If killing your baby was acceptable, would more women do it?

At least pro lifers believe in science.

I take back my statements about pro-choicers being woman worshippers. It just derails this discussion.

 

More "lifenews", you forgot to include a link? Your article is solely about child abuse anyway, and the false statement that abortion is child abuse. Nothing at all about infanticide, which as I previously stated, increases when abortion is illegal.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/05/19/does-abortion-cause-infanticide/

Some state laws make it harder for a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Under those conditions, more women will resort to infanticide. By contrast, where abortion is safe, legal, and available, women will terminate unwanted pregnancies well before parturition.......
Instead, they do distinguish between a cluster of a few fertilized cells and a newborn baby. I know of no polls that ask about infanticide, but I would guess that a large majority would say that it is wrong under all circumstances. But only perhaps 20% of the population thinks that abortion is wrong under all circumstances.
Whether the acceptance of abortion in a society makes people “confused and morally dulled” depends on how you define and measure those concepts. But the data do strongly suggest that whatever “the abortion culture” might be, it lowers the rate of infanticide rather than increasing it.

 

Maybe we should allow women to flush their infants down the toilet to prevent child abuse later on.

 

Sorry, once you have said something on the internet (you have a brief time to edit on this site), it's permanent and floating around in cyberspace forever, there are no "take backs." That's why young people should be careful what they say, they may look back ten years from now and be greatly embarrassed. Pro-choicers believe in science, but they understand that science does not make moral proclamations.

 

Pro-choicers don't really believe in science, which shows that the fetus is a human organism.

 

You really should not assume that all scientists agree on anything. I do not know why the identification of a zef as an organism is so important to you, but you shouldn't be so certain about it.

http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/infrmdC/Paradigms.html

Organisms come in many forms, including single celled, but since we are talking about humans at this point, we are referring to mammals, and mammals are not single celled organisms. What we need to do is look at the markers that are necessary and sufficient to classify an entity as a mammalian organism. These markers are identified in many biological textbooks and but for simplicity I will use the definitions found in the Oxford English Dictionary, and Websters, here.

Organism: An organized body, consisting of mutually connected and dependent parts constituted to share a common life; the material structure of an individual animal or plant. OED

And from this the biological definition of Individual is needed also:
Individual: "Biol. An organism regarded as having a separate existence...an organism detached from other organisms, composed of coherent parts, and capable of independent life." OED

Then from Webster's Medical Dictionary Online we have:
Organism: "An individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being." (Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary on line)

So what is required to describe an entity as a mammalian organism is individuality, and the capacity for independent life. Some of the requirements for maintaining independent life in a mammalian organism would be the ability to detoxify and reoxygenate blood; to maintain homeostasis - temperature, blood pressure and blood pH, etc., using it's own internal regulatory systems that respond to the external environment; to ingest, digest, and excrete in order to produce and convert energy to maintain systems; and more.

All of these functions are performed for the fetus by the host organism of which it is a part, and the fetus is incapable of performing them independently as long as it remains integrated into the body of the woman. We can safely draw the conclusion that the fetus does not have the markers of, or perform the self regulated life sustaining functions of, independent organism in itself but it is a part of a larger organism (even though the fetus gains an increasing capacity for independent performance of those functions as the pregnancy progresses - which is the purpose of gestation).

 

You have amply demonstrated a total lack of understanding anything scientific, so on what basis do you make such a stupid comment?
YOu are still clueless what an organism is yet you comment about it. Does intellectual and personal integrity mean so little to you?

 

What science do yo believe in since you have demonstrated a total lack of understanding even the most basic elements of it?

All your statements derail anything intellectual.

 

Your understanding of this will not get better by repeating this fallacy. Why not take the effort and learn what an organism is and then attempt to understand why a fetus does not qualify?

 

Here's what an organism is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

 

^ The crap that "lifers" believe. Someone give this little pro-"lifer" a klennex...I think he got a little too excited.

 

My guess is yes.

 

Abortion has always been common place in our society. Ironically enough, despite how common it is, it is hardly socially acceptable. The fact that there is still controversy about abortion rights proves this.

Accessible? Most counties in the USA don't even have abortion clinics.

 

I hope Unifier punctures your ego bubble.

 

Most people do not live in most counties. (no, that's not a paradox, think about it)
So in reality, most women have an abortion clinic nearby.

 

Bravo you get an "A" for cutting and pasting. The real test is reading it and understanding what it means. Let me know when you were able to manage that part also.
Ask someone to explain it to you, especially the part about the homeostasis.

 

Source?

 

Yeah but you just tell people it is fine and they believe it. Look at Ottawa. You can kill your kid before 5 and you usually only get house arrest or probation.

- - - Updated - - -

There are cities. I guess a map would work as a source.

 

What cities? On average, how many people populate counties where there are abortion clinics?

 

Who cares?

 

I don't think that is actually one of my comments, but if it is then it was so long ago I can't remember saying it.

 

If it was culturally and legally acceptable to jump off a cliff would more anti-abortionists do it?

Putting forward an absurd proposition that would violate the Rights of a Child as a Person is really digging at the bottom of the barrel.

 

Your question is straightward (if infancide was legal and acceptable---would women do it) and the answer is obvious. Yes. And so would the fathers and family where the woman couldn't. In societies today that do practice infanticide---women tend to kill the child as a newborn and men tend to kill it when its older. Sometimes its the relatives and not the mother who commits the actual killing---

Personhood is only what a society decides. Right now we don't have "4th trimester abortions" and newborns have personhood though many people do want infanticide to be a lesser crime which insinnuates that an infant is of less value and less of a person. Especially when newly born.

.

 

I agree with the above view.

A lot of misinformation is out shouting at the crowds over Roe v Wade too. More and more people need to actually read what the winning view said and not repeat what they think was said.