• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

To pain or not to pain. What difference at this point does it make?

dolphinocean

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Ladies and gentlemen, the issue of pain is a logical fallacy. It's a red herring just like the issues of personhood, sentience, viability, birth, citizenship, etc.... Don't fall for the pro-abortion ruse and be misled in a wild goose chase that leads you far away from the actual and the only relevant issue of what a human prenatal life is.

If it's not a human being, who cares what pro-abortion crowd want to do to it. We don't protest at the liposuction clinics or cancer treatment wards, do we?

Why? Because we know those were just human tissues. We are scientifically educated and informed. They aren't. Or they are simply being deceptive.

If it is a human being at conception, then you can't kill a human being without just cause, PERIOD, no matter your circumstances or boo-hoo-isms.

The ability to feel pain or be cognitively aware of it is merely a neurophysiological event. It's development during the prenatal course of life is present in all mammals. It's absence is either pending or due to genetic defects.

The ability of my dog to feel and be aware of pain, even possessing the ability to cognitively recall past experience, does not transform my dog into a human being or a human person, does it?

Children who are conceived and born with congenital inability to feel pain with anhidrosis (CIPA) due to a simple genetic mutation that prevents sensory neurons to develop and survive, does not mean that those children are not human beings or human persons, does it?

The children's inability to feel pain for moral being is a reason for extra parental and caregiver attention and protection. However, in pro-abortion principle, every deficiency that could be used is hijacked and turned upside down against the prenatal human life for its self-serving cause. Instead of providing extra care and protection, they used it to justify for their killing.

Isn't that disgusting?

OK, ladies and gentlemen, I hereby present you the world's most famous tap dancing performance. Now, let the show begin.

 
Last edited:
This is an interesting question, because I can only see it being held in ignorance if someone uses this excuse for objecting to abortion. Ignorance of the medical science and/or the abortion issue itself. The information is readily available if anyone is really interested and open minded enough to look for unbiased sources.

Lursa said:
perhaps that is because they are well-enough educated on biology and the issue to know that it is "not an issue"....that more than 90% of all abortions take place before the unborn are aware or can feel pain and that the much less common late term abortions that are medically necessary use either anesthetic injection or a lethal injection that also prevents pain.
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
Answer: No, because if the unborn could feel pain, then the medical community could prevent it during the procedure, just like they do now as needed. Just like for pretty much every medical procedure...anesthesia can be administered.


Why would the ability to feel pain be a criteria for supporting/not abortion if it could be prevented? Does that criteria have some other relevance that I'm not aware of?
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
.

But you still dont understand my position: there is no reason for the unborn to feel pain...doctors can and do and would prevent it...so there is no basis (for me) for objecting to abortion on that criteria. Abortions do not cause pain to the unborn, so it's not a factor. (I see no reason for a hypothetical that isnt based in reality....Drs would prevent pain)
Click to expand...

And there are plenty of links to medical journals or the medical texts themselves that are clear on the development of human nervous systems and pain in the unborn.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it's perfectly legal to kill a human being who is harming or using your body without your consent, if that is necessary to end the assault immediately.

So if a ZEF is supposedly a person, explain to me how taking over the woman's body, disabling her immune system, depleting her bones, and causing her almost a year of pain, discomfort, and disability at the risk of death doesn't qualify.
 
dolphinocean said:
Ladies and gentlemen, the issue of pain is a logical fallacy. It's a red herring just like the issues of personhood, sentience, viability, birth, citizenship, etc.... Don't fall for the pro-abortion ruse and be misled in a wild goose chase that leads you far away from the actual and the only relevant issue of what a human prenatal life is.

If it's not a human being, who cares what pro-abortion crowd want to do to it. We don't protest at the liposuction clinics or cancer treatment wards, do we?

Why? Because we know those were just human tissues. We are scientifically educated and informed. They aren't. Or they are simply being deceptive.

If it is a human being at conception, then you can't kill a human being without just cause, PERIOD, no matter your circumstances or boo-hoo-isms.

The ability to feel pain or be cognitively aware of it is merely a neurophysiological event. It's development during the prenatal course of life is present in all mammals. It's absence is either pending or due to genetic defects.

The ability of my dog to feel and be aware of pain, even possessing the ability to cognitively recall past experience, does not transform my dog into a human being or a human person, does it?

Children who are conceived and born with congenital inability to feel pain with anhidrosis (CIPA) due to a simple genetic mutation that prevents sensory neurons to develop and survive, does not mean that those children are not human beings or human persons, does it?

The children's inability to feel pain for moral being is a reason for extra parental and caregiver attention and protection. However, in pro-abortion principle, every deficiency that could be used is hijacked and turned upside down against the prenatal human life for its self-serving cause. Instead of providing extra care and protection, they used it to justify for their killing.

Isn't that disgusting?

OK, ladies and gentlemen, I hereby present you the world's most famous tap dancing performance. Now, let the show begin.

Click to expand...


I'm with you. I think we should extend abortions out to 91 trimesters. That way when useless liberal children move back in to their parents' houses because they can't get a job, the parents can just off them. After all, pain response is no big deal, and they are just a collection of cells anyway. I certainly have no use for them...
 
dolphinocean said:
Ladies and gentlemen, the issue of pain is a logical fallacy. It's a red herring just like the issues of personhood, sentience, viability, birth, citizenship, etc.... Don't fall for the pro-abortion ruse and be misled in a wild goose chase that leads you far away from the actual and the only relevant issue of what a human prenatal life is.

If it's not a human being, who cares what pro-abortion crowd want to do to it. We don't protest at the liposuction clinics or cancer treatment wards, do we?
Click to expand...

The unborn is human, it has human DNA. It is not yet a human being, it has not yet developed the characteristics that will make it a human being.

Being a human is a scientific fact. But science does not apply value. Science is objective, 'value' is subjective.

People apply value, it's subjective judgement and in the US we use the Constitution and rights to inform our decisions on the value accorded to humans. All born people are equal, the unborn are not equal to people and do not have any recognized rights. These rights are also a man-made concept and we use our laws to protect and enforce them.

Here is the law:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Click to expand...
 
tech30528 said:
I'm with you. I think we should extend abortions out to 91 trimesters. That way when useless liberal children move back in to their parents' houses because they can't get a job, the parents can just off them. After all, pain response is no big deal, and they are just a collection of cells anyway. I certainly have no use for them...
Click to expand...

Gosh, you made me want to breakout my kleenex.

You apparently take comfort in subscribing to myths and emotionalize. Nothing you've posted has anything to do with the topic or reality.

Oh, and your partisanship is showing big time. For any person with an ounce of logic knows this isn't a liberal OR CONSERVATIVE issue. It is, however, about the reality that women aren't anymore morally or legally obligated to reproduce than men are.

Also, this isn't a penises running the shots (no pun intended) and uteruses must submit to the penises and government, which are mostly comprised of penises.
 
Lursa said:
The unborn is human, it has human DNA. It is not yet a human being, it has not yet developed the characteristics that will make it a human being.

Being a human is a scientific fact. But science does not apply value. Science is objective, 'value' is subjective.

People apply value, it's subjective judgement and in the US we use the Constitution and rights to inform our decisions on the value accorded to humans. All born people are equal, the unborn are not equal to people and do not have any recognized rights. These rights are also a man-made concept and we use our laws to protect and enforce them.

Here is the law:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
Click to expand...

There is also a law that makes possession of marijuana illegal. That one is ignored out of convenience. We have immigration law. Those have been put on hold at the whim of an executive. A legal definition does not change wrong to right. It just creates an escape route for the morally reprehensive so they do not have to hold themselves accountable.
 
tech30528 said:
I'm with you. I think we should extend abortions out to 91 trimesters. That way when useless liberal children move back in to their parents' houses because they can't get a job, the parents can just off them. After all, pain response is no big deal, and they are just a collection of cells anyway. I certainly have no use for them...
Click to expand...

Thank god you have no say in policy.
 
tech30528 said:
There is also a law that makes possession of marijuana illegal. That one is ignored out of convenience. We have immigration law. Those have been put on hold at the whim of an executive. A legal definition does not change wrong to right. It just creates an escape route for the morally reprehensive so they do not have to hold themselves accountable.
Click to expand...

Great, I agree, all laws are not 'right.' (This is my opinion)

Please provide some reasons that might compell the courts to reconsider recognizing rights for the unborn and recognizing them as equal to born persons. Also remember that they are tasked with protecting the Constitutional and civil rights of born people as well and cannot forego that responsibiiity.
 
Lursa said:
Great, I agree, all laws are not 'right.' (This is my opinion)

Please provide some reasons that might compell the courts to reconsider recognizing rights for the unborn and recognizing them as equal to born persons. Also remember that they are tasked with protecting the Constitutional and civil rights of born people as well and cannot forego that responsibiiity.
Click to expand...

That battle is lost in the courts. They are more concerned with power than moral relevance, playing to voters rather than any sense of right and wrong.
 
Lursa said:
The unborn is human, it has human DNA. It is not yet a human being, it has not yet developed the characteristics that will make it a human being.

Being a human is a scientific fact. But science does not apply value. Science is objective, 'value' is subjective.

People apply value, it's subjective judgement and in the US we use the Constitution and rights to inform our decisions on the value accorded to humans. All born people are equal, the unborn are not equal to people and do not have any recognized rights. These rights are also a man-made concept and we use our laws to protect and enforce them.

Here is the law:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
Click to expand...
If a human prenatal life has not yet developed the characteristics that will make it a human being, mind telling me what characteristics unequivocally and scientifically will make it a human being. Where's your scientific source from relevant scientific disciplines?

Law is man-made. It's not a measure of objective truth. Like your tap dancing though.
 
Lursa said:
This is an interesting question, because I can only see it being held in ignorance if someone uses this excuse for objecting to abortion. Ignorance of the medical science and/or the abortion issue itself. The information is readily available if anyone is really interested and open minded enough to look for unbiased sources.





And there are plenty of links to medical journals or the medical texts themselves that are clear on the development of human nervous systems and pain in the unborn.
Click to expand...
I see you didn't read my OP. I've already explained to you about the pro-abortion fallacy of pain and you think you still have a logical argument?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Actually, it's perfectly legal to kill a human being who is harming or using your body without your consent, if that is necessary to end the assault immediately.

So if a ZEF is supposedly a person, explain to me how taking over the woman's body, disabling her immune system, depleting her bones, and causing her almost a year of pain, discomfort, and disability at the risk of death doesn't qualify.
Click to expand...
The way you describe it, no women should be getting pregnant, ever. I'm surprised all the hospitals in the world aren't overwhelmed with very sick and dying pregnant women left and right. I'm also wondering how did the world population just exploded with about half the population so sick and dying at some point in their teens or young adulthood?

If abortion inclined women think pregnancy is so bad, why don't they just practice lifetime abstinence like nuns. But, better yet, go for a female castration known as bilateral oophorectomies.
 
dolphinocean said:
Ladies and gentlemen, the issue of pain is a logical fallacy...
Click to expand...
For the ignorant and uneducated, the again your entire rant is just that.
How about a real answer to a real question? Why is fetal life significant?
 
dolphinocean said:
The way you describe it, no women should be getting pregnant, ever. I'm surprised all the hospitals in the world aren't overwhelmed with very sick and dying pregnant women left and right. I'm also wondering how did the world population just exploded with about half the population so sick and dying at some point in their teens or young adulthood?

If abortion inclined women think pregnancy is so bad, why don't they just practice lifetime abstinence like nuns. But, better yet, go for a female castration known as bilateral oophorectomies.
Click to expand...

Not at all. People do stuff that hurts all the time, for all kinds of good reasons. Sports, surgery, etc. Hell, even sex sometimes. But when done without consent, we call those things torture, rape, and slavery.

Even textbook pregnancies deplete women, and cause both discomfort and injury. Nothing, person or not, has any right to force someone to do that. You declaring it a person, while it is absurd, does nothing to change that fact. People aren't allowed to do that either.
 
prometeus said:
For the ignorant and uneducated, the again your entire rant is just that.
How about a real answer to a real question? Why is fetal life significant?
Click to expand...
Simple, because it's a human being. Now, why do you think a fetal life is not significant? Are you allowed to kill a fetus halfway out the birth canal or prior to detachment from the mother's uterus?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Not at all. People do stuff that hurts all the time, for all kinds of good reasons. Sports, surgery, etc. Hell, even sex sometimes. But when done without consent, we call those things torture, rape, and slavery.

Even textbook pregnancies deplete women, and cause both discomfort and injury. Nothing, person or not, has any right to force someone to do that. You declaring it a person, while it is absurd, does nothing to change that fact. People aren't allowed to do that either.
Click to expand...
Nobody put a gun to the head of abortive women to force them to get pregnant. Yes, people do stuff that hurts all the time, for all kinds of good reasons but they cannot dismember another human being, while still alive and kicking, for their convenience.
 
dolphinocean said:
Nobody put a gun to the head of abortive women to force them to get pregnant. Yes, people do stuff that hurts all the time, for all kinds of good reasons but they cannot dismember another human being, while still alive and kicking, for their convenience.
Click to expand...

No one put a gun to your head and made you get in a car, knowing there are drunks on the road. So if you get hit by one, I suppose you expect paramedics to ignore you?

You don't get to control women's bodies or force them to be harmed. Get over it.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No one put a gun to your head and made you get in a car, knowing there are drunks on the road. So if you get hit by one, I suppose you expect paramedics to ignore you?

You don't get to control women's bodies or force them to be harmed. Get over it.
Click to expand...
False analogy. Correct analogy would be if I got into a car and hit by a drunk driver, I cannot go get a gun and start shooting innocent people on the street.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No one put a gun to your head and made you get in a car, knowing there are drunks on the road. So if you get hit by one, I suppose you expect paramedics to ignore you?

You don't get to control women's bodies or force them to be harmed. Get over it.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are in any danger of getting pregnant if you are the same person IRL.
 
dolphinocean said:
Simple, because it's a human being.
Click to expand...
I was hoping for something more than a simple minded answer.

Now, why do you think a fetal life is not significant?
Click to expand...
I can not find anything that would make it so beyond the wishes of the woman making that life possible.

Are you allowed to kill a fetus halfway out the birth canal or prior to detachment from the mother's uterus?
Click to expand...
Stupid questions make very poor arguments.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Actually, it's perfectly legal to kill a human being who is harming or using your body without your consent, if that is necessary to end the assault immediately.

So if a ZEF is supposedly a person, explain to me how taking over the woman's body, disabling her immune system, depleting her bones, and causing her almost a year of pain, discomfort, and disability at the risk of death doesn't qualify.
Click to expand...

That is the absolute lamest rationalization for abortion I have ever heard. Wow.

Why can't libs just admit they don't give a rat's ass about human life, and embrace the slaughter. All this tap dancing only makes you look ridiculous. :roll:
 
tech30528 said:
I don't think you are in any danger of getting pregnant if you are the same person IRL.
Click to expand...

Oooh, clever. :roll:

There are plenty of men who don't go mental over the fact that they can't control women. I know it makes you look bad to admit so, but it's true. I do just fine, and unlike some of the people here, I don't need to prey on the weak to do it. Disgusting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom