Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?
POSTED BY: FLF
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 13:13
VIEWED: 24346
PAGE 2 of 3
But like you pointed out, the Shciavo case not that long ago proved that nothing's been "resolved" on that issue. There were protesters outside of the hospital and all over the country who said that she should be kept alive. I beleive the news even reported one guy who rushed into the hospital to try and hydrate her.
I'll reitterate; just because the court makes a decision doesn't mean anything's resolved. If gay marriage can be banned on the basis of ideology, then there's certainly room for it to push itself into matters of life and death.
[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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nope. I’m pretty much okay with defining humans as human. I start getting a little bit of a headache when people starting trying to nitpick the line between human and something not human so that they can justify killing something with a clear conscience.
Originally posted by SignyM:
You reduce it to: A human is human. My head hurts from that one! Doesn't yours? .
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"who said that she should be kept alive" BECAUSE SHE STILL HAD BRAIN FUNCTION.
They were using the the same criteria as Mr Schiavo, just wrong data. Once the data proved there was no brain function b/c there was no possibility of brain function because there was no BRAIN, they agreed and went away. They reached the same conclusion, based on the same data, and using the same criteria. There really was a consensus on what it means to be alive. And being alive means brain activity.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm, then I'm grossly ill-informed. I never heard anything about the crowd outside dissipating untill after she had already died. Maybe I was wrong about it, but I was not aware of any breakthrough recognition by fundamentalists about Schiavo's condition.
Maybe you could point me in the direction of an article or something?
[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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, Finn, Finn ....
Do you really expect everyone to just accept your definition ? Are you going to do one of those - I define the English langauge around here and I get to say what words mean ! You know how far that goes, don'cha?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It was after the fact. After threats of political and religious retribution had been made, after her death, and after the autopsy. The threats, promised lawsuits, political action and protests all fizzled away. All the outrage was gone. Frist slunk away never to mention it again, as did the Bushes (Jeb and dubya - wow, what a picture those names make. Don't you just see poor white trash picking up road kill and throwing it in the back of the pickup on their way to the still? "hey Jeb, that's some 'coon we got there. hardly smells or nuthin'." "you betcha, dubya.") Plus a few other names I've forgotten - the preacher outside the clinic who was making all sorts of public appearance hay at the time. Whatever happened to him, what's-his-name?
Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
Hmm, then I'm grossly ill-informed. I never heard anything about the crowd outside dissipating untill after she had already died. Maybe I was wrong about it, but I was not aware of any breakthrough recognition by fundamentalists about Schiavo's condition.
Maybe you could point me in the direction of an article or something?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I’m not sure you do either. You and anyone else are welcome to accept my definition if you like. If not, then don’t. I don’t see anyone twisting your arm, so what’s your point?
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn ....
Do you really expect everyone to just accept your definition ? Are you going to do one of those - I define the English langauge around here and I get to say what words mean ! You know how far that goes, don'cha?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The point is, you are saying "it's human because I say it is". I don't have a definition, and I'm not willing to explore either what I mean or what anyone else means, and I'm not going to discuss it, I'm just making a decree. If I say it's human, it is, and if I say it isn't, it isn't. Just 'cause I said so. End of discussion.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So basically, your problem with me is that I have an opinion. The topic is abortion not what you think about me having an opinion on the topic, which no one gives a shit about. If you have a contribution to the discussion, that's one thing, but all you can do is bitch because I have an opinion you don't agree with, I got better things to do.
Originally posted by rue:
The point is, you are saying "it's human because I say it is". I don't have a definition, and I'm not willing to explore either what I mean or what anyone else means, and I'm not going to discuss it, I'm just making a decree. If I say it's human, it is, and if I say it isn't, it isn't. Just 'cause I said so. End of discussion.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.-Finn
Yes, I can show you fetuses that become something 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!-Signy
All human fetuses are human- Finn
You reduce it to: A human is human. -Signy
Nope. I’m pretty much okay with defining humans as human. I start getting a little bit of a headache when people starting trying to nitpick the line between human and something not human so that they can justify killing something with a clear conscience.- Finn
-------------------
So, what about flushing a placenta down the toilet? I wouldn't get bent out of shape- would you?
Yes????
No????
The problem is, you're confused. Among other things, you use the phrase fully developed and complete tho that's not what you really mean. Do you want me to TELL you what you mean? Because I DO know, even if you don't.
And what about my other two questions:
(1) ..to extend your example of medically necessary abortions being acceptable... does this mean that wars are acceptable only if they save more lives than they kill?
(2)How do you feel about the death penalty?
You seemed to have skated around them. But I haven't forgotten them and they're important because they demonstrate the depth and consistency of your commitment to human life. or lack of.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No Finn,
"If you have a contribution to the discussion, that's one thing, but all you can do is bitch because I have an opinion you don't agree with"
I'm actually willing to discuss the topic. You've pretty much said you won't. You say you have an opinion, but you won't say what it is. You say some things are human, and they may be ova or sperm, or fertilized eggs, or embryos, but won't say what those things are, exactly. Or alternatively what you think are human characteristics so that the rest of us might deduce what you mean.
I still don't know what you mean; b/c all I get out of you is "I have an opinion about what's human". And that opinion is .... ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I really think the dissipation had more to do with the fact that the "battle" was over rather than the "war". I don't know that any of those people who were protesting it changed their minds afterwards so much as slinked on home to fight another day. But I suppose we'll just see if a similar case ever comes into the public eye again. I'm betting that it will.
[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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CM - and I think the debate has been moved to the other end. You'll no longer see that kind of action about brain dead people.
Finn - you there?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote: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.
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.
Okay. I'm also not an expert on sex education. I went to a parochial school and the extent of our sex education was listening to a tape of Jim Dobson telling us that we weren't going to hell for masturbating. There's something really pathetic about that concept of sex education. Unsurprisingly, many of my classmates were very uncomfortable with their own bodies. The idea that the flesh was evil was bread and butter type thinking for the denomination I was raised in. It was basically abstinence-only sex education before they started calling it abstinence-only sex education. In other words, I've seen first hand the horrors that result from the, "We'll just put our fingers in our ears and pretend sex doesn't exist" school of sex education educators.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FMF "There are too many children without homes and too many children living in substandard homes. We don't need to add to the misery."
Hey, even poor kids run, play, laugh, cry, love, etc... Some even grow up to be fathers and mothers themselves. Let's stay focused. Substandard houses? Clearly FMF, you must have a better argument for accepting murder?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It seems that thinking makes Finn's head hurt.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kaneman. how 'bout this: Kids who grow up feeling unloved themselves grow up to be sociopaths.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, that’s one extreme. But it doesn’t seem like you turned out too bad. I mean, aside from becoming a liberal, it seems like you're pretty well balanced.
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Okay. I'm also not an expert on sex education. I went to a parochial school and the extent of our sex education was listening to a tape of Jim Dobson telling us that we weren't going to hell for masturbating. There's something really pathetic about that concept of sex education. Unsurprisingly, many of my classmates were very uncomfortable with their own bodies. The idea that the flesh was evil was bread and butter type thinking for the denomination I was raised in. It was basically abstinence-only sex education before they started calling it abstinence-only sex education. In other words, I've seen first hand the horrors that result from the, "We'll just put our fingers in our ears and pretend sex doesn't exist" school of sex education educators.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Finn... any answers to my ???
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And as we know, Finn (since you've told us here) Liberals are Baby murders who have to dehumanize unborn children in order to murder them with a clear conscience I guess that's the moderate side of the Argument, I'd hate to see the extreme side.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I mean, aside from becoming a liberal, it seems like you're pretty well balanced.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Murder.
I think sometimes all ethics really amount to is a big fat ego trip for the people who call themselves ethical. Better than you. Better than me. No, we're better than them! And here's why...bow down to my great ethical self, you are ethically lowly and bad.
Ethics is often simply perfectionism unevenly applied. You must be responsible and appropriate and conform to my idea of decency (pay no attention to the man behind the moral condemnation).
People, for some reason I've yet to fathom, enjoy punishing other people. It seems to work for them, satisfy some itch. Doesn't seem to matter to them that it's plain crazy. Certainly doesn't repair any damage done. Certainly doesn't bring any dead people back to life. Yeah, two wrongs make a right, that's the ticket! More dead people, that's what the world needs!
Murder. Hey, we're all fans of a show where our favorite character murders a good many people. Inneresting thing about Mal is, he don't go in for punishment, really. Not saying he don't get urges or that he don't get a bit of unhealthy satisfaction from settling things thataway. But the man don't kill to punish. He kills because the person in question represents a direct threat to the lives of the people he loves. He kills folks that pose a danger to himself and his crew. He murders people, and yet, we like him. Some of us admire him.
So here we are talking about what the State oughta be able to tell people they can and cannot do. No, no, no, we're talking about ethics; not what the State gets to do, but what people at large should do. Get your hammers out boys, it's time to tell others what they should do! 
"Innocent life!" we cry, thinking to silence all opposition. We don't kill innocent life! Yeah, but we do, our representatives overseas have been doing it for several years now, very publicly, calling it legal and necessary, "clear and present danger" type stuff--totally legit. "Oh come now, my friend," you interject, "we do not target such unfortunates, they are merely a regretable but acceptable consequence of war; without killing innocents, we could not prevail!"
So anyway, I hope you'll pardon the creative writing here, but this conversation needs some serious shaking up. God, it's dreary!
Me, I had a girlfriend who had an abortion, very-very early-early stage abortion. It was a horrible experience for both of us (her in particular, though). Kinda spelled the beginning of the end of our romance (She's now married and has a beautiful little baby girl named Betty, I'm happy to report). Now, the two of us were/are spiritualists, psychics, see-ers of dead people, etc. So, for us there's no wiggle room, there was a soul incarnating inside her. She'd been in communication with this soul for years, the soul'd been trying to come in. There's every likelihood that Betty is that soul.
But metaphysics aside, what we're talking about here, is whether or not my ex should have seen jail time and maybe me as well. Or whether the folks over at Planned Parenthood should have been arrested on murder charges.
I don't feel that way. If I'd come home and found my girlfriend had shot her roommate dead for playing Ani DiFranco all day long, I think it would be a very different situation.
Don't you?
I mean, forget your perfectionism and all the logic and math that's got you're heart tied up in knots--don't you think murdering a 5 week old fetus and murdering a roommate are two very different things and require very different reactions from friends and lovers and the State?
When we think of a murderer, we think of a threat. Someone who solves one problem by murdering someone else, we reason, might murder again given the chance. We figure we better do something about the murderer, can't just let 'em run loose.
But my ex, ain't a threat to nobody. And wasn't. And she had her baby, after all. Might be ethical to contractually obligate a woman who's had an abortion to eventually make up for it by bringing a baby to term. Perhaps she has an o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So let me get this straight, you’re okay with murder, at least to some degree, because #1, you believe the state shouldn’t tell you that you shouldn’t do it and #2, you believe that holding the opinion that murder is ethically wrong is a personal ego trip? Am I misunderstanding you?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Finn- have you come up with answers to my questions?
Flash back just a few short posts. It went like this:
Quote:Which of course left me with a few questions, such as...
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.-Finn
Yes, I can show you fetuses that become something 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!-Signy
All human fetuses are human- Finn
You reduce it to: A human is human. -Signy
I’m pretty much okay with defining humans as human. I start getting a little bit of a headache when people starting trying to nitpick the line between human and something not human so that they can justify killing something with a clear conscience.- Finn
1) So, what about flushing a placenta down the toilet? I wouldn't get bent out of shape- would you?
Yes????
No????
In your mind you have an idea of what "human" means. An ideal. YOUR ideal. But what happens when reality wanders away from your ideal? HOW far away from your ideal will you allow the definition of "human" to stretch?
2) You use the phrase fully developed and complete tho that's not what you really mean. Do you want me to TELL you what you mean? It is a source of confusion for you. There is a phrase that can can substitute that will make veryhting clear.
3) To extend your example of medically necessary abortions being acceptable... that implies that you will spend a life to save a life. But what about war? Does this mean that wars are acceptable only if they save more lives than they kill?
4) And in a related fashion, how do you feel about the death penalty?
You seemed to have skated around the questions. But I haven't forgotten them and they're important because they demonstrate the depth and consistency of your commitment to human life.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Certainly no worse than your assertion that Pro-Choice is baby murder and that people have to dehumanise the cell bundle in order to baby murder with a clean conscience.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So let me get this straight, you’re okay with murder, at least to some degree, because #1, you believe the state shouldn’t tell you that you shouldn’t do it and #2, you believe that holding the opinion that murder is ethically wrong is a personal ego trip? Am I misunderstanding you?
Just keep calling anyone who disagrees with you a baby murdering Nazi, you're eloquently proving that you're capable of intelligent mature debate by doing that.
Hell the more you call people baby murders, the more you single yourself out as being on the moderate side of the debate, no what I'm saying.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
The most egregious example I can think of is when I hear social conservatives pledge to outlaw abortion, except in cases of rape, or incest. Why? If it's an innocent life, the method of its conception does not change that. A child born of rape or incest is just as innocent as a child born of love. Sin is not sexually transmitted, nor is it passed down from mother to child (maybe with Catholics).
Ah, but you're forgetting that in the case of rape or incest, the woman didn't enjoy herself. Therefore she can be freed of the punishment of pregnancy.
And let's face it--that's what the real agenda of the "pro-life" side is. Whether someone enjoyed F***ing. Dress it up in the morality of murder as they like, the true concern of the religious right is to make sure that people who enjoy sex in any but the most narrowly approved circumstances are ostracized and punished.
Perhaps I'll log back in later to debate the (very, very) separate issue of at what point in embryonic/fetal development the cell cluster should be considered legally human, but let's get real. Even if it could be proved tomorrow that the Hindus are right, and the soul doesn't enter the body until the first breath, the Evangelicals would still oppose abortion, because the important thing is to punish the sinners.
I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it.
"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My commitment to human life, huh? So my answers to your questions are going to decide, in your mind, my “commitment to human life?” Why do you think I should defend my commitment to human life to you?
Originally posted by SignyM:
You seemed to have skated around the questions. But I haven't forgotten them and they're important because they demonstrate the depth and consistency of your commitment to human life.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
HK. I am sorry for you and the ex. But glad she has a baby now.
And well said by the way.
----
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To answer that question, people really have to ask when does life first begin. Some people believe life begins in the 3rd month. Some people aren't sure about it. I'm unsure about it therefore I don't agree with everday abortion. I think abortion should be only considered when the baby has an illness that would cause a lot of pain in his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My mother had lupus and was a kidney transplant recipient. She had to take steroids every day to keep her lupus in remission and keep her kidney functioning. Her doctors had told her she was most likely steril from all of her medication.
When she found out she was pregnant with me, it was a complete shock. Her doctor strongly suggested that she have an abortion. A growing fetus would be right up against her transplant and the steroids she was on could cause horrible birth defects. I have to point out that my mother was a very devout Lutheran (she's since passed away) and was very opposed to the idea. However, she had a 12 year old daughter and husband at home and decided to put them first.
She reluctantly agreed to terminate the pregnancy. However, they soon discovered that she was already 7 months along and an abortion was not possible. I was born 2 months later and was perfectly healthy.
I think of this and realize that I was very lucky. But had my mother been only one or two months along... could I have faulted her for going through with it? Absolutely not!
I realize that most women who get abortions are probably young and unmarried and the children are most likely unwanted or the mother feels that she cannot provide for a child. But I don't feel that government should legislate moral issues. I, myself, could never have an abortion, but I would never try to tell another woman she could not have one. It is not for me to judge. That has to be left up to the Creator, who I believe, is loving, merciful, and compassionate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I believe it's the case.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
She'd been in communication with this soul for years, the soul'd been trying to come in. There's every likelihood that Betty is that soul.
That was beautifully put, HK. Brought a tear to my eye, almost even. Your posts are by far my favourite on the whole internet, not just here.
Thank you.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Women get to be special like that--always have, always will.
:Wiping tear: Damn, HK, you know how to write! I concur with Chrisisall--I always look forward to seeing what you have to say, even if I disagree. You should have your own blog.
(BTW, I apologize to RWED that I haven't written or posted in a while. Just moved twice, and then got into a car accident. Now changed computers, lost emails, basically disorganized. Also been very busy doing some political lobbying for an issue very important to me here in my state. I may post less and less here, but I always think of you guys and drop in to read from time to time, even when I can't post.)
My two cents, not that anyone here needs it. I believe abortion is murder. I think war is murder and capital punishment is murder. But hell, as HK pointed more eloquently, there are different types of murder and some can be understood and even pardoned.
I used to be rabidly pro-life. Then I became less rabid when someone I really cared about got an abortion, and I couldn't say I blamed her. The day I officially turned pro-choice was when I read a story about a Serbian muslim woman who was captured and raped several times a day for 6 months. She got pregnant. As a prisoner, she could not get an abortion. As soon as the baby came out, she murdered it. She was arrested and jailed for murder.
Now this was a case of undisputed murder of an innocent life. But I daresay there are very few women who would not sympathize with her. For me, I believed she did not deserve to be in jail. She wasn't going to go around murdering babies. She simply did not want to raise that one.
I have been reading a lot about innocent children being abused and killed the world over, with not so much a peep or care from most prolifers. Not that they are hardhearted, but that they don't even know about these kids. I believe the effort to enforce legislation would be better spent taking care of children who are already born--prevent THEM from being murdered first.
And lastly, although I believe abortion to be murder, I uncompromisingly believe in the right of other women to disagree with me.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
canttakesky,
Good to see you back! Sounds like you've been having to deal with a number of high stress events. I hope things are improving and that you weren't hurt in the car accident.
Finn,
Well, I'm a lot happier as a liberal than I was as a Limbaugh-listening ultra-conservative. So there's that 
.
It sounds like you would support what is called abstinence-plus education. This is similar to comprehensive sex education and very different from abstinence-only education. I found a really good intro to the topic here: http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/shelbyknox/special_overview.html
Unfortunately, from my point of view, the US government only funds abstinence-only education. The amount of money spent is increasing each year (it started under Reagan, kind of stayed at the same level for a while, and then took a big jump under Clinton. Bush has taken it to another level).
Quote:
from http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/shelbyknox/special_overview.html
In subsequent years, federal funding for abstinence-only education has increased substantially. In 2005, $167 million was earmarked for abstinence-only education, up from $80 million in 2001. President George W. Bush's proposed 2006 budget includes $206 million for such programs. This is the only portion of the federal budget targeted towards sex education in public schools, meaning that to qualify for this supplemental money, schools must adopt a sex education program that meets the federal standards for abstinence education. Schools that choose comprehensive or abstinence-plus curricula must fund the programs out of their general budget, provided by local and state governments.
It's getting pretty bad out there. In Louisiana, for example, all public schools are abstinence-only education (or at least they were in 2002). Which means that no Louisiana public school students are learning about contraception. None. That should scare the shit out of all but the far right fringe.
I'd be much happier if we funded comprehensive or abstinence-plus sex education.
* edited to add on to penultimate paragraph.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:ummm... Because you seem to have an opnion about it and you put it out to a discussion board?
My commitment to human life, huh? So my answers to your questions are going to decide, in your mind, my “commitment to human life?” Why do you think I should defend my commitment to human life to you?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
I have read through all the posts and you seem to be a pro-lifer. If that is the case, my goal is not to bash you (or any other pro-lifer) for your position. As covered in the "Evil" thread, it's all relative to me. The pro-life stance is as valid as the pro-choice stance.
It's the inconsistencies in most pro-lifer's positions that I have a problem with and that is what I was trying to point out in my above post.
You appear to argue pretty consistently that a fetus is human life. I could go through and pick sentences out of your posts, but I hope you will spare me that task. If I have misunderstood and misstate your beliefs, just forgive and correct me.
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?
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.
It's all perspective and no view can be proven to be more valid or invalid than another. So, if every position is potentially invalid, how can we rightly force others to follow our possibly invalid beliefs? And if we do, why stop with abortion? This moral/religious conflict extends far beyond the abortion debate and it's a very slippery slope.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, I had to run off and start taking care of a population problem in our neighborhood- a feral cat problem. We have a mom cat who adopted us. Trouble is, she's BIG cat, a good mom, and a kitten-factory. This was the second litter of five on our yard. I managed to trap two of the kittens (Wings and Tabby) and had to take them to a spay/neuter clinic. Next time I hope to trap the remainder (Mom, Collar, and Fancy. Cloud seems not to have survived) for the same. Also rabies and flea treatment.
FINN... I'm not trying to make you "defend" your commitment to "human life", just to clarify what you mean. And I think in that process of clarification you'll find at least one gaping schism in your mental constructs and probably more than one.
I've read your posts in the past. As I recall- and I may be wrong- you're in favor of the death penalty. Even your signature (Those who want peace must be prepared to wage war) tells me that you, at least, are willing to kill in order to achieve a goal. But you will not permit women and their doctors (who may be men) to do the same.
I can think of all kinds of ways to parse this seeming contradiction and we can dance around terms like "innocent", "human", "deliberate", and "authority" but quite frankly I don't think that's where the schism is. From your posts, I perceive and entirely different reason WHY this seeming contradiction pops up and it is related to how you fundamentally look at the world. It shows up in pharses like fully developed and complete.
If you want to discuss it, fine. If not, then I would say you're frightened of possibly having your mind changed.
CANTTAKESKY
OMG, is there anything we can DO? A series of events like that would make a rubber room look kind of tempting!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just wondering here, what if you could prove 100% that the woman who was planning to abort a child, would one day go on to invent a cure for cancer; however, if she had it - she wouldn't get a chance to complete her education and the cure wouldn't be found for many years costing perhaps millions of lives.
In this case, would it be acceptable for her to ahve an abortion?
Just wondering - and I'm not OBVIOUSLY not saying this is always the case - I'm just pondering on your stance if it was.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think everyone should have the right to choose. But that being said, I also believe that one should use birth control! Abortion should never be used because one is too lazy to take a pill or doesn't want to use a condom. Yes, the man had a part in this too.
There are times when I believe it is necessary, or maybe it would be better to say allowed. Rape is one of those times.
We've also let our zeal to save lives move further along than our ideas of quality of life. Children are being born today that I believe God never meant to go to term because our doctors have the knowledge to keep a 24 week (the normal being 40) damaged premie alive. (not all 24 weekers are that bad, but ultra sound and other tests can give us a lot of info)
But when it all comes down to it, it is the choice of the people envolved, what they live with, and no elses, including the governments.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
"Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it." - The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, time for a little brain-stretching exercises here. Let's just consider religious implications here to begin with...
First, as to the question of at what point the soul enters the developing embryo/fetus:
As I mentioned above, Hindu theology states that the soul (prana) enters the body with the first breath (also prana). Therefore, one would assume that, from a Hindu standpoint, abortion would be a non-issue; the equivalent of scraping a car while it's still on the assembly line, long before anyone is sitting at the wheel.
Further, in any religious structure that incorporates belief in reincarnation (Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, etc.) it wouldn't matter whether the embryo had a soul or not-- if not, you've killed animal meat, if so, then it would simply be an interrupted journey in the soul's karma, and it would move on to its next incarnation. No harm, no foul.
Looking at things from a Judeo/Christian viewpoint:
The Old Testiment standard was that the soul entered at "The Quickening" -- the point at which an ear placed against the mother's belly could differentiate the fetal heartbeat from the mother's. (Somewhere between the fourth and fifth motnths--well after the first trimester.) The idea that the soul enters at conception is relatively new (less than 200 years old) and stems from a statement from a Roman Catholic Pope -- hardly an idea one would think binding on American Protestant Sects, especially considering their historical animosity towards "Papist" ideas.
But, even accepting the idea of "Conception as soul start" at face value, it should have no effect on United States law. "Soul" is not a legal or scientific concept, but a religious one.
The question thus becomes, "At what point in the development of the embryo/fetus does it become legally human?"
That's not as simple as it may sound. There may be several diffent answers. As a parallel, consider the idea of "age of consent".
If an adult (18+ years of age) has consensual sex with a minor under the age of consent (generally 16) it is considered statutory rape--
But--
If the minor's guardians have given consent, the adult and the minor can be legally married at ages ranging down to 14 or younger, depending on the state.
The same act, legal under one standard, proscribed under another.
So--a doctor aborting a first-trimester fetus in the womb could be considered legal, under Roe V. Wade, yet still be murder if a miscarriage resulted from an assault on the mother. It's a matter of intent and contract...
I'm signing off here, due to outside world necessity, without having concluded my points. Sorry. But I hope I've still given people food for thought...
"Prove you have a soul. Draw--Soul! Present--Soul!" -- H. Beam Piper
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS - I was wondering where you were ! (How are your little ones BTW?) If there's anyting we can do, let us know - OK?
Lots of interesting posts.
"Ah, but you're forgetting that in the case of rape or incest, the woman didn't enjoy herself. Therefore she can be freed of the punishment of pregnancy." I laughed out loud. This captures it perfectly.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
hoping the car accident was minor!
----
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I really don't want to get into this argument, so I'm just going to lay it out nice and simple:
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.
This position:
Quote:
If you think it's wrong, don't have one.
Is not just pro-abortion, it's actually pro-murder, because by the same logical, it could be used against the anti-murder argument:
"Thou shalt not kill"
as in a response like:
"Oh yeah? Well, if you disapprove of killing, don't kill people, but the rest of us are going to go on killing, whether that's okay with you or not"
The "right to choose" argument is equally bad:
it's your right to choose whether or not to go into mcdonalds and kill 16 people with an AK47. We're not saying you have to, but that option should be open to you.
No. It shouldn't. Maybe it should be open to a doctor, who sometimes has to make the choice of who lives and who dies in situations where there is limited blood, or siamese twins being separated, or one organ donor and two needy recipients, difficult choices. But disturbing the natural order should not be our whim.
BTW, I'm just ranting, so I'm not going to get into it, but my position is faith based, so I don't think it's going to make for much of a political debate. for the record, my position of anti-death penalty is also faith based. I oppose the death penalty for saddam hussein, and for osama bin laden, and just as i oppose it for george w bush and charles manson.
If you argue the point with me I'm liable to tell you to stop eating fish.
:)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Abortions will happen regardless. You can be pro choice or pro backstreet abortion that leaves most women that have them sterile or dead or abandoning the child after birth, because those are the real choices.
Citizen,
This is the best possible argument for your side, and congrats on making it. I think there are ways to settle this one, but it's about the only solid argument I've heard from the pro-choicers.
Quote:
I cut my finger earlier, how many miniture humans died there I wonder? A collection of Cells isn't a human, it has potential perhaps, but still not a Human.
This is one of the many losing arguments. The point is, without human medical intervention, a full human will come of a pregnancy, most likely, and will not come for your cut finger. There are no complete clonable cells from your blood, but that's aside from the point. Abortion is screwing with mother nature. It's a very Saturny position.
But I'm not going to have an argument on abortion, just wanted to point out the strong and weak argument here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Rue, Signy, FMF, Soup,
Thanks for your concern. I am touched. Browncoats really are the best.
Nothing anyone can do. I just slid on a slippery hill into another car. Killed my favorite car. Had to find and buy another (used) vehicle, take it to the shop, etc. Ah, what a pain. Fortunately we weren't driving fast and no one was hurt, except for an injury on my tongue. I somehow bit it something fierce upon impact and needed 8 stitches--yeah, on the tongue. Had to blend and drink all my food through a straw for a week and a half. Not fun. BTW, never blend a hot dog and bun. Ewww.
My kids are all right. I think my son is out of the woods now, healthwise. Thanks for asking.
I do still have a lot going on here, so I probably won't be posting as much as before. But I do miss you guys and will pop in from time to time.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
------------------
"Little defeat big, when little is smart.
First with the head, then with the heart." -- The Power of One (movie)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is one of the many losing arguments. The point is without putting on a condom a baby would have resulted from sex. Contraception is murder.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is one of the many losing arguments. The point is, without human medical intervention, a full human will come of a pregnancy, most likely, and will not come for your cut finger. There are no complete clonable cells from your blood, but that's aside from the point. Abortion is screwing with mother nature. It's a very Saturny position.
Just wanted to point out the weak arguments
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
This is one of the many losing arguments. The point is without putting on a condom a baby would have resulted from sex. Contraception is murder.
Just wanted to point out the weak arguments
To quote the creepy: Why so glib?
Why is it so hard to accept that there is a difference between the sperm, egg and the result of an actual successful fertilization between sperm and egg?
Pregnancy is not the inevitable result of sex. It's a probable one, but not guaranteed. Fetilization occurs if a number of factors combine.
Otherwise it's just potential. Sperm stays sperm and egg stays egg and both rot away without outside interference. As nature intended. No murder about it.
But when those conditions are met and by chance egg and sperm do meet, you have a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus, baby. And without outside interference that one doesn't rot. It grows. That's also as nature intended.
How is there not a difference? How?
It's the right of the woman to interfere. Period. But interference is what it takes, and I don't understand what is supposed to be so damaging about aknowledging it as something significant, something that ends the life of a human being at an almost ridiculously early stage?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
REGARDING:
"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?"
FLF;
Ask Malachi if he agrees with you about the Woman's Choice
http://supportbordercontrols.blogspot.com/2006/11/abortion-is-satonic-
totally-evil.html#links
cl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
REGARDING:
"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?"
FLF;
Ask Malachi if he agrees with you about the Woman's Choice
http://supportbordercontrols.blogspot.com/2006/11/abortion-is-satonic-
totally-evil.html#links
CL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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. The biggest linchpin in the Argument so far has been "it could be Human therefore it is Human", how is saying "an egg could be Human therefore it is Human" any different? 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?
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
To quote the creepy: Why so glib?
Why is it so hard to accept that there is a difference between the sperm, egg and the result of an actual successful fertilization between sperm and egg?
Pregnancy is not the inevitable result of sex. It's a probable one, but not guaranteed. Fetilization occurs if a number of factors combine.
Otherwise it's just potential. Sperm stays sperm and egg stays egg and both rot away without outside interference. As nature intended. No murder about it.
But when those conditions are met and by chance egg and sperm do meet, you have a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus, baby. And without outside interference that one doesn't rot. It grows. That's also as nature intended.
How is there not a difference? How?
It's the right of the woman to interfere. Period. But interference is what it takes, and I don't understand what is supposed to be so damaging about aknowledging it as something significant, something that ends the life of a human being at an almost ridiculously early stage?
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.
Lets assume that we know 100% that the Embryo will develop into a child, so we say aborting it is murder.
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?
How is a Condom natural? How? 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?
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like CL registered just to play a joke.
Nice going CL.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You can say it, and should.
Originally posted by citizen:
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?
I call for life in prison for all those evil maturbaters that spill their seed wastefully upon the Earth!
Murders!
Biped scum!!!
Think of the billions lost to us Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 pos
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I’ve been in Washington lately, but here is my collection of responses:
Quote:It’s good to find your niche.
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
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: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.
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?
Quote:Since I don’t have an absolute answer to give you, wouldn’t that make me pro-Choice in your set of definitions?
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.
Quote: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.
Originally posted by SignyM:
ummm... Because you seem to have an opnion about it and you put it out to a discussion board?
Quote: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.
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.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course you do.
I think I'm really a realist. I suspect Finn does to.
Quote: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".
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.
Quote: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.
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?
Quote:This is an idealist statement.
It's about the flow of natural forces.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
dbl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
"Human life" MAY begin at conception. But it needs to be viable outside the womb.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pro-Choice 100%
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well then, what about the differecne between a blastocyst and a baby? Any appreciable difference there?
I don't think there's an appreciable difference between a fetus and a baby,
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, now THAT was a dodge! I could spell it out for you but DT made the argument more cogently than I.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But the job of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution, not to draft legislation.
Quote: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.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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".
Alive? Really? Wikipedia informs unknowledgable me that the placenta is a temporary organ, consisting of both fetal and maternal DNA.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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").
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think I'm really a realist. I suspect Finn does to.
Quote: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".
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.
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: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.
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?
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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".
Alive? Really? Wikipedia informs unknowledgable me that the placenta is a temporary organ, consisting of both fetal and maternal DNA.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
savemessage.asp failed my arse.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
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?
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Agent,
"... 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 ..."
I personally think it make sense to draw the line further along - at brain activity. But at the very least it is inconsistent to say a fertilized egg is human, but that if an embryo fails to develop it becomes non-human. Because then you have to question what imbues a fertilized egg with its 'humanity' that disappears later on.
If you say the potential to become human is what is lost when the embryo fails to develop, then you've assigned the fertilized egg to merely a potentiality rather than an actuality. And you've moved the line to somewhere else than fertilization.
BTW, that is the argument Finn is desperately avoiding by refusing to answer the placenta question.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME