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

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As Rue has already shown even after fertilisation and barring any other intervention the fertilised egg may not produce a viable pregnancy. And as I've already said Human pregnancy is actually the most dangerous of the entire animal kingdom, and less likely to produce a living offspring, what I mean is that an egg is only a potential human, but so is an Embryo.

An egg is not a potential human anymore than a bug is potential chicken food. Only if very certain factors are met, are actively brought together, chance willing, do one egg and one of MANY sperm cells combine and do the whole fertilization thing.

Egg and sperm by themselves mean nothing. Their job is to provide the option. Fertilization is that option realized because it puts the combination of egg and sperm on a vastly different path than the majority of all eggs and sperm cells, who do nothing but die.

The fact that an enbryo is capable of being rejected by the woman's body and dying at a very early stage in human life doesn't put it in the same category as egg and sperm.

Quote:
The biggest linchpin in the Argument so far has been "it could be Human therefore it is Human",

I disagree. The argument is "It is human, therefor it is human". One stage in human life. After two sparate parts of two separate people have combined into one unified, growing mass of cells with a separate genetic identity, that grows and develops until it dies, at whichever stage that occurs.

Quote:
how is saying "an egg could be Human therefore it is Human" any different?

Because the egg is just a PART of a human being, without a separate genetic identity, which - without interference - does nothing but die?

Quote:
If Finn can insinuate that someone is a baby killer because they abort some cells that may be a Human (which apparently means they are a Human) how is saying prevention of fertilisation is murder any different?

Oh, come ON. In the same way that not building a house isn't the same as burning down a house? The difference between abstract and concrete, hypopthetical and factual, possible and actual?

You're smarter than this.

Quote:
Lets assume that we know 100% that the Embryo will develop into a child, so we say aborting it is murder.

Why would we? I don't consider it murder anymore than I consider it murder not to donate a kidney to a person who needs a transplant. It's a choice the mother is entitled to make, because the embryo/fetus makes demands on her physical body.

Quote:
Lets also assume that we know, for certain that during sex these Sperm will Fertilise that egg and will produce an embryo that will produce a child. Why can't I say that preventing fertilisation is also murder based on the same reasoning?

a) It's not murder.
b) You say that the fertilized egg is a "may be", I say it's an "is". But without fertilization it "is not", so... really, to me there is a marked difference between "is" and "is not" and for you it's two "maybes", which is really the actual disagreement between us.

Quote:
How is a Condom natural? How?

It's not natural..? It's an artificial barrier to decrease the likelihood of egg and sperm meeting during intercourse. To make it so that it's as if the man orgasms outside the vagina, as if they're not having sexual intercourse at all. As if they're masturbating, if you will, judging by where the sperms ends up. Who procaimed that it's "natural"? It's a convenient invention to prevent fertilization.

Quote:
What about the morning after pill? That is to all intents and purposes an abortion that can be used within three days. How's that not murder if abortion is?

Many anti-abortion people are actually calling it murder, but I fail to see why you are asking ME that, who I don't consider abortion wrong.

Quote:
But on to the last part, no one has demonstrated that an Embryo IS Human, they've shown that it may potentially possibly be Human one day, but no one has made any case whatsoever that it IS. To go with an analogy, is Rubber bought by Dunlop a tyre? That's why I don't recognise a few cells as a distinct Human being, because they aren't, they maybe later on, but that doesn't mean they ARE, not as Finn would have us believe, because I'm a Baby murderer who wants to kill babies with a clean conscience.

No one's calling it a person, but it's undeniably a stage in human life, more than it is anything else. It can die before it reaches further stages and it can contain genetic complications that change its form, but it cannot ever develop along any other line than that of a human being. It's human and - unlike liver, lung or epidermis - it's a separate genetic identity from either of the donors whose egg and sperm formed it.
Even if you call it a blob of cells - which describes its shape for the shortest time - it's a very particular blob of cells.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 5:09 AM

I’ve been in Washington lately, but here is my collection of responses:

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Finn,

Well, I'm a lot happier as a liberal than I was as a Limbaugh-listening ultra-conservative. So there's that .

It’s good to find your niche.

Yeah, I think the abstinence-plus thing sounds good. I’m not completely up to speed on it, but it sounds like exactly something that I suggested once or something similar to it.

However I’m not really as adamantly opposed to the abstinence-only programs as you are. I’m skeptical about them, because I think they are too optimistic, but I don’t think there is anything wrong-headed about them, in fact ideally, I think it is the preference; I just don’t know for sure that they will work.

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
But, if in your mind, a fetus is a human life and has a right to live, how does a (potential) mother's health concerns change this? Does any health concern trump the right to life? Must the mother's life be in grave danger or would the most pedestrian of concerns be sufficient? If your answer is grave danger, how grave? Is a 5% chance of certain death enough? How about 51%? Must it be above 90%? Finally, do you think there is a reasonable chance of reaching a consensus on this, even within the pro-life community?

I don’t see any reason to trade a mother’s life for her fetus, unless that is her will, but any percentage of the chance of the mother’s death would be meaningless. No one can make that kind of determination. It would come down to the medical opinion of the doctor, like any other medical issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
My point is that there is really only two positions on this issue. The "right to life" is either relative or it is absolute. You have an exception. It may be different than those of the explicitly pro-choice people, but it's still an exception. And just as the pro-choicer's exceptions are inadequate to you, your exception is inadequate to the people on your right.

Since I don’t have an absolute answer to give you, wouldn’t that make me pro-Choice in your set of definitions?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ummm... Because you seem to have an opnion about it and you put it out to a discussion board?

This is a discussion about abortion and related topics, not Finn’s compassion for human life, which is not in question, as far as I’m concerned.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Be it just a blob of cells - which would be great, in terms of dealing with that act - but it's a blob of cells that by high probability is just one stage in a direct line from zero to person.
Unlike a scrape of epidermis or a bunch of sperm or eggs.

You’re points are good ones, and they define the rift between what I consider a pro-choice argument and pro-abortion argument. It’s somewhat meaningless to claim that there is a “choice” to be made between saving or killing a “blob of cells.” And to believe that that is all that is at stake is either an attempt to objectify the fetus to make it easier to kill or it’s a fundamental misunderstanding. If it were true, there would be no dispute. No one gets up in arms over an appendectomy. If a fetus were no different then no one would be any more concerned, but an embryo or fetus are the first stages in human life, and that is where the choice lies, as you’ve pointed out. Some would argue that there is no choice to be had because the fetus has a right to run its natural course, but an argument that paints the fetus as unimportant is also fundamentally different from anything that could be called “pro-choice,” it is effectively a “pro-abortion” argument.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn,

Sorry about the earlier troll post. Fight the good fight. Logic dictates a solution here, but the left arguments don't hold up. I sometimes wonder if there's not a more insidious goal in the allowing fo blanket abortions, whether that goal is profit or depopulation, but in any event, it's wrong to kill, with the possible exclusion of self defense. Allowing "killing for convenience" in any walk of life will lead to disaster.

It seems like there is some external motivation, at least, in some cases. I’m not sure what it is either.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 6:23 AM

EVILBUNGLE

Just to give my two cents worth,

I have no problem with Abortion as I do not see that an embryo is fully self aware, it is that self awareness that leads to life. For me Decartes almost had it (I think therefore I am) but I would say "I understand therefore I am" Without the ability articulate abstract thought you are not an advanced concious being. A two year old child has more in common with an Ape than a fully grown human, it is the potential to become human that sets them apart not their ability themselves.

As stated earlier I have no problem with Abortion but this may be due to my lack of faith in churchs. (Note that's church not god) my personal belief is that it should be the choice of the Woman and Man involved and each should have a say (obviously this is not practical as the Man can not carry the baby) but a shared responsibility would always be the preference.

my final thought on the subject is that due to the overcrowding of our world and the spheres of society who have the greatest number of unwanted/teenage pregnancies, do we really want to discourage abortion? with my evil head on I would go as far as too say maybe we sgould encourage more

although I do not belive this as such, it is worth considering (assuming it is not considered by anyone who actually has power)

===============================================

Vote Day 1st December 2006 http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
Together we will triumph.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 7:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
ummm... Because you seem to have an opnion about it and you put it out to a discussion board?- Signy

This is a discussion about abortion and related topics, not Finn’s compassion for human life, which is not in question, as far as I’m concerned.- Finn

Well, if the compassion, ethics, and consistency of a pro-choice/ anti-capital punishment position can be questioned, then the compassion, ethics, and consistency of anti-abortion/ pro-war/ pro-capital punishment opinion also comes into question.

Of course, yours could just be the dodge of a person who is unwilling to question their own passionately held beliefs for fear that they might learn something.

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

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 9:17 AM

It seems the pro-lifers are pretty desperate to throw out accusations that the pro-choice side has some shadowy nefarious scheme up their sleeves based around 'murdering babies' for profit and depopulation of the Human race, I suppose to allow the Commie-Nazi-Socialists to take over the world more easilly. Perhaps it would be fair to make similar accusations?

Like suggesting that the pro-life movement is merely the tool of a mass paedophile network, one that want's abortions banned. After all an aborted fetus can't be pumped into a global sex slave network.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 9:40 AM

the quotable citizen

Quote:
the pro-choice side has some shadowy nefarious scheme up their sleeves

well said

Quote:
the pro-life movement is merely the tool of a mass paedophile network, one that want's abortions banned.

sure, it's possible, but there is no real logic backing this idea up. we could just be anti-death. I know it's a strange position. we're irrational that way. btw "wants" has no apostrophe (')

Quote:
EvilBungle
I have no problem with Abortion ... I would go as far as too say maybe we sgould encourage more

It's nice to know where evil stands on this issue.

btw "Should" has no 'g' in it.

:)

also, evil. I take the reverse position, I have some serious problems with God, as in Yhwh, but I have no problem with the church.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 9:51 AM

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

DT

"Killing, ending a life, by your own choice, of someone else, is wrong. It's wrong if you take a bag of kittens and hang it in a tree and shoot it full of holes ..."

Are you vegetarian? I'm just wondering how pro-life you are. (And if you are vegetarian and don't eat eggs - congrats! for walking the talk.)

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 9:58 AM

There's the same level of logic behind the pro-life side being a paedophile ring as there is behind the pro-choice side being a bunch of baby murdering Commie-Nazi-Alien-Socialist-Jews (come on, a conspiracy theory just ain't complete with out the international Jew).

It's strange for a side that's supposed to be anti-death the 'pro-life' supporters are so consistently pro-death, as long as the cannon fodder, sorry children, have already been born.

I guess they like the idea of Human life better than the life itself.

Good too see you're debate tactics have improved, purposefully taking a quote out of context and petty spelling correction, bravo. I'll be sure to use these against you in the future.

Anyway, what about that paedophilia thing within the Roman Catholic Church? Some of the strongest supporters of 'pro-life' I might add, we know where Dreamtrove stands:

Quote:
I have no problem with the church.

BTW, 'defense' is spelt defence and fo has an 'r' at the end.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 10:06 AM

Quote:
Signy
Well, if the compassion, ethics, and consistency of a pro-choice/ anti-capital punishment position can be questioned, then the compassion, ethics, and consistency of anti-abortion/ pro-war/ pro-capital punishment opinion also comes into question.

I clipped the moral attack, as perhaps you should have :) actually, on this, first, I have to say, I don't get the pro-choice "moral" argument. The left here has an argument of convenience, not a true moral position.

But you do have a point. People should be morally consistant. I said I'm anti-death penalty. I'm generally anti-war, but war is trickier. Being a peacenik opposed to war against the nazis is not a truly pro-life position. If someone is slaughtering people in Rwanda by the millions, blocking action against that in not a pro-life position.

I said earlier, that I have a "least death" position on war. I don't believe that starting a conflict in Iraq *now* has proven to be a "least death" version.

Saddam's govt. is said to have caused 25,000 to 40,000 deaths annually, outside of war. If you add the wars, those numbers go way up.

The war with Iran was started by Saddam and carries out by him, and stopped when he gave up, so can easily be said to be "his fault" in the same way that the current iraq bungle is "bush's fault" regardless of what other forces are at work) total casualties are accepted to fall around 1 million.

The Clinton campaign against Saddam took on the order of a million lives, then there's the gulf war and this new war. Total we're talking big numbers.
Ballpark:
Iran/Iraq 1000K
Kurd war 300K
Bush Sr. 50K
Clinton 1000K
Bush Jr. 650K

is 3 million over and above the day to day running of a police state. Saddam may not be directly responsible for some deaths in conflict with the US, but he shares some blame, and is directly responsible for invading Iran and Kuwait, which were his decisions. If someone robs a liquor store and kills the clerk, then you don't blame his land lord for asking for the rent, which caused the killers need for cash.

If we say everything will balance out in the end, and we can blame Saddam for half of those deaths, and various outside forces, Bush, Clinton, etc., for the other half, then we get Saddam = 1.5M dead/25 years.

This means 60K dead/year.

Taking the Bush Jr. war, that's been 650K/3yr, so 210K/yr, so worse than saddam, so it fails the least death rule.

But it *could* have been least death, if it had been done well. We've overthrown other tin pots with a few hundred casualties in places like Panama, so it *was* possible to do it with <60K dead/year.

Still, I think that in any pre-emptive war, you should have to prove that your methods will be least death, based on the real evidence, not on some wmd specter. One of the things globalists do is they stoke up the consequences to some pie in the sky, and that justifies any and all action. That's just a recipe for disaster.

A subtle subdued version of Iraq could probably have succeeded. I'm not at all convinced that the "more boots" version would have been an improvement. the "steal" version might have worked, or the "slow and steady" plan, which was the administrations first plan, before they failed to get Turkey on their side, by not paying the $15M bribe the Turks asked for.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 10:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT, if you are anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and "least death" about war then you are at least consistent. However, I often find people who are anti-abortion to be pro-war and pro-death penalty, which indicates factured logic.

They reconcile the inconsistency by using terms like "innocent" and "deliberate murder", but wind up the same same quagmire as parsing "human": How innocent is "innocent"? How deliberate is "deliberate"?

What you and Finn have in common, however, is that you are idealists. And I don't mean in the sense of being starry-eyed do-gooders, I mean that your view of the world is determined by your IDEAS of the world. You KNOW what "human" is. In your mind, you have a notion that human is, well... human. It's not in the genes, appearance, self-awareness, stage of development or brain activity, it's an IDEA that you imbue to the fertilized egg.

Interestingly, I find that people who are idealists tend to really gravitate towards the fetus because, being more "potential" than actual it is the MOST ideal human of all. It has yet to demonstrate all of the limitations and needs and foibles of an actual, living, breathing human being (who is always something of a disappointemnt compared to the IDEA of a human being).

It was Finn, I think, that led me to realize this. In some of our earlier discussions I tried reconcile how someone could be so passionate about defending a fetus and at the same time callous about doing away with walking and talking people. And doing the regression... where does the thinking change? ... it became clear that the less "real" the being, the more it can carry our hopes, dreams, ideas and ideals. Once it's a squalling, pooping, red-faced baby it's on the downhill slide towards being a problem.

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

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, if the compassion, ethics, and consistency of a pro-choice/ anti-capital punishment position can be questioned, then the compassion, ethics, and consistency of anti-abortion/ pro-war/ pro-capital punishment opinion also comes into question.

Of course, yours could just be the dodge of a person who is unwilling to question their own passionately held beliefs for fear that they might learn something.

The compassion, ethics and consistency of any of these issues can certainly be questioned, and it is being questioned and debated by me and other people in this discussion. Your welcome to question the compassion, ethics and consistency of any of these issues as well, but you want to turn this into a personal judgment of my character, and that’s not acceptable. At the very least, you're hoping for a red herring to avoid the issue of abortion all together, and instead deflect the argument towards criticism of the Right. Asking a bunch of open-ended questions and demanding answers to them in order to evaluate my “commitment to human life” is not a discussion, it’s a personal attack. You’re trying to contrast what you think is my position on abortion with what you think is my position on war or capital punishment in order to set up a pretext for condemning me as a hypocrite or as condoning murder. What about YOUR commitment to human life or lack of? Is that in question? I come to this board to have friendly discussion with fellow Browncoats, not to be put on trial for your imagined crimes against humanity.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 2:12 PM

Quote:
I often find people who are anti-abortion to be pro-war and pro-death penalty, which indicates factured logic.

Like their liberal counterparts, these kneejerk conservatives are supporting what they are told to support.

pro-death penalty i figure is pro-govt power, and probably anti-black. I see the fiscal discipline argument, but I think it's dumb. You can easily get enough labor out of lifers to pay for their own incarceration by not spending $70K a year incarceration them. I think it really should cost about $5000, because really, these aren't ace living conditions or gourmet food we're talking about, and a handful of rentacops doesn't cost a fortune. At $70K/looney/year some cat is getting very fat.

I figure exile them all to a penal colony would be fair. There are countries out there where millions of criminals run free, and our thieves, killers and drug dealers probably have more education and could benefit the locals. (Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, parts of brazil?)

In fact, we could probably sell our prisoners as skilled labor. All sorts of fiscally more sound plans then death penalty (the average execution takes place after 2 million in legal fees.) Maybe it's a lawyer plot.

Quote:
What you and Finn have in common, however, is that you are idealists.

I think I'm really a realist. I suspect Finn does to.

Sure it's potential.
Here's the crater in the typical argument:

If a train is headed for the station at 7:29, then you blow it up, and someone accuses you of blowing up the 7:29 train, you say you're innocent because it isn't the 7:29 train yet.

A baby isn't going to be a full conscious human until it's about 2 or 3 years old. Yet killing babies is still illegal. It's not because they're 'human' and 'an essential part of society' - it's because of what they will become if you don't kill them.

A six week old child has nothing in its head at all, far less than a mouse. even at a year, a baby has less going on than an average monkey. On a general scale, these early humans are no more human than a fetus. The brain, physically, isn't fully grown yet, and won't be until the child is two. Mentally it may take the child another year to be fully aware. Sure, some kids show awareness before that, but so do animals. Some even talk. Is a parrot human?

It's about the flow of natural forces.

But the part where some people view humans as less valuable than babies is a very judeo-christian view.

In the judeo-christian world view, people are perfect until they screw it up, and then their value is a collection of sins until they are old and worthless, which is pretty much how our society is run, as witness the legal system.

Kaneman was an aborted fetus of a black tunisian goat herder spaceship pilot woman with one giant eye who lacked credibility.

Finn,

I'm not sure either, but I have my suspicions. My gut feeling is that the liberal pro-big-govt establishment has a vested interest in lowering the birth rate among the lower classes which it sees as a high welfare burder and lower tax base. It easily fits within the UN definition of genocide, which is not surprising, since many of the other connected PC ideas also do, and help it along.

This sort of theme recurs in the social engineering set, the sort of 'republic of virtue' enlightenment idea. If we could only have the 'right people' in our society and punish all the 'bad people' then it would work. If you stop the poor from having children, you reduce their numbers, and then maybe the welfare state works.

Right now, the main democrats running in New York, Elliot Spitzer (gov) Mike Arcuri (house) Hillary Clinton (senate...duh) are all hard corps hand-of-justice "punish the bad people" sorts. They're pretty much the anti-joss. More police, arm the govt., disarm the people, stricter laws, enforcement everywhere, and, of course, "Stick it to the indians." I was stunned when they ran on this platform back in march, but as election day approached, they shut up about it.

I noticed tensions were very high today. Maybe it's all those robocalls.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn,

I'm not sure either, but I have my suspicions. My gut feeling is that the liberal pro-big-govt establishment has a vested interest in lowering the birth rate among the lower classes which it sees as a high welfare burder and lower tax base. It easily fits within the UN definition of genocide, which is not surprising, since many of the other connected PC ideas also do, and help it along.

I think for some people the notion stems from a legitimate interest in personal freedom and alleviating poverty. For single women and poor people, childbirth can often be a hardship, and in their eyes, they believe abortion provides increased opportunity to help ‘level the playing field,’ as they say. I don’t buy this argument because I think encouraging responsibility across the board would help matters much more. But responsibility is difficult and abortion is often the quicker solution. So I can how this becomes the underlying motivation for the pro-choice argument.

But that doesn’t explain everyone. It may explain the pro-choice position in some cases, but doesn’t explain the pro-abortion argument. It doesn’t explain why some people want to dehumanize the fetus and portray abortion as tantamount to something like an appendectomy. And even many people on the pro-choice side don’t really understand this. I don’t understand this argument. It seems so irrational. It occurs to me that what many on the pro-abortion side are actually defending is Roe v. Wade, not really the practice of abortion. Roe v. Wade exemplifies the Post-Modern Liberalist interest in judicial legislation to by-pass the democratic process, and therefore by-pass the majority of American voters, who are on average more likely to vote Conservative then they are the Pro-Abortion Ultra-left. This actually seems to explain why some people would want to actually promote abortion: they don’t want abortion looked upon as an unfavorable option because they don’t want Roe v. Wade, and by extension judicial legislation, look upon unfavorably. Of course that’s just speculation, I don’t really know for sure.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 3:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, let me rephrase my point. I'm not so much interested in the "depth and consistency of your commitment to human life" as I am in the depth and consistency of your DEFINITION of human life. Because you said "human is human" and I'm trying to map out the boundaries of that statement. That was very poor phrasing on my part, and I apologize bc that's not what I meant. Everybody here is committed to human life.

But that still leaves the question of war and capital punishment, and how it fits into your definition of human life.

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

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 3:54 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think I'm really a realist. I suspect Finn does to.

Of course you do.

Quote:
Sure it's potential.Here's the crater in the typical argument: If a train is headed for the station at 7:29, then you blow it up, and someone accuses you of blowing up the 7:29 train, you say you're innocent because it isn't the 7:29 train yet.

But if the train is being built, and there's only a 60% chance of the workers finishing it right - or even finishing it al all- within in a year, and it gets blown up somewhere in the first two months of construction you can hardly be said to have blown up the 7:29 train. That's the idealism. You imagine that human development is on some sort of track with an inevitable timetable and outcome and you've already decided that it WILL reach the station before it's even a train. EDITED TO ADD: Even more, you're looking at a pile of parts and saying "That IS the 7:29".

Quote:
A baby isn't going to be a full conscious human until it's about 2 or 3 years old. Yet killing babies is still illegal. It's not because they're 'human' and 'an essential part of society' - it's because of what they will become if you don't kill them. A six week old child has nothing in its head at all, far less than a mouse. even at a year, a baby has less going on than an average monkey. On a general scale, these early humans are no more human than a fetus. The brain, physically, isn't fully grown yet, and won't be until the child is two. Mentally it may take the child another year to be fully aware. Sure, some kids show awareness before that, but so do animals. Some even talk. Is a parrot human?

But just because development is on a spectrum doesn't mean that one end of the spectrum is the same as the other. Red is not green and yellow is not blue. A line is drawn here or there differentiating this from that. Infanticide was- and still is- a widely practiced method of "birth control". Killing babies in this society IS illegal BECAUSE a legal definition of "human" was created... a definition which harkens back to English common law.

Quote:
It's about the flow of natural forces.

This is an idealist statement.

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

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 3:55 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

dbl

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 4:15 PM

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

Finn,

I noticed you've avoided SignyM's questions. The one I particularly am interested in is: how would you feel about flushing a placenta down the toilet?

Other than that, there is so much wrong with your post it's hard to find a place to begin.

"the notion ..."
Let's start at the beginning. You call the idea a 'notion'. Good wordsmithing on your part. Because liberals can't have thought-out positions, only notions.

"... stems from a legitimate interest in personal freedom alleviating poverty. ... For single women and poor people, childbirth can often be a hardship ..."

Ready for the big BUT ...

"I think encouraging responsibility across the board would help matters much more."
Responsibility. Like a father has for producing a child? Somehow you never got around to mentioning that. To you it's the woman's fault, the womans' responsibility, and the woman's burden.

"But responsibility is difficult and abortion is ... quicker ..."
You got it. Abotion is a picnic. There's nothing difficult about it at all.

"... the pro-abortion argument"
I personally don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. And labelling people as pro-abortion when it's NOT their position is a neat propaganda tactic, but a lie. (Like saying international Jews are the nefariously causing all suffering on earth.)

"... dehumanize the fetus and portray abortion as tantamount to ... an appendectomy"
Now this is where you dodge and weave. This is where you need to step up and answer the question "how would you feel about flushing a placenta down the toilet?" How WOULD you feel about it? Would you feel that you were throwing out the baby with the toilet water? Or would you recognize that though it came from a fertilized egg, it's not a child?

"... Post-Modern Liberalist interest in judicial legislation to by-pass the democratic process ..."
You have no idea what Roe v Wade said, do you?

"... and therefore by-pass the majority of American voters ..."
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
53% of ALL adults are pro-choice, only 39% are anti-choice.

"... who are on average more likely to vote Conservative then they are the Pro-Abortion Ultra-left."
Now we know where you hang out, and who you count as 'people'. You are speaking about the majority of republicans, actually.

"This actually seems to explain why some people would want to actually promote abortion ..."
Only in your weird world, not out here, where the rest of us live.

:... because they don’t want ... by extension judicial legislation, look(ed) upon unfavorably."
Now THIS is off the deep end. You really need to read the decision. That way you won't be saying things that make you look : stoopid :

"Of course that’s just speculation ..."
More like libel.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, let me rephrase my point. I'm not so much interested in the "depth and consistency of your commitment to human life" as I am in the depth and consistency of your DEFINITION of human life. Because you said "human is human" and I'm trying to map out the boundaries of that statement. That was very poor phrasing on my part, and I apologize bc that's not what I meant. Everybody here is committed to human life.

But that still leaves the question of war and capital punishment, and how it fits into your definition of human life.

I’m still not sure what it is you’re getting at. I’ve been pretty clear without actually stating it, I think, that I believe human life begins at conception. At the most basic level, human life is a living organism with human chromosomes.

Now I have no clue what war and capital punishment have to do with this. These two things would seem to be quite independent of any definition of human life.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 5:34 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m still not sure what it is you’re getting at. I’ve been pretty clear without actually stating it, I think, that I believe human life begins at conception. At the most basic level, human life is a living organism with human chromosomes.

"Human life" MAY begin at conception. But it needs to be viable outside the womb.

----
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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
"Human life" MAY begin at conception. But it needs to be viable outside the womb.

I can see how that would be a necessary characteristics of some definitions of human life, but why does it need to be a criteria for the basic definition or the most general definition?

Edit:
On the other hand, if you're saying that human life begins at conception, which you did, then I think we may actually agree, at least on the basic definition.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 7:27 PM

Finn,

Good points, all. Roe v. Wade was an incredibly corrupt way to create a law, which I hope everyone recognizes, regardless of their stance on the issue. If you're read Roe's recount of it, she said she was stuck in a position. I think she had cheated and gotten pregnant and didn't want her husband to know. Anyway, the feminist lawyers told her that wouldn't fly, and helped her construct the false rape testimony she used in court. She said they came in with an agenda to make this law, and they used her as a tool. But this is not what the supreme court is for, (just as I'll readily admit it shouldn't have interfered in the 2000 election. If anything, according to precedent, a special session of congress should have convened to clear up the matter, as in the 1824 case.) But the job of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution, not to draft legislation.

I agree that it was a feminist victory, and that they sought it for a "women's rights" victory. The problem with the 60s feminist movement is that they had already won all the equal rights issues, and so they needed to create new issues.

Signy,

This is a pretty weak argument. I don't think there's an appreciable difference between a fetus and a baby, and any argument which hinges on this idea, is not only ideologue, but is most likely doomed.

Furthermore, the only sound argument I've heard is Citizen's, and I think that if you are to take the position, it should be consistant with other arguments which might also follow that line of logic, ie. "people will use drugs anyways, so they should be legalized (under controlled circumstances) to prevent the massive gang warfare we see today" which wouldn't be my position, but it would be one consistant with pro-choice, and not altogether insane.

Quote:
53% of ALL adults are pro-choice, only 39% are anti-choice.

According to Zogby 56% are pro-life

And Zogby is not only a respectable pollster, but also is not a conservative.

Okay,

Finn,

Capital punishment is inconsistent with pro-life because x% of innocent people will be executed. If you have respect for all human life, you cannot tolerate this level of error, because decent hardworking citizens in a zone of peace, will, by their own govt., be picked up, wrongfully convicted, which happens with a fair degree of regularity.

I oppose capital punishment, and have no shortage of arguments against it. Here's another one:

Capital punishment is the ultimate in big govt. it is what creates the ultimate authority, power over life and death, in the hands of authorities, and not only will be, but has been, and is now, being used to silence opponents of the govt. such as Timothy McVeigh, or the people at Waco., which is not about guilt, but about ulterior motivations.

Here's another: The only real reason for capital punishment is as an intimidation technique. Only a dictator would need an intimidation technique. In a republic, it can be expected that reason will win out, and we suspect the likes of Timothy McVeigh are not going to win that reason argument.

Or: The supposed justification for the death penalty is "justice for the victims" but justice is about stopping crimes, not retribution. If it becomes about retribution, then it is not only unchristian, it's uncivilized. The rule of law becomes distorted vengeance. Ultimately, the moral underpinnings of the system are undone, and bloodthirst takes over.

And: Bloodlust becomes to main purpose of execution. When the televised execution becomes commonplace, the people will long for Roman entertainment... Hey, this is a science fiction board, we are *supposed* to speculate on how everything can head south.

But I hope you see that death penalty is at the very least *not* on the road to a healthy enlightened society.

Honestly I don't think an abortion debate is going to get us anywhere worth getting.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 7:39 PM

TAKEMEFLYING

I'm sorry, but the 'position' is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. There aren't folks out there picketing in front of churches, ob/gyn offices and fertility clinics with placards that read "Do the world a favor, abort your babies!" The point is that the choice is not to be made by anyone but the people involved.
The idea of encouraging people to be more responsible for their actions, including sexual behavior, is absolutely necessary if we, as a society, want to reach a point were there is even a semblance of balance and peace. The answer is education, not repression; self-discipline, not fear of punishment; critical thinking, not dogmatic blinders. It is *irresponsible* to accuse and obstruct those who would provide and encourage intelligent and responsible sexual behavior, not to mention the resources to act on those choices. You want fewer abortions? Make it possible for people, especially young people, to choose abstinence, masturbation, or safe sex, without penalizing them, according to their hearts and minds. Teach them to think and you won't have to stand over them with hellfire and brimstone.
As to this liberal vs conservative argument, the fact is that what people want is the freedom to run their own lives within a common framework of laws that protects their right to the pursuit of happiness up to and until it infringes on that same right of others - thus, to live in society, we agree not to kill each other, steal from each other, brutalize each other. What name your neighbor uses to call upon the divine doesn't infringe on your rights; what course of treatment, if any, the cancer patient in the bed next to yours chooses does not infringe on your rights; what stand you choose to take on subjects like abortion, the death penalty, fiscal responsibility or taxes doesn't infringe my rights, either.
Talk, debate, converse, by all means express your opinion, but don't try to put into law preferences that are based on something as purely subjective as faith or 'morality'.
Just like faith and science, law cannot be dictated from a pulpit.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 7:42 PM

DAX82

Pro-Choice 100%

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 8:12 PM

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

DT

"According to Zogby 56% are pro-life"

I noticed, as usual, you didn't provide a link. So I looked it up. I had to go to the google cache to do it, but the Zogby poll you looked at was from 2004. Mine was from 2006.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 8:19 PM

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

Finn,

"human life begins at conception. At the most basic level, human life is a living organism with human chromosomes."

Now we're getting somewhere. But I really need to know how you would feel about flushing a placenta dwon the toilet.

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 8:33 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Quote:
Originally posted by FLF:
Like the itle says, I know it's been overdone, but I have just spent the better part of an hour arguing (fruitlessly, I might add) that as far as I'm concerned it's a woman's choice - and no-one has the right to take that away from her.

Any other opinions here? Can anyone suggest how I can convince my friend or shall I just give up?

Thanks.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The problem is that too many people equate Pro Choice with Pro Abortion. Abortion isn't a route I would ever take, but who the Hell am I to make that choice for someone else?

The thing I love in this debate are the hypocrites that say "make abortion illegal unless the woman was raped". Does the woman being raped make the child any less alive? Did that child ask to be the product of rape? The answer is no. So why is it okay to 'murder' one baby over another?

Far as I'm concerned this is an all or nothing situation, and I personally believe it's the woman's choice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
http://members17.clubphoto.com/michael809717/guest-1.phtml

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 12:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't think there's an appreciable difference between a fetus and a baby,

Well then, what about the differecne between a blastocyst and a baby? Any appreciable difference there?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 12:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Now I have no clue what war and capital punishment have to do with this. These two things would seem to be quite independent of any definition of human life.

Well, now THAT was a dodge! I could spell it out for you but DT made the argument more cogently than I.

Although I would add one more point: It doesn't work to deter violent crime. Most people who commit violent crimes have something screwed up with their brains: "... almost all vicious criminals have some combination of (1) a childhood of abuse and/or neglect, (2) brain injuries through accident or abuse, and (3) psychotic symptoms, especially paranoia." The only people that the death penalty could intimidate are the people who are ALREADY more or less law-abiding and "normal"- in other words, the general population.

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

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,

"human life begins at conception. At the most basic level, human life is a living organism with human chromosomes."

Now we're getting somewhere. But I really need to know how you would feel about flushing a placenta dwon the toilet.

Doesn't a placenta fall into the same category as fingernails and hair? Human by-product?

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 12:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No. The fertilized egg has the ability to form EVERYTHING, including the placenta. Sometimes ONLY the placenta forms. So theoretically the placenta meets the definition of a human because it is alive, unique, and with human DNA.

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

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No. The fertilized egg has the ability to form EVERYTHING, including the placenta. Sometimes ONLY the placenta forms. So theoretically the placenta meets the definition of a human because it is alive, unique, and with human DNA.

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

Alive? Really?

Wikipedia informs unknowledgable me that the placenta is a temporary organ, consisting of both fetal and maternal DNA.

An organ, wikipedia informs me further, is a group of tissues performing a specific function. An organ is not a separate organism in the way a collection of organs (or forming organs) can be.

A placenta-only "pregnancy" would appear to be something of a defect, akin to any other solo-organ development that may or may not occur, something that branches off the line of regular human development so early and so dramatically as to leave the end result (as in, no further development) an incomplete collection of parts.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 2:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But the job of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution, not to draft legislation.

Roe v. Wade definitely seems to be overreaching, as does the whole idea of judicial legislation, and given the way so many on the Pro-abortion side agonize over Roe v. Wade being overturned, it seems reasonable to speculate that even people who support it may believe it is worthy of being overturned.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:
53% of ALL adults are pro-choice, only 39% are anti-choice.

According to Zogby 56% are pro-life

And Zogby is not only a respectable pollster, but also is not a conservative.

Rue’s decomposition of my post is more amusing then informative. He took every sentence of my post out of context, applied his own independent meaning to it and then debunked his invented meaning. And that is on top of the spin that he applies to his own arguments. And used all that to call me stupid.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Capital punishment is inconsistent with pro-life because x% of innocent people will be executed. If you have respect for all human life, you cannot tolerate this level of error, because decent hardworking citizens in a zone of peace, will, by their own govt., be picked up, wrongfully convicted, which happens with a fair degree of regularity.

That may be, but what does that have to do with a definition of human life? I think it’s a forgone conclusion that life can be killed. I killed a spider in my bathroom last night. But if someone asked me to define what a spider is, I wouldn’t insist that it is defined by its death in my bathroom. It’s not necessarily respect for human life that you’re talking about, but respect for innocent people. However, the guilty people are just as much human as the innocent people.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 3:10 AM

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

Agent

You actually went so far as to misrepresent Wiki.

It would have been helpful to provide a link. Instead, you're betting that most people will take your word for it rather than look it up for themselves.

Wrong bet.

I also went to google and found all sorts of information on embryonic development. You could easily do the same if you wanted to learn something instead of just mouthing misquotes. Here is one site: http://hometown.aol.com/sossong/sosweb/fetaldev.htm

What they say is this:

6. 6 days after ovulation:
-a. Implantation begins
--(1) Takes 1 week: done by 14th day
-b. The trophoblast cells
-- (1) Those next to the inner mass cells adhere to the endometrium
-- (2) Form placenta
-- (3) Secrete human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG)
-(a) stimulates corpus luteum to continue producing progesterone & estrogen
-- (4) Form chorion after implantation

7. Embryo (2 weeks to 2 months)
-a. Implantation is complete
-b. Nutrition now comes from mother via placenta

What happens in reality is that the placenta forms from the blastula. It implants itself in the uterine lining. Both embryonic placenta and uterus develop an extensive capillary network in close contact with each other. That is where chemical exchange occurs. But the placenta and uterus do not 'fuse' into a single 'organ'.
None of this detracts from the FACT that the placenta forms from the fertilized egg. And that the cell disk that will later become an embryo forms AFTER placental development. And that about 10% of the time, no embryo differentiates after the placenta forms.

PS You could learn a lot from the people here, if you cared to. There are people on this board who know a lot more than you, and a lot more than the people whose opinions you've adopted. It all depends on whether you want to learn about the world or burrow even harder into ignorance.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 3:13 AM

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

Finn,

I still want to know how you would feel about flushing a placenta down the toilet.

Also, you claim I took your sentences out of context. Here they are again. Please show me WHERE I misrepresented your meaning.

Quote:

"the notion ..."
Let's start at the beginning. You call the idea a 'notion'. Good wordsmithing on your part. Because liberals can't have thought-out positions, only notions.

"... stems from a legitimate interest in personal freedom alleviating poverty. ... For single women and poor people, childbirth can often be a hardship ..."

Ready for the big BUT ...
"I think encouraging responsibility across the board would help matters much more."
Responsibility. Like a father has for producing a child? Somehow you never got around to mentioning that. To you it's the woman's fault, the womans' responsibility, and the woman's burden.

"But responsibility is difficult and abortion is ... quicker ..."
You got it. Abotion is a picnic. There's nothing difficult about it at all.

"... the pro-abortion argument"
I personally don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. And labelling people as pro-abortion when it's NOT their position is a neat propaganda tactic, but a lie. (Like saying international Jews are the nefariously causing all suffering on earth.)

"... dehumanize the fetus and portray abortion as tantamount to ... an appendectomy"
Now this is where you dodge and weave. This is where you need to step up and answer the question "how would you feel about flushing a placenta down the toilet?" How WOULD you feel about it? Would you feel that you were throwing out the baby with the toilet water? Or would you recognize that though it came from a fertilized egg, it's not a child?

"... Post-Modern Liberalist interest in judicial legislation to by-pass the democratic process ..."
You have no idea what Roe v Wade said, do you?

"... and therefore by-pass the majority of American voters ..."
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
53% of ALL adults are pro-choice, only 39% are anti-choice.

"... who are on average more likely to vote Conservative then they are the Pro-Abortion Ultra-left."
Now we know where you hang out, and who you count as 'people'. You are speaking about the majority of republicans, actually.

"This actually seems to explain why some people would want to actually promote abortion ..."
Only in your weird world, not out here, where the rest of us live.

:... because they don’t want ... by extension judicial legislation, look(ed) upon unfavorably."
Now THIS is off the deep end. You really need to read the decision. That way you won't be saying things that make you look : stoopid :

"Of course that’s just speculation ..."
More like libel.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 3:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Agent

You actually went so far as to misrepresent Wiki.

It would have been helpful to provide a link. Instead, you're betting that most people will take your word for it rather than look it up for themselves.

Wrong bet.

Gee whiz, must be fun going around thinking of other people only in the form of malevolent intentions.

I apologize for not providing the link, here it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta It was an oversight, not an attempt at either misrepresentation or insulting anyone's intelligence.

Quote:
I also went to google and found all sorts of information on embryonic development. You could easily do the same if you wanted to learn something instead of just mouthing misquotes. Here is one site: http://hometown.aol.com/sossong/sosweb/fetaldev.htm

I openly admitted to being unknowledgable and named my source of information as to the definition of "Placenta". (Though, yes, unhelpfully forgetting to provide the link). You're welcome to tell me that wikipedia has it all wrong, which might well be the case. I don't know.

Quote:

What they say is this:

6. 6 days after ovulation:
-a. Implantation begins
--(1) Takes 1 week: done by 14th day
-b. The trophoblast cells
-- (1) Those next to the inner mass cells adhere to the endometrium
-- (2) Form placenta
-- (3) Secrete human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG)
-(a) stimulates corpus luteum to continue producing progesterone & estrogen
-- (4) Form chorion after implantation

7. Embryo (2 weeks to 2 months)
-a. Implantation is complete
-b. Nutrition now comes from mother via placenta

What happens in reality is that the the placenta forms from the blastula. It implants itself in the uterine lining. Both embryonic placenta and uterus develop an extensive capillary network in close contact with each other. That is where chemical exchange occurs. But the placenta and uterus do not 'fuse' into a single 'organ'.
None of this detracts from the FACT that the placenta forms from the fertilized egg. And that the cell disk that will later become an embryo forms AFTER placental development. And that about 10% of the time, no embryo differentiates after the placenta forms.

Did I, anywhere, state that the placenta forms from something other than the fertilized egg? I don't believe I did. Nor did I say anywhere that placenta and uterus fuse. That's nonsense.
I said that the placenta is a temporary organ. If that is wrong, do feel free to contradict me.

Also: This is an exchange of opinions among amateurs. On a website dedicated to a scifi tv show. If you want to debate with experts, this may not be the right place.

Quote:

PS You could learn a lot from the people here, if you cared to.

Though, apparently, not the art of civil discourse without personal attacks and accusations, right?

Quote:
There are people on this board who know a lot more than you, and a lot more than the people whose opinions you've adopted. It all depends on whether you want to learn about the world or burrow even harder into ignorance.

What's with the personal attacks? Did I claim omniscience somewhere further above? Did I call anyone stupid or immoral? And why, exactly, do you assume that my opinions are adopted from someone else?

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 4:17 AM

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

Agent,

THIS is from Wiki:
The placenta is composed of two parts, one of which is genetically and biologically part of the fetus, the other part of the mother.

THIS is yours:
Wikipedia informs unknowledgable me that the placenta is a temporary organ, consisting of both fetal and maternal DNA.

See the difference? Now, you could have cut and pasted more easily than typing it in yourself. But you chose to type it in - and in the process you misrepresented it. What you painstakingly implied was that the placenta was a mixed DNA single organ, not a separate entity of embryonic human development. And then you left off the link. What would you conclude from an effort like that?

As to the site I happened to pick, there are MANY to chose from - something I was specific about. But feel free, go and do the google search I suggested. I only picked that one b/c it had the most to say in the fewest words. (To quote myself: "I also went to google and found all sorts of information on embryonic development. You could easily do the same if you wanted to learn something instead of just mouthing misquotes misquotes -check. Here is one site: http://hometown.aol.com/sossong/sosweb/fetaldev.htm)

And I wasn't being snide. There are people here who do know a lot. One of the most interesting times of my life was when I met up with a group of brilliant folk and tagged along with them. That's how I got introduced to computers, phone systems, hyperbaric physiology, music, and motorcycles. If you aren't afraid to follow along with people who know more than you, you can learn a lot.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 4:32 AM

TALLGRRL

For cryin' out loud.
That's YOUR opinion and YOUR belief.
It's fine for YOU.
Not for ME.
To terminate a pregnancy...for whatever reason...is not the business of anyone except:
1. The woman.
2. The woman.
3. Anyone that SHE feels has an opinion about it.
If that person isn't YOU...then it's none of your business.
4. The woman.

No disrespect, but this whole "screaming baby" nonsense is ignorant, childish bullshit. But if that's what YOU believe, then that's fine. For YOU.
"Trauma"? Bullshit, "kaneMAN". What an insulting thing to say.
Women have been terminating pregnancies for millenia. Without any psychological damage, thank you very much.
If you care THAT much, you need to go find some suffering children who are already here, and help them.
I have a suggestion, instead of concerning yourself with a woman and her...HER...right to choose what's right for HER, why don't you get to work adopting some orphans. Or raising some unwanted kids in the foster care system.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard." - Zoe

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Agent,

THIS is from Wiki:
The placenta is composed of two parts, one of which is genetically and biologically part of the fetus, the other part of the mother.

THIS is yours:
Wikipedia informs unknowledgable me that the placenta is a temporary organ, consisting of both fetal and maternal DNA.

See the difference? Now, you could have cut and pasted more easily than typing it in yourself. But you chose to type it in - and in the process you misrepresented it. What you painstakingly implied was that the placenta was a mixed DNA single organ, not a stage of human development. And then you left off the link. What would you conclude from an effort like that?

That someone is sloppy, not necessarily misrepresenting on purpose.

I agree that I worded it poorly, which resulted in a misrepresentation of the placenta as one homogenic mixed-DNA organ. I apologize for that.

However, the more important part of my point, the one that it is a temporary organ - even in its importance as a stage of development - still remains.

Quote:

And I wasn't being snide. There are people here who do know a lot. One of the most interesting times of my life was when I met up with a group of brilliant folk and tagged along with them. That's how I got introduced to computers, phone systems, hyperbaric physiology, music, and motorcycles. If you aren't afraid to follow along with people who know more than you, you can learn a lot.

I don't doubt that. I have no trouble aknowledging, appreciating and learning from the many many people who are smarter and more experienced than me. But your comment didn't just contain those words. It was an insult, and "I wasn't being snide" is simply not true. But whatever, I have no intention of dwelling on that.

I'm more interested in your opinion on whether "organ" is an acceptable definition and whether you consider that significant at all on your line of questioning.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 4:55 AM

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

Agent,

Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. Even though you're not interested in dwelling on it, I made the exact same comment to another poster and meant it sincerely, even helpfully. There are some thing I know quite a bit about, educationally, professionally, and personally. And I'd be happy to be as much a resource as possible.

Anyway, I'd consider the placenta somewhere between an organ - though a weird one - and a tissue. There are organs of mixed cell types like the brain. There are organs that 'involute' (shrink and /or become non-functional) over time like the thymus. But there are no organs or tissues with dual DNA passports.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 6:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Agent,

Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. Even though you're not interested in dwelling on it, I made the exact same comment to another poster and meant it sincerely, even helpfully. There are some thing I know quite a bit about, educationally, professionally, and personally. And I'd be happy to be as much a resource as possible.

I'm very glad we can be cordial in all this, then.

Quote:
Anyway, I'd consider the placenta somewhere between an organ - though a weird one - and a tissue. There are organs of mixed cell types like the brain. There are organs that 'involute' (shrink and /or become non-functional) over time like the thymus. But there are no organs or tissues with dual DNA passports.

Thank you. So, as I understand, the point is really that you don't think it's appropriate to grant the developing embryo a different status than that of the placenta tissue that stems from the same fertilized egg, correct?

I'd just neutrally like to know your exact opinion. It's an emotionally charged subject and it's easy to get stuck arguing about particulars without ever even respectfully aknowledging other people's positions. I'm as guilty of that as anyone.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 7:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Alive? Really? Wikipedia informs unknowledgable me that the placenta is a temporary organ, consisting of both fetal and maternal DNA.

One of the problems with discussing this issue is inaccurate terminology. Of course the placenta is "alive" (It's not dead in utero). But is it an organism? If you think not, then perhaps that is fundamental to your definition of "human".

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

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think I'm really a realist. I suspect Finn does to.

And insane people think they're the only sane ones. (BTW not saying you're insane, just that I'm pretty sure everyone no matter how idealistic could say "I'm being a realist").

Quote:
Sure it's potential.
Here's the crater in the typical argument:

If a train is headed for the station at 7:29, then you blow it up, and someone accuses you of blowing up the 7:29 train, you say you're innocent because it isn't the 7:29 train yet.

It occurs that you might stand to learn something if you listened to the other side instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "It's baby murder, you blow up trains, baby murderers, genocidal baby murderers all".

BTW you're analogy is total crap. It's more like you accusing me of blowing up the 7.29 train because I shut down the factory that was going to build it.

There's nothing pro-death about pro-choice, but since we're going down that road I guess you are all for freedom of speech and choice. People are free to say think and do what you want them to.

Quote:
A six week old child has nothing in its head at all, far less than a mouse. even at a year, a baby has less going on than an average monkey. On a general scale, these early humans are no more human than a fetus. The brain, physically, isn't fully grown yet, and won't be until the child is two. Mentally it may take the child another year to be fully aware. Sure, some kids show awareness before that, but so do animals. Some even talk. Is a parrot human?

Since when do parrots talk? Please spare me, they mimic sounds they hear, they don't talk. That's like saying someone who traces the Mona Lisa is a great artist. But if you think there's a smaller difference between a ball of cells that can't survive outside the Womb and a new born than there is between a new born and a two year old then this is an exercise in pointlessness because that position is delusional.

Quote:
I'm not sure either, but I have my suspicions. My gut feeling is that the liberal pro-big-govt establishment has a vested interest in lowering the birth rate among the lower classes which it sees as a high welfare burder and lower tax base.

As opposed to the Conservative "the lower classes are worthless cannon fodder" position. No wonder conservatives want more babies born, more meat for the war machine. Oh and the Paedophile network always needs topping up.

knee-jerk is two words
labour has a 'U' in it
Brazil has a capital 'B'
Judeo, Christian and Tunisian have capitals.
Burden ends with an 'n' not an 'r'
Indians should have a capital 'I'.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 8:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Alive? Really? Wikipedia informs unknowledgable me that the placenta is a temporary organ, consisting of both fetal and maternal DNA.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Alive? Really? Wikipedia informs unknowledgable me that the placenta is a temporary organ, consisting of both fetal and maternal DNA.

One of the problems with discussing this issue is inaccurate terminology. Of course the placenta is "alive" (It's not dead in utero). But is it an organism? If you think not, then perhaps that is fundamental to your definition of "human".

I agree, the diffeent meanings attached to even the word "human" alone cause unnecessary conflict.

Human in terms of genetic origin? Human in terms of human being? Of person? Similar with "alive". Depending on how many factors and facing what prospects of development?

I also agree that, to me, something to the effect of "organism" seems vital to the idea of a human being, though I'm not committing 100%, being shakey with the exact definitions.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 8:54 AM

savemessage.asp failed my arse.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 9:12 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Most people who commit violent crimes have something screwed up with their brains: "... almost all vicious criminals have some combination of (1) a childhood of abuse and/or neglect, (2) brain injuries through accident or abuse, and (3) psychotic symptoms, especially paranoia."

We keep coming back to the idea of "murder." Finn and Dream call abortion murder and think they've won the argument. I gotta wonder if any of these so-called pro-lifers have ever known any murderers. I have. I'm related to one. They're scary folk. Something really missing. Something seriously wrong with their empathy. One minute it's there, the next minute, gone: people are just mindless machines in the way.

I've also known a good many women who've had abortions and ya know what? Not a psychopath in the bunch.

Dream and Finn are talking about criminalizing abortion as murder. What I want to know from these guys is what kind of murder, abortion should be. First degree? Second? Man-slaughter? If abortion really is murder, do they think women who have abortions should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law? If not, why not?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
We keep coming back to the idea of "murder." Finn and Dream call abortion murder and think they've won the argument. I gotta wonder if any of these so-called pro-lifers have ever known any murderers. I have. I'm related to one. They're scary folk. Something really missing. Something seriously wrong with their empathy. One minute it's there, the next minute, gone: people are just mindless machines in the way.

I've also known a good many women who've had abortions and ya know what? Not a psychopath in the bunch.

Dream and Finn are talking about criminalizing abortion as murder. What I want to know from these guys is what kind of murder, abortion should be. First degree? Second? Man-slaughter? If abortion really is murder, do they think women who have abortions should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law? If not, why not?

I don’t think I can give you any answers to these questions, since what I actually believe and what you have spuriously attributed to me don’t seem to coincide. Perhaps you can show me where it is that I said that abortion is murder?

A point to consider while you’re doing that, the only people in this thread that have talked about winning any argument is Rue and maybe Signym, I don’t remember, but certainly Rue, and definitely not me. I have not, nor would I ever claim to have won this argument since I don’t think it can be won.

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

Thursday, November 9, 2006 9:30 PM

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

Finn,

"the only people in this thread that have talked about winning any argument is Rue ... certainly Rue"

I have NEVER talked about winning an argument in this thread. Please feel free to quote me and prove your point, or be considered a liar.

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

Thursday, November 9, 2006 9:41 PM