Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion

Quote:
That’s your imagination.

You equated an embryo to being the same thing as a child, thus you equate 'aborting' a child to aborting a fetus. Not my imagination, maybe you should reconsider your wording to remove confusion or stand by your statements for what they are and stop lying, your choice.

Quote:
So what? Show me a fully developed human fetus that is not a human, and I’ll reword my post. It is a fact that a human fetus develops into a human child, not a chicken or a cow.

Soon as you prove that potential is the same as actual, and prove how aborting the potentiallity of birth is the same as aborting the potentiallity of a child growing into an adult.

Quote:
Unless, like rue, you define people with physical abnormalities as not being human, but that is a compassionless opinion that I doubt many people will be willing to accept.

That's your imagination.

Nice spin though, people who disagree with finn are Nazis, nice one, well played.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 11:43 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just re-posting here so Finn doesn't miss it:
Finn,

No I don't believe a simple deformity makes a fetus a non-person. But somewhere between a cleft palate and a mass of poorly differentiated tissues there is a dividing line between a child and a non-child.

I propose normal brain activity as the line.

The other problem I have with your posts is that they confuse potential with actuality:
"There is no more question about whether a human fetus will potentially develop into a human child ..."
AND set a far more demanding standard for 'human' than I do:
"Show me a fully developed human fetus that is not a human ..."

In fact, by your wording, you set a much more demanding standard than I do. You require them to be "fully developed". I only require brain activity.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You equated an embryo to being the same thing as a child, thus you equate 'aborting' a child to aborting a fetus. Not my imagination, maybe you should reconsider your wording to remove confusion or stand by your statements for what they are and stop lying, your choice. .

My wording is fine. Yours, however, is questionable. Once again with the strawman arguments and accusation of “lying,” since you can’t really argue maturely. Nonetheless, you have no interest in anything I have to say, and I have no interest in listening to you spout off.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 11:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So, I'll wait about 15 more minutes for an answer. I've got better things to do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 11:57 AM

Because anything I said is as bad as acusing Rue of believing people with disabillities aren't human. I guess thats mature debate for the likes of you.

I never said you were lying, I said that obviously your wording was misleading, otherwise I wouldn't have been mislead by it. I said it would be lying to continue to say "it's not misleading", since it obviously is, even to the most slow witted.

You lost any credibillity when you accused people who disagree with you of being Nazis. You have no interest in debate mature or otherwise, and you are certainly incapable of it, and I have no interest in hearing your accusations of nazism.

I'd ask you if you still beat your wife, but I know your proud of it. (note: Finn could be proud of not beating his wife, but I decided to dabble in some of finn's wording, changes things doesn't it).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No I don't believe a simple deformity makes a fetus a non-person. But somewhere between a cleft palate and a mass of poorly differentiated tissues there is a dividing line between a child and a non-child.

Maybe, but you’ve dropped the word “human.” So I don’t know that you are arguing the same thing anymore.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The other problem I have with your posts is that they confuse potential with actuality:
"There is no more question about whether a human fetus will potentially develop into a human child ..."

I’m not confusing the two. I’m talking about potentiality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Let me reword it so you know I'm talking about the same thing. That way we can discuss issues rather than nitpick.

No I don't believe a simple deformity makes a fetus a non-HUMAN. But somewhere between a cleft palate and a mass of poorly differentiated tissues there is a dividing line between a child and a non-child.

"I’m not confusing the two. I’m talking about potentiality." And by your own construction you categorize a fetus as not a child YET. If it were a child already there would be no potential. It would be a fait accompli. Since it isn't a child yet, it is only a hypothetical - potential - child at present.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:11 PM

Oddly, potential was the word I used.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HUH ???

I KNOW potential was the word you used.

And it indicated to me that in your view, a fetus is not a human YET. There is the 'possibility' it will get there, the 'potential', but not the actuality. You then argue that a fetus is a child. You can't have it both ways. Either it might potentially become one or it is one already.

Which is it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:20 PM

Careful Rue, Finn might show how mature he is and call you a Nazi again

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:22 PM

I don’t think I argued that a fetus is a child. I think I argued that it is a fetus. And they are both human.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:23 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't think it's that people do not consider the unborn life as significant. It's more that they assign an equal or greater importance to the effects of pregnancy and birth on the mother who is essentially the host to this unborn life, which comes with pain and discomfort and risks to physical well-being even under the best of circumstances (i.e. a wanted, uncomplicated pregnancy).

This is a common argument, but I don’t know that it is a particularly strong one. Essentially the argument boils down to responsibility. Yes, it is true that an unexpected pregnancy can result in considerable changes in a woman’s and often a man’s life, and sometimes these changes are not positive ones, but perhaps often these individuals shouldn’t have been having unprotected sex (or sex at all) if they weren’t prepared for this eventuality? Basically, this argument implies that we are pushing the parent’s responsibility off on to an unborn child.

Well, it really depends on your personal assignment of priority, doesn't it? I was just explaining that in my POV it's a matter of importance being assigned in a relative manner, not an absolute manner, for pro-choice people.

Not "the life of the fetus is unimportant" but "the concerns of the mother are more important".

Women can't walk away. They become human hosts for 9 months and take another 9 months until their bodies are about back to normal after giving birth (which is, by the way, very painful). That's a pretty darn big thing, not even counting the actual baby.

To me, that's something - no matter how she got pregnant - a woman should be allowed to choose when it happens. Or choose not to do.

People are going to have sex, it's a fact. It's a human urge that has never been possible to repress in the entirety of history. You will never be able to tell people to stop having sex, even when they aren't ready to have children. It's sad but true.

No, the fetus did not ask to be conceived, but life isn't fair when you depend on the physical body of another person to survive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That actually hadn't occurred to me. Well, I guess I'll just pound him on the head with his requirement that the fetus be "fully developed" to be human ....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:28 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Not today. The science of Roe is from case studies from the '60s and '70s. Viability now is much different, certainly more then a week, and depending on the access to medical care, it could be more then a month. If viability is the standard the Court used to decide Roe, its a changing standard and also subjective since a wealthy person's fetus has a different viability then a poverty stricken one if for no other reason then access to proper medical care. Roe needs revision to reflect this reality or its meaningless.

H

But what about all the abortions performs between the 7th and 10th week, which are the majority. Can a fetus actually survive outside the mother at that stage? Without functioning lungs?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:31 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

You said: "I don’t think I argued that a fetus is a child. I think I argued that it is a fetus. And they are both human."
You also said: "Show me a fully developed human fetus that is not a human ..."

You require it to be fully developed to be human, whether a fetus or a child.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:35 PM

Then logically expanding that, surely Finn's answer to "What's the difference between a Zygot and a tissue culture" Would be nothing, and that the tissue culture is a distinct human?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
People are going to have sex, it's a fact. It's a human urge that has never been possible to repress in the entirety of history. You will never be able to tell people to stop having sex, even when they aren't ready to have children. It's sad but true.

Some people are going to take illicit drugs too. That doesn’t really make it okay does it? Irresponsible behavior is irresponsible, whether people are going to do it or not. I don’t think we should whitewash it.

But you’re right, it does have to do with priorities, or the importance that someone places on a human fetus. That's the reason why some people want to dismiss the human nature of a human fetus. That was sort of my point in my original post, the cavalier nature with which we regard abortion. Maybe we should put more importance on the human fetus and more importance on responsible behavior, and then women could still seek their dreams without the millions of abortions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Or maybe the other way around. A zygote is a tissue culture.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Or maybe the other way around. A zygote is a tissue culture.

No because that would be denying the Human nature of the child. Like denying a sperm is a potential human, so don't let your seed spill on the ground guys, that's murder.

Every sperm is sacred, and to say otherwise is merely a rehtorical attempt to deny the Human nature of these potential humans and to support irresponcible behaviour.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You require it to be fully developed to be human, whether a fetus or a child.

It’s human whether it is fully developed or not. Fully developed it becomes a human adult. Somewhere in between, it is a human child.

Essentially, you can't show me a human fetus that, upon reaching its final complete stage of development, is not a human adult. Certainly, there are some fetuses that won’t make it that far, but all those that do will be a human adult. That's really pretty widely accepted, not hard stuff. Very few people, if any, actually believe that a human fetus will be something other then a human adult upon reaching final stage of development, and as far as I know on one can show otherwise. But if you can I’m all ears, but aside from that, I don’t think this line of discussion is going anywhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That makes every woman who ovulates without getting pregnant a murderess. Of course, not on the scale of a guy who, uhh, uhhmm, dances with himself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:54 PM

I guess that depends on what is meant by murder and whether a human egg qualifies as human. Some would agree with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:54 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
In all fairness, and I am saying this as a pro-choice person, it's wrong not to consider a fetus "human".

IMHO it has the potential to BECOME human. But just having the "potential" - a set of cells that are not fully differentiated- does not make it a human. Let me give you an example. As I understand it the dividing cells are "capable" of becoming both a fetus AND the placenta. Normally, they do both. But what happens when only a placenta develops? Is that "human"? What happens when a fetus develops w/o any recognizable features? Or w/o a head or a brain? Or, looking at the genetic aspect (as opposed to developmental aspects) what happens with trisomy, or other serious genetic errors?

I don't see a bright line between "human" and "not human". What I see is a spectrum.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:57 PM

Precisely, because they're denying the Human nature of the egg and preventing it from reaching adulthood. It's a potential human, therefore it IS human.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:59 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Show me a fully developed human fetus that is not a human ..." If to be fully developed means to be human, what about the other half of the logic?
.
.
.
.
.
I actually understand what you're trying to say. The problem is you have to skate around your assumptions and incomplete logic every time you get near the topic. I'm just trying to point those out. Because once you address issues, your illusions fall apart.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 1:07 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Finn, I'd like a clarification on which is the irresponsible activity: having sex for pleasure or having sex without contraception?

* edited to add: I should probably include the relevant exchange.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
People are going to have sex, it's a fact. It's a human urge that has never been possible to repress in the entirety of history. You will never be able to tell people to stop having sex, even when they aren't ready to have children. It's sad but true.

Some people are going to take illicit drugs too. That doesn’t really make it okay does it? Irresponsible behavior is irresponsible, whether people are going to do it or not. I don’t think we should whitewash it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Finn, I'd like a clarification on which is the irresponsible activity: having sex for pleasure or having sex without contraception?

Well, obviously having sex for pleasure is a sin, and you fornicating pleasure having heathens are all going to burn in hell!!!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 1:19 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well, obviously having sex for pleasure is a sin, and you fornicating pleasure having heathens are all going to burn in hell!!!!!!

Okay, I'm assuming that was tongue in cheek. The reason why I asked is because there is an easy remedy if you consider having sex without using contraception to be irresponsible behavior. That remedy is to make sure that every American is educated in effective methods of birth control starting around the onset of adolescence and that every American has access to the most effective methods of birth control no matter their socio-economic position. Unfortunately, millions of Americans are not taught about birth control. And access to some of the most effective methods of birth control is limited in many regions of the country.

If you want to decrease the number of abortions, teach science based sex education. Similarly with access to birth control.

Unfortunately, there are far too many Americans who are more concerned that some people are having sex for pleasure and not paying the damn price of getting pregnant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 1:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I shoulda just not posted. That's what happens in the intervening hours between "type" and "post".

So let me add a "potentially" (ahem!) more relevant comments:

Just because all humans were fetuses doesn't mean all fetuses are human. It'a a logical fallacy.

Another comment- Finn, you'll defend to the death (so to speak) the rights of a fetus, and yet you've said that killing innocent civilians is a justifiable part of war. It seems to me that you are not so much "pro-life" as simply not willing to give up YOUR concepts and GOVERNMENT (and maybe even corporate) life and death perogatives.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 1:28 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I wonder if Finn has gone off? End of discussion, and so on.

"Just because all humans were fetuses doesn't mean all fetuses are human. It'a a logical fallacy." THANK YOU.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Unfortunately, there are far too many Americans who are more concerned that some people are having sex for pleasure and not paying the damn price of getting pregnant.

I don’t necessarily disagree, although I do have a problem with such “education” being used to promote sexual promiscuity. I think that abstinence needs to be stressed, in sex education, to adolescence. I don’t really think that 12 year olds need to be having sex for pleasure or any other reason.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Another comment- Finn, you'll defend to the death (so to speak) the rights of a fetus, and yet you've said that killing innocent civilians is a justifiable part of war. It seems to me that you are not so much "pro-life" as simply not willing to give up YOUR concepts and GOVERNMENT (and maybe even corporate) life and death perogatives.

I’ve also said that abortion is not without justification too. Nice try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 1:56 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You're really not going to discuss your faulty argument anymore? Shall I conclude I won?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 1:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FINN: I'm retierating my first question > Do you think because all humans were fetsuses that makes all fetsuses human?

Quote:
Another comment- Finn, you'll defend to the death (so to speak) the rights of a fetus, and yet you've said that killing innocent civilians is a justifiable part of war. It seems to me that you are not so much "pro-life" as simply not willing to give up YOUR concepts and GOVERNMENT (and maybe even corporate) life and death perogatives.-SignyM

I’ve also said that abortion is not without justification too. Nice try.- Finn

Then please bear with me a repeat what YOU think the justifications are for abortion.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 1:59 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Unfortunately, there are far too many Americans who are more concerned that some people are having sex for pleasure and not paying the damn price of getting pregnant.
I don’t necessarily disagree, although I do have a problem with such “education” being used to promote sexual promiscuity. I think that abstinence needs to be stressed, in sex education, to adolescence. I don’t really think that 12 year olds need to be having sex for pleasure or any other reason.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you that stressing abstinance in sex education classes is a good thing. The disagreement is when teaching abstinance is the only thing. Abstinance only education is a failure. The pregnancy rates actually go up. The leap I see you making, that I wouldn't make, is assuming that 12 year olds are not going to think about sex unless they are taught about contraception.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 2:14 PM

CHRISMOORHEAD

I hate to post without reading anything, but the entire argument of abortion/anti-abortion always comes down to one basic difference of opinion. On that note, it helps to state it outright, instead of trying to sort through other, less pertinent opinions, beliefs and bias.

Where does human life begin?

The very fact that some people believe it is at conception, and others at a certain trimester, makes it impossible for a resolution to be reached on this issue.

What "Pro-Choice"ers often lack in understanding is that the opposite side see's a conceived baby as much a human as a newborn child. Trying to argue with them about that makes absolutely no sense, because it's not an "opinion", it's a belief. They define life differently, so to them it's like being asked to look the other way while murder's happening. You can't expect them to do that.

Conversely, what "Pro-Life"ers often lack in understanding is that the opposite side simply does not consider an impregnated egg life. Asking them to "feel" for an insentient, microscopic piece of biology just doesn't make any sense in their mind. And when you put it like that, why should it?

To reach an end on this issue, both sides have to agree one what does or does not define life. That's never going to happen, and this issue is never going to end. It is conflict, and it is what perpetuates our existence. What you all need to do is decide exactly how far you're willing to go to enforce and/or defend your side of it.

[IMG]

Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkiries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 2:18 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

A woman has ultimate rights to her own body.

As for all the nay-sayers. Put your money where your mouth is and support all the unwanted children you think should be born.

There are too many children without homes and too many children living in substandard homes. We don't need to add to the misery.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You're really not going to discuss your faulty argument anymore? Shall I conclude I won?

Is there some condition under which you would conclude otherwise? Really all you’ve done is to define my argument to be illogical, because you can’t think of an answer to it. But “fully developed” doesn’t have to mean a human adult, it just always will in the case of a human fetus. It’s not me that defined that, its nature. If you can show me an example of a human fetus becoming something other then human when it is fully developed and complete, then you’ve won. Good luck.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The leap I see you making, that I wouldn't make, is assuming that 12 year olds are not going to think about sex unless they are taught about contraception.

I’m not trying to make that leap. I’m not sure that I did, but if it came across that way, it wasn’t intended. There are always going to be a certain percentage of adolescent children who will get involved in sex and they will need to know and understand how to use conception to avoid doing anymore damage to their lives, because that alone can be enough to have a serious negative impact on their future. I’m not an expert in this area, but in my experience if contraception is where we are starting in our sex education, we’ve already lost. So abstinence should be the first and most heavily stressed thing that is taught in sex education, in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
FINN: I'm retierating my first question > Do you think because all humans were fetsuses that makes all fetsuses human?

All human fetuses are human. Goat fetuses are not.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Then please bear with me a repeat what YOU think the justifications are for abortion.

I think all medically necessary abortions are always justified. That is when a doctor rules that such an abortion is necessary for the health of the mother.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 2:24 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The very fact that some people believe it is at conception, and others at a certain trimester, makes it impossible for a resolution to be reached on this issue."

I believe resolution will happen. Just as end-of-human-life questions were resolved after extensive and prolonged debate (necessitated by life support technology), so beginning-of-human-life questions will also be resolved.

However, I disagree that all anti-choice people are motivated by the 'sanctity of life'. These are often the same people who make exceptions based on economics (social Darwinsism), war (killing is good), and the death penalty (in the name of 'justice').

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
As for all the nay-sayers. Put your money where your mouth is and support all the unwanted children you think should be born.

I agree, responsible adults should seriously consider adoption. People seem to view adoption as a “last resort,” but it would be nice if people would be more willing to consider it along with natural birth or maybe even instead. On the other hand, adoption can be very expensive. Sex often is not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 2:30 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What are you babbling about? When you say 'fully developed fetus' you are still talking about a fetus. You say a fully developed human fetus is human. What shall I conclude about a fetus that is not fully developed?

As I said, I understand the point you're TRYING to make. But your argument is circular, and logically incomplete. I'm asking you to address your faulty logic.

(The circular argument - the fetus is human b/c it results in a human adult; which is human b/c it comes from a human fetus.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As I said, I understand the point you're TRYING to make. But your argument is circular, and logically incomplete. I'm asking you to address your faulty logic.

You don’t seem to have anything to say about what I’m “TRYING” to say, and what you’re asking is sophistic. You’re just nitpicking the way I’m saying it. I don’t really see where this going. But if you can see what I'm trying to say then that is at least something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 2:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I addressed what you're TRYING to say - and I said it was circular. (supra)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 2:59 PM

CHRISMOORHEAD

I dont' see any resolution on the end-of-human-life thing. Just because a court has reached a decision on it doesn't mean it's resolved.

Although, if that's your deffinition, then abortion's already been resolved as well. I don't neccisarily think that this is a bad thing: Just not an actual "resolution". If people could be pacified by government decision, it'd be a great place to end.

The pro-life (or anti-choice as you called them) may seem hypocritical to you, but to them it makes perfect sense. By the examples you gave, they could say that a life, once it's conceived, should be given the oppertunity to survive, and that if it is extinguished by war, death penalty, or economics, it was at least granted the oppertunity. I'm sure that you'd agree that a child deserve the oppertunities to survive, so the debate, again, resorts to where the life begins, not if/when it is extinguished.

[IMG]

Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkiries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 3:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Even most anti-choice people agree on the 'end-of-life' definition as brain death. The Schiavo argument centered around how much brain activity and function remained. Her parents said - look, she tracked a balloon once, and she seems to look at us at times, and a few times she might have smiled. They weren't arguing whether end of life happens at end of brain function. They were arguing (incorrectly) that she had enough brain function left to be considered alive. But they made the same equation: brain activity = life.

(A few people do argue that even though a person has lost all brain function they deserve to be treated AS IF they could recover. That it is a duty of human charity to do that.)

"they could say that a life, once it's conceived, should be given the oppertunity to survive, and that if it is extinguished by war, death penalty, or economics, it was at least granted the oppertunity."
I hope you realize this makes no sense. It is completely captured by this remark: LIFE IS SACRED -- UNTIL IT'S BORN. In other words, your comment is that war, economics and the death penalty are allowed to kill humans AFTER birth, but those same factors are not allowed to kill humans BEFORE birth. Doesn't that seem rather arbitrary and self-deluding to you? It does to me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 3:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just an FYI in the birth-control debate.

The problem with making sex a MORAL issue is that it leads kids to have sex while being in denial about what they're doing. In other words, since having sex is "bad" it then becomes UNPLANNED, because nobody is going to PLAN on doing something "bad". Right?

The other thing is, you have to look at the reasons why girls and women become pregnant (aside from being in denial about having sex) and it does vary with different ages. Most younger girls (less than 15 y/o) become pregnant because they're involved with a MUCH older man... 25 y/o, or older. Most older men have sex with very young girls because their egos are too weak for anything else. The relationship is exploitative.(This goes back to the Foley issue and makes me wonder why he would have sex with a sub-adult.)

While "education about" and "accessibility of" birth control are necessary to reduce the number of abortions, it may not be sufficient.

Also, ANY birth control method, even if practiced unfailingly, has a failure rate.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 4:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

dbl, somehow

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 4:01 PM

CHRISMOORHEAD

My point is not that it makes any sense in general, just that there are people who beleive it. Saying "This one philosophy of yours contridicts another" isn't going to get the other guy to change his mind, especially if he's ideologically driven. More than likely it's just going to piss him off.

I'm not supporting either side here. Like I said before, this issue comes down to how far either side is willing to take their beleifs about it. Personally, I don't see the reason to take my beleifs on it outside my own, dented little head. The only opinion I have is that you are never going to convince the other side that they're wrong, just as they're not going to convince you that you're wrong.

[IMG]

Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkiries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 4:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FINN

Quote:
If you can show me an example of a human fetus becoming something other then human when it is fully developed and complete, then you’ve won.

Yes, I can show you fetuses that become somethng other than human when fully developed. The fetuses that become fully developed placentas, for example. They ARE "fully developed". They're not about to go any farther. They just didn't develop into a human. So, I win!

Quote:
All human fetuses are human

Circular logic, which begs the question: What is human? You reduce it to: A human is human. My head hurts from that one! Doesn't yours?

Also, to extend your example of medically necessary abortions being acceptable... does this mean that war are acceptable only if they save more lives than they kill?

BTW- How do you feel about the death penalty?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 4:23 PM