View Full Version : Abortion: Killing babies not amoral.....or differet from abortion!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
As I've said in the past, its really doesn't stop there, feminists quietly claim the right to murder children up into their early teen years, especially boys, as they are not yet fully human!
thopkins22
08-28-13, 13:23
As I've said in the past, its really doesn't stop there, feminists quietly claim the right to murder children up into their early teen years, especially boys, as they are not yet fully human!
This is probably to <0.001% of those who are pro-choice. Whereas I can find a much larger percentage of pro-lifers who believe that condoms are the equivalent of abortions. It's truly an extremist position even amongst the most radical feminists.
The reasonable position to me says that abortion is not immoral at the stages where the fetus is only capable of life as a parasite on the mother. With modern medicine that's somewhere between 20-24 weeks.
Ethicists earn their keep challenging controversial topics...I take it as someone who made a radical claim for the sake of sparking debate.
Alaskapopo
08-28-13, 13:42
As I've said in the past, its really doesn't stop there, feminists quietly claim the right to murder children up into their early teen years, especially boys, as they are not yet fully human!
Good God do you really believe that? No matter where you stand on abortion you would have to be pretty gullible to believe that pro choice people are for killing males until their 20's. Not one person I have spoken to on the subject holds that view and I have never heard it before from anyone else. I would be willing to bet more pro lifers are in favor of murdering abortion doctors than pro choice ers are for killing boys.
Pat
Good God do you really believe that? No matter where you stand on abortion you would have to be pretty gullible to believe that pro choice people are for killing males until their 20's. Not one person I have spoken to on the subject holds that view and I have never heard it before from anyone else. I would be willing to bet more pro lifers are in favor of murdering abortion doctors than pro choice ers are for killing boys.
Pat
Glen Beck said it was true... :rolleyes:
Good God do you really believe that? No matter where you stand on abortion you would have to be pretty gullible to believe that pro choice people are for killing males until their 20's. Not one person I have spoken to on the subject holds that view and I have never heard it before from anyone else. I would be willing to bet more pro lifers are in favor of murdering abortion doctors than pro choice ers are for killing boys.
Pat
Not saying such claims are true or not but there are already fringe persons advocating for post-birth abortions. And considering the direction the trend is moving whose to say what notions might become collectively mainstream or at the very least tangibly acceptable in the decades to come.
Good God do you really believe that? No matter where you stand on abortion you would have to be pretty gullible to believe that pro choice people are for killing males until their 20's. Not one person I have spoken to on the subject holds that view and I have never heard it before from anyone else. I would be willing to bet more pro lifers are in favor of murdering abortion doctors than pro choice ers are for killing boys.
Pat
Did you read the link? They authors are advocating infanticide, literally! Also, you've confused pro-choice with pro-abortion, which is having your cake, and eating it too, after all, its been decades now that the pro-choice crew have been insisting that its a choice that they "personally" find repugnant, nonetheless a choice that should be made available.
Young teens are not twenty-something's, you have editorialized my statement to suit your pre-conceived notion to some extent. As to your belief that "Pro-life's" as you put it, are more willing to kill, you'll have to excuse my incredulity, since roe v wade was made law, approximately 60,000,000 abortions have been performed.
The murder of a pair of abortionists seems rather ridiculous by comparison, to say the least....
People can talk about big talk about abortions, until the first time they've held their own child in their hands....and if they haven't they need to STFU....I know my perceptions certainly changed.
Not saying such claims are true or not but there are already fringe persons advocating for post-birth abortions. And considering the direction the trend is moving whose to say what notions might become collectively mainstream or at the very least tangibly acceptable in the decades to come.
Precisely! The authors felt confident enough to publish their viewpoint, which also demonstrates something else, they have an audience "receptive" to such concepts.
It was just a month or so previous, that students attending a major US university were filmed signing a petition to legalize 3rd trimester abortion..
montanadave
08-28-13, 15:06
I'll have to give some thought to killing teenaged boys. At first blush, I'd say I'm probably 50/50 on any given day.
I will say it's a good thing this wasn't an option when me and my brothers where in high school, as I think my folks would have resoundingly voted to terminate us "with extreme prejudice." :)
CarlosDJackal
08-28-13, 15:36
This is probably to <0.001% of those who are pro-choice. Whereas I can find a much larger percentage of pro-lifers who believe that condoms are the equivalent of abortions...
The difference is those who are against all types of birth control and masturbation are not trying to justify the killing of another human being, "potential" or otherwise.
No matter how you want to paint it, "pro-choice" is just another feel good term for pro-Infanticide. If you don't want any children, then don't have sex!! If you want to have sex (and who doesn't) but don't want any children, then have yourself sterilized or your tubes tied.
With the huge numbers of loving couples who have to go overseas to adopt children of their own, abortion is a travesty that is not only unnecessary, but should be criminalized (except for those situations where it is deemed medically necessary to save the mother's life, of course).
Allowing a newly born child to die of starvation and exposure is murder, nothing less. And any scumbag who allows this to happen or votes to allow this to happen (IE: do a search on the IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act) should be prosecuted. JM2CW.
Life is life: kill the defenseless like the very young, then start on the elderly. After all, they too aren't needed nor contribute... Then they will work on those with physical or mental defects. Once all of these become accepted, then they will come after those that disagree with them. To cheapen the value of any life that is innocent (not found legally guilty) is the slippery slope of humanity dragging itself into the abyss. Our inconvenience is not worth the price we would be paying (our souls).
I'm completely pro-choice, and wish that the contraceptive pill was free for all women to use at will. There are too many people on the planet, and more unwanted children end up as criminals or skill-less wastes of space that suck down financial and natural resources. Does that make me pro-murder? I don't think so.
This is probably to <0.001% of those who are pro-choice. Whereas I can find a much larger percentage of pro-lifers who believe that condoms are the equivalent of abortions.
No actually, you can't. :rolleyes:
How Tyranny Came to America
"Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.
Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now."
http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
And that is the reason why the militant leftist gun-grabbrers like Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Cuomo, Feinstein, Boxer, et al, also deny the inalienable right to life from the moment we are created.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure
when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in
the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
Thomas Jefferson
I'm completely pro-choice, and wish that the contraceptive pill was free for all women to use at will.
By "free" you of course mean you support government forcing taxpayers to pay for it.
It still amazes me how many gun enthusiast support the big-government liberal ideology and agenda of the gun grabbers.
Army Chief
08-28-13, 16:39
Good post, Carlos.
I generally do not wade into these discussions with strong opinions of my own, as my larger obligations to the community require a certain detachment for unbiased moderating. That said, I do feel that life is life, no matter how we might try to redefine it, and I suspect we are all pro-choice in the sense that we all have a choice whether or not to have sexual relations.
Once that choice is made, and a life results from it, I find it a bit disingenuous to try to have some kind of quasi-scientific debate about where the cut line should be. Taken apart for the obvious moral context, what you end up with is a silly debate with respect to a question of degree. How much of x is too much? Looking to societal norms at the time may provide a safe harbor from having to confront the larger moral issues, but I don't think it serves us very well in finding the right answer. It merely helps John or Jane Doe find an answer with which they can make an uneasy peace, because, really, who among us likes the idea of aborting fetuses, regardless of the reasons or related implications? Not to start a brush fire, but even when examined purely in terms of the natural order, it makes no more sense to sustaining a healthy society to cull offspring than it does to encourage homosexuality.
Tough subject. I hope we can keep this one on the rails.
AC
Alaskapopo
08-28-13, 16:54
People can talk about big talk about abortions, until the first time they've held their own child in their hands....and if they haven't they need to STFU....I know my perceptions certainly changed.
I have seen plenty of lives ruined because of babies having babies before they were ready. Its also increasing our welfare state in this country. Either way this is a religious issue and it should not be a political one.
Pat
Alaskapopo
08-28-13, 16:55
By "free" you of course mean you support government forcing taxpayers to pay for it.
It still amazes me how many gun enthusiast support the big-government liberal ideology and agenda of the gun grabbers.
I would much rather pay for contraception than pay for a welfare mother and her 13 babies in the projects or the trailer park.
pat
montanadave
08-28-13, 16:56
Tough subject. I hope we can keep this one on the rails.
AC
And I shall do my part by judiciously choosing to abstain. :)
I just don't have the strength, patience or inclination to have this discussion except to say the far extremes on both sides of the issue will forever prevent any meaningful solution.
That said, with things like the morning after pill, there really isn't any reason for anyone to have an abortion except due to complications of the pregnancy or some kind of deformity. The rest of them are due to gross irresponsibility and I'd rather not see them have "more children."
The idea that we'd ever actually get to the point of post birth abortions is truly absurd, about as absurd as needing permission from the church itself to get an abortion.
But just in case post birth abortions are ever made legal, I've got my list of candidates going. Crossing my fingers.
By "free" you of course mean you support government forcing taxpayers to pay for it.
It still amazes me how many gun enthusiast support the big-government liberal ideology and agenda of the gun grabbers.
Yes, I think it would be wise for the government to pay for it. Which is cheaper? Housing and feeding an inmate, or a $0.25 pill? If you're talking about an idea where the government spends less money, the pill is a bargain compared to the proliferation of future criminals. Look at how much is spent on incarceration. If we're talking economics, I think my viewpoint is FAR cheaper. And as for painting me into the same mindset as the gun grabbers, that's just false. If it helps to classify me in a little box, then go for it. But it has zero to do with reality.
Army Chief
08-28-13, 17:08
I have seen plenty of lives ruined because of babies having babies before they were ready.
I suspect we would all agree on that, too. The attendant question becomes this: do we find some way to deal with the irresponsible behaviors that lead to the problem (rhetorical -- and difficult -- question), or do we continue to make the problem appear to go away at the expense of the resulting progeny? They have no voice unless we choose give them one. Easy targets.
This is really why is it almost impossible to have a public policy discussion devoid of moral overtones, and why the breakdown of a common moral stance as a society will only result in our ideological boats drifting further and further apart. You can't legislate morality, perhaps, but you can, and likely should, insure that our laws and policies reflect the moral compass of the nation. We've largely abandoned that, of course, and are now reaping the results under the auspices of progressive thought.
I reserve the right to be wrong, of course, but that is more or less how I see it, as a churchgoing dude with a graduate degree in Public Administration and a casual observer of society-at-large. YMMV.
AC
People can talk about big talk about abortions, until the first time they've held their own child in their hands....and if they haven't they need to STFU....I know my perceptions certainly changed.
Everything changed and very much so for the better. While I have no doubt that some aren't meant to raise children I'd also suspect that the majority who believe kids aren't for them have absolutely no idea what they are missing. For the average, caring parent a child takes you to a higher level in a way nothing else anywhere can.
I suspect we would all agree on that, too. The attendant question becomes this: do we find some way to deal with the irresponsible behaviors that lead to the problem (rhetorical -- and difficult -- question), or do we continue to make the problem appear to go away at the expense of the resulting progeny?
AC
People enjoy having sex. Many don't know or care about the possible repercussions of doing it unsafely. Society is always going to be left holding the bag. When defining government policies, should we deal with the world as it is, or do we deal with the world as we think it should be? That's the crux of it. Sure, having babies without the will, financial means, personal responsibility, or love that's required to do it properly is morally wrong. But will everyone always do what's morally right? No, they won't.
I suspect we would all agree on that, too. The attendant question becomes this: do we find some way to deal with the irresponsible behaviors that lead to the problem (rhetorical -- and difficult -- question), or do we continue to make the problem appear to go away at the expense of the resulting progeny?
AC
If we could make irresponsible people "responsible" we wouldn't need most of our laws and we wouldn't have half of our problems.
Even something as "reasonable" as requiring norplant type birth control for anyone on government assistance would see major outcries and could probably never pass as a bill.
And such measures wouldn't even begin to address the problem.
Bottom line is irresponsible people breed the most, and just because they have children doesn't mean they provide for them or even acknowledge them. In most cases they are seen simply as a government assistance increase in benefits, with as little going to the welfare of the child as possible.
I know a few people who have had more than one abortion so clearly some people aren't learning and can't be made to be responsible.
theblackknight
08-28-13, 17:57
Pill bargaining vs. Plea bargaining
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Army Chief
08-28-13, 18:05
People enjoy having sex. Many don't know or care about the possible repercussions of doing it unsafely. Society is always going to be left holding the bag. When defining government policies, should we deal with the world as it is, or do we deal with the world as we think it should be? That's the crux of it. Sure, having babies without the will, financial means, personal responsibility, or love that's required to do it properly is morally wrong. But will everyone always do what's morally right? No, they won't.
Concur, and I'll likely bow-out of this shortly, but I suspect between ignorance (don't know) and apathy (don't care), the latter is by far the greater problem. Part of this might well be because of the way in which societal norms have changed. Yes, we had the sexual revolution and emergence of effective contraception, but even prior to these things, there was shame -- or, at least, widespread disapproval -- attached to having children outside of the traditional family unit. With apologies to Murphy Brown, that wasn't always such a bad thing.
I'm certainly not trying to force Puritan values on anyone, but it served us all well when a girl had good reason to consider the possible consequences of allowing a boy to do what a boy wants to do. Whether it was fear, or an understanding of the severity of failure, the scope of the problem was nowhere near what it is currently, and we would do well to remember that this was prior to abortion being deemed legal. Folks just understood that there were consequences to their actions, and some things weren't worth taking the risk.
There are doubtless many arguments for and against my basic premise, but what I'm driving at is this: we no longer look down on irresponsible behaviors. There is no collective stigma attached to those who consistently make poor decisions; in fact, you might make the case that we've completely restructured our entitlement systems to do all that we can to spare them the consequences of their actions. (Probably a run-on sentence, but you get the idea.) Not only won't we judge you as a society -- heck, we'll even pay for it.
In our effort to progress as enlightened free thinkers, we've become unwitting enablers of unsustainable behaviors. Those who do not work and who breed indiscriminately should not starve, but neither should they enjoy the same (or better) standard of living as their hard-working, minimum-wage neighbors. In simpler terms, the incentive to do what's right and work hard has been removed, because no one wishes to cast judgment or appear unkind.
So it is with this issue of having a litter of children without any sustaining family structure to support them. We will focus on doing what we can to insure that the children are not made to suffer, but the cow is well outside of the barn by the time we reach this noble resolution. The problem is with their mother, and the men -- I indelicately presume -- involved in her impregnation. There are so many different ways to avoid such things these days that you're almost left to wonder who the dimwits are that are out there waiting in line at the women's clinic. That's not entirely fair on my part, but it is an admittedly-exasperating state of affairs.
Again, an impossible topic in many ways. I'm just weary of treating symptoms -- invariably with our tax dollars -- while completely ignoring the underlying disease(s) ... and yes, many of them have a clear moral underpinning. Having a reckless collection of children and expecting Uncle Sam to foot the bill is wrong. It simply isn't "ok," and we are fools to pretend otherwise. Where such problems were once dealt with, uncomfortably, at the family and community level, we've now made it a largely-painless process that results in a discreet government check. And a free cell phone, apparently. We've even made a point of insuring that, the more irresponsible you are, the more loot you are apt to collect.
That's not compassion. It's stupidity.
And that's pretty much where I have to get off of the bus, boys.
Keep it civil, please.
AC
Alaskapopo
08-28-13, 18:10
I suspect we would all agree on that, too. The attendant question becomes this: do we find some way to deal with the irresponsible behaviors that lead to the problem (rhetorical -- and difficult -- question), or do we continue to make the problem appear to go away at the expense of the resulting progeny? They have no voice unless we choose give them one. Easy targets.
This is really why is it almost impossible to have a public policy discussion devoid of moral overtones, and why the breakdown of a common moral stance as a society will only result in our ideological boats drifting further and further apart. You can't legislate morality, perhaps, but you can, and likely should, insure that our laws and policies reflect the moral compass of the nation. We've largely abandoned that, of course, and are now reaping the results under the auspices of progressive thought.
I reserve the right to be wrong, of course, but that is more or less how I see it, as a churchgoing dude with a graduate degree in Public Administration and a casual observer of society-at-large. YMMV.
AC
I don't think abortion should be the first option but it is not for me to say what a woman does with her body. If some believe she is going to hell for having an abortion fine but that is between her and her God no one else. I personally think anyone who opposes abortion should be willing to raise the kids of the women that want them. An unwanted child is often an un loved child.
Pat
I would much rather pay for contraception than pay for a welfare mother and her 13 babies in the projects or the trailer park.
pat
And you are perfectly free to hand out as much of your own money as you like to pay for other people's contraceptives. So how much have you voluntarily paid out anyhow?
http://tomohalloran.com/2013/08/08/ragamuffin-response-text/
“Well, as someone from Appalachia and the tenth of 11 children whose parents’ income was below the poverty line, I have to say most people are clueless when they talk about this. “Ragamuffins” indeed! My parents had hoped for 12 children and the final child miscarried. Mom had ten in her family and Dad had 12 in his.
No one starved to death. No one was cold or even hungry. The only ones who ever had trouble with that has been the current generation and only those that have cut themselves off from their Catholic faith and family. While my family income was poverty level, we were working poor with 12 hour days and with farming abilities that we used well. Our work ethic was excellent. All 11 children in my family are college graduates–most with advanced degrees.
Poverty is not an issue about a large number of children–we worked together for the good of the family. True poverty is NOT about a lack of money. It is about a lack of (example of) work ethic, a lack of education (or lack of valuing education), a lack of family connections–broken families (no one to catch you when you fall), a lack of charity (charity should start with the family), a lack of the ability to work due to addictions (drugs and alcohol.) Children in a stable, loving family are a way OUT of poverty for the whole family. I have seen it over and over here. Families more easily fall into poverty when there are few children.”
Good post, Carlos.
I generally do not wade into these discussions with strong opinions of my own, as my larger obligations to the community require a certain detachment for unbiased moderating. That said, I do feel that life is life, no matter how we might try to redefine it, and I suspect we are all pro-choice in the sense that we all have a choice whether or not to have sexual relations.
Once that choice is made, and a life results from it, I find it a bit disingenuous to try to have some kind of quasi-scientific debate about where the cut line should be. Taken apart for the obvious moral context, what you end up with is a silly debate with respect to a question of degree. How much of x is too much? Looking to societal norms at the time may provide a safe harbor from having to confront the larger moral issues, but I don't think it serves us very well in finding the right answer. It merely helps John or Jane Doe find an answer with which they can make an uneasy peace, because, really, who among us likes the idea of aborting fetuses, regardless of the reasons or related implications? Not to start a brush fire, but even when examined purely in terms of the natural order, it makes no more sense to sustaining a healthy society to cull offspring than it does to encourage homosexuality.
Tough subject. I hope we can keep this one on the rails.
AC
Brilliant. I'd like to buy you a beer someday sir when I'm at Knox.
Yes, I think it would be wise for the government to pay for it.
By "government" you again of course mean all of us here should be forced to pay for it.
Which is cheaper? Housing and feeding an inmate, or a $0.25 pill? If you're talking about an idea where the government spends less money, the pill is a bargain compared to the proliferation of future criminals. Look at how much is spent on incarceration. If we're talking economics, I think my viewpoint is FAR cheaper. And as for painting me into the same mindset as the gun grabbers, that's just false. If it helps to classify me in a little box, then go for it. But it has zero to do with reality.
Actually, it has quite a bit more than "zero to do with reality" since you claim to support one of the cornerstones in their liberal ideological agenda. I am not sure how in one and the same post both agreeing and denying that you are doing this makes a whole lot of sense.
Army Chief
08-28-13, 18:46
I'd like to buy you a beer someday sir when I'm at Knox.
Shouldn't put too much of a dent on your wallet, since I'm actually at Bragg these days. ;)
But I do appreciate the sentiment!
AC
By "government" you again of course mean all of us here should be forced to pay for it.
Actually, it has quite a bit more than "zero to do with reality" since you claim to support one of the cornerstones in their liberal ideological agenda. I am not sure how in one and the same post both agreeing and denying that you are doing this makes a whole lot of sense.
What doesn't make sense is that, it would appear, a person cannot agree with a concept that may or may not be part of a political platform without then being lopped into agreeing with everything that political platform espouses. For instance, if I were to also say that I embrace science-based explanations of reality, that I'm a Nazi because the Nazis appreciated science. See how that doesn't work, and it's just a way to oversimplify a person's ideological makeup and be argumentative? If a person would rather pay exponentially more to house hundreds of thousands of inmates in prison, fund their children who will end up robbing innocent old ladies at knifepoint, pay for health care (addiction ravages the body, it's not gonna be cheap!), their Lunchables and Old English, that's one perspective. Just not mine.
I just don't have the words....
http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/27/woman-gives-birth-in-sports-bar-kills-baby-goes-back-to-watching-wrestling-3939441/
What doesn't make sense is that, it would appear, a person cannot agree with a concept that may or may not be part of a political platform without then being lopped into agreeing with everything that political platform espouses.
And where exactly was the assertion ever made that you agree with "everything that political platform espouses"?
I have seen plenty of lives ruined because of babies having babies before they were ready. Its also increasing our welfare state in this country. Either way this is a religious issue and it should not be a political one.
Pat
It's an ethical issue. Since killing the innocent is wrong by any cultural standards I know of, the only way you can pull it off is by defining the targetted group as something other than "innocent" or "human". Prostitute the language enough and everything is possible.
Don't take my word for it. Look up George Orwell.
And where exactly was the assertion ever made that you agree with "everything that political platform espouses"?
Really? :rolleyes:
I think the writing is on the wall that I shouldn't be posting in this thread. I'd feel bad if I were part of making it go sideways.
Really? :rolleyes:
I think the writing is on the wall that I shouldn't be posting in this thread. I'd feel bad if I were part of making it go sideways.
Yes, really. Then perhaps you could help me understand the point of replying without actually responding.
Here's the thing, it amazes me that you could possibly think that any of the militant leftist ideological agenda of Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, Cuomo, Obama, Bloomberg, etc, is a good thing for America, is the right direction to better secure freedom and liberty, is the very course our Founding Fathers would themselves have taken.
I have stated this here now several times, I firmly believe that the best, and as it were the only, course of action to restore and protect liberty and freedom is to tear down every single last brick and stone in Boxer's, Feinstein's, Cuomo's, Obama's and Pelosi's absurd and obscene leftist ideological wall and smash them all into so much dust.
Army Chief
08-28-13, 19:18
Steady, boys.
Issues, not individuals.
Gratsi,
AC
Amanda Catherine Hein, 26, was at Starters Pub in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, in the US, watching a wrestling match with friends before reportedly spending about 40 minutes in the bathroom and returning to the group blood-soaked.
She insisted she was fine and went outside and smoked a cigarette before returning to her friends to continue watching the pay-per-view match, police have said.
Staff at the pub found the baby’s corpse the next morning on August 17 after complaints the toilet would not flush.
Northampton County coroner said an autopsy showed the baby was born alive and died of suffocation.
One of the authors audience, who by the moral and ethical standard that they are bannering, did nothing more then experience a difficult bowel movement....
One of the authors audience, who by the moral and ethical standard that they are bannering, did nothing more then experience a difficult bowel movement....
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin
Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control
http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2
"Here's the thing, though: the Catholic Church is the world's biggest and oldest organization. It has buried all of the greatest empires known to man, from the Romans to the Soviets. It has establishments literally all over the world, touching every area of human endeavor. It's given us some of the world's greatest thinkers, from Saint Augustine on down to René Girard. When it does things, it usually has a good reason. Everyone has a right to disagree, but it's not that they're a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages.
So, what's going on?
The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That's it. But it's pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it's probably never been as salient as today.
Today's injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:
-General lowering of moral standards
-A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
-The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
-Government coercion in reproductive matters.
Does that sound familiar?
Because it sure sounds like what's been happening for the past 40 years."
Alaskapopo
08-28-13, 20:53
It's an ethical issue. Since killing the innocent is wrong by any cultural standards I know of, the only way you can pull it off is by defining the targetted group as something other than "innocent" or "human". Prostitute the language enough and everything is possible.
Don't take my word for it. Look up George Orwell.
So every time a man masturbates he is kill thousands of potential children. Is he a murder too. The point of life is very debatable. The reality is however its the pro life side trying to force its religious morals on everyone else. Don't believe in abortion don't have one otherwise leave everyone else alone. I understand people think its morally wrong and that is their right but forcing their beliefs on others is not right.
Pat
montanadave
08-28-13, 21:01
Dammit all anyway, I just can't resist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8LbCdZLUzw
ForTehNguyen
08-28-13, 21:03
Students Sign Petition to Legalize 4th Trimester Abortion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v8--9R0I2Q)
:rolleyes:
theblackknight
08-28-13, 21:08
Who let talks-with-links back on the playground?
.46caliber
08-28-13, 21:10
The reality is however its the pro life side trying to force its religious morals on everyone else.
What that fails to acknowledge is that for some it has nothing to do with religious morals.
It is against the law to murder. If a human life begins at conception, the moment where two sources of genetic material become one and begins the development of human life, then it is murder. Religious morals still aside.
As you said, the point of life is debated. But blanketing the pro-life side as forcing religious morals is shortsighted at best.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Amanda Catherine Hein, 26, was at Starters Pub in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, in the US, watching a wrestling match with friends before reportedly spending about 40 minutes in the bathroom and returning to the group blood-soaked.
She insisted she was fine and went outside and smoked a cigarette before returning to her friends to continue watching the pay-per-view match, police have said.
Staff at the pub found the baby’s corpse the next morning on August 17 after complaints the toilet would not flush.
Northampton County coroner said an autopsy showed the baby was born alive and died of suffocation.
I'm sure Amanda would have made an amazing Mom otherwise. Not that I condone what this psycho bitch did, but this is the kind of crap I'm talking about. If my choice was to have Amanda for a Mom or not exist at all, I think I'd rather not exist at all.
Speaking of which, she really needs to be taken out and shot. She is a prime example of my argument that there is no automatic value to every human life.
Students Sign Petition to Legalize 4th Trimester Abortion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v8--9R0I2Q)
:rolleyes:
We did that one already.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=1707015
This is probably to <0.001% of those who are pro-choice. Whereas I can find a much larger percentage of pro-lifers who believe that condoms are the equivalent of abortions. It's truly an extremist position even amongst the most radical feminists.
The reasonable position to me says that abortion is not immoral at the stages where the fetus is only capable of life as a parasite on the mother. With modern medicine that's somewhere between 20-24 weeks.
Ethicists earn their keep challenging controversial topics...I take it as someone who made a radical claim for the sake of sparking debate.
I'm sorry, I intended to respond to this right from the gate, but was pulled away, and then forgot. You are wrong about the extremism thing, likely you're just not listening to them, or perhaps you are too distracted from work, or whatever to pay them mind, but make no mistake, you need to pay them mind!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html
Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.
"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.
Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”
"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”
Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”
Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”
I'll wager you forgot about this little bit of drama, it illustrates to perfection just how open to murder your average, modern, American progressive truly is!
I am positive that the above scenario has played itself out tens of thousands of times, perhaps millions. A prognostication for you, if left unchecked, in your lifetime these monsters will be killing children, and perhaps harvesting their organs in the process....
I harbor not a single doubt that it comes to pass, not a one!
I'm sure Amanda would have made an amazing Mom otherwise. Not that I condone what this psycho bitch did, but this is the kind of crap I'm talking about. If my choice was to have Amanda for a Mom or not exist at all, I think I'd rather not exist at all.
Speaking of which, she really needs to be taken out and shot. She is a prime example of my argument that there is no automatic value to every human life.[/url]
A conclusion we both can agree on....
Alaskapopo
08-28-13, 21:49
What that fails to acknowledge is that for some it has nothing to do with religious morals.
It is against the law to murder. If a human life begins at conception, the moment where two sources of genetic material become one and begins the development of human life, then it is murder. Religious morals still aside.
As you said, the point of life is debated. But blanketing the pro-life side as forcing religious morals is shortsighted at best.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Perhaps but the ones I see arguing against abortion in my experience are the bible thumpers.
Pat
Army Chief
08-28-13, 22:09
Perhaps but the ones I see arguing against abortion in my experience are the bible thumpers.
Pat
Nolo contendere. ;)
It does follow a certain logic, though, since these are the same folks who are approaching it primarily from a moral perspective, and the issue is pretty well-defined against that particular backdrop. As I have observed more than a few times in the past, where you start this particular ideological journey pretty much determines where you are going to end up.
AC
Perhaps but the ones I see arguing against abortion in my experience are the bible thumpers.
Pat
As much as I don't want to see the world overpopulated or children born into hellish scenarios this still strikes one as an incredibly obnoxious and also genuinely inaccurate statement. To think you would actually demean and marginalize a person who holds the life of a baby sacred validates everything I've always thought about you.
Edit: You made me say "you" the bad way, now I'm even more upset.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-28-13, 22:41
I wonder if the abortion forums have discussions about whose LPKs are the best...
All I know is that if they ever find the 'gay' gene, clueless bible thumpers will become pro abortion and progressives will become anti abortion.
It may be a woman's body, but it isn't her body being aborted, it's not her life being terminated.
We can hold folks accountable for their actions without denigrating them. I told my sons under no uncertain terms that when they start having sex, they are inviting a child into their lives and if that should happen, they will take care of that child and the mother as well. I told them on that day, their own childhood is over and they must make the sacrifices necessary to take responsibility. If they are not ready to take on those responsibilities, keep their pants on.
If it were to happen either of my sons father a child out of wedlock, I won't berate them or the woman they get involved with. I wouldn't treat any daughters I had any differently. Family is family and we will take care of ours.
It doesn't matter how many weeks along we set as to when a life begins. If a pregnant woman comes in too late, the clinic can pencil whip the date, kill the baby and collect their fee. I'm sure that's how that one guy who was found guilty of performing post birth abortions got started. But allowing folks to shirk the burden of their decisions is destroying our country
thopkins22
08-28-13, 22:43
Certainly the line that's currently drawn regarding when abortion is legal and when it isn't is arbitrary...and that should change. The real academic debate regarding abortion is centered around when is a fetus capable of being sustained outside of the mother. That's currently around 20 weeks. That's much younger than it was a handful of years ago, and laws are beginning to reflect that.
FYI:I support adoption and feel like it should be promoted in far more instances than it is. While I find the 20 week rule to be reasonable, I don't believe it should ever be promoted as a moral solution...and I find nothing immoral about the morning after pill, nor other types of contraception.
I'd like to see it left to the states. Some states would make it illegal as an act of violence. Some states wouldn't. It's the beauty of our system of government if we'll take advantage of it. It would also be a massive boost to the Republican party.
A fascinating debate, Abortion & Libertarians. I find it interesting that the pregnant lady is the one defending abortion.
http://youtu.be/ictboGYAnT0
...All I know is that if they ever find the 'gay' gene, clueless bible thumpers will become pro abortion...
Not clueless bible thumpers- Evil- bible thumpers or not. We may hate their sin, but we are not to hate the sinner
As much as I don't want to see the world overpopulated or children born into hellish scenarios this still strikes one as an incredibly obnoxious and also genuinely inaccurate statement. To think you would actually demean and marginalize a person who holds the life of a baby sacred validates everything I've always thought about you.
Edit: You made me say "you" the bad way, now I'm even more upset.
And we find ourselves back to the issue of starving children in Africa.
The problem is people with nothing, who live in areas where drought, plague and warfare are the norm, continue to have children by the dozen and consign them the a hellish existence.
If you send them food and aid they have even more children due to the influx of resources that don't occur naturally in that environment.
Choices are:
A. Keep sending food and aid forever and in essence become the "source" of natural resources which results in an ever expanding population which will always exceed any food and aid sent.
B. Send nothing and watch the mortality rate climb to one of the highest in the world, where the children usually die first in very unpleasant ways as nature has no consideration for those who breed in areas where life is not easily sustainable.
The last thing I hate in this world is a starving child in Africa, the kid did NOTHING to deserve that fate, but how I despise those who would populate such a barren and desolate part of the world. But their own harsh lives don't seem to deter them from perpetuating the hardships to another generation in numbers that are incomprehensible.
And when we contribute to the problem, we perpetuate the problem. Ironically Option B would likely translate to fewer children suffering because there would be fewer children in the first place. This is basically the same problem with people who are so irresponsible they constantly have unintended and unwanted children that they cannot or will not provide for.
ETA: Dammit, I got sucked into this discussion.
Apparently the term "bible thumper" is intended to disparage anyone with ethical standards, a moral compass, or a religious worldview.
Since according to some I am not obligated to respect anything or anyone, I can go forth tomorrow to rape, pillage and plunder without hindrance. After all, it's well known that right and wrong are only arbitrary notions imposed on us by religious fanatics.
It's like the philosophy professor who handed out blanket "F"s to all the relativist students in his class--who then complained bitterly that his actions were "unfair". (By what standards?)
Alaskapopo
08-28-13, 23:02
It may be a woman's body, but it isn't her body being aborted, it's not her life being terminated.
We can hold folks accountable for their actions without denigrating them. I told my sons under no uncertain terms that when they start having sex, they are inviting a child into their lives and if that should happen, they will take care of that child and the mother as well. I told them on that day, their own childhood is over and they must make the sacrifices necessary to take responsibility. If they are not ready to take on those responsibilities, keep their pants on.
If it were to happen either of my sons father a child out of wedlock, I won't berate them or the woman they get involved with. I wouldn't treat any daughters I had any differently. Family is family and we will take care of ours.
It doesn't matter how many weeks along we set as to when a life begins. If a pregnant woman comes in too late, the clinic can pencil whip the date, kill the baby and collect their fee. I'm sure that's how that one guy who was found guilty of performing post birth abortions got started. But allowing folks to shirk the burden of their decisions is destroying our country
I would say that the massive amount of people on welfare not working and having babies like rabbits is killing our country.
Pat
Apparently the term "bible thumper" is intended to disparage anyone with ethical standards, a moral compass, or a religious worldview.
Since according to some I am not obligated to respect anything or anyone, I can go forth tomorrow to rape, pillage and plunder without hindrance. After all, it's well known that right and wrong are only arbitrary notions imposed on us by religious fanatics.
It's like the philosophy professor who handed out blanket "F"s to all the relativist students in his class--who then complained bitterly that his actions were "unfair". (By what standards?)
So religion is the only thing keeping you from raping, pillaging and plundering?
What do you imagine prevents me from engaging in such acts?
And if religion (fear of God) is all that is stopping you, are you really a good, moral person? Or are you just afraid of divine judgement / punishment?
As I've said in the past, its really doesn't stop there, feminists quietly claim the right to murder children up into their early teen years, especially boys, as they are not yet fully human!
Alright, so the article itself seems pretty out there, but, are you ****ing kidding me?
Please, PLEASE cite your source for your above statement. I would LOVE to read the articles you've read that claim that there is a secret underground cult of witches (feminists) that advocate murdering teenage boys for their secret lesbian driven witches' brew.
This statement is literally the ****ing dumbest thing I have heard all week, and I had a student today say she didn't know what DOS was.
I don't care if I get slapped with a violation for this post, I can't allow this kind of stupid to exist without calling it out.
Are there ghosts that rape little boys in Africa that you believe in too?
Alaskapopo
08-28-13, 23:18
Alright, so the article itself seems pretty out there, but, are you ****ing kidding me?
Please, PLEASE cite your source for your above statement. I would LOVE to read the articles you've read that claim that there is a secret underground cult of witches (feminists) that advocate murdering teenage boys for their secret lesbian driven witches' brew.
This statement is literally the ****ing dumbest thing I have heard all week, and I had a student today say she didn't know what DOS was.
I don't care if I get slapped with a violation for this post, I can't allow this kind of stupid to exist without calling it out.
Are there ghosts that rape little boys in Africa that you believe in too?
Yea it does sound like a bad script for a B rated horror movie. Critical thinking is a dying skill. Some people will believe anything. Some believe the world is flat and that the space program was a hoax. Its their right to believe those things but it makes having a serious discussion difficult.
Pat
I would say that the massive amount of people on welfare not working and having babies like rabbits is killing our country.
Pat
They are doing so because they are not held accountable
Alright, so the article itself seems pretty out there, but, are you ****ing kidding me?
Please, PLEASE cite your source for your above statement. I would LOVE to read the articles you've read that claim that there is a secret underground cult of witches (feminists) that advocate murdering teenage boys for their secret lesbian driven witches' brew.
This statement is literally the ****ing dumbest thing I have heard all week, and I had a student today say she didn't know what DOS was.
I don't care if I get slapped with a violation for this post, I can't allow this kind of stupid to exist without calling it out.
Are there ghosts that rape little boys in Africa that you believe in too?
Recently, there was an article supporting the view that parents had the right to end the life of their child even into their teen years if it wasn't working out. I don't recall where I saw it or what the details were. I found it to be horrifying that anyone would put forth such an idea
Alaskapopo
08-28-13, 23:24
They are doing so because they are not held accountable
Recently, there was an article supporting the view that parents had the right to end the life of their child even into their teen years if it wasn't working out. I don't recall where I saw it or what the details were. I found it to be horrifying that anyone would put forth such an idea
Ok so we hold them accountable and let them and their kids starve is that more humane Christian thing to do rather than allowing abortion? I believe in accountability but its a woman's right to chose what happens with her body. She has to live with the decision and she has to raise the child if she takes that choice. The choice should be hers and not the governments.
Pat
Every time I hear of abortion I'm saddened by the loss of life.
Here is my adopted son, the light of my life. This adoption cost me just shy of $50,000.
The point of my adding how expensive the adoption was I to answer the question posed by many pro abortion advocates, Yes I am willing to pay to raise the child of another in order to save his life. By saving the life of a child you also save your own.
They are doing so because they are not held accountable
Recently, there was an article supporting the view that parents had the right to end the life of their child even into their teen years if it wasn't working out. I don't recall where I saw it or what the details were. I found it to be horrifying that anyone would put forth such an idea
As soon as you all provide me with a source I will stop thinking your stupid or gullible or both. Once I read that source, and track the author to an actual source within the "feminist" movement then I'll do further research to find out how ostracized that person is within her own community. I will then stop thinking you're stupid and start thinking you're just easily led and love to be told how to think (like someone who thinks all Christians are equal to the Westboro Baptist Church).
Send me the links I want to read this article and I want to meet the people who penned it.
Army Chief
08-28-13, 23:36
And if religion (fear of God) is all that is stopping you, are you really a good, moral person? Or are you just afraid of divine judgement / punishment?
Not really wading back in, for obvious reasons, but I found this insightful. If we're talking religion, then perhaps your definitions are accurate. I rather suspect that they are.
If, however, we're talking about faith in a form less colored by the conventions of man, the inverse holds true in most of these aspects. It is not a fear of God that motivates, but a love of God. Not a belief that we are good or moral, but an acknowledgement that we are actually nothing of the sort, left to our own devices. It is not a fear of divine judgment, but a desire to reflect glory upon God and to live life according to His purposes, rather than our own fleeting desires.
This is more than mere spin, because how one approaches the concept of God has tremendous relevance to the outcome and expressions of their devotion. We need look no farther than Islam to see some fairly significant examples of the "God is to be feared" ideal. This actually runs counter to the usual Christian approach ("God is love"), but it is not my purpose to have that particular debate here. I simply find it interesting that we happen to agree that religious motivations are not always right, just as irreligious motivations are not always wrong. For me, however, the core issue is not one of religion, but of relationship, and a desire to reflect honor upon a God worthy of my best efforts.
Pat is raising a number of valid questions here, as well, but again, virtually all of them are rhetorically-directed at dealing with consequences and symptoms, rather than the real problems of the heart and mind that have brought us to this place. If you cannot teach the mind and touch the heart, you will never rein-in the behavior. It certainly gets no better when you reward it.
That's much more than enough from me. 'Night, gents!
AC
Alaskapopo
08-28-13, 23:57
Every time I hear of abortion I'm saddened by the loss of life.
Here is my adopted son, the light of my life. This adoption cost me just shy of $50,000.
The point of my adding how expensive the adoption was I to answer the question posed by many pro abortion advocates, Yes I am willing to pay to raise the child of another in order to save his life. By saving the life of a child you also save your own.
I think adoption is much preferred and I wish the costs where not that high.
Pat
I think adoption is much preferred and I wish the costs where not that high.
Pat
I think our current adoption process borders on the criminally evil. Lawyers have so convoluted the system and driven up costs that people who would be "willing" to adopt children decide not to, or travel to other countries where the process is less complicated and costly.
Now I wouldn't want a system where just anyone can show up and get a kid like adopting a dog because there is lots and lots of room for horrible abuse.
But the fact that there are children out there who don't have families and people out there who would adopt but can't afford to or can't navigate the process is appalling.
I won't even get started on those who are afraid to adopt unwanted children because the child's "crack mother" might show up 5 year later demanding her baby back.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-29-13, 00:10
Not clueless bible thumpers- Evil- bible thumpers or not. We may hate their sin, but we are not to hate the sinner
I meant clueless as a discriminator of a sub-set, not an overall description.
"I love my dead gay son!"
thopkins22
08-29-13, 00:19
I think our current adoption process borders on the criminally evil.
I have friends from my time abroad who spent insane amounts of money trying to get pregnant. Upon deciding that it just wasn't going to happen they started to look to adoption.
Adoption proved to be just as expensive and an absolute maze that took them years to navigate. It's a disgrace what people are going through who want to be parents and provide a loving home.
.46caliber
08-29-13, 00:27
I think our current adoption process borders on the criminally evil. Lawyers have so convoluted the system and driven up costs that people who would be "willing" to adopt children decide not to, or travel to other countries where the process is less complicated and costly.
Now I wouldn't want a system where just anyone can show up and get a kid like adopting a dog because there is lots and lots of room for horrible abuse.
But the fact that there are children out there who don't have families and people out there who would adopt but can't afford to or can't navigate the process is appalling.
I won't even get started on those who are afraid to adopt unwanted children because the child's "crack mother" might show up 5 year later demanding her baby back.
Spot on. If we want to do some good for the sake of children, the adoption laws and processes need a total overhaul. Something is horribly wrong when it's both cheaper and easier to adopt a child from halfway around the world than it is the next state over.
For crying out loud, getting out of a DUI is a fraction of the cost and law navigation when compared to trying to adopt.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
So religion is the only thing keeping you from raping, pillaging and plundering?
What do you imagine prevents me from engaging in such acts?
And if religion (fear of God) is all that is stopping you, are you really a good, moral person? Or are you just afraid of divine judgement / punishment?
When it comes to abortion, I really don't think that you need to be Christian or even strongly religious to have a pro-life take on the subject. It does however require that you have a functioning moral compass and a basic understanding of biology. For example, I consider abortion the moral equivalent of murder since it is the taking of an 1) innocent 2) human 3)life.
To make the explanation easier, I'll detail these 3 aspects in reverse order:
1) The fetus is alive at conception because it has its own independent cellular metabolism. It develops its own functional nervous, musculoskeletal, and circulatory systems during development that are independent of the mother's. While the fetus is dependent on the mother's blood to provide it with nutrients and gas exchange across the placenta, there is no mixing of maternal-fetal blood in healthy development. While you could argue that the maternal - fetal relationship is mostly parasitic, the fetus is as alive as any other cell (be it bacterial or human) in the scientific sense at the time of conception.
2) The fetus is distinctly human as it has 46 chromosomes with a human genetic code, and it is genetically distinct from either parent. Thus, it really cannot be considered part of the mother's body since it is genetically dissimilar to any of her cells.
3) The fetus is innocent because it has committed no crime and has not been offered any judicial due process. This is the part that requires a functioning moral compass so I saved it for last. All you have to accept is our system of due process to believe that the fetus is innocent of any crime.
So, this is the logic that I used to come to a pro-life position. I welcome anyone to break the science behind my argument. You will notice that I never mentioned God, soul, Jesus, or Bible in my reasoning - it was pure science with a little morality added for flavor. FWIW, I was once a Christian, but now consider myself a Deist. I only set foot in a church when my wife makes me, but I don't inhale.
1) The fetus is alive at conception because it has its own independent cellular metabolism.
At conception you have a fertilized egg. Do you consider a fertilized egg a fetus? Because we freeze fertilized eggs for future use but we don't freeze a fetus because they are very, very different things.
And while we are at it, every cell in your body (including viruses) is alive and has whatever cellular structures, circulatory systems and nervous systems that are unique to that organism. It is an independent life form.
It is innocent and has committed no crime, in fact it probably cannot rationally even consider such notions. It simply does what it does to survive and every year we attempt to wipe out many of them to the point of extinction without any due process.
At conception you have a fertilized egg. Do you consider a fertilized egg a fetus? Because we freeze fertilized eggs for future use but we don't freeze a fetus because they are very, very different things.
And while we are at it, every cell in your body (including viruses) is alive and has whatever cellular structures, circulatory systems and nervous systems that are unique to that organism. It is an independent life form.
But you don't call a skin cell, or a red blood cell, or a virus cell, you.
But you were conceived, i.e. what was conceived was you yourself.
Or are you claiming that you were never conceived?
At conception you have a fertilized egg. Do you consider a fertilized egg a fetus? Because we freeze fertilized eggs for future use but we don't freeze a fetus because they are very, very different things.
And while we are at it, every cell in your body (including viruses) is alive and has whatever cellular structures, circulatory systems and nervous systems that are unique to that organism. It is an independent life form.
It is innocent and has committed no crime, in fact it probably cannot rationally even consider such notions. It simply does what it does to survive and every year we attempt to wipe out many of them to the point of extinction without any due process.
It is technically an embryo at fertilization and for the first 8 weeks of development - a live, human, embryo. It is not an "egg" which is a female gamete having only 23 chromosomes (not a distinct human). I'm not sure what your point is about the ability to be frozen since both female oocytes (eggs) and embryos up to about 100 cells (blastocyst) can both be frozen for IVF. Having said that, it is during the embryo stage of development that cardiac activity develops as do other human characteristics. So yes, embryos are human.
So, this is the logic that I used to come to a pro-life position. I welcome anyone to break the science behind my argument. You will notice that I never mentioned God, soul, Jesus, or Bible in my reasoning - it was pure science with a little morality added for flavor. FWIW, I was once a Christian, but now consider myself a Deist. I only set foot in a church when my wife makes me, but I don't inhale.
Many of the pro-abortion supporters who hurl the charge of "bible-thumper" do so out of sheer wilful ignorance, and puerile bigoted small-mindedness.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
http://www.prolifephysicians.org
I think it is safe to say that I am not a bible thumper. I mean I am an Atheist and all.
I am however Pro Life. I base this stance off the simple ideal that taking a life without justifiable reasons is wrong. A murderer who has been tried and convicted has given up their right to live in my book. A child, not so much.
Now that being said the Doctor does make one or two interesting points. They are just taken to a conclusion that they should not be.
Newborn babies are not fully developed people. They are Human. They are sentient. But they have not fully developed Sapience yet. Left devoid of the contact and teaching from other humans a child would never develop what really separates us from other animals. In fact they would not be on the level of other great apes that are part of a community.
This however does not mean that there is any right to end their life. The simple fact that they can develop into a fully functioning person gives them the right to live.
This Doctor is just another example of an extremist on one side. Every group has them from gun owners to pro lifers, to animal lovers. He is no different from the people who escalate from protesting in front of an Abortion provider to shooting the Doctor.
As I've said in the past, its really doesn't stop there, feminists quietly claim the right to murder children up into their early teen years, especially boys, as they are not yet fully human!
She is right as in this is the logical conclusion of an abortion society.
So religion is the only thing keeping you from raping, pillaging and plundering?
What do you imagine prevents me from engaging in such acts?
And if religion (fear of God) is all that is stopping you, are you really a good, moral person? Or are you just afraid of divine judgement / punishment?
One can offer any number of perspectives regarding both the positive and also negative influences of Christianity (or perhaps religion in general) and yours are certainly valid, but would you argue against the fact that a child raised in even a semi-religious environment (taught by example to believe and respect but not necessarily in church every Sunday) has a greater chance to prosper in life and have a healthier spirit?
I know you may be tempted to offer examples of molesting priests or snake worshippers, but I am talking big picture here. The likes of an MTV would laugh you off the hypothetical stage if you mention God, this as they spew record amounts of filth into the minds of our impressionable youth while teaching them to do the same.
And surely you have noticed the correlation between the dwindling sense of morality in America and the dwindling interest in religion. Religion which establishes a sense of family and decency, two critical factors of a moral society. This is going on everywhere, but if you want to see the accelerated end result just take a look at the inner city black communities.
Bottom line if you look at the big picture then Christianity, if practiced within sensible parameters, has a far greater positive effect on society than it does a negative one. Saying "Well I'm not this or that bad thing and I don't believe so it can't be true" may be very correct in your case, but it helps to remember that we share this country with roughly 330,000,000 others who do not think as independently or as sensibly as you do.
And to close I'll state that as far as I know anyway, you don't know how you would feel about yourself or those around you if you attended services or participated in church activities at a respectable, non-over the top venue. You just might see things a bit differently, especially as a childless man. Maybe you'd see that all kids are not "little ****ers", and also that those silly darn members of the church are often out there doing a hell of a lot for those in need around them on a regular basis. Good, helpful things they are by no means other than morality obligated to do.
Bottom line if you look at the big picture then Christianity...has a far greater positive effect on society than it does a negative one.
Perhaps the best 13 hours (episodes) on Youtube. Kenneth Clark's Civilisation, episode 1 of 13: "The Skin of Our Teeth."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNGzoJFj9g8
Ok so we hold them accountable and let them and their kids starve is that more humane Christian thing to do rather than allowing abortion? I believe in accountability but its a woman's right to chose what happens with her body. She has to live with the decision and she has to raise the child if she takes that choice. The choice should be hers and not the governments.
Pat
It's a cold heart that thinks it's an either/or choice, that it's ok to kill millions because a handful might starve.
What about right of the unborn child to choose? What about it's right to fight for it's life?
If folks knew they would bear the burden of the consequences of their choices, they would be more likely to be wiser in their choices. You think folks would be as likely to have casual sex if they knew they were going to have to step up and carry the child to full term and either raise it up or give it up for adoption?
If it were the norm to teach people in their youth they will face the consequences of their choices instead of just taking the easy way out, we all would be better off. Not that we do not temper that with mercy, part of being a family is to share each other's burdens and to learn to do so with love and without enabling. I would not turn my son or daughter (if I had one) away if they found themselves burdened with a child out of wedlock. I would support them in their efforts to support the child but I would expect them to work as hard at it as I did to raise them
As soon as you all provide me with a source I will stop thinking your stupid or gullible or both. Once I read that source, and track the author to an actual source within the "feminist" movement then I'll do further research to find out how ostracized that person is within her own community. I will then stop thinking you're stupid and start thinking you're just easily led and love to be told how to think (like someone who thinks all Christians are equal to the Westboro Baptist Church).
Send me the links I want to read this article and I want to meet the people who penned it.
Go find your own links. I have no reason to lie about such things. I did not claim that approval for the "abortion" of teens normative, just that it has been bandied about by some and that I find it horrifying. If there were no one who felt it was okay, why have so many children suffered death at the hands of their parents?
I meant clueless as a discriminator of a sub-set, not an overall description.
"I love my dead gay son!"
I know what you mean. My point is that it's downright evil to kill your child for homosexual tendencies, not clueless. If you loved your gay son, you wouldn't kill him
It's a cold heart that thinks it's an either/or choice, that it's ok to kill millions because a handful might starve.
Indeed. And as for "choice" clearly being the false god that it is:
"The abortion lobby has always realized that abortion itself is indefensible. This has forced them to argue that whether abortion is the deliberate killing of a living human being or not, is unrelated to the question of whether it should be legal. In short, they have to divert attention toward the philosophical concepts of “choice” and “who decides” because they can’t afford for the public to look at what’s being chosen and decided.
To imply that the issue is not abortion, but choice, is to say that what’s being chosen is irrelevant. That is clearly illogical given that all choices are not equal. Choosing whether to buy a new car is vastly different than choosing whether to produce child pornography, and the morality of those choices is not affected by the eventual decision. However, the pro-choice position is that abortion becomes acceptable simply by the act of choosing to do it.
Defenders of slavery also used this same strategy. During the 1858 Abraham Lincoln- Stephen Douglas debates, Douglas said he did not support outlawing slavery, saying, “I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people favoring slavery, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor slavery are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits.”
Just substitute the word abortion every place the word slavery appears, and this statement perfectly defines the pro-choice position in America today. Lincoln’s response to Douglas’ pro-choice position on slavery was, “He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.”
Lincoln recognized that there is nothing intrinsically noble about the concept of choice, and that there are choices which a society cannot allow the individual to make.
The fact is, before one can rightly claim that the issue is “choice” or “who decides,” he or she must first examine what’s being chosen. If it’s what color shoes to wear, that’s one thing; if it’s whether to kill another human being, that’s another. Except in self-defense, the decision about whether one human being can kill another one cannot be left up to the individual who wants to do the killing.
Besides, this “who decides, the woman or the state” rhetoric is idiotic on its face. Laws against abortion would not let the state decide who gets abortions any more than laws against rape let the state decide who gets raped. Instead, they establish that certain behaviors are so unacceptable they must be illegal.
Finally, as used by abortion advocates, the term “pro-choice” is both inaccurate and dishonest. In an abortion, at least three people are directly impacted: the mother, the father, and the child. The pro-choice argument is that only one is entitled to a choice. Additionally, it has never been a part of their agenda to protect any choice other than abortion. They don’t lobby for women to have the legal right to be prostitutes or use crack cocaine. Yet these laws, and thousands of others, deny women “the right to choose” just as much as laws preventing abortion would."
http://www.deathroe.com/pro-life_answers/Answers.cfm?ID=1
Gutshot John
08-29-13, 12:46
Not justifying infanticide or even 3rd term abortion but it's worth noting that in the Bible babies under a month old had no blood price...in other words the Bible itself didn't consider them a life.
Leviticus:
27 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels[a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a female, set her value at thirty shekels[c]; 5 for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels[d] and of a female at ten shekels[e]; 6 [B]for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels[f] of silver and that of a female at three shekels[g] of silver; 7 for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels[h] and of a female at ten shekels. 8 If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, the person being dedicated is to be presented to the priest, who will set the value according to what the one making the vow can afford.
It is technically an embryo at fertilization and for the first 8 weeks of development - a live, human, embryo. It is not an "egg" which is a female gamete having only 23 chromosomes (not a distinct human). I'm not sure what your point is about the ability to be frozen since both female oocytes (eggs) and embryos up to about 100 cells (blastocyst) can both be frozen for IVF. Having said that, it is during the embryo stage of development that cardiac activity develops as do other human characteristics. So yes, embryos are human.
My point was that if you can freeze and embryo for later use, it's not quite a human yet. Maybe I'll try it another way, DNA has everything you need to make a human, but I wouldn't qualify as single strand of DNA as a human either.
Army Chief
08-29-13, 13:01
Not sure that I see the connection between a monetary gift valuation for a special vow and a moral valuation of life itself, regardless of age or station. Invocations of Mosaic Law are rarely applied accurately, anyway, but we just aren't comparing like items here.
AC
One can offer any number of perspectives regarding both the positive and also negative influences of Christianity (or perhaps religion in general) and yours are certainly valid, but would you argue against the fact that a child raised in even a semi-religious environment (taught by example to believe and respect but not necessarily in church every Sunday) has a greater chance to prosper in life and have a healthier spirit?
I know you may be tempted to offer examples of molesting priests or snake worshippers, but I am talking big picture here. The likes of an MTV would laugh you off the hypothetical stage if you mention God, this as they spew record amounts of filth into the minds of our impressionable youth while teaching them to do the same.
And surely you have noticed the correlation between the dwindling sense of morality in America and the dwindling interest in religion. Religion which establishes a sense of family and decency, two critical factors of a moral society. This is going on everywhere, but if you want to see the accelerated end result just take a look at the inner city black communities.
Bottom line if you look at the big picture then Christianity, if practiced within sensible parameters, has a far greater positive effect on society than it does a negative one. Saying "Well I'm not this or that bad thing and I don't believe so it can't be true" may be very correct in your case, but it helps to remember that we share this country with roughly 330,000,000 others who do not think as independently or as sensibly as you do.
And to close I'll state that as far as I know anyway, you don't know how you would feel about yourself or those around you if you attended services or participated in church activities at a respectable, non-over the top venue. You just might see things a bit differently, especially as a childless man. Maybe you'd see that all kids are not "little ****ers", and also that those silly darn members of the church are often out there doing a hell of a lot for those in need around them on a regular basis. Good, helpful things they are by no means other than morality obligated to do.
I think you can destroy or enhance your life with almost anything.
For thousands of years people were "saved" by the Greek Gods and they truly believed it as much as any born again christian. Does that validate those ancient beliefs in any way?
Also you seem to have some significant misconceptions about my views of kids. While I may not have high opinions of some locals due to the fact that I know many things about them, for about 15 years I was a PAL instructor and worked exclusively with kids.
I was also involved with several martial arts programs designed to help "at risk" kids and to teach child safety and things along those lines. I know lots of good kids, I even teach them to shoot sometimes, they just don't happen to live in my neighborhood and the ones that do I would never consider teaching anything.
I probably shouldn't mention it, but a lot of that stuff was done on voluntary time because I believed in teaching those kids. And I didn't do it to win favor with some deity. I didn't do it because some organization told me I was somehow obligated. I did it because long ago some people took the time to teach me correctly and I was fulfilling my obligation to them.
Also you seem to have some significant misconceptions about my views of kids. While I may not have high opinions of some locals due to the fact that I know many things about them, for about 15 years I was a PAL instructor and worked exclusively with kids.
If I recall correctly when the neighbor's dog was loose you made it clear that you would do more for it than you would their children. When asked why you implied that it was their parents fault or something of the sort, which led me to question why you would hold your resentment of specific adults against the fairly small children who are unfortunate enough to be stuck with and raised by them.
Based upon that and the little you know what's comment regarding kids in general in what I think was a completely seperate issue it seemed fairly easy to suspect that you had a disdain for them in general, however if not then I certainly apologize for any misunderstanding. Plus I think I told you that if you could be so good to the dog then I had full faith you would do the same for the child.
Not justifying infanticide or even 3rd term abortion but it's worth noting that in the Bible babies under a month old had no blood price...in other words the Bible itself didn't consider them a life.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."
Jeremiah 1:5
It's worth noting that "you" represents a life and personhood.
The Bible and the unborn child
The image of God
Mankind is unique in all of creation in being made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2). This is true of the entire human species and of every member of it without exception, including unborn children. The sanctity that God's image bestows (even after the Fall) on each human being is affirmed by the prohibition on taking human life in Genesis 9:6. This prohibition became codified as the sixth commandment (Exodus 20:13). This is the fundamental pro-life position: that every human life is sacred.
Unborn children in the Bible
Because they too are made in God's image, unborn children are regarded in the Bible as having the same dignity as other human beings. Their formation and growth are said to be in the hands of God (Job 10:8-11) and it is possible for them to have a personal relationship with their Creator (Psalm 139:13-16). Jeremiah and Paul both received their calling from God before birth (Jeremiah 1:5 and Galatians 1:15), as does the Servant who was foretold by Isaiah (Isaiah 49:1-5). Samson was bound by vows as an unborn child (Judges 13:7) and John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15) and displayed spiritual discernment (Luke 1:41-44) literally 'from the womb'. (Some versions - e.g. the New English Bible - translate this as 'from birth' which is unwarranted and, in the case of Luke 1:15, clearly wrong.)
The incarnation
The most important unborn baby in the Bible is Jesus. It is central to the Christian faith that the eternal Word of God took human flesh and lived a human life in this world (John 1:14). That life began at conception (Matthew 1:20-21). Luke describes how John the Baptist, as a six-month foetus, responded to the presence of Jesus as an embryo only a few days old (Luke 1:39-44). The human life of Jesus differed in nature from the rest of humanity's only in its sinlessness (Hebrews 4:15). Since his life began at conception, so does every human life.
Disabled people
The attitude that singles out disabled people for destruction (as seen in our abortion law) is very different from the Bible's. Like all other people, those who are disabled are made by God (Exodus 4:11-12). We have a common humanity (Job 31:15). They are not to be mistreated (Leviticus 19:14 and Deuteronomy 27:18), but on the contrary are to be granted justice (Psalm 82:3-4 and Proverbs 31:8-9). As Christians, we are to bear one another's burdens (Galatians 6:2) and may look forward to the lifting of all our disabilities (Isaiah 35:5-6).
Love in action
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) bids us extend the limit of the neighbours we love beyond where it presently ends. In our own society it ends at the unborn child. Jesus announced his ministry as good news for the suffering (Luke 4:18-19) and his followers must do the same. There can be no pretending that what is happening to unborn children is in some way for the good (Isaiah 5:20), or pleading ignorance as an excuse for inaction (Proverbs 24:11-12).
Conclusion
The Bible clearly emphasises the sanctity of every human life, including the life of those in the womb. As Christians, we are bound to take a pro-life stance, and defend unborn children, whom God has made in his own image.
http://www.spuc.org.uk/about/evangelicals/bible-teachings
Alaskapopo
08-29-13, 15:13
It's a cold heart that thinks it's an either/or choice, that it's ok to kill millions because a handful might starve.
What about right of the unborn child to choose? What about it's right to fight for it's life?
If folks knew they would bear the burden of the consequences of their choices, they would be more likely to be wiser in their choices. You think folks would be as likely to have casual sex if they knew they were going to have to step up and carry the child to full term and either raise it up or give it up for adoption?
If it were the norm to teach people in their youth they will face the consequences of their choices instead of just taking the easy way out, we all would be better off. Not that we do not temper that with mercy, part of being a family is to share each other's burdens and to learn to do so with love and without enabling. I would not turn my son or daughter (if I had one) away if they found themselves burdened with a child out of wedlock. I would support them in their efforts to support the child but I would expect them to work as hard at it as I did to raise them
Go find your own links. I have no reason to lie about such things. I did not claim that approval for the "abortion" of teens normative, just that it has been bandied about by some and that I find it horrifying. If there were no one who felt it was okay, why have so many children suffered death at the hands of their parents?
I know what you mean. My point is that it's downright evil to kill your child for homosexual tendencies, not clueless. If you loved your gay son, you wouldn't kill him
The people getting abortions are not the ones generally to make wise choices or learn from mistakes. In the old days Darwin took care of it but now we have a social support network so people don't simply starve or die like they used to. So society takes the burden of paying for those kids. Many often become criminals further costing society when they are housed in prison. People are good people regardless of religion and same goes for evil people. I have seen my share of evil men inside churches and arrested my share. Religion is a social control mechanism for those who need it its also a social club for others. In and of itself its not a bad thing. However when one forces their religion on another it becomes a bad thing.
Pat
Pat, I don't get your point. I never said folks had to have religion shoved down their throats nor did I claim membership in a church guarantees a person's goodness.
You do make my point in one respect- those getting abortions are those who don't learn from their mistakes. They don't learn because they aren't held responsible. Abortions allow them to kill another human being so they don't have to face the music. It's like making it to be legal to shoot an eye-witness to a liquor store robbery
My point was that if you can freeze and embryo for later use, it's not quite a human yet. Maybe I'll try it another way, DNA has everything you need to make a human, but I wouldn't qualify as single strand of DNA as a human either.
No, a single strand of DNA does not contain the genetic material of a compete human. A single strand of DNA is a portion of just 1 chromosome. Humans have 46 chromosomes as a complete genetic code. Nor do strands of DNA have a metabolism like I described in my criteria.
However, embryos do and the fact that we can effectively suspend that metabolism through cryo does not make them any less human. After all, we can lower your temperature, arrest your heart, and divert your blood volume so that your metabolism is entirely supported by a machine. Do you become any less human because you are dependent on heart-lung bypass? Do you have less rights because I can slow the enzymatic process of your body with hypothermia and suspended animation?
If I recall correctly when the neighbor's dog was loose you made it clear that you would do more for it than you would their children. When asked why you implied that it was their parents fault or something of the sort, which led me to question why you would hold your resentment of specific adults against the fairly small children who are unfortunate enough to be stuck with and raised by them.
Based upon that and the little you know what's comment regarding kids in general in what I think was a completely seperate issue it seemed fairly easy to suspect that you had a disdain for them in general, however if not then I certainly apologize for any misunderstanding. Plus I think I told you that if you could be so good to the dog then I had full faith you would do the same for the child.
I have the option and opportunity to fix that kid to the same extent his parents have the option and opportunity to raise your son.
Also my comments of "kids in general" typically apply to neighborhood locals, keep in mind this is a result of a demographic shift in my neighborhood from "working class" to "sits on their ass" families.
There used to be some really nice kids around here.
No, a single strand of DNA does not contain the genetic material of a compete human. A single strand of DNA is a portion of just 1 chromosome. Humans have 46 chromosomes as a complete genetic code. Nor do strands of DNA have a metabolism like I described in my criteria.
However, embryos do and the fact that we can effectively suspend that metabolism through cryo does not make them any less human. After all, we can lower your temperature, arrest your heart, and divert your blood volume so that your metabolism is entirely supported by a machine. Do you become any less human because you are dependent on heart-lung bypass? Do you have less rights because I can slow the enzymatic process of your body with hypothermia and suspended animation?
So if I understand you correctly, you consider the "morning after" pill murder?
I'm fairly religion neutral... I'm down with God but I'm not really a church going kind of guy. Anyhow, my reasoning runs parallel to Sensei and I think he nailed it on all accounts.
The reality is however its the pro life/politician side trying to force its religious morals on everyone else. Don't believe in abortion/smoking marijuana don't have one/don't do it otherwise leave everyone else alone. I understand people/politicians think its morally wrong and that is their right but forcing their beliefs on others is not right.
Pat
I'm not picking a fight but I do find it ironic that you chose to word your response that way due to the fact that that's what you do for a living. I simply used marijuana as an easy example, I'm sure you get the gist.
Alaskapopo
08-29-13, 17:51
I'm fairly religion neutral... I'm down with God but I'm not really a church going kind of guy. Anyhow, my reasoning runs parallel to Sensei and I think he nailed it on all accounts.
I'm not picking a fight but I do find it ironic that you chose to word your response that way due to the fact that that's what you do for a living. I simply used marijuana as an easy example, I'm sure you get the gist.
What is ironic is I am not against making marijuana legal. I don't support its use but its hypocritical of us as a society to allow a drug like Alcohol which is more harmful and not allow Marijuana which is less harmful. I am against legalizing the hard drugs because the costs to society would be too great in my opinion. Everything is a balance. Laws need to keep public order need to be weighed against individual rights. In my opinion the danger to society from making abortions illegal is greater than the dangers from having it legal. Birth rates would go up dark alley abortions would start up again. More unwanted un cared for children and more women dying.
Pat
Pat
I'm fairly religion neutral... I'm down with God but I'm not really a church going kind of guy. Anyhow, my reasoning runs parallel to Sensei and I think he nailed it on all accounts.
Originally Posted by Alaskapopo
The reality is however its the pro life/politician side trying to force its religious morals on everyone else. Don't believe in abortion/smoking marijuana don't have one/don't do it otherwise leave everyone else alone. I understand people/politicians think its morally wrong and that is their right but forcing their beliefs on others is not right.
Pat
I'm not picking a fight but I do find it ironic that you chose to word your response that way due to the fact that that's what you do for a living. I simply used marijuana as an easy example, I'm sure you get the gist.
Or, again, simply taking a page from history:
"During the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas debates, Douglas said he did not support outlawing slavery/abortion, saying, “I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people favoring slavery/abortion, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor slavery/abortion are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery/abortion question for themselves within their own limits.”
Alaskapopo
08-29-13, 19:07
Or, again, simply taking a page from history:
"During the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas debates, Douglas said he did not support outlawing slavery/abortion, saying, “I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people favoring slavery/abortion, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor slavery/abortion are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery/abortion question for themselves within their own limits.”
You're comparing slavery to abortion. LOL! That is so absurd its funny.
Pat
Army Chief
08-29-13, 19:11
Not saying one equals the other, but for the sake of argument, are not both issues directly-related to the valuation placed upon a human life?
AC
I compare abortion, slavery and genocide. All are justified by the victims being less than human
You're comparing slavery to abortion. LOL! That is so absurd its funny.
Pat
The slave masters looked at the slaves and said, "Less than a human being."
The Nazis looked at the Jews and said, "Less than a human being."
You look at the unborn child and say, "Less than a human being."
Your 'No matter what evidence you have or what argument you put forth I will never stop believing the world is flat' mentality is well known to everyone here, thus your responses are a surprise to no one.
Alaskapopo
08-29-13, 19:47
I compare abortion, slavery and genocide. All are justified by the victims being less than human
Slavery and genocide involve human beings and abortion involves some human cells.
Pat
Army Chief
08-29-13, 19:55
Slavery and genocide involve human beings and abortion involves some human cells.
Pat
Not beings or cells, brother ... life.
I don't even know how a "being" is to be defined. I do know that, even stripped of the offending God factor, Sensei made some pretty compelling points about all of this that might be worth a second or third reading -- for all of us.
AC
Slavery and genocide involve human beings and abortion involves some human cells.
Pat
A real police officer with paperwork to do would have half if not less the time you have to instigate well intentioned people in a public forum.
Why not take every post you've made here and submit them on your résumé to either the DHS or some other oppressive, mindless government venue? This way we can talk without such carefully camouflaged disruptions which at their heart go against almost everything we stand for here.
Slavery and genocide involve human beings and abortion involves some human cells.
Pat
And a separate beating human heart, let's not forget about that.
So what you are saying is that when your conception happened, that was not you. You were in fact never conceived, meaning that your conception never happened. :rolleyes:
The attached picture I think pretty much covered response to this topic.
Slavery and genocide involve human beings and abortion involves some human cells.
Pat
You just made my point for me. You can justify abortion because you define the victim as less than human- no different than any other tyrant
Alaskapopo
08-29-13, 20:46
A real police officer with paperwork to do would have half if not less the time you have to instigate well intentioned people in a public forum.
Why not take every post you've made here and submit them on your résumé to either the DHS or some other oppressive, mindless government venue? This way we can talk without such carefully camouflaged disruptions which at their heart go against almost everything we stand for here.
Post reported. It would be nice if you were able to stay on topic and not insult other posters with home you disagree.
pat
Alaskapopo
08-29-13, 20:47
You just made my point for me. You can justify abortion because you define the victim as less than human- no different than any other tyrant
So you are comparing a 16 year old kid who has an abortion because she is not ready to raise a child with Hitler (a tyrant).
Pat
Jeez I go away for a day and this thread blows up..
So you are comparing a 16 year old kid who has an abortion because she is not ready to raise a child with Hitler (a tyrant).
Pat
In the same way that a private executing an undesirable for the Fatherland compares to Hitler. I guess killing one person is ok because it's 9,999,999 souls short of Adolf's record
Army Chief
08-29-13, 21:26
So you are comparing a 16 year old kid who has an abortion because she is not ready to raise a child with Hitler (a tyrant).
Pat
This is an examination of enactors and motivations. I believe he is talking about outcomes, i.e. the loss of another human life -- or lives, on whatever scale. I haven't exactly kept pace with the statistics, but according to the Guttmacher Institute, we're at something like 50-54 million legal abortions since 1973. Hitler was a novice.
AC
So if I understand you correctly, you consider the "morning after" pill murder?
No, emergency contraception is not murder. The morning after pill, also known as Plan B, works primarily by inhibiting ovulation and creating an inhospitable environment for sperm/egg motility prior to fertilization to prevent formation of an embryo. There is some who believe that it may also, in some circumstances, inhibit implantation of an embryo. My professional opinion is that evidence for this last mechanism is lacking. Even if it did occur, it is reasonable to consider implantation of an embryo as part of the larger process of conception for the purpose of this discussion (I appreciate that some may disagree). Thus, Plan B is no more murder than screwing with a condom.
Contrast this with Cytotec, RU-486/Mifepristone, methotrexate, and other abortifacients that destroy an embryo after implantation. Giving these drugs to a woman who is pregnant with the intention of terminating a viable (i.e. not ectopic or not an inevitable miscarriage) pregnancy is murder.
Having said that, I'd say that I've been good sport up to now in sitting back and fielding your questions. Now, here comes the asshole. What I've gleaned from this one-way exchange is that, for a guy who is fixated on porn and sex, you really don't know much about the inner workings of your favorite hobby. My earlier post said that you needed a functioning moral compass AND a basic understanding of biology. You appear to meet the first criteria, but I've found you lacking in the second. So, perhaps it is time to put down the vintage Hustler, and dust off the biology book so that you know the difference between a gamete vs embryo, the steps/time course of human fertilization, basic embryology, and how pharmacologic contraceptives work. Then, I can spend more time debating the issue as opposed to explaining a process.
Alaskapopo
08-29-13, 22:16
This is an examination of enactors and motivations. I believe he is talking about outcomes, i.e. the loss of another human life -- or lives, on whatever scale. I haven't exactly kept pace with the statistics, but according to the Guttmacher Institute, we're at something like 50-54 million legal abortions since 1973. Hitler was a novice.
AC
I respect your opinion and your love of all life. But many of us don't accept that a fetus is a human life.
Pat
No, emergency contraception is not murder. The morning after pill, also known as Plan B, works primarily by inhibiting ovulation and creating an inhospitable environment for sperm/egg motility prior to fertilization to prevent formation of an embryo. There is some who believe that it may also, in some circumstances, inhibit implantation of an embryo. My professional opinion is that evidence for this last mechanism is lacking. Even if it did occur, it is reasonable to consider implantation of an embryo as part of the larger process of conception for the purpose of this discussion (I appreciate that some may disagree). Thus, Plan B is no more murder than screwing with a condom.
Contrast this with Cytotec, RU-486/Mifepristone, methotrexate, and other abortifacients that destroy an embryo after implantation. Giving these drugs to a woman who is pregnant with the intention of terminating a viable (i.e. not ectopic or not an inevitable miscarriage) pregnancy is murder.
Having said that, I'd say that I've been good sport up to now in sitting back and fielding your questions. Now, here comes the asshole. What I've gleaned from this one-way exchange is that, for a guy who is fixated on porn and sex, you really don't know much about the inner workings of your favorite hobby. My earlier post said that you needed a functioning moral compass AND a basic understanding of biology. You appear to meet the first criteria, but I've found you lacking in the second. So, perhaps it is time to put down the ventage Hustler, and dust off the biology book so that you know the difference between a gamete vs embryo, the steps/time course of human fertilization, basic embryology, and how pharmacologic contraceptives work. Then, I can spend more time debating the issue as opposed to explaining a process.
I admit I'm guilty of improper use of some terms.
You are correct regarding the single strand of DNA vs. complete genetic code. This is about as significant an error as a person calling a magazine a clip. If you want to use this error to score points, consider them awarded.
But I actually looked it up and it seems you were incorrect to correct me about a fertilized egg being an embryo. Seems it's actually a zygote and "matures" to become an "embryo."
So I looked up one simple thing and I already found an error you made and the fact that you corrected me when I was right. But take it as a win if you wish, I really should have gone with my first instincts and avoided this topic. It always goes the same way and it won't be resolved here.
ETA: You also spelled "vintage" wrong.
The bottom line of America's abortion debate is that acceptance into our culture is increasingly dependent on whether your mamma (and the rest of society) wants you.
Punch a pregnant woman in the stomach so that she has an miscarriage and you go to jail for murder in some states. On the other hand, that same woman at a similar gestational age can choose to abort a fetus for virtually any reason. What is the difference to the victim (I mean fetus for the morally destitute)? Well, the biggest is that in one scenario the mother wants the fetus; in the other - not so much. In other words, we define our humanity based on how somebody else feels rather than any objective or scientific evidence.
So, is anyone surprised that we are now extending this debate outside of the womb? After all, if physiology and development were not important in the abortion debate, why should they matter now?
If it is also based how we feel at any given time, than the person with the most developed emotions should win every time. This same phenomenon happens when child molesters increasingly get light sentences for their crimes, while rapists get long sentences. Hence it sucks to be a kid in today's society.
I admit I'm guilty of improper use of some terms.
You are correct regarding the single strand of DNA vs. complete genetic code. This is about as significant an error as a person calling a magazine a clip. If you want to use this error to score points, consider them awarded.
But I actually looked it up and it seems you were incorrect to correct me about a fertilized egg being an embryo. Seems it's actually a zygote and "matures" to become an "embryo."
So I looked up one simple thing and I already found an error you made and the fact that you corrected me when I was right. But take it as a win if you wish, I really should have gone with my first instincts and avoided this topic. It always goes the same way and it won't be resolved here.
ETA: You also spelled "vintage" wrong.
A zygote is the single cell product of fertilization that lasts for 1 day before cell division results in a 2 cell organism which is an embryo for the next 8 weeks or so. I glossed over that 1 day period since I'm not teaching an embryology course and nobody is getting an abortion at the zygote stage. Keep in mind the embryo goes through multiple division cycles in the fallopian tube before it implants in the uterus as a blastocyst. For the purposes of this discussion, I consider abortion to be the killing of an embryo AFTER implantation (others may disagree) which essentially completes conception.
18001
Actually I ironically sit on both sides of the issue.
While nobody should be forced to have a pregnancy they don't wish to have (especially in cases of rape, incest, etc.) there are two parents and I think the father has some rights just as he has responsibilities.
I know one female who had an abortion simply to punish her ex boyfriend who desperately wanted the child. He was willing to adopt and assume all responsibility.
So on one hand if a woman is pregnant, she can use that to obligate the father to pay support and leverage a ton of money out of him. But if she decides, she can end the pregnancy without the same "responsible party" having any say whatsoever.
For me everything else regarding abortion is mostly a social issue. One more thing for me to fund with my tax dollars.
A zygote is the single cell product of fertilization that lasts for 1 day before cell division results in a 2 cell organism which is an embryo for the next 8 weeks or so. I glossed over that 1 day period since I'm not teaching an embryology course and nobody is getting an abortion at the zygote stage. Keep in mind the embryo goes through multiple division cycles in the fallopian tube before it implants in the uterus as a blastocyst. For the purposes of this discussion, I consider abortion to be the killing of an embryo AFTER implantation (others may disagree) which essentially completes conception.
Still doesn't make my answer wrong. And you still spelled "vintage" incorrectly.
:D
And how do you know nobody is getting an abortion at the zygote stage. Isn't that a critical debate point regarding "inhibiting ovulation and creating an inhospitable environment for sperm/egg motility prior to fertilization to prevent formation of an embryo" vs. other "abortifacients that destroy an embryo after implantation."
And just because that is how YOU define abortion doesn't mean that is how everyone defines abortion. Many people would consider that zygote "life" and consider it's destruction abortion.
Has anyone else noticed that the OP never posted a link to his cited story about evil fembots who sacrifice good ol' teenage boys to the abortion gods?
I'm still waiting man. I want to figure out where these monsters are so I can be ready to burn them at the stake!
Army Chief
08-29-13, 23:12
I respect your opinion and your love of all life. But many of us don't accept that a fetus is a human life.
Pat
Fair enough. I still think Sensei addresses this more capably than I, but as always, I'm lucid enough to recognize that your starting point doesn't leave you with a lot of room to look at it much differently. Nor does mine. Not an impasse; just a different world-life view.
I don't concern myself with gestational age, viability outside of the womb (which is constantly-changing with technological advancements in medicine) or who is/is not desired. I simply fall back on the position that conception equates to a life, and by pure logic, it is a distinctly-human life. We can change the terms, define the rates of growth, or argue over the various stages or processes involved, but unless we -- or nature -- intervenes, the inevitable result is one of those human beings you were talking about. ;)
To suggest that an in-eutero child/fetus/embryo/cell bundle lacks the natural right to live makes no more to me than to suggest that we cull our own grandparents once they are no longer able to drive or remember where they left their dentures. Do they somehow deserve a better fate simply because they happened to actually be born at some point in the distant past, or are we simply demonstrating a commitment to the sanctity of a human life? I cannot quite grasp how one can consider the dynamics of a developing fetus and conclude that they are only dealing with a meaningless biological mass until some critical benchmark (defined by who?) has been achieved. That is far too arbitrary for me, given what is actually at stake. We have more overt compassion for stillborn puppies.
We've made this about a woman's right to choose, but the choice that we've given her is effectively whether or not to murder her child before she has to deal with the inconveniences of birthing and possibly forming an emotional attachment to it. The child -- or the "thing" that would surely be a child, if left unharvested -- has no choice. No voice. So, a woman who has already demonstrated an ability to make poor choices is given yet another one to make at the expense of her inconvenient offspring's very heartbeat. A little sick, no?
I realize that we must necessarily disagree on this point. My position is backward. Yours is abhorrent. Neither of us can get to each other's end state, and neither of us is likely to be in any way influenced by the arguments of the other. I can live with that.
Here is what I have a bit more trouble living with: if one of us is wrong, and one of us is right, is it preferable to spare a woman the burden of birthing an unwanted child (of her own creation), or might it be wiser to err on the side of caution and protect the rights of the unborn, just in case they truly are, you know, real people?
I know which side I've chosen.
AC
Still doesn't make my answer wrong. And you still spelled "vintage" incorrectly.
:D
And how do you know nobody is getting an abortion at the zygote stage. Isn't that a critical debate point regarding "inhibiting ovulation and creating an inhospitable environment for sperm/egg motility prior to fertilization to prevent formation of an embryo" vs. other "abortifacients that destroy an embryo after implantation."
And just because that is how YOU define abortion doesn't mean that is how everyone defines abortion. Many people would consider that zygote "life" and consider it's destruction abortion.
Again, basic biology - fertilization vs conception. The pro-life position is that life begins at conception, not fertilization. These are not my definitions. Here is the process of conception as described by WebMD that is pictured in my earlier post: ovulation (release of oocyte/egg)--->fertilization by the boyz (that is jive for sperm)---->implantation = conception. Without proper implantation, there is no conception which occurs 8 or 9 days after fertilization when the embryo is a blastocyst.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception
In other words, women take oral contraceptions to prevent the release of an egg; this is not murder since it is before fertilization. Men wear a condom to stop their boyz; this is not murder since it is before fertilization. Doctors remove an ectopic pregnancy from the fallopian tube; this is not murder because the embryo is improperly implanted. Doctors destroy zygotes and embryos in a test tube; this is not murder because they are not implanted (but it does have some serious moral implications for future technology). I think that you should now get the picture.
BTW, feel free to correct my spelling. Just be glad you are not reading my handwriting.
Alaskapopo
08-29-13, 23:22
Fair enough. I still think Sensei addresses this more capably than I, but as always, I'm lucid enough to recognize that your starting point doesn't leave you with a lot of room to look at it much differently. Nor does mine. Not an impasse; just a different world-life view.
I don't concern myself with gestational age, viability outside of the womb (which is constantly-changing with technological advancements in medicine) or who is/is not desired. I simply fall back on the position that conception equates to a life, and by pure logic, it is a distinctly-human life. We can change the terms, define the rates of growth, or argue over the various stages or processes involved, but unless we -- or nature -- intervenes, the inevitable result is one of those human beings you were talking about. ;)
To suggest that an in-eutero child/fetus/embryo/cell bundle lacks the natural right to live makes no more to me than to suggest that we cull our own grandparents once they are no longer able to drive or remember where they left their dentures. Do they somehow deserve a better fate simply because they happened to actually be born at some point in the distant past, or are we simply demonstrating a commitment to the sanctity of a human life? I cannot quite grasp how one can consider the dynamics of a developing fetus and conclude that they are only dealing with a meaningless biological mass until some critical benchmark (defined by who?) has been achieved. That is far too arbitrary for me, given what is actually at stake. We have more overt compassion for stillborn puppies.
We've made this about a woman's right to choose, but the choice that we've given her is effectively whether or not to murder her child before she has to deal with the inconveniences of birthing and possibly forming an emotional attachment to it. The child -- or the "thing" that would surely be a child, if left unharvested -- has no choice. No voice. So, a woman who has already demonstrated an ability to make poor choices is given yet another one to make at the expense of her inconvenient offspring's very heartbeat. A little sick, no?
I realize that we must necessarily disagree on this point. My position is backward. Yours is abhorrent. Neither of us can get to each other's end state, and neither of us is likely to be in any way influenced by the arguments of the other. I can live with that.
Here is what I have a bit more trouble living with: if one of us is wrong, and one of us is right, is it preferable to spare a woman the burden of birthing an unwanted child (of her own creation), or might it be wiser to err on the side of caution and protect the rights of the unborn, just in case they truly are, you know, real people?
I know which side I've chosen.
AC
It seems that most pro life people accept that in cases of rape or risk of life to the mother that abortion is acceptable. So if the fetus is a life at least they consider it of less value than the life of the mother. We draw all these lines in the sand. Some preachers have said masturbating is a sin because its wasting the seed. So is that the same as killing as well. How about this if someone on welfare wants an abortion fine but they get sterilized at the same time. I am simply tired of paying for other peoples kids.
Pat
Again, basic biology - fertilization vs conception. The pro-life position is that life begins at conception, not fertilization. These are not my definitions.
I'm not debating your definitions, I'm debating your assertion that this is the default "pro life" position. The problem is there is still quite a bit of debate regarding when "life" begins and even more debate when that "life" becomes a "baby."
Army Chief
08-29-13, 23:44
It seems that most pro life people accept that in cases of rape or risk of life to the mother that abortion is acceptable. So if the fetus is a life at least they consider it of less value than the life of the mother. We draw all these lines in the sand. Some preachers have said masturbating is a sin because its wasting the seed. So is that the same as killing as well.
Pat
Moral relativism and Catholic Ex-Cathedra orthodoxy (if I understand it correctly). Neither really shapes my view.
If a life is a life is a life, then it makes little sense to suggest that rape is made any better by removal of the consequences. I can appreciate that this might be an unspeakable hardship to bear, but adoption is still preferable in my view. It is inconsistent to suggest otherwise, even when the motivation is obviously compassion.
Risk to life? Although those cases are far less frequent today than they've ever been in human history, who makes that call, and at what point do we decide to stop attempting to save both lives? Natural processes will often protect the mother if something is truly wrong. If not, what level of risk to one person justifies the killing of another? These are gut-wrenching decisions to be made at the family level based upon the specifics of the case and their own convictions. I wouldn't even pretend to try to offer a blanket answer here, save to say that doctors are often wrong. For the moment, anyway, I'm living proof of it.
The prevailing view on masturbation outside of RC circles is that it is a sin because of what motivates it: uncontrolled lust and a selfish desire for sexual gratification. Not because it is wasting biological material. I'm sure we've friends with a different view on that, but I choose not to engage in those battles if I don't have to. Each man answers before God for his own choices.
In keeping with my earlier disclaimer about staying above the fray, that's about as deep as I dare go; especially since my own views here are likely out-of-step with the majority. I don't wish for that to become a focal point or a stumbling block for anyone.
AC
I'm not debating your definitions, I'm debating your assertion that this is the default "pro life" position. The problem is there is still quite a bit of debate regarding when "life" begins and even more debate when that "life" becomes a "baby."
I'm not hearing any debate from pro life organization that life begins anytime after implantation. The only debate from the pro life side is whether to include zygotes and non-implanted embryos in this category. If we push back the definition of human life to fertilization, how does that change the morality of a procedure that occurs 4-38 weeks later? From an ethics standpoint, it just makes more of our actions immoral, not the other way around. So, I'm more than happy to consider fertilized eggs as human life and accept all of its consequences IF it means the outright ban on all abortions. That means no more IVF using embryos (non-fertalized IVF can continue), stem cell research on human embryos, etc. Hell, I'd even ban PlanB in off the wall chance that it does inhibit implantation if it means no more abortions. After all, human society made it to 1996 without Plan B, I bet we could continue to survive without it.
In closing, you seem to fixate on the first 5 or 6 days of conception to support a position that the beginning of life is uncertain. In other words, if we can't determine that a 100-cell blastocyst is alive, we can't say that a 39-weeker coming down the pipe is alive. So, what criteria have you set to determine when someone is alive? Do you have any idea? Or, is it like porn - you know a live one when you see it.
I'm not hearing any debate from pro life organization that life begins anytime after implantation. The only debate from the pro life side is whether to include zygotes and non-implanted embryos in this category. If we push back the definition of human life to fertilization, how does that change the morality of a procedure that occurs 4-38 weeks later? From an ethics standpoint, it just makes more of our actions immoral, not the other way around. So, I'm more than happy to consider fertilized eggs as human life and accept all of its consequences IF it means the outright ban on all abortions. That means no more IVF using embryos (non-fertalized IVF can continue), stem cell research on human embryos, etc. Hell, I'd even ban PlanB in off the wall chance that it does inhibit implantation if it means no more abortions. After all, human society made it to 1996 without Plan B, I bet we could continue to survive without it.
You clearly haven't met some of the "pro life" people like we have in FL. Suffice to say they don't approach the subject from a medical POV.
In closing, you seem to fixate on the first 5 or 6 days of conception to support a position that the beginning of life is uncertain. In other words, if we can't determine that a 100-cell blastocyst is alive, we can't say that a 39-weeker coming down the pipe is alive. So, what criteria have you set to determine when someone is alive? Do you have any idea? Or, is it like porn - you know a live one when you see it.
I'm not fixated, but the starting point is the starting point. The entire abortion debate becomes more complicated from that point forward. So there is no reason to move forward if there isn't even consensus at the starting point.
As to when a fetus becomes a baby (or to get away from agenda terms) when we have a point of an unborn human being...honest answer....can't say.
One could argue that the zygote is an unborn human being given that if allowed to develop that is what you will have. Others insist that it isn't a baby until it is out of the vagina and the umbilical is snipped.
Others get into areas that are much harder to define such as when "self awareness" develops. The reality is nature won't adapt to our clean labels and definitions simply because we want it to. This is why Pluto is no longer a planet. And there isn't really a "chart" for development that indicates when a baby thinks "Hey...I'm alive...and how do I know what language to think in?"
As a result we really don't know, which is why there is debate. And honestly, even if we did know...there would still be debate because evidence doesn't suffice for everyone.
Personally this isn't a really big issue for me. I'm not going to get an abortion. So it's more a power of government issue for me. If somebody really doesn't want to be pregnant, and they can afford it, they should be able to get an abortion. I have a problem with late term abortions simply because we really don't know "when is when" and quite honestly if you are going to have an abortion get your shit together and do it now not later.
But we are back to the problem of irresponsible people.
Risk to life? Although those cases are far less frequent today than they've ever been in human history, who makes that call, and at what point do we decide to stop attempting to save both lives? Natural processes will often protect the mother if something is truly wrong. If not, what level of risk to one person justifies the killing of another? These are gut-wrenching decisions to be made at the family level based upon the specifics of the case and their own convictions. I wouldn't even pretend to try to offer a blanket answer here, save to say that doctors are often wrong. For the moment, anyway, I'm living proof of it.
AC
Your example duly noted, if it were my wife, I'd defer to the doctor to tell me his best assessment of the situation and then it should be the decision of my wife and I how to proceed.
Of course the best case scenario for sane people is to save them both, and that will be the fervent wish of anyone normal. But we must be mindful of that worst case scenario where you lose them both. And I don't think anyone else has any business making that kind of call.
The Apple Argument Against Abortion
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm
There are four possibilities:
-The fetus is a person, and we know that.
-The fetus is a person, but we don't know that.
-The fetus isn't a person, but we don't know that.
-The fetus isn't a person, and we know that.
What is abortion in each of these four cases?
In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.
In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter. It's like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you're not sure is fully evacuated. You're not sure there is a person there, but you're not sure there isn't either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn't know there was a person there, but you didn't know there wasn't either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.
In Case 3, the fetus isn't a person, but you don't know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren't. But you didn't care; you didn't take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.
Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism. So skepticism counts not for abortion but against it. Only if you are not a skeptic, only if you are a dogmatist, only if you are certain that there is no person in the fetus, no man in the coat, or no person in the building, may you abort, drive, or fumigate.
Voodoochild
08-30-13, 06:28
Need I remind all of you to keep this civil or keep out of it? One and only warning. :nono:
People can nitpick the definition of conception all the want, but it has little relation to the OP. Planned Parenthood wants to abort up to, (and maybe after) birth. That's just plain wrong. I don't see how you can not define a baby as a person by at least the first trimester (and I agree even earlier). But I'd consider it a small victory if we just got it to the first trimester for now...
We continue to eradicate any concept of morality from our society, and look where it's taking us, straight into the crapper. Rome burns...
People can nitpick the definition of conception all the want, but it has little relation to the OP. Planned Parenthood wants to abort up to, (and maybe after) birth. That's just plain wrong. I don't see how you can not define a baby as a person by at least the first trimester (and I agree even earlier). But I'd consider it a small victory if we just got it to the first trimester for now...
We continue to eradicate any concept of morality from our society, and look where it's taking us, straight into the crapper. Rome burns...
Where did this come from?
Where did this come from?
You got me, I can't provide a source. I should have said "IMHO," :nono:
Deleted. Too controversial to get caught up in w/out myself becoming emotionally charged.
The organisation known as "Planned Parenthood", founded by racist and exponent of the Nazis eugenics ideology and program Margaret Sanger, first advocated for legal abortion, in the 1st trimester, then the 2nd, then the 3rd, then partial birth abortion, and now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkSaypnvvqY
http://www.speroforum.com/a/VSPUJCNSLI53/73865-Planned-Parenthood-official-advocates-postpartum-infanticide
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/rush/070725
Eurodriver
08-30-13, 10:14
It seems that most pro life people accept that in cases of rape or risk of life to the mother that abortion is acceptable. So if the fetus is a life at least they consider it of less value than the life of the mother. Pat
If a 15 year old boy was holding a knife to his mother's throat, would it be acceptable to kill her son to save her own life? Of course it is.
This is how I view pregnancies that are a threat to the life of the mother.
Now could the mother kill her son because she wants to go on vacation and not have to worry about him?
Well, could she?
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/political-topics/60870d1368451573-gun-control-vs-planned-parenthood-imageuploadedbygun-game1368451573.043250.jpg
I respect your opinion and your love of all life. But many of us don't accept that a fetus is a human life.
Pat
At what point do you consider a baby a human life? I'm genuinely curious at what point the taking of a life is considered murder VS just snuffing out an "fetus". Anyone, who's pro-abortion please feel free to comment.
At what point do you consider a baby a human life? I'm genuinely curious at what point the taking of a life is considered murder VS just snuffing out an "fetus". Anyone, who's pro-abortion please feel free to comment.
Crickets. They will argue all day long that a zygote is not a human life, but they can't answer your question.
Has anyone else noticed that the OP never posted a link to his cited story about evil fembots who sacrifice good ol' teenage boys to the abortion gods?
I'm still waiting man. I want to figure out where these monsters are so I can be ready to burn them at the stake!
I'm sorry but you were lost amongst the many other quotes, your question is a fair one, and I will oblige you as best I may, I hope you brought your reading glasses,
As William Shakespeare opined, "Past Is Prologue!"
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11536
Some U.S. lawmakers considered similar ideas. Two years later in 1906, the Ohio legislature considered a bill empowering physicians to chloroform permanently diseased and mentally incapacitated persons. In reporting this, Rentoul told his British colleagues that it was Ohio’s attempt to “murder certain persons suffering from incurable disease.” Iowa considered a similar measure.
By 1910, the idea of sending the unfit into lethal chambers was regularly bandied about in American sociological and eugenic circles, causing a debate no less strident than the one in England. In 1911, E. B. Sherlock’s book, The Feebleminded: a guide to study and practice, acknowledged that “glib suggestions of the erection of lethal chambers are common enough.…” Like others, he rejected execution in favor of eugenic termination of bloodlines. “Apart from the difficulty that the provision of lethal chambers is impracticable in the existing state law…,” he continued, “the removal of them [the feebleminded] would do practically nothing toward solving the chief problem with the mentally defective set…, the persistence of the obnoxious stock.”
But other eugenicists were more amenable to the idea. The psychologist and eugenicist Henry H. Goddard seemed to almost express regret that such proposals had not already been implemented. In his infamous study, The Kallikak Family, Goddard commented, “For the low-grade idiot, the loathsome unfortunate that may be seen in our institutions, some have proposed the lethal chamber. But humanity is steadily tending away from the possibility of that method, and there is no probability that it will ever be practiced.” Goddard pointed to family-wide castration, sterilization and segregation as better solutions because they would more broadly address the genetic source.
In 1912, Carnegie-financed eugenicist Harry Laughlin and others at the Eugenics Section of the American Breeders Association considered euthanasia as the eighth of nine options. Their final report, published by the Carnegie Institution as a two-volume bulletin, enumerated the “Suggested Remedies” and equivocated on euthanasia. Point eight cited the example of ancient Sparta, fabled for drowning its weak young boys in a river or letting them die of exposure to ensure a race of warriors. Mixing condemnation with admiration, the Carnegie report declared, “However much we deprecate Spartan ideals and her means of advancing them, we must admire her courage in so rigorously applying so practical a system of selection…Sparta left but little besides tales of personal valor to enhance the world’s culture. With euthanasia, as in the case of polygamy, an effective eugenical agency would be purchased at altogether too dear a moral price.”
William Robinson, a New York urologist, published widely on the topic of birth control and eugenics. In Robinson’s book, Eugenics, Marriage and Birth Control (Practical Eugenics), he advocated gassing the children of the unfit. In plain words, Robinson insisted: “The best thing would be to gently chloroform these children or to give them a dose of potassium cyanide.” Margaret Sanger was well aware that her fellow birth control advocates were promoting lethal chambers, but she herself rejected the idea completely. “Nor do we believe,” wrote Sanger in Pivot of Civilization, “that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.”
Still, American eugenicists never relinquished the notion that America could bring itself to mass murder. At the First National Conference on Race Betterment, University of Wisconsin eugenicist Leon J. Cole lectured on the “dysgenic” effects of charity and medicine on eugenic progress. He made a clear distinction between Darwin’s concept of natural selection and the newer idea of simple “selection.” The difference, Cole explained, “is that instead of being natural selection it is now conscious selection on the part of the breeder.…Death is the normal process of elimination in the social organism, and we might carry the figure a step further and say that in prolonging the lives of defectives we are tampering with the functioning of the social kidneys!”
These are the very people who are now calling the shots in 2013 Amerika. They call themselves "Progressives." You should also know that one of the most celebrated eugenicists of the twentieth century, Margaret Sanger, the organization that she founded, it survives her, it operates today as the primary provider of abortion services in Amerika. Having provided tens of millions of abortions, "Planned Parenthood" is virtually synonymous with the procedure of abortion itself.
Crickets. They will argue all day long that a zygote is not a human life, but they can't answer your question.
I thought it would be a fairly easy question to answer.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uUFgwNLbMxE/TTJz8PBpW-I/AAAAAAAAAr8/OCHZaPeTDpo/s1600/Funny-Cricket-Photos-amazing.jpg
Whatchu mean crickets?
Crickets. They will argue all day long that a zygote is not a human life, but they can't answer your question.
I actually addressed the question (because I don't think a definitive answer based upon anything other than opinion exists) with post #128.
Of course my answer preceded the question so it might have been missed.
.46caliber
08-30-13, 15:39
If a 15 year old boy was holding a knife to his mother's throat, would it be acceptable to kill her son to save her own life? Of course it is.
This is how I view pregnancies that are a threat to the life of the mother.
This is the facet of the larger subject that I wrestle with the most.
Per your question, I see a big difference and have a hard time equating the scenarios. The 15 year old is evil, behaving maliciously, having a psychotic breakdown, etc. at that root of his violence to his mother. The intent to harm mother is there. The unborn baby has no intent of harm, none the less is a threat to mother's life.
I always wonder, when the matter of abortion to save the mother arises, just how common of a scenario is it? For the sake of a pro life argument, life is life, no matter how rare the occurrence is. But its not like it was where mothers died in giving birth with some frequency. I also wonder how often it is a baby or mother scenario. How often is it mother or none?
I can't begin to fathom the agony and soul-searching a mother would experience when a doctor informs her that she has to choose her life or the baby's.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
As to when a fetus becomes a baby (or to get away from agenda terms) when we have a point of an unborn human being...honest answer....can't say.
I actually addressed the question (because I don't think a definitive answer based upon anything other than opinion exists) with post #128.
Of course my answer preceded the question so it might have been missed.
I read each post in the thread and somehow didn't put 2 and 2 together, sorry. I can respect your answer of not knowing for yourself.
ETA - Really, I had addressed the question to Pat since he said many, including himself, didn't consider a fetus a form of human life. I was seeking clarification on when exactly he would deem that fetus worthy of being called a human life and have the rights that we are all entitled to.
But, by 6 weeks the baby's heart is pumping blood and there are detectable brainwaves, I call that a big clue. I could go on and on but anybody with a spare 5 minutes could learn the rest if they cared to.
Admittedly I'm yanking this from a "pro-life" website but it encapsulates what I think and feel about the subject. I have never, ever looked at one of these types of websites (came up on Google during my search) prior to now so there may be an even better definition, but I think they nailed it pretty well.
Biology is crystal clear that at the moment of conception (also known as fertilization), a unique organism comes into existence. Since this new life possesses human DNA and is the offspring of human parents, it can legitimately only be described as human life.
Since there can be no question that human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are alive, some have attempted to claim that human beings are not "persons," until some threshold is crossed, such as viability, the capacity to feel pain, birth, or even the first year after birth. The merits of such notions can be debated, but it should be clear that they are not based on science but rather on ideology, philosophy or belief.
As far as observable science is concerned, human life begins at conception.
Alpha Sierra
08-30-13, 16:39
People can talk about big talk about abortions, until the first time they've held their own child in their hands....and if they haven't they need to STFU....I know my perceptions certainly changed.
+1 Anyone who's gone through that experience unchanged is a monster IMO.
ETA - Really, I had addressed the question to Pat since he said many, including himself, didn't consider a fetus a form of human life.
By the same token I was addressing Sensei more than you as he suggested nobody was willing to answer such questions.
People can talk about big talk about abortions, until the first time they've held their own child in their hands....and if they haven't they need to STFU....I know my perceptions certainly changed.
I'd suggest that a female who has been raped and really, really doesn't want to have her attackers baby has had an equally profound and life changing experience.
By the same token I was addressing Sensei more than you as he suggested nobody was willing to answer such questions.
I don't know is not an answer.
+1 Anyone who's gone through that experience unchanged is a monster IMO.
I think another member challenged my post, then deleted as I must have touched a nerve.
I'm certainly not intending to insult anyone that hasn't had a child - either by fate or choice. What I am trying to say is that holding your own child, regardless of the thousands of others you may have held, is a totally different, intensely visceral event and (should) effect you, somehow. And if you haven't had that experience, then your knowledge of said subject is limited to second-hand experience. I strongly suspect that most of those who stand for pro-choice, have not had that experience, and if so I am totally confounded. My "STFU" was not directed to members of this forum if that was how it was taken; it was frustratingly directed at these politicans and public mouthpieces who scream so loudly in support of abortion. I know MANY women who went from rabid pro-abortion to rabit pro-life after they had their own child.
Of course there are those women who never make the connection (the one that strangled and stuffed her baby in the toilet tank comes to mind); for them either there is something just totally missing, or eventually it will weigh on their soul the rest of their lives. I also know women that had abortions at a younger age that now deeply regret what they did.
It would be like me trying to explain the high/need to a meth addict, having never done drugs. Or, discussing combat with a combat vet, having personally (gratefully) never seen a shot fired in anger and pray I never do. Yes, it's THAT viseral - and it changes your perception.
So I have to ask, Alaska: Do you have any biological children?
I'd suggest that a female who has been raped and really, really doesn't want to have her attackers baby has had an equally profound and life changing experience.
I certainly agree, and can see how they CANNOT make the connection. And in cases of rape/incest, while I morn, I can't say I would fight against it. IF someone did that to my wife or my daughter, I can't say that I'd say "NO" in the early stages of pregnancy. Just an brutally honest response.
I think another member challenged my post, then deleted as I must have touched a nerve.
I'm certainly not intending to insult anyone that hasn't had a child - either by fate or choice. What I am trying to say is that holding your own child, regardless of the thousands of others you may have held, is a totally different, intensely visceral event and (should) effect you, somehow. And if you haven't had that experience, then your knowledge of said subject is limited to second-hand experience. I strongly suspect that most of those who stand for pro-choice, have not had that experience, and if so I am totally confounded. My "STFU" was not directed to members of this forum if that was how it was taken; it was frustratingly directed at these politicans and public mouthpieces who scream so loudly in support of abortion. I know MANY women who went from rabid pro-abortion to rabit pro-life after they had their own child.
Of course there are those women who never make the connection (the one that strangled and stuffed her baby in the toilet tank comes to mind); for them either there is something just totally missing, or eventually it will weigh on their soul the rest of their lives. I also know women that had abortions at a younger age that now deeply regret what they did.
It would be like me trying to explain the high/need to a meth addict, having never done drugs. Or, discussing combat with a combat vet, having personally (gratefully) never seen a shot fired in anger and pray I never do. Yes, it's THAT viseral - and it changes your perception.
So I have to ask, Alaska: Do you have any biological children?
I must say, watching my wife's pregnancy solidified my position on the issue.
I must say, watching my wife's pregnancy solidified my position on the issue.
My wife and I rented one of those portable ultrasound monitors, and listened as our daughter grew for more than 6 months of her pregnancy. My Daughter is 12 now, and I have that sound on my phone and play it for us both every once in awhile. When she was born, within 10 minutes of her birth she was holding my pinky, and you could have shocked me with a cattle prod. I haven't looked at this subject the same way since.
thopkins22
08-30-13, 17:55
At what point do you consider a baby a human life? I'm genuinely curious at what point the taking of a life is considered murder VS just snuffing out an "fetus". Anyone, who's pro-abortion please feel free to comment.
I'm not "pro-abortion"...but I'm not very pro-life either. I'm rather turned off by the arguments on both sides of the debate as to me both sides of the debate tend to be highly self-righteous and take the argument to the extreme. Such as the notion that pro-lifers are mainly a bunch of men who want to force their evangelical religious beliefs on women, and that pro-choicers are a bunch of murderers who want to kill toddlers. Both arguments are ridiculous and I won't be publicly offering an opinion again other than "leave it to the states."
However, to answer your question, the reasonable arguments I've seen centered around when the fetus was capable of being sustained without the mother and no longer had to exist as a parasite. That seems to be around 20-24 weeks given current medicine, and will no doubt be earlier and earlier in the pregnancy as we learn more.
I don't know is not an answer.
Sure it is.
1. What color was a T Rex?
2. How many planets were in the first solar system that formed?
3. When does "self awareness" first occur in a human?
4. What is the nature of human thought before the understanding of language?
5. Where did the first form of life on Earth come from?
There are so many questions that we don't have the answer to it isn't funny and I can't believe you actually said that.
I certainly agree, and can see how they CANNOT make the connection. And in cases of rape/incest, while I morn, I can't say I would fight against it. IF someone did that to my wife or my daughter, I can't say that I'd say "NO" in the early stages of pregnancy. Just an brutally honest response.
And perception is a big part of the abortion debate.
When a normal person looks at their child they simply cannot imagine wanting to kill it. In fact they probably would sacrifice their own life to protect it. It is hard for them to imagine anything else.
That is because they aren't in a position that would make a person seek an abortion. They aren't pregnant at 13, they aren't a victim of rape or incest, they aren't a person who responsibly understands there is "no way" they can provide for a child.
Now I don't want to give everyone a pass. There are tons of irresponsible people out there who use abortion as their form of birth control and that drives most people (including me) nuts. There are plenty of others that simply don't value any human life and see a baby as a "thing" rather than a child. These are the ghouls who can murder their young children for little or no reason. Personally I'd have preferred they got an abortion.
I don't know is not an answer.
This is part of yet another example of the finer minds here resorting to senseless tail-chasing. And no I'm singling you out, just using your applicable post because it's the shortest of the recent group.
Some things you can't NOT know. Snuffing out innocent human life for personal convenience or as a terminal answer to a temporary situation is ethically evil. Interestingly enough it seems that crude and rude Neanderthals like us with an abiding interest in guns pick up on this better than most. Maybe men instinctively take this "protect the innocent" thing more seriously. Especially when they hold their child for the first time.
If we can make our peace with wholesale abortion we can--and probably will--do anything.
Anything.
.46caliber
08-30-13, 20:08
However, to answer your question, the reasonable arguments I've seen centered around when the fetus was capable of being sustained without the mother and no longer had to exist as a parasite. That seems to be around 20-24 weeks given current medicine, and will no doubt be earlier and earlier in the pregnancy as we learn more.
I find the parasite parallel to be feeble and stretched at best. A parasite by definition is a foreign and invasive species to its host. A fetus or baby is indeed the same species and in fact shares about 50% of its DNA with the "host" and originates, in part, from within. A woman's body also fabricates a connection with the baby or fetus, as a willing participant. Host bodies of most parasites do not behave this way, any connection is forcibly created by the parasite. A parasite remains inside the host or moves to another host in order to survive. A baby doesn't have to return to the uterus to survive. A bedbug does have to insert its mouth parts in a host to feed each and every time. About the only parallel that can be drawn is that the fetus is dependent on the mother and resides within like a parasite to a host. 1 or 2 common traits is hardly enough to define a fetus as a parasite.
An AR15 is black and has a pistol grip. Are all black firearms with a pistol grip then an AR?
And I realize thopkins did not draw the hard definition that a fetus IS a parasite. It just triggered my thoughts.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
thopkins22
08-30-13, 20:20
And I realize thopkins did not draw the hard definition that a fetus IS a parasite. It just triggered my thoughts.
Correct, I didn't mean to imply that it was, nor do I disagree with your assessment. Rather I was stating what most thinkers in the pro-choice camp are currently arguing regarding the when does a fetus have rights question.
On the flip side, there's tremendous inconsistency. A person that murders a newly impregnated woman can be charged with two counts of murder, even before that time.
Is it right or wrong? Hell if I know. Leave it to the states...it's the only way that those whom are totally pro-life will ever see laws they like enacted. It's also the way our system of government is supposed to work. Violence is a state matter. But be prepared for blowback...I think the legislators in TX don't quite know what's going on...a lot of them are going to be in a tougher fight for their jobs than they realize.
I'm not "pro-abortion"...but I'm not very pro-life either. I'm rather turned off by the arguments on both sides of the debate as to me both sides of the debate tend to be highly self-righteous and take the argument to the extreme. Such as the notion that pro-lifers are mainly a bunch of men who want to force their evangelical religious beliefs on women, and that pro-choicers are a bunch of murderers who want to kill toddlers. Both arguments are ridiculous and I won't be publicly offering an opinion again other than "leave it to the states."
Apathy has likely been responsible for more human death, and earthly destruction, then all other contributions combined! It was the apathy of Europe & its citizens that was capitalized upon by the Nazis as they pursued their "final solution" and in the process catapulted all of Europe to the brink of total annihilation.
I think you should carefully re-read the op, and the link embedded within post 141. Those were/are real people, many of whom were the preeminent thinkers of their time, men and women who are deeply revered by the current "progressive" ruling class, they are the men & women who socially engineered American society into what you see before you today.
Do you like what you see?
.46caliber
08-30-13, 20:42
On the flip side, there's tremendous inconsistency. A person that murders a newly impregnated woman can be charged with two counts of murder, even before that time.
One of multiple issues I take with the "point of viability" qualification. Using age of viability as the threshold, when it is dependent on ever-developing technology, doesn't strike me as a best practice. I admittedly don't know how to better articulate that thought.
This is why I always come back to conception. The very moment those two cells become one, it is a unique organism with its own genetic code. Which, consequently, is why I contend that an unfertilized egg that dies or sperm that dies is not a human death.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
I'm sorry but you were lost amongst the many other quotes, your question is a fair one, and I will oblige you as best I may, I hope you brought your reading glasses,
As William Shakespeare opined, "Past Is Prologue!"
THank you. I will now be reading through this.
However, to answer your question, the reasonable arguments I've seen centered around when the fetus was capable of being sustained without the mother and no longer had to exist as a parasite. That seems to be around 20-24 weeks given current medicine, and will no doubt be earlier and earlier in the pregnancy as we learn more.
Then we should extend that to all parasites like multi-generational welfare recipients, etc. ;)
Sure it is.
1. What color was a T Rex?
2. How many planets were in the first solar system that formed?
3. When does "self awareness" first occur in a human?
4. What is the nature of human thought before the understanding of language?
5. Where did the first form of life on Earth come from?
There are so many questions that we don't have the answer to it isn't funny and I can't believe you actually said that.
He asked your opinion on when life begins. Unless you doubt your own existence, you must have some opinion on when life begins and it need not be a particular instant in time. For example, you might have said some time after birth or after the 4th year of life. I'd imagine that this question and the inevitable follow-ons are uncomfortable for a supporter of abortion rights who also has a functioning moral compass.
thopkins22
08-30-13, 21:27
Then we should extend that to all parasites like multi-generational welfare recipients, etc. ;)
You know you're not getting an argument from me on that!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.