Re: OT: Obama on Abortion Is it true

da pickle wrote:
"Dutch"

You kind of missed my point, probably my fault. Just because a person supports reproductive choice for women does not mean that they are hostile towards any living person. The choice of an abortion is only a plausibly valid one if made by the mother.
Dutch, the article is about a clump of cells that survives the attempt to make the living cells not alive any more. The clump of cells is actually "born" ... it is a separate "living thing" from the mother. The question is whether this clump is now a "baby" ... is it a "person."

Do you believe that a baby is a person?
One can argue definitions of words till the cows come home, it will get us nowhere, because what we believe to be right or wrong is based on what *is*, not what we think fits the definition of a particular word. Words are as likely to trip up attempts to achieve understanding if the underlying beliefs of the individuals attempting to communicate are in fundamental disagreement.


It is very difficult to have any sort of conversation with someone who wiggles so much.

If manipulating the conversation in a particular direction is what you want. I made a cogent point. Whether of not one calls a baby "a person" is beside the point. What a baby *is*, is what matters. Until people are ready to talk about reality and stop selling definitions there will be no mutual agreement. I can't help it if you can't grasp what I'm telling you.


I am not sure if the article is speaking the truth or not ... that is why I asked. However, you are dodging the serious questions raised by the article.
Maybe you could restate what you think is the jist of the serious question and I will attempt to give my opinion on it.


[The article does not appear to me at this point to be a reasonable interpretation of actual events; however, the article raised a very challenging question that you are dodging.]

I'm not dodging anything you annoying clot. If you think it raised a challenging question then deal with it.

The "clump of cells"

Not my quote, just to be clear.

> was the sort of "thing"

Also not my quote, just to be clear.

that some people (and that group seems to include you)

Wrong

is not the sort of thing that has rights that outweigh any rights of the "person hosting the thing" at any time prior to the "birth" of the "thing"

Wrong again, that's a misstatement of my position, it's a misstatement of Roe v Wade also. The rights of the fetus become more compelling as the pregnancy progresses, until at some point prior to birth they outweigh those of the mother, except for threat to life.

.... after which, some people are generally in
agreement is the time that the thing becomes a baby.

You're still struggling in the world of definitions. The "baby" is not substantially different *in reality* after birth than it was 24 hours earlier.

[For some reason, some people (and this is your apparent group) has no difficulty calling the person hosting the thing that is not yet worthy of much consideration the "mother" even before the thing becomes an official baby.]

That's an interesting semantic point, I hadn't thought of it that way. But it's still wrapped up in words and definitions, not reality.


Now, in this challenging circumstance, the "mother" has decided that she does not want to continue hosting the thing any more. She is within her "right" to dispose of the "thing" and it has to be her decision to just get rid of it.

It's her right in law, up to a point, whether or not it is her moral right is what is debatable. Personally I am ambivalent about it, but I come down on the side of her making that decision rather than the law.


So, she has some options ... she can have a doctor reach inside of her and crush the thing into bits and pass those bits and pieces out of what would have been the "birth canal," but which now would be a sewer for passing clumps of perhaps still living cells, but nothing that could in any way be considered a "baby" ... all would be well for some people (and this is again your group).

I would not go so far as to say that "all is well" for me in that scenario, I think an abortion is an very unfortunate end to a very unfortunate sequence of events, none of which is auspicious.


She could NOT have the doctor perform a Caesarean Section because the "thing" might actually become a "baby" and then a really difficult problem would be presented ... it is the same "problem" presented in the article but in a different context.

This is incorrect, if the "thing" is viable then it is highly unlikely that a legal abortion could be performed unless the mother's very life would be endangered by a birth.


The other type of "abortion" she might try is the one presented in the article ... salt poisoning or saline injection.

"Used after 16 weeks (four months) when enough fluid has accumulated. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.)"

In the article, one such surviving "thing" is discussed. The difficulty presented is whether the surviving "thing" has become a "baby" ... it presents the question of whether the surviving thing is a "person" ... you cannot be so dull, Dutch, that you missed this most challenging question.

[I do not know whether Senator Obama would or would not believe that allowing a dying "babylike-thing" is significally different than poisoning the "thing" in the first place. I fail to be able to make the distinction.]

Can you make the distinction, Dutch?

Not really, I think that this is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. In "reality" a healthy fetus is a defacto person in an early stage of development. An abortion is the decision by a woman to stop hosting the development, iow, killing it. What this means depends on one's perspective. Not being the woman involved, I feel that my opinion is worth very little. From a broader perspective, there is no shortage of human beings in the world, quite the reverse, so one less unwanted one is hardly a tragedy of biblical proportions.




That person in question now has awareness, relationships, loved ones. If that life had ended in an abortion or a miscarriage prior to all that then the perspective is quite a different one, but certainly it's absurd to say that a pro-choice person wishes any living human being had not been born, its not their place.

I guess I can understand what you are trying to say. I just don't see the relevance to the substance of the article.

I think you are being too general with your "pro-choice" person definition. We are talking about a specific person, not a general person.
The original poster seem to be saying that Obama must believe that this person should not exist. I tried to explain why I don't think that is a fair comment. A mother may wish to have an abortion, and cannot or does not for some reason, must they resent their child and wish it had never been born? No. Such is the twisted logic of sophism.

[We have left the putative "feelings" of Senator Obama.]

I have presumed that you are a "pro choice" person ... I do not think that it is an unsupported presumption.

We do not yet know whether you think a "thing" that comes out "dying" after a saline injection abortion is a "person."

What "exactly" was this "thing" when the saline was injected?

Can the "thing" be allowed to complete the "dying" process after it pops out of the "host person?"

Isn't that the point of injecting the saline solution in the first place?

I think that the sematics of what is a person and what isn't are just levers people use to press their points of view.
.