds now?

No. I deny your ability to do such: "Now I know all of the arguments of the other side." [bullshit]

Ummm....okay. I'll admit I don't know ^this one. What point are you attempting to make?

Anti-abortion is one of the earliest AMA power grabs. It involved reducing the competition and putting more medical decisions under the control of their statist guild.

Through the efforts primarily of physicians, the American Medical Association, and legislators, most abortions in the US had been outlawed by 1900.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/a/abortion.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion#19th_century_to_present
http://studentsforlife.org/prolifefacts/history-of-abortion/

This nuggest in particular shows how little bits of power expand (from post office to control of information to suppressing unpopular ideas):

1873 Supported by the American Medical Association (AMA), the Comstock Act bans the dissemination by mail of information on abortion or artificial contraceptives.
 
about sums it up.

Really? I said what everyone else should believe? Okay. Dishonest on your part, but okay. People are free to believe that 1 + 1 = 7. It's not logical but they are free to believe that. Cognitive dissonance comes from trying to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at once. And the two contradictory ideas are that a fetus is a person if it's wanted but not a person if it's not. And actually I didn't hold those contradictory ideas in my head. I believed the fetus wasn't a person under either circumstance. Now I believe its a person under both circumstances. What do you believe? Are you willing to state your own beliefs or just attack the beliefs of others?
 
No. I deny your ability to do such: "Now I know all of the arguments of the other side." [bullshit]

So far I haven't seen you give one I haven't heard.

Anti-abortion is one of the earliest AMA power grabs. It involved reducing the competition and putting more medical decisions under the control of their statist guild.

Ah. So your argument is "I should be against something because someone I don't like is for it." Ummm....okay. Extremely weak but okay. The communists in China support abortion. I never saw that as a strong "pro life" argument. Edit: But you still don't win the "I came up with a new argument" prize, because this is just a different take on the "anti-abortion is just a power grab by religious fundamentalists" argument. You're just substituting the AMA for the fundies.
 
Last edited:
Both, actually.
If you are against abortion, don't have one. Problem solved.

If you're against murder don't commit it. Problem solved.

If you're against rape don't rape anyone. Problem solved.

In each of these cases the problem isn't solved for the victims.

Edit: And again, like "freehornet", you apparently can't resist going past the scope of the point of the thread which is whether there is really a difference between a "wanted" fetus and an "unwanted" one to whether or not abortion should be legal. Different thread.
 
Last edited:
If you're of the opinion that a fetus is a human being, but you still don't think the state should protect it, that's a different conversation altogether.

This is really the heart of the matter. How much "protecting" would you empower the state to do? Would you mandate procedures that pose a risk of miscarriage? Some doctors think those are necessary to protect both the mother and the child. How authoritarian should pregnancy be to adequately "protect" the unborn?
 
Thanks for your analysis!

Miscarriages occur mostly within the first trimester, although of course they can occur during the second and third trimester as well. 10-25% of all pregnancies will end in miscarriage, and some of those miscarriages will occur so early that a woman believes it is her menstrual flow - this is called a chemical pregnancy, and it's around 50-75% of those miscarriages. But they occur mostly in the first trimester due to the body recognizing something is usually not right with the growing embryo - most spontaneously aborted pregnancies tend to have either genetic or other medical abnormalities which would prevent the embryo from dividing/growing properly in utero.

There are also different types of miscarriages a woman can experience, from an ectopic pregnancy and molar pregnancy, to an incomplete miscarriage and a missed miscarriage.

There have been studied that show most miscarriages affect male embryos, and the mother's immune cells can indeed see a male embryo as "foreign," and work it's hardest to expel it. Women who have had male children do indeed, more often than not, have immunity cells within their body that were created to act upon their male children in utero, as well as have more pregnancy-related complications with pregnancies after giving birth to a boy:







In truth, much more can go wrong with a developing male embryo than a female embryo.

Some cool studies:

Male fetuses are particularly affected by maternal alloimmunization to D antigen: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

Secondary recurrent miscarriage and H-Y immunity: http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/4/558.long

--------

So, there's a little science behind miscarriage. Before I get called a "sexist," and green73 quotes me with his usual "you seem to have a low opinion of men, why do you stick around?" I just want to point out that autoimmunity was a subject I studied for my honors thesis, which I coupled with my degree - reproductive biology, so it's just random knowledge I remember that I thought I'd share.

As for the emotional aspect of abortion... I can't honestly have an opinion, and I would feel wrong to have one. I have never been pregnant or lost a pregnancy. I do know some women take their miscarriages better than others. I know some women are extremely distraught after a miscarriage (I've had those EMS calls), and I know there are women who believe it to be God's will, and while they are sad about it, they work through it. Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know the "right" way to handle a miscarriage.
 
Then I'm not talking to you and you had no reason to respond to the thread. Seriously. I was talking strictly about those who claim that you have to be "religious" to believe life begins before birth.

Fine, restrict your conversations to strawmen.
 
This is really the heart of the matter. How much "protecting" would you empower the state to do? Would you mandate procedures that pose a risk of miscarriage? Some doctors think those are necessary to protect both the mother and the child. How authoritarian should pregnancy be to adequately "protect" the unborn?

That's a good question. I think a good starting place is, what restrictions are there currently on procedures that pose a risk of miscarriage? As Dr. Paul (Ron) pointed out, he could be held criminally liable for the life of an unborn child under his care as long as the mother actually wanted the child. So I don't see the end of Roe v. Wade as such a sea change for the normal practice of medicine. Others disagree I'm sure. And that's why this should be sent back to the states. Rather than have a hard fast rule where everyone has to follow, let the individual states see what works and what doesn't.
 
Edit: And again, like "freehornet", you apparently can't resist going past the scope of the point of the thread which is whether there is really a difference between a "wanted" fetus and an "unwanted" one to whether or not abortion should be legal. Different thread.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is difficult and can have a profound impact on a woman's life, just as miscarriage does. In either case, there are support systems available to provide counseling, whether labelled a tissue mass or a lost child. The emphasis after either event is placed on the woman involved. It isn't "hypocrisy" to minimize the grief of a 12 year-old rape victim who just had an abortion instead of telling her she just murdered her child.
 
Fine, restrict your conversations to strawmen.

For you to say that shows you don't know what the term "strawmen" even means. I started the thread precisely to talk about the particular case of someone claiming that you had to be "religious" to believe life started at conception. That's not true. You want to talk about something else? Fine. But you are the one creating the strawmen. (Bringing up a point the other side didn't make in order to knock it down).
 
Not surprising that the medical profession contradicts itself, and hands out inappropriate literature (or hands it out without any thought to individual circumstances). One size fits all, right? It must be the best they could come up with in a committee of doctors with differing agendas and perspectives. The only thing that could improve the process is if they could pass it through Congress for some editing and debate...
 
The decision to terminate a pregnancy is difficult and can have a profound impact on a woman's life, just as miscarriage does. In either case, there are support systems available to provide counseling, whether labelled a tissue mass or a lost child. The emphasis after either event is placed on the woman involved. It isn't "hypocrisy" to minimize the grief of a 12 year-old rape victim who just had an abortion instead of telling her she just murdered her child.

Hopefully the 12 y/o rape victim was given emergency contraception, in which case the doctor can honestly say "You probably haven't even conceived yet so this isn't technically an abortion." That said, the language of "not a baby, baby", is not restricted to a woman in a clinic. It's dishonest to claim that.
 
Howzabout the Liberty Moovement grooms an Independent candidate for a bid in 2016, in case Rand's candidacy goes the way of his LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION father?

Seriously? You would refuse to support Rand not because of his iffy foreign policy, but because of this?

Lol. Epic lol. I'm not a Rand worshipper, but come on.

Anti Abortion threads ABOUND. There are more threads on Abortion than on Afghanistan and Syria COMBINED. Y'know, where LIVING people are being killed.

"Social Conservatives" are HARPING on abortion, and it IS hurting the fractious Liberty Moovement.

The unborn are living too. I think its possible for the liberty movement to make a truce on this. We could easily agree that however we personally feel about abortion, we will fight for the decision to be kept out of the Federal government's hands, and allow the states to make their own laws.

The problem is, liberals already have the upper ground, so they will never accept this. It seems "Pro-choice" libertarians aren't either. "Leave it up to the individual" is not a solution here like it is with prostitutiton or drug use. I can completely disagree with what you do, but if there's no victim, I'll let you do it. Abortion, to many does (From the looks of this forum I'd even say "Most" of the liberty movement agrees that abortion does) have a victim.

Personally, I'm not going to refuse to vote for a pro-choice libertarian who gets everything else right. The GOP is total crap on being "pro-life", even on the issue of abortion itself they are usually extremely hypocritical and weak, let alone on other "Life" issues such as war and such (Someone will inevitably take this to the death penalty as well. I respectfully disagree since in that case we are actually dealing with someone who has already violated the right to life, while abortion and war always kill the innocent.) I'm not going to support a Republican who wants to commit mass murder just because he says he does, but does not really, support abortion restrictions. If I had to pick between the state standing by and doing nothing while women and doctors murder their children, or actually murdering children overseas, I'd pick the former. Doing nothing is never as serious as doing evil. Doubly so when the person who wants to do evil also wants to do nothing on the abortion issue as well.

Really, the issue of abortion is something of a joke in American politics. Many say they want to ban abortion, but few actually do. I can look past it when voting... somewhat... but I'm still not going to stop talking about what is a very important issue and what is essentially genocide of the youngest Americans.

Fine, restrict your conversations to strawmen.
 
Not surprising that the medical profession contradicts itself, and hands out inappropriate literature (or hands it out without any thought to individual circumstances). One size fits all, right? It must be the best they could come up with in a committee of doctors with differing agendas and perspectives. The only thing that could improve the process is if they could pass it through Congress for some editing and debate...

Hey, hand out what you want. Just don't go to congress saying "It's a mass of cells" if you don't actually believe that.
 
The decision to terminate a pregnancy is difficult and can have a profound impact on a woman's life, just as miscarriage does. In either case, there are support systems available to provide counseling, whether labelled a tissue mass or a lost child. The emphasis after either event is placed on the woman involved. It isn't "hypocrisy" to minimize the grief of a 12 year-old rape victim who just had an abortion instead of telling her she just murdered her child.
If she's 12 she probably didn't do it. The doctor and the parents probably did, and should be charged with murder.
 
Back
Top