NationStates Jolt Archive

my guess would be it has something to do with people who think condoms = absolute protection and go ahead anyway.
no, the Vatican has specifically stated that latex condoms don't protect against AIDS if used correctly, because they claim HIV passes through the pores. this has been completely medically disproven, but the Vatican persists in make these claims. they also instruct their missionaries in Africa to tell people that condoms are covered with the AIDS virus. they tell flat out lies, because they believe contraception is immoral, and as a result of their lies people are dying. the Pope is a murderer, as are all the members of the Catholic Church who support these actions, as are all the missionaries who pass on these lies. they have murdered more people than Saddam Hussein, but for some reason we aren't talking about their terrorism at all...i guess because we aren't allowed to question their claims because such lies fall under their "religious freedoms" or some crap like that.

The Vatican also says that it is scientifically proven that condoms don't help in preventing aids, that condoms even propagate aids. You'd wonder where the hell they get their "reports" from. I personally don't know much about that. However, the people involved certainly did not have to have sex, and the Church always teaches that. They know what AIDS is; they know how it is transferred. They're not stupid. They are the ones ultimatly responsible for getting it.

or why the world hasn't stepped forward to put the Catholic Church on trial for crimes against humanity. they are directly responsible for literally millions of HIV infection cases in Africa alone, and in Africa there is virtually no treatment for AIDS...the Pope has ordered the murder of millions of people, yet there are Catholics who have the audacity to call themselves "pro-life" while supporting the Pope.Again, we NEVER force anyone to have sex. If they do, it is their decision. Pretending that this argument is a valid one is rediculouos.

The pope's opposition to birth-control and abortion is the clearest example of Catholicism preferring quantity of life over quality of life. Aids, poverty, overpopulation: all of this doesn't matter, as long as everybody just keeps on "breeding". The result: millions infected with HIV (and thus condemned to death), millions living (and dying) in abject poverty and misery because parents can't support their many children. Pro-life indeed. Oh, is it another of these? The Church has NEVER supported sex outside of marriage, and always teaches abstinence as the best way to prevent 'unwanted children'.

exactly. they are pro-BIRTH, but i don't see any justification for calling them "pro-LIFE."Actually, we are pro-choice, but the choice we give is not one to kill. You decide whether you will have sex. I cannot do it for you.

In a lot of cases it really seems to be more, you know, 'pro-punishing women... those sluts' than anything else.

I mean... 'if the woman enjoyed the sex, punish her with a child, but if she didn't (rape), well, that's fine, no need to punish her...'Absolutely wrong. Punishing women for what they decided to do in the first place? :) And the second paragraph: That is not true either. All babies are equally precious, and never should be deliberately killed in any circumstance. And there is no punishing going on, except what the mother chose, and in cases where she did not choose, it is certaintly not the babies' fault.

Ah, but you see, to them all human life is sacred, so how could a child be a punishment? No no, having a baby can only be bliss, a bed of thornless roses... To deny that is to deny the very foundation of society...To deny your freedom of choice? You have all the choice you want - but you actually have to use it before you decide on a course of action. Demanding personal responsibility is wrong then?


Notice that most of these arguments are virtually the same. Most have the same answer as well, which should have been obvious. Perhaps some of you will think a question/accusation through before just patting each other on the back.

Again, we NEVER force anyone to have sex. If they do, it is their decision. Pretending that this argument is a valid one is rediculouos.

i don't see what that has to do with the Vatican LYING about condoms.


Actually, we are pro-choice, but the choice we give is not one to kill. You decide whether you will have sex. I cannot do it for you.

lol, you give people one choice, and then say you are pro-choice? how cute of you. sorry babydoll, but you are anti-choice, plain and simple.


Absolutely wrong. Punishing women for what they decided to do in the first place? :) And the second paragraph: That is not true either. All babies are equally precious, and never should be deliberately killed in any circumstance. And there is no punishing going on, except what the mother chose, and in cases where she did not choose, it is certaintly not the babies' fault.

a woman who consents to sex is not giving automatic consent to pregnancy. a fetus is not a baby. your arguments hold no water.

To deny your freedom of choice? You have all the choice you want - but you actually have to use it before you decide on a course of action. Demanding personal responsibility is wrong then?

chosing to have an abortion IS taking responsibility. the only way a woman can fail to take responsibility for a pregnancy is if she puts her fingers in her ears and yells "I'M NOT PREGNANT" until the baby drops out. just because you don't like abortion doesn't mean that it's not a way to take responsibility; personally, i think it is roughly ten billion times more responsible than having the child and giving it up for adoption, and about 2 billion times more responsible than having the child and keeping it.


Notice that most of these arguments are virtually the same. Most have the same answer as well, which should have been obvious. Perhaps some of you will think a question/accusation through before just patting each other on the back.
unfortunately, you aren't giving us any new material to work with. perhaps you should come up with something beyond the same old tired anti-choice lines if you want us to be more creative in our answers.

i don't see what that has to do with the Vatican LYING about condoms.Because even if the Vatican did so, people would still have the choice whether or not to have sex.


lol, you give people one choice, and then say you are pro-choice? how cute of you. sorry babydoll, but you are anti-choice, plain and simple.
Not really. You have all the choice in the world. You decide whether you will have sex. You know that there is a chance of getting pregnant.


a woman who consents to sex is not giving automatic consent to pregnancy. a fetus is not a baby. your arguments hold no water.She knows that it is a possibilty. She does it anyway. Therefore she gives consent if it happens. You seem to depend on 'everyone's stupid and can't really think'. Go over the rest of this thread for why a fetus is a baby.


chosing to have an abortion IS taking responsibility. the only way a woman can fail to take responsibility for a pregnancy is if she puts her fingers in her ears and yells "I'M NOT PREGNANT" until the baby drops out. just because you don't like abortion doesn't mean that it's not a way to take responsibility; personally, i think it is roughly ten billion times more responsible than having the child and giving it up for adoption, and about 2 billion times more responsible than having the child and keeping it.You know what's even more responsible? Choosing not to have sex in the first place. You can decide that beforehand, you know. Or are people just incapable of withstanding the temptation?


unfortunately, you aren't giving us any new material to work with. perhaps you should come up with something beyond the same old tired anti-choice lines if you want us to be more creative in our answers.You haven't come up with any better arguments either. Perhaps it is because of the basic nature of the issue. You would have us kill someone with 'inconvience' as the excuse, and I would have us not allow you or anyone do so. Who is more pro-choice? 1.3 million people dead every year. Every one of those people would have had millions of choices to make in their lives - and you denied them even one.

Where does this right for an abortion come from? If you claim that it is because the baby is somehow part of the womans body, then can a woman get an abortion maybe 2 days before birth - when the baby is completely able to live - and call it an abortion? If you say that these kids are probably going to have crappy lives, can I go to the ghetto and find a 10 year old kid living in a crappy home and kill him because his life is probably not going to turn out well? Nope. All of the arguments about how things that nature does are somehow abortion related as well are stupid. Mensturation is obviously not bad if that is how nature works. Same with miscarriages. Nature's work. And if you are saying that all the lives that have been aborted would have somehow been an "inconvenience" because they would have taken up food and energy, then you are a disgusting human being.
So, just because it's nature, does that mean that it's fine. Everyone seems to think that just because nature is what we live in, it gets the final say. If a boulder fell on a baby that's ok, but because we're human we can't decide what should and should not happen. In a lot of ways nature is bad.

Also, killing a 10 year old is different from killing a fetus. A 10 year old is aware of his own existence, where a fetus is no better off than someone on life support. Saying that the fetus is a potential human is like saying I'm a potential brain surgeon. True, but that doesn't mean I'm going to live up to that standard. Everything has potential, but not everything meets it. Cutting a tree down kills every potential tree it would parent, but people still do it.

So, just because it's nature, does that mean that it's fine. Everyone seems to think that just because nature is what we live in, it gets the final say. If a boulder fell on a baby that's ok, but because we're human we can't decide what should and should not happen. In a lot of ways nature is bad.Nature bad? No, nature just doesn't care. It's not thinking being; it cannot make decisions. It is correct though, if you have an abortion, it is because you decided to, not because you're just on autopilot. The law already distinguishes between intent and accident. It is the same thing.


Cutting a tree down kills every potential tree it would parent, but people still do it.But none of those trees have or would ever have even the potential to be able to reason and think. That's an invalid analogy.

Thus by your own arguements I demand that you acknowledge the santity of human female gametes. I demand that you acknologde that every woman from pubity to meopause is as you put it committing murder.

An egg, untinkered with by some scientist, cannot survive outside the body, fertilised or not. It doesn't always survive inside the body. The comment to which I was responding was that an egg or a sperm should be regarded the same way as an aborted child, using the same pro-life logic. Demand all ya want, it ain't happening.


Ouch! Swing and a miss for the rookie. Wrong AGAIN! You've read your pamflets though. Let me clarify.
5 weeks brain devolopenment starts appriechbly. It could be argued that it occurs earlier but I'm not gonna go Human Bio Masters level on you.
8 weeks simple nevous system is formed and pain can be felt. Brain ACTIVITY (not waves) can be detected. Comprable activity can be found in PLANTS.
18 weeks brain developed enough to surivive out side the womb - the body however requires intensive care and still the baby won't live very long.
22 Weeks complete neural network. SNS and PNS (hehehe PNS) are fully formed. Baby CAN live a decent life.
By legal and my defintion after 20 weeks its a child.

It wasn't a pamphlet, thanks for asking. It was a web site, which I just happened to click on to find info on fetal development. It doesn't matter to me what intellectual level the brain activity/waves are at 8 weeks, it's still a child growing, as far as I'm concerned. I do not care if anyone else agrees with my point of view, that's what makes it my point of view.

Wow Prismatic Dragons is kicking the sh... feaces out of Dakini and I'm smashing Prismatic Dragons!
Condoms are only 97% effective WHEN USED CORRECTLY (rising to 99% if spericide is used). The pill is also not 100% (I don't know the figure but I estimate at 97%), neither is a diaphram in fact even abstinace isn't 100% effective. With 6 BILLION people on the Earth there will always be unwanted pregnecies, accidents (and abuse) will always (unfortunatly) happen.

It is not the purpose of this discussion to kick anything out of anyone. And again, you're not getting the point, though congrats on feeling good about supposedly smashing someone. ;) Abortion should be used as a last resort, if at all. And how is abstinence not 100%?? 2000 years later, Mary is still the only woman to ever do that. :D

Babies don't have personalities. So they're not humans either.

I take it you don't have kids, then? ;)

Choice is the ability to choose wisely (do it right) or poorly (make a mistake). God cannot choose poorly, therefore there is no choice.

Choice is man's power. God's "all-power" is the power of creation. That's his gig, to be the Creator. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. His 'word' is creation, bringing thought instantly into manifestation. There is no choice involved in the process: he thinks (aloud) and it is. The world is as he becomes aware of it; one and the same.
"Elohim in Genesis I makes creation like a craftsman. Alternatively, he 'says' or 'calls' it into being and 'tells' it what to do. He 'sees' that it is good. So also did the Mesopotamian craftsman when his work was complete, as he was required by law before his goods could leave the shop."
Similarly, Yahweh creates man from clay without a choice in the matter. As soon as he conceived of 'a man to till the ground', "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:6-7) His is a 'heart' type rather than a 'word' type creation --creation comes from the loving heart, and then thought is applied to it afterwards to keep it in check, in the form of judgements and laws.

"In the first story, Elohim saw that what he had made was good. In the second story, Yahweh does not delight in his creation. Good is not his appraisal of what he has made..." Man is not 'good-only', but that doesn't mean the design is 'flawed' in any way. Man was made to be both good and bad, to have the choice to choose good over bad. Making mistakes and making amends is how man learns and grows spiritually. That is our purpose in the design.

Our behaviour is determined by, and determines, how we think and feel. The mind/heart/soul part of us, not the physical body, is the part that God sees and interacts with, storywise, and that interacts with him. This is the part of us that 'knows' things by forming relationships with them. We 'know' the world through the relationship of experiencing it. We 'know' each other through relationships and bonding. And we 'know' God through relationship with what is in our hearts. God made us in his image, of mist (emotion) and dust (thought). Just as we are a manifestation of God's heart, what is in our hearts gets manifested in our words, actions and the tasks of our hands.

For people who are self-aware, god's "punishments" are not those that take place in the physical world, that happen to the body, to the city, or state, or to the world --they are seen as the consequences of our own heart --'hell' is torment, 'heaven' is bliss. "Know thyself" --the wisest words every recorded.


Quotes from "The Myth of the Goddess, Evolution of an Image".

But the 'flaw' we are being punished for, in my first example, is the curiousity of Adam and Eve. The god made an imperfect being, set up a test that they couldn't pass, and then punishes them for failing. I can't see that as anything but petty.

Yes - I know it's from Genesis, and genesis is metaphor... but I'm wearing my 'in character' hat.

Oh - I'm sure you know already, but elohim is a plural... the first book of Genesis explicitly states (in the Hebrew) that the world is a product of more than one god....

Absolutely.

The christian faith claims that every faith except it is wrong.
The muslim faith claims every other faith is wrong.

We atheists just go one tiny small step forward .and say that it isnt 99% of religious faiths that are wrong, it is 100%.

Nope, those would be the hypocritical extremists who just call themselves Christians. True Christians are accepting of everyone, including Atheists, because we know it isn't our call who's right and who's wrong.



But their not religons, are they, Santa Claus and the Easter bunny were

storys made up to make kids happy, the leprechauns are anyones guess.

Not exactly, at least as far as the Easter Bunny goes, and leprechauns. The easter bunny comes from old Pagan believes (something to do with fertility, as I recall). Leprechauns are Irish mythology, though I don't know the origin, exactly, other than having something to do with people's belief in faeries and such. Santa Claus has roots in a real person.

Faith is just faith. In a way, Atheists have "faith" that there is no God, Christians/Muslims/Jews have "faith" that there is.

But the 'flaw' we are being punished for, in my first example, is the curiousity of Adam and Eve. The god made an imperfect being, set up a test that they couldn't pass, and then punishes them for failing. I can't see that as anything but petty.
I know others have used the word "imperfect" but that's not my own belief, so I can't really defend that side. We are what we were made to be, therefore there is no flaw or imperfection in us.

The "test" is petty, in the way the story is told, if viewed through the eyes of a literalist, viewed as a test. I can't defend that side, either, try thought I might at times.

You know, I hear this from secular people quite a lot (I can't tell if you are or not Dem), and yet they don't see the flaw in saying "My secular view is that abortion is wrong, but you shouldn't force religion upon other people".

Actually, it is my religious view that leads me to believe that elective abortion is wrong. If it were a purely secular view, it would be based either on pure emotion (which, much like religion, I have no right to force upon others) or would be based in scientific observation (for which I *might* have an argument to use in legislating it). However, because it is religion that brings me to that conclusion, I know that attempting to legislate it would be forcing my religious views on others, thus causing them harm.

I personally don't know much about that. However, the people involved certainly did not have to have sex, and the Church always teaches that. They know what AIDS is; they know how it is transferred. They're not stupid. They are the ones ultimatly responsible for getting it.

Actually, the Vatican has propogated a video to African bishops and priests in which a nun tells an HIV-infected man that he must go home and have sex with his non-infected wife without condoms, as sex is a part of marriage and condoms are a sin.

Again, we NEVER force anyone to have sex. If they do, it is their decision. Pretending that this argument is a valid one is rediculouos.

According to the church, sex is a duty of marriage. Thus, any married individual has to have sex.

She knows that it is a possibilty. She does it anyway. Therefore she gives consent if it happens. You seem to depend on 'everyone's stupid and can't really think'. Go over the rest of this thread for why a fetus is a baby.

It wasn't a pamphlet, thanks for asking. It was a web site, which I just happened to click on to find info on fetal development. It doesn't matter to me what intellectual level the brain activity/waves are at 8 weeks, it's still a child growing, as far as I'm concerned. I do not care if anyone else agrees with my point of view, that's what makes it my point of view.

So your proof for why a fetus is a baby is your point of view and nothing more? Interesting.

So your proof for why a fetus is a baby is your point of view and nothing more? Interesting.
Purely hypothetical situation, not necessarily meant to literally portray you...

Let's say you invented a time travel device, totally envisioned it in your mind, put it down on paper and are quite pleased with it. You haven't actually built it or tested it yet, as you figure you should patent it first. So you fill out your patent forms, and are strolling merrily down to the patent office to file them when a passer by stops you and asks, "Why are you so happy, friend?"

And you reply, "I have a time travel device that's going to change the world."

The point of this little tale is people very often refer to something that is potential as if it was already realised, because the realisation of potentiality is a fixed amount of time away and a relatively sure thing, barring unforeseen complications.

The fetus is a baby because its potentiality has a fixed time span to actualisation of its realisation as such.
(Is that enough big words in one sentence? I really tried...)

Let's say you invented a time travel device, totally envisioned it in your mind, put it down on paper and are quite pleased with it. You haven't actually built it or tested it yet, as you figure you should patent it first. So you fill out your patent forms, and are strolling merrily down to the patent office to file them when a passer by stops you and asks, "Why are you so happy, friend?"

And you reply, "I have a time travel device that's going to change the world."

The point of this little tale is people very often refer to something that is potential as if it was already realised, because the realisation of potentiality is a fixed amount of time away and a relatively sure thing, barring unforeseen complications.

People often refer to potential as if it already realised, but that doesn't make it actually realised.

We often refer to objects such as a computer, piece of furniture, etc. as having feelings. For instance, you input a command to your computer and it locks up, you might say "Wow, it really didn't like that." However, the fact that you referred to it that way does not change the fact that your computer has no ability to like/dislike anything.

I personally don't know much about that. However, the people involved certainly did not have to have sex, and the Church always teaches that. They know what AIDS is; they know how it is transferred. They're not stupid. They are the ones ultimatly responsible for getting it.

Are you blind? No, they DON'T know what aids is, they are NOT well informed. Even in "civilised" Western countries there are misconceptions about aids. In some areas in Africa men are raping young girls, even children and babies, because they believe that having sex with a virgin will cure their aids! That's how informed they are!

Again, we NEVER force anyone to have sex. If they do, it is their decision. Pretending that this argument is a valid one is rediculouos.

Ah, the old abstinence argument... You make it sound like sex is a rational controlled action like brushing your hair or doing the dishes. Humans are not entirely rational beings, they have urges and needs as well. Sex is a physical urge, it's emotional, it's many things, but it's not rational. And it's not easy to control. So basically YES people will succumb to temptation. People will keep on having sex, even they are threatened with an eternity in hell. Abstinence may work for some people, but I doubt even a strong-willed person can abstain for extended periods in time, let alone a lifetime. Would you have a married couple abstain if they didn't want any kids? For the entire duration of their marriage? The marriage wouldn't even be valid, as it has to be consummated. Or how about a couple where one partner has HIV? A lifetime of abstinence? You're being naive if you think abstinence is a viable solution.

By denying people the right to use birth control/condoms, you are denying people the right to protect themselves in an act they will do NO MATTER WHAT.

And abortion is not solely about "inconvenience". (I'm starting to really hate that word...) A wart is an inconvenience, a pregnancy isn't. Pregnancy and having a baby brings with it many drastic ramifications, ramifications that a woman isn't always willing to accept. You'd know that if you'd read the rest of the thread, so I won't bother repeating. You're (again) being naive if you think that having an unwanted baby always turns out for the best.

But yeah, that's right, she should "pay" for having "chosen" to have sex, as she is weak and can't resist temptation.

Santa Claus has roots in a real person.


St. Nicolaus.

I dont know about Mrs.Claus.

So your proof for why a fetus is a baby is your point of view and nothing more? Interesting.I did not post that. I don't know where you got it from. Perhaps just trying to discredit me?

Because even if the Vatican did so, people would still have the choice whether or not to have sex.

wrong. as Demipublicents has pointed out, sex is a duty of marriage according to the Catholic Church, and they are thus ordering HIV positive individuals to have unprotected sex with their uninfected spouses.

furthermore, are you actually saying that it doesn't matter that the Vatican is flat out LYING?! why on Earth would anybody worship an organization that makes blatantly untrue statements? why follow any God who is behind that kind of dishonesty?


Not really. You have all the choice in the world. You decide whether you will have sex. You know that there is a chance of getting pregnant.

yes, just as i know that if i go skiing i might break my leg. i have the right to get my leg set if i break it skiing.


She knows that it is a possibilty. She does it anyway. Therefore she gives consent if it happens. You seem to depend on 'everyone's stupid and can't really think'. Go over the rest of this thread for why a fetus is a baby.

knowing that something MIGHT happen doesn't mean you consent to endure the outcome without acting on it. you know that every time you get in a car there is a chance, albeit a small one, that you are going to have an accident...does that mean that if you get in an accident you should be denied any medical treatment for your injuries? did you consent to being injured when you got behind the wheel?


You know what's even more responsible? Choosing not to have sex in the first place. You can decide that beforehand, you know. Or are people just incapable of withstanding the temptation?

i disagree. i don't see any reason why resisting the temptation to have sex is especially responsible in and of itself, though there are situations in which it is the responsible choice. as long as the individual faces the consequences of that choice, there is nothing irresponsible about choosing to have sex.


You haven't come up with any better arguments either. Perhaps it is because of the basic nature of the issue. You would have us kill someone with 'inconvience' as the excuse, and I would have us not allow you or anyone do so. Who is more pro-choice?
um, me. you can say that i am WRONG for giving people that choice, but by your own words i am allowing people more choices than you are. you wish to take away a choice, i do not...that makes me more pro-choice than you.


1.3 million people dead every year. Every one of those people would have had millions of choices to make in their lives - and you denied them even one.

fetuses are not people. until you establish that they are, through evidence rather than simply stating your opinion, you are just blasting more hot air.

um, me. you can say that i am WRONG for giving people that choice, but by your own words i am allowing peope more choices than you are. you wish to take away a choice, i do not...that makes me more pro-choice than you.


lol

not to tote praises, but i found this ammusing

however i have nothing to offer on this subject that hasnt been covered before. Back to the trolling i go

lol :rolleyes:

I did not post that. I don't know where you got it from. Perhaps just trying to discredit me?

Which quote do you deny posting?

People often refer to potential as if it already realised, but that doesn't make it actually realised.
Right. But pointing out that it is potential is not going to do much to change the mind-set of the person who recognizes the potential as inherent in the actualized.

We often refer to objects such as a computer, piece of furniture, etc. as having feelings. For instance, you input a command to your computer and it locks up, you might say "Wow, it really didn't like that." However, the fact that you referred to it that way does not change the fact that your computer has no ability to like/dislike anything.
That's a slightly different thing, where it's the nature of the language (inherited from German) to refer to things by gender, and that can actually influence the way we think about them (like a man's affection for his automobile).

When you go to the store to buy cookies, the average consumer might go to the isle with rows and rows of packaged cookies. But the person of a different mind-set will buy cookie dough ingredients. They are still cookies; it's just a matter of adding work and time to bring them to fruition.

When you go to the store to buy cookies, the average consumer might go to the isle with rows and rows of packaged cookies. But the person of a different mind-set will buy cookie dough ingredients. They are still cookies; it's just a matter of adding work and time to bring them to fruition.

In actuality, they aren't cookies. They are cookie dough ingredients. If you mix them and bake them, they become cookies.

Right. But pointing out that it is potential is not going to do much to change the mind-set of the person who recognizes the potential as inherent in the actualized.

As I pointed out, however, the fact that they see it that way does not make it true.

That's a slightly different thing, where it's the nature of the language (inherited from German) to refer to things by gender, and that can actually influence the way we think about them (like a man's affection for his automobile).

I didn't say anything about gender. I was talking about referring to objects as having feelings and human thoughts - something we do all the time.

In actuality, they aren't cookies. They are cookie dough ingredients. If you mix them and bake them, they become cookies.
To some people, they are cookie ingredients; to others there's no difference between them and cookies. The "work and time" added in are ephemeral; the ingredients are of a more permanent nature.

When you go to the store to buy cookies, the average consumer might go to the isle with rows and rows of packaged cookies. But the person of a different mind-set will buy cookie dough ingredients. They are still cookies; it's just a matter of adding work and time to bring them to fruition.
no, they aren't. they are cookie dough ingredients. the person may fail to use them for some reason, or may use them to make something other than cookies, so until the ingredients are combined and baked in the necessary manner they are not cookies.

i honestly cannot understand how you could possibly claim that a bunch of ingredients are actually a bunch of cookies, simply because those ingredients could potentially be combined to make cookies. that has to be one of the most irrational things i have ever heard.

To some people, they are cookie ingredients; to others there's no difference between them and cookies. The "work and time" added in are ephemeral; the ingredients are of a more permanent nature.
anybody who thinks that a bunch of ingredients is actually a bunch of cookies is suffering a serious delusion, one that should be given immediate treatment. such a belief would demonstrate an inability to perceive reality.

As I pointed out, however, the fact that they see it that way does not make it true.
Ah, but truth is two things: objectively real and subjectively real. As is everything mankind experiences.

I didn't say anything about gender. I was talking about referring to objects as having feelings and human thoughts - something we do all the time.
I know, but the concept of attachment to inanimate things stems from that.

To some people, they are cookie ingredients; to others there's no difference between them and cookies. The "work and time" added in are ephemeral; the ingredients are of a more permanent nature.

Unless someone is living outside the fourth dimension - they are cookie dough ingredients.

And please point me to any idiot who can't see the difference between ingredients and the final product.

Unless someone is living outside the fourth dimension - they are cookie dough ingredients.

And please point me to any idiot who can't see the difference between ingredients and the final product.
Intelligence has nothing to do with it; it's symbolic thinking.

I'm probably not explaining this well. It's not that there is no difference between the cookie dough and the cookie, or that they don't recognize the difference, but that to them there is no significant difference.

To someone who thinks symbolically, there is no significant difference between a symbol and the thing it represents. This is symbolic thinking. Humans assign significance to things, and each of us in a different way. Some think it more significant that the potential is not yet actualized, and some see no difference between the potential and the actualized, because "work and time" are an insignificant contribution to the reality of the thing --simply a matter of commitment to the goal. The potential thing represents its actualized thing.

Okay, I'm back on page 40-something of 70, but this keeps coming up and no one's addressed it yet (that I know of), so...

To all you people who keep saying Americans only want to adopt white, blue-eyed, blond/e-haired babies, I ask:

Where's the proof behind that statement? I know several families who would have gladly adopted American children of any race had they been allowed. But America's adoption case policies are so strict that they couldn't, and adopted children from other countries whose policies were more lax. Doesn't this imply that the U.S. should change its adoption policies to accomodate the people who really want children? There wouldn't be half as many unadopted orphans running around then.

Also, last time I checked, a percentage of the children in foster care/children's shelters were from families who wanted them, and want them back. I'm not sure how high the percentage is, but it's probably over 25%, and may be as high as 50%. Those children can invalidate the "too many kids in foster care" argument that I've seen being used. (I think the sad thing is that the states really don't want to give the children back because it means they get more funding, but... *shrug*)

I only ask because I know that I would rather be right and flamed for it than wrong and shown my errors, because it means I haven't done my research thoroughly. I'm pretty sure the intelligent people here agree with that.

Just for the record, I'm pro-life, pro-choice, and anti-abortion, as stated by several people much earlier in the thread.

my guess would be it has something to do with people who think condoms = absolute protection and go ahead anyway.

actually they've done studies where couples where one partner has aids would have sex and among those who always used a condom properly every time, the other partner did not get aids.

condoms do prevent aids from spreading.

I personally don't know much about that. However, the people involved certainly did not have to have sex, and the Church always teaches that. They know what AIDS is; they know how it is transferred. They're not stupid. They are the ones ultimatly responsible for getting it.

actaully, no. there is a lot of ignorance surrounding aids, both in the civilized world and in africa. for instance, there are some places in africa where they believe that having sex with a virgin girl will cure you of aids.
due to lack of education about sex and lack of contraceptives, aids is allowed to spread quite well in africa.
hell, even in the developped world, there are a lot of people who think that aids is a disease for gay men and druggies. meanwhile most new infections are in straight women.

It is not the purpose of this discussion to kick anything out of anyone. And again, you're not getting the point, though congrats on feeling good about supposedly smashing someone. ;) Abortion should be used as a last resort, if at all. And how is abstinence not 100%?? 2000 years later, Mary is still the only woman to ever do that. :D

say a girl doesn't want to lose her virginity just yet, but she agrees to give a handjob. say both parties are naked... some semen lands in her lap, since she's probably moist, the sperm have something to swim in.

or say similar situation, but with dry humping... the guy comes, gets it in the right area, the girl ends up pregnant. hell, if a guy comes and doesn't know he has some on his hand and he fingers her. there are so many ways a girl can not have had sex and yet be pregnant.

Faith is just faith. In a way, Atheists have "faith" that there is no God, Christians/Muslims/Jews have "faith" that there is.

and us agnostics don't have faith in either. :D

But the person of a different mind-set will buy cookie dough ingredients. They are still cookies; it's just a matter of adding work and time to bring them to fruition.

they're not cookies. usually the flour, sugars, chocolate chips et c are in a completely different aisle than the already made pre-packaged cookies.

not only that, but using the same ingredients in different proportions, i can make a cake... maybe some muffins... they don't have to be cookies. hell, i might get a depressing phone call when i get home and just open the bag of chocolate chips right there and eat them all without making cookies out of them. there are a million different things that can be done to prevent those ingredients from being cookies.

at any rate, asserting that the cookie ingredients are cookies is like assserting that cookies are shit. as that is what they will eventually become.

Before I start, Terminalia. You are very boring to me. All you ever do is post a quick refutation - usually of something other than the point I made.

You don't bother to research, you don't spend any time thinking about what you are going to type. You just hit the 'reply' button and give the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Unless you step up to the plate, this is the last of your replies I am going to respond to.

It's nothing personal, I just am not seeing any commitment on your side, and I'm not willing to keep putting energy into someone who isn't even willing to do half the work.


Because its our flaws that make us human.


No. It is being made human that made us human, if you believe the bible. God created a being, in his own image. Obviously, his process isn't as good as his plan, because we are far from godlike. However, even if we were single-cell ocean dwellers, WE would still be human... if THAT is what god created humans to be.


lol silly, who do you think you are?
He obviously chose not to, only God is perfect, why would he recreate
himself?


Why do I recreate myself? My ambition in fathering a child isn't to create my inferior, it is to perpetuate what I am, and, hopefully, to make this new life better and happier than I was.

If I were god, my children would walk among the stars, not wallow in the mire, awaiting my fickle judgement.


Snake - Serpent - Satan - same thing in the story.


No. Satan is a rank of angel. The serpent is obviously a legless-reptile.

Either satan has no legs, or the snake is a snake. Which is it?


How don't I, do you know what Satan is?


The ways in which you DON'T know far outweigh my capacity to expalin.

Go back and read your bible, especially the book of Job.

Bear in mind that the New Testament is a thousand years younger than the Old Testament, and that the old stories have been drifting, and reinterpreted (as old stories often are) between the writing of the two texts.


Yes God can control Satan, but chooses to a point, not to.


See my point about Job. The satan of the Old Testament is the servant of god, the satan of the New Testament is a return to polytheism after the re-acquaintance of the Hebrews with Zoroastrianism.


Human nature is not nature, as in the ecosystem etc

Global warming.

I personally don't know much about that...

And that, my friend, should have been your cue to remain silent.

I know others have used the word "imperfect" but that's not my own belief, so I can't really defend that side. We are what we were made to be, therefore there is no flaw or imperfection in us.

The "test" is petty, in the way the story is told, if viewed through the eyes of a literalist, viewed as a test. I can't defend that side, either, try thought I might at times.

Which is a shame... because you have provided the best arguments for that side of the debate for a while now... :)

Also, last time I checked, a percentage of the children in foster care/children's shelters were from families who wanted them, and want them back. I'm not sure how high the percentage is, but it's probably over 25%, and may be as high as 50%. Those children can invalidate the "too many kids in foster care" argument that I've seen being used. (I think the sad thing is that the states really don't want to give the children back because it means they get more funding, but... *shrug*)


I have to point out that your figures are entirely speculative... you say so yourself "probably over 25%". You are using it as though it were significant in some statistical way... but you have no way to back up your figures.

What if the number was .000025%.... would that help your case?

Also - in the case of a great number of those people who want their children back from foster care... those numbers aren't valid for adoption figrues anyway... and also, those children have usually been taken away for a good reason.

Just near where I live there is a 'lady' who has now had her children taken away and put in fostercare four times. The first time she left them unattended for a week, the second time they were involved in an automobile accident while she was VERY drunk, the third time they were again left alone, while she spent several days strung-out on a variety of drugs.

She has stopped going to her rehabilitation program, and so the children have been taken away from her again.

So - this person comes in your statistic of people who have had their children
taken away but want them back.... but, would you say, that she DESERVES to have them back?

=Dakini]say a girl doesn't want to lose her virginity just yet, but she agrees to give a handjob. say both parties are naked... some semen lands in her lap, since she's probably moist, the sperm have something to swim in.

She should be more careful handling sperm.

Simple.

say a girl doesn't want to lose her virginity just yet, but she agrees to give a handjob. say both parties are naked... some semen lands in her lap, since she's probably moist, the sperm have something to swim in.

or say similar situation, but with dry humping... the guy comes, gets it in the right area, the girl ends up pregnant. hell, if a guy comes and doesn't know he has some on his hand and he fingers her. there are so many ways a girl can not have had sex and yet be pregnant.

And which one of these examples would still be considered abstinence? That's kind of Clinton-esque, isn't it? :D

and us agnostics don't have faith in either. :D

ROFL Sure you do! You have faith that Christians or Atheists may or may not be right. ;)

I have to point out that your figures are entirely speculative... you say so yourself "probably over 25%". You are using it as though it were significant in some statistical way... but you have no way to back up your figures.

What if the number was .000025%.... would that help your case?

Yes, they are speculative, because I went looking and could not find the figures for those particular statistics. It makes me wonder if they actually keep track of who's an orphan and who's not... Also, I'm not arguing my case. It's currently being presented quite well by people more erudite and knowledgeable than myself. I'm quite thrilled you responded to my post, however. :)


Also - in the case of a great number of those people who want their children back from foster care... those numbers aren't valid for adoption figrues anyway...

Which is the point I was trying to make in the first place. Children with parents aren't viable in the arguement unless the parents have signed away custody of them to the state. And even then, there can be coersion involved. But that coersion has nothing to do with that question...


... And also, those children have usually been taken away for a good reason.

Just near where I live there is a 'lady' who has now had her children taken away and put in fostercare four times. The first time she left them unattended for a week, the second time they were involved in an automobile accident while she was VERY drunk, the third time they were again left alone, while she spent several days strung-out on a variety of drugs.

She has stopped going to her rehabilitation program, and so the children have been taken away from her again.

So - this person comes in your statistic of people who have had their children
taken away but want them back.... but, would you say, that she DESERVES to have them back?

Not always. As a matter of fact, one of my cousins (who is mentally unstable and emotionally traumatized, and has not been heard from in years) tried to have myself and my siblings taken away from our parents because of suspected unlawful behavior by my grandfather, who would sometimes take care of us. The charge was dismissed after a while, but I still remember how my mother made plans for me to take my brother and sister to a neighbor's house if Child Protective Services came to call.

Also, a couple I know had their 3 children taken away, the youngest of whom was extremely ill but recovering, because they had head lice, I believe the charge was. Apparently it fell under criminal neglect. The parents had been putting the majority of their money that was not required to survive towards the child's treatment, and were not well off to begin with. The children were happy and loved, and absolutely devastated when they were taken away. I was later told by my friend's mother, who works for the state children's shelter in my city, that they repeatedly have outbreaks of lice, ringworm, and various other contagious diseases, and that the children shouldn't have been taken away for that.

I agree that the woman in your example should not have had her children returned. I also agree that there are plenty of children who should not be returned to their families once they have been taken, but there are also a number of children who shouldn't be taken at all. When it comes to child welfare services, I'm more concerned that the social workers are just taking the children without investigating the situation thoroughly. If they had, the family I know would probably still be together, and the 4-month-old girl who was raped and murdered late last year might still be alive.

Which is a shame... because you have provided the best arguments for that side of the debate for a while now... :)
I'll keep pondering on it, maybe I can advance the argument. ;-)

they're not cookies. usually the flour, sugars, chocolate chips et c are in a completely different aisle than the already made pre-packaged cookies.

not only that, but using the same ingredients in different proportions, i can make a cake... maybe some muffins... they don't have to be cookies. hell, i might get a depressing phone call when i get home and just open the bag of chocolate chips right there and eat them all without making cookies out of them. there are a million different things that can be done to prevent those ingredients from being cookies.

at any rate, asserting that the cookie ingredients are cookies is like assserting that cookies are shit. as that is what they will eventually become.
Or asserting that they are parts of our body, as they will eventually be digested. Exactly. "You are what you eat." You have this one mind-set you've outlined here, they have another.

actaully, no. there is a lot of ignorance surrounding aids, both in the civilized world and in africa. for instance, there are some places in africa where they believe that having sex with a virgin girl will cure you of aids.
due to lack of education about sex and lack of contraceptives, aids is allowed to spread quite well in africa.
hell, even in the developped world, there are a lot of people who think that aids is a disease for gay men and druggies. meanwhile most new infections are in straight women.

No offence, but I already mentioned this in an earlier post.

No offence, but I already mentioned this in an earlier post.

Probably a case of 'catching up on the most recent 3 or 4 pages, and stumbling across some amazing level of stupidity (in this case, that everyone knows everything they need to about AIDS), and just needing to either reply or kill something'.

I do it all the time, to be honest. Usually I go back an edit out repeated points once I've finished reading the latest additions to the thread.

But then, who am I to talk for other people?

*wanders off into the land of pointless points*

to all those people who challenge us pro-lifers on proving to you that a fetus is not a baby, i challenge you to prove that it is not a human being. and if neither one of us can prove that a fetus is or isnt a human being than i think that we should refrain from aborting them until it is found out just in case that they are human beings.

to all those people who challenge us pro-lifers on proving to you that a fetus is not a baby, i challenge you to prove that it is not a human being. and if neither one of us can prove that a fetus is or isnt a human being than i think that we should refrain from aborting them until it is found out just in case that they are human beings.

Reminds me of Blaise Pascal (famous French guy): he said that, for lack of proof of God's existence, you're better off living as if he existed, because if he did exist you'd end up in hell by living an atheist life.
But what about the things you've lost if there is no God/if a foetus isn't a human being?

Thanks for helping me out. :D I love it when someone on the opposing side proves my statements true. :)

The title of the thread is, "Pro-lifers, explain yourselves." The burden of proof is on you. Since you seem so determined to state that they are alive, and 'human', do us all a favor and define those things categorically.

I bet money you cannot do so without also including or excluding logical absurdities.

Some of the pro-choicers here have already given their own definitions (along with or the same as those of the general scientific community), if you wish to refute them, it's your turn.

Being in the business of religion and morals, I imagine he has quite a lot of people that contact him in such matters. Undoubtably some of them report such things.

As a partisan, this theoretical person has a vested interest in the 'facts' being read a certain way. Therefore his 'reports' are suspect.

I wonder how many people that are currently pro-choice are that way simply because they just don't want to believe that what they either did or let others do was something so evil that they can't stand to think it true? I could understand not wanting to condemn yourself or someone you love...

Not that way here. It's a statistically unusable sample, but noone I know who is pro-choice believes that it is truly evil.

And for the record, that I know of, noone I know or have ever met has had an abortion. It is, of course, none of my business, so I have never asked and cannot be sure, but my assumption so far has been that it has never happened in my life. You're condemnation argument is contrived and wanting. I don't feel that it is objectively wrong, nor do I feel it is my right to judge how others live their own lives, so there is nothing for me to condemn anyone for. Just because you choosed to be judgemental and morally superior in your own life does not mean that everyone else is the same way.

He did choose, temporally this is past tense, but unlike us, he is not temporal. it's the Universal vs Temporal context, as a Universal entity, his existence within the temporal world is unchanging/perfect. Everything that he felt, said, did, believed, understood, undertook, etc etc within the universe was decided/acted upon/ etc etc before time began. An absolute Universal truth/entiry/whatever by it's very concept can never change, and to define God as anything but a universal entity is to define as something other than what Jews/Christians/Muslims see him as.

Thus continues the same paradox. If 'god' cannot change, then he lacks an ability, and is therefore not omnipotent.

You're only punished in the sense of a believer looking from the inside-out. It's hard to explain, but if one to take the original Christian churches view of Hell (Orthodox), it's simply a place created where God chose not to exist, of course, to a true believer the very thought of this place emanates within all the other metaphors present through the bible indicate an eternal torment, which from their perspective is true, but then if you despised God, this place would probably be preferential to existing almost absorbed within him.

This is also another paradox, as the typical canon infers both explicitly and implicitly that god is not only omnipotent, but omniscient, and omnipresent as well. (And I would argue and many theologins agree, that logically, one cannot be any of the three without also being all of the three.) If he is not 'somewhere' and has never been their, then he can neither know it or effect it, and it denies that places very existence.

You know, I hear this from secular people quite a lot (I can't tell if you are or not Dem), and yet they don't see the flaw in saying "My secular view is that abortion is wrong, but you shouldn't force religion upon other people".

I don't deign to speak for Demopublicants, but as a secular person, who believes that abortion would be personally wrong in my own life (if it were my kid and my wife were not in excessive risk of life or severe health concerns), it comes down to a belief in moral relativism. As an individual, I have my beliefs on what are right and wrong. These have been shaped by my genetics, family, culture, nationality, and education. They are not the same as yours, or anyone elses. One of them is the belief that it is morally contemptable to force my beliefs on others, when the option has no adverse affects on me (I.E. I contend that murder is something undesirable in most situations, and since I don't want to be murdered, I have little problem attemtpting to force that on others, as I would try and prevent it from happening to me).

So it is more accruate to say, "My secular belief is that abortion is the wrong choice in my own life, but that it is a greater wrong to force that belief on those who do not share it. In the same way, my secular belief is that one should eat only a certain amount a day, and only of certain foods, but I wouldn't force that same belief on others."

The pro-choice people believe that a fetus is only human if a mother believes it to be while pro-lifers believe that a fetus is always a human being. By the pro-choice way of thinking would it not be logical that someone who killed a 25 year old man could be justified in killing him because he did not believe that he was a human being. So the issue is not whether or not one believes that a fetus is a human being or not but whether or not it really is a baby. I contend that a fetus, since it has its own set of dna from conception and its own body, its own heart, and its own brain and brain waves shortly thereafter, is a human being. With all these characteristics how can one justify that it is not a human being just because it has to be harbored inside a womb for nine months

Are you serious, of course it matters.

What matters?

Yes, except for serious deformity, rape, mothers life in danger etc.

So all life is sacred, unless it's deformed, unless it's father is a rapist, and unless it poses a health risk to the mother?

So what, Im not insisting she has to am I, after all shes your wife, what do you care what I think she does anyway?

If you are attempting to deny her a choice (whatever the choice) she feels she has the right to make on her own, using legislation, then I care a great deal.

As for moral right, I do have that, and so do plenty of other people including a lot of women who dont agree with women who treat their body like its a garbage chute, and object when people are disgusted.

No, you do not have the right to dictate how others choose to live their lives. In the same way that I don't have the right to tell you when to pray, when or where to go to church, where to do your shopping, or what kind of car to drive. I can certainly say (as can you), what I think you 'should' do, that is a right, but noone has the right to legislate morality or choice for another person.

Well if you cant change her mind, how the hell am I going too, what are you worried about anyway?

Its only the internet, and Im alot further than three states away, try the biggest ocean in the world as well, that should make you sleep lol

Id have no objection to you telling me that, mainly because you cant force
me too, same as me saying your wife shouldnt do that, because I cant force
her too, get it?

Attempting to make legislation to prevent her from being able to choose is not the same as saying 'I think you shouldn't do that'. You have every right, and though I disagree with it, if you're an american, I will kill or die to defend your right to say whatever you want. However, you don't have the right to make laws dictating your own morality over another. Get it?

The pro-choice people believe that a fetus is only human if a mother believes it to be while pro-lifers believe that a fetus is always a human being. By the pro-choice way of thinking would it not be logical that someone who killed a 25 year old man could be justified in killing him because he did not believe that he was a human being. So the issue is not whether or not one believes that a fetus is a human being or not but whether or not it really is a baby. I contend that a fetus, since it has its own set of dna from conception and its own body, its own heart, and its own brain and brain waves shortly thereafter, is a human being. With all these characteristics how can one justify that it is not a human being just because it has to be harbored inside a womb for nine months

Before this point it isn't, and most elective abortions occure BEFORE this point.

Before it's a human being.

Case closed? If only.

All other abortions like the much-mentioned partial-birth form, only occur when the mother's life is in danger, and the child would die soon after birth anyway.

Actually, we are pro-choice, but the choice we give is not one to kill. You decide whether you will have sex. I cannot do it for you.


If you are going to continue to use this argument, please do us all a favor and define life. Until we can see where you are coming from we are incapable of giving you a more detailed argument than, "they aren't alive and can't be killed."

You know what's even more responsible? Choosing not to have sex in the first place. You can decide that beforehand, you know. Or are people just incapable of withstanding the temptation?

People are going to choose to have sex, no matter what. It isn't the same decision as that to have children.

It wasn't a pamphlet, thanks for asking. It was a web site, which I just happened to click on to find info on fetal development. It doesn't matter to me what intellectual level the brain activity/waves are at 8 weeks, it's still a child growing, as far as I'm concerned. I do not care if anyone else agrees with my point of view, that's what makes it my point of view.

Yes, but if you are trying to legislate your point of view, you are stepping all over my rights, and the rights of my family and friends, and that is not something I will abide lightly. It is well within your rights to say a fetus is a turnip seed if you want, but If you want to make a law to force us to plant them in a turnip farm, you've got another thing coming.

It is not the purpose of this discussion to kick anything out of anyone. And again, you're not getting the point, though congrats on feeling good about supposedly smashing someone. ;) Abortion should be used as a last resort, if at all. And how is abstinence not 100%?? 2000 years later, Mary is still the only woman to ever do that. :D

Abstinance doesn't work because people do not abstain. It isn't 100% because it doesn't happen. Exercise cures a LOT of problems, but exercise isn't the answer because not everyone can or will do it.

The pro-choice people believe that a fetus is only human if a mother believes it to be while pro-lifers believe that a fetus is always a human being. By the pro-choice way of thinking would it not be logical that someone who killed a 25 year old man could be justified in killing him because he did not believe that he was a human being. So the issue is not whether or not one believes that a fetus is a human being or not but whether or not it really is a baby. I contend that a fetus, since it has its own set of dna from conception and its own body, its own heart, and its own brain and brain waves shortly thereafter, is a human being. With all these characteristics how can one justify that it is not a human being just because it has to be harbored inside a womb for nine months

You've got it wrong. Under pro-choice rules, the mother-to-be isn't left to decide whether the foetus (or whatever) is a human life or not. (Though while by DNA it is human, by development it isn't.) Choice means that the undeveloped child-in-potentia cannot automatically veto a mother's decision to abandon an otherwise normal pregnancy, if that choice is made at an early-enough stage (i.e. prior to any awareness by the developing child, and long prior to it being physically independant from the mother). The cut-off is based upon objective standards, not the opinion of the mother, and a disturbed psychopath killing a 25 year old man has nothing to do with it.

Thus continues the same paradox. If 'god' cannot change, then he lacks an ability, and is therefore not omnipotent.
This is what happens when God is handed labels (omnipotent) that don't belong on him. The reason the Jewish religion forbids worship of idols is because to make a statue of God would be to put a limiting form on his boundless being. For the same reason, he should not have labels, because they necessarily limit his nature. It's unfortunate that, in trying to describe his nature, we must use words that are, by their nature, limiting labels.

Okay, I'm back on page 40-something of 70, but this keeps coming up and no one's addressed it yet (that I know of), so...

To all you people who keep saying Americans only want to adopt white, blue-eyed, blond/e-haired babies, I ask:

Where's the proof behind that statement? I know several families who would have gladly adopted American children of any race had they been allowed. But America's adoption case policies are so strict that they couldn't, and adopted children from other countries whose policies were more lax. Doesn't this imply that the U.S. should change its adoption policies to accomodate the people who really want children? There wouldn't be half as many unadopted orphans running around then.

Also, last time I checked, a percentage of the children in foster care/children's shelters were from families who wanted them, and want them back. I'm not sure how high the percentage is, but it's probably over 25%, and may be as high as 50%. Those children can invalidate the "too many kids in foster care" argument that I've seen being used. (I think the sad thing is that the states really don't want to give the children back because it means they get more funding, but... *shrug*)

I only ask because I know that I would rather be right and flamed for it than wrong and shown my errors, because it means I haven't done my research thoroughly. I'm pretty sure the intelligent people here agree with that.

Just for the record, I'm pro-life, pro-choice, and anti-abortion, as stated by several people much earlier in the thread.

I was one of the ones who have said it. I have had close family members on both sides of the adoption situation. I have had close freinds that were adopted, my parents were foster parents.

Statistically, the number of kids in foster care who are minorities, physically handicapped in some way, have health problems, were born the children of addicts, were given to the state at an age greater than 0, etc are much higher than those who match the 'white, healthy, newborn, etc' category. Statistically we can assume that the people doing the adopting therefore are making selections either based on, or correlating to those criteria. I am sure that it is certainly not all of them in every case, but they are often part of their criteria.

Whether or not americans 'want' those types of kids (and that I can't actually quantify), they statistically prefer white, healthy, non-addicted, newborns.

The title of the thread is, "Pro-lifers, explain yourselves." The burden of proof is on you. Since you seem so determined to state that they are alive, and 'human', do us all a favor and define those things categorically.
I'll take a shot at this, and without dictionary, too:

Alive: having the quality of life; animated by life; a being made of living tissue.
Human: having the characteristics attributed to humanity in form, function and relationships.

If course, each of these will need further refining.

It is my position that a fetus is alive but not a human being, that at some point it acquires sufficient characteristics to be deemed a human (a human form, a functioning body and the ability to respond to stimuli), which will, of course, differ for each individual, but it is still not a "separate human being" until it is physically separated from its mother at birth.

My justification for regarding the fetus as a human child, even though I recognize that it is not yet, is simple: its potential as a child is significant to me.

Yes, they are speculative, because I went looking and could not find the figures for those particular statistics. It makes me wonder if they actually keep track of who's an orphan and who's not... Also, I'm not arguing my case. It's currently being presented quite well by people more erudite and knowledgeable than myself. I'm quite thrilled you responded to my post, however. :)


I'm always eager to reply to a good post, and yours raised an issue that has been largely glossed over by the 'other side' (i.e. those in opposition to me - so Pro-Life advocates). I have raised parallel issues, and they have been largely ignored... the way I see it, before we start worrying about whether or not someone brings new life into the world - we should make sure it is WORTH bringing a new life into the world.


Which is the point I was trying to make in the first place. Children with parents aren't viable in the arguement unless the parents have signed away custody of them to the state. And even then, there can be coersion involved. But that coersion has nothing to do with that question.... If they had, the family I know would probably still be together, and the 4-month-old girl who was raped and murdered late last year might still be alive.

I just trimmed this to condense it for the reply, hope you didn't mind... I agree that the systems in place to try to protect children are far from perfect... but at least some people are trying. Sure, they make mistakes - but the intention has got to be worth something... and this is one of those issues that doesn't receive big bucks. I think most 'good' parents have a hard time conceptualising the evil that occurs... and I think those that are harm to children are not going to be incentivised to prevent harm to children.

As you point out, though... it is difficult ground... they overstep in one case (and get flak for doing so), and they understep in another case (and get flak for doing so).

The scary thing is... this situation is strengthened by the Pro-Life lobby and their insistence on 'family values'... a concept that has never truly existed as a universal approach.

to all those people who challenge us pro-lifers on proving to you that a fetus is not a baby, i challenge you to prove that it is not a human being. and if neither one of us can prove that a fetus is or isnt a human being than i think that we should refrain from aborting them until it is found out just in case that they are human beings.

The pro-choicers in the room (at least some of them, myself included), have provided numerous times our own (and the scientific community in general) criteria for what is life, what is a human being, and what is human life. It's your turn to provide the opposite.

Please do so.

The pro-choice people believe that a fetus is only human if a mother believes it to be while pro-lifers believe that a fetus is always a human being. By the pro-choice way of thinking would it not be logical that someone who killed a 25 year old man could be justified in killing him because he did not believe that he was a human being. So the issue is not whether or not one believes that a fetus is a human being or not but whether or not it really is a baby.

No, at least not here (and not in any sane persons view either). I believe that a fetus is potentially human, but not actually human until it becomes so. In the same way, I believe a child is potentially an adult, but not actually one until it becomes so or a pear is potentially a tree, but not actually one until it becomes so.

I believe the choice is not, whether the woman thinks it's alive or not. The choice is whether or not the woman chooses to attempt to make potentiality actuality and whether or not they are willing to hazard the risks.

I contend that a fetus, since it has its own set of dna from conception and its own body, its own heart, and its own brain and brain waves shortly thereafter, is a human being.

An embryo does not meet any of your requirements except the dna one until later in the pregnancy than elective abortion is now legal in the United states. It doen't have a body, heart, brain, or brain waves until after it is already illegal to abort it except in cases of the life of the mother.

With all these characteristics how can one justify that it is not a human being just because it has to be harbored inside a womb for nine months

It doesn't have those characteristics. It doesn't get all of them at once. It doesn't therefore meet your own criteria for being human.

The pro-choice people believe that a fetus is only human if a mother believes it to be while pro-lifers believe that a fetus is always a human being. By the pro-choice way of thinking would it not be logical that someone who killed a 25 year old man could be justified in killing him because he did not believe that he was a human being. So the issue is not whether or not one believes that a fetus is a human being or not but whether or not it really is a baby. I contend that a fetus, since it has its own set of dna from conception and its own body, its own heart, and its own brain and brain waves shortly thereafter, is a human being. With all these characteristics how can one justify that it is not a human being just because it has to be harbored inside a womb for nine months
um, wrong. pro-choice people don't believe that a mother's feelings about her fetus determine whether or not it is a human being, and i have never heard any body claim that. you made that up, congrats, but if you can't hit anything other then straw men you probably shouldn't wade into this forum.

This is what happens when God is handed labels (omnipotent) that don't belong on him. The reason the Jewish religion forbids worship of idols is because to make a statue of God would be to put a limiting form on his boundless being. For the same reason, he should not have labels, because they necessarily limit his nature. It's unfortunate that, in trying to describe his nature, we must use words that are, by their nature, limiting labels.

Ah, and herein lies my exact contention. I believe (and I think you would agree with me in part) that if god does exist, he/she/it/they exist outside of our own ability to describe or label them, and therefore religion is circumspect, as it is an exercise to do just that.

My justification for regarding the fetus as a human child, even though I recognize that it is not yet, is simple: its potential as a child is significant to me.

And my justification for allowing the limiting of said potential, is that it is not objectively significant, but a subjective and emotional signifigance that is personal. It is signifigant for many to pray every day, but it is not something that can be forced on those who do not consider it signifigant, because it is not objectively so.

Until someone gives a set of rules that can be objectively applied that fit the situation, and objective law (no abortion) will not fit the subjective reality the way pro-choice does.

And my justification for allowing the limiting of said potential, is that it is not objectively significant, but a subjective and emotional signifigance that is personal. It is signifigant for many to pray every day, but it is not something that can be forced on those who do not consider it signifigant, because it is not objectively so.

Until someone gives a set of rules that can be objectively applied that fit the situation, and objective law (no abortion) will not fit the subjective reality the way pro-choice does.
BINGO! couldn't have said it better (or even nearly as well), so have a cookie because you are one of life's winners.

I was one of the ones who have said it. I have had close family members on both sides of the adoption situation. I have had close freinds that were adopted, my parents were foster parents.

Statistically, the number of kids in foster care who are minorities, physically handicapped in some way, have health problems, were born the children of addicts, were given to the state at an age greater than 0, etc are much higher than those who match the 'white, healthy, newborn, etc' category. Statistically we can assume that the people doing the adopting therefore are making selections either based on, or correlating to those criteria. I am sure that it is certainly not all of them in every case, but they are often part of their criteria.

Whether or not americans 'want' those types of kids (and that I can't actually quantify), they statistically prefer white, healthy, non-addicted, newborns.

I have noticed that, but I wonder if it's the state's adoption regulations, again. There aren't quite as many requirements for adopting healthy children as there are for adopting physically handicapped, unhealthy, and/or addicted children. And as for the minorities thing, well... I know the people in my area are pretty stupid, and it seems to me they want to give children to a family that shares their race or culture (a.k.a. they're being racist bastards), which is nothing short of idiotic to me. Maybe it's some bizarre sort of mispercieved supply-and-demand? I don't know.


I'm always eager to reply to a good post, and yours raised an issue that has been largely glossed over by the 'other side' (i.e. those in opposition to me - so Pro-Life advocates). I have raised parallel issues, and they have been largely ignored... the way I see it, before we start worrying about whether or not someone brings new life into the world - we should make sure it is WORTH bringing a new life into the world.

Thank you, you're going to make me blush. ^.^ I find it very disturbing that the pro-life advocates would ignore such an issue... One would think they should be concerned with all forms of human life, not just the child in the womb. But also, there might be people who might never have a child because they believe that there will never be a high enough quality of life in this world for them to subject a child to. And no one is ever truly prepared for how much a child can change their life... Nor are they prepared for old age. The quality of life needs to improve for every age group.


I just trimmed this to condense it for the reply, hope you didn't mind... I agree that the systems in place to try to protect children are far from perfect... but at least some people are trying. Sure, they make mistakes - but the intention has got to be worth something... and this is one of those issues that doesn't receive big bucks. I think most 'good' parents have a hard time conceptualising the evil that occurs... and I think those that are harm to children are not going to be incentivised to prevent harm to children.

As you point out, though... it is difficult ground... they overstep in one case (and get flak for doing so), and they understep in another case (and get flak for doing so).

The scary thing is... this situation is strengthened by the Pro-Life lobby and their insistence on 'family values'... a concept that has never truly existed as a universal approach.

Oh, no. I tend to give more information than is needed. And yes, some people are trying, and don't have the financial backing to do as good a job as they could. I'd like to see that become a big issue in an election: who's going to give Child Protective Services more money. And no, most of them can't. I know I couldn't imagine all the horrible things that could happen back when I started college, and that was just a couple of years ago.

I don't feel that the pro-life vision of family values is the correct one. Their tunnel vision of a two-parent family with 2.5 kids and a dog in a suburban setting is nowhere near realistic. I would feel much better if the recognized any family, in any way, shape, or form, that cares for its children and teaches them good morals and how to properly function in society as having good values. I'm more concerned for the children than their sensitive egos.

In my own imaginary perfect world, social workers and school teachers are the highest paid professions, and actors and professional sports players are paid by the hour. But that's neither here nor there, unless I use it to better the world. Hm. Maybe I should run for office?

And my justification for allowing the limiting of said potential, is that it is not objectively significant, but a subjective and emotional signifigance that is personal. It is signifigant for many to pray every day, but it is not something that can be forced on those who do not consider it signifigant, because it is not objectively so.

Until someone gives a set of rules that can be objectively applied that fit the situation, and objective law (no abortion) will not fit the subjective reality the way pro-choice does.
Yes. Well done.

I tried to move towards this point once before but got distract... ooh, look! shiny!

And as for the minorities thing, well... I know the people in my area are pretty stupid, and it seems to me they want to give children to a family that shares their race or culture (a.k.a. they're being racist bastards), which is nothing short of idiotic to me. Maybe it's some bizarre sort of mispercieved supply-and-demand? I don't know.
While I agree it's not in the best interests of the child to limit the pool of "parental units" allowed to connect as a family, I also understand the reasoning in light of the importance that culture has in our multi-cultural lands.

As I'm sure you're aware, the U.S.A. and Canada are deliberately multi-cutural, and quite proud of the fact. That doesn't mean that people of other cultures coming into our countries must conform to our "American" way of life; rather that they are welcome to bring their culture with them when they settle here, and continue to practice it amongst all the other cultural groups. Of course, the end result is an Amercanisation of sorts, especially in the second generation, which makes people cling all the more to their right to be recognized as "(their country)-Americans".

It's not a racism that leads them to encourage families of same race and culture, but multi-culturalism.

Thank you, you're going to make me blush. ^.^ I find it very disturbing that the pro-life advocates would ignore such an issue... One would think they should be concerned with all forms of human life, not just the child in the womb. But also, there might be people who might never have a child because they believe that there will never be a high enough quality of life in this world for them to subject a child to. And no one is ever truly prepared for how much a child can change their life... Nor are they prepared for old age. The quality of life needs to improve for every age group.


Basically, you can't kill humans just on the basis that their life will be poverty-stricken. I bet that if you asked *most* poor people, whether they'd prefer to have been killed before both, they'd say "no".

Also, this thing about mothers "having right to do what they like to their own body", and "pro-CHOICE". I don't see the foetus having much choice in the matter. Judging it on whether it can survive outside the womb is stupid - medical technology will probably eventually allow embryos to be grown in incubators, so the law is partially based on current medical technology. Ten years ago, 24 week old foetuses were not alive, but now, they are.

I always think that you had your opportunity to choose when you made the decision to have intercourse.

While I agree it's not in the best interests of the child to limit the pool of "parental units" allowed to connect as a family, I also understand the reasoning in light of the importance that culture has in our multi-cultural lands.

As I'm sure you're aware, the U.S.A. and Canada are deliberately multi-cutural, and quite proud of the fact. That doesn't mean that people of other cultures coming into our countries must conform to our "American" way of life; rather that they are welcome to bring their culture with them when they settle here, and continue to practice it amongst all the other cultural groups. Of course, the end result is an Amercanisation of sorts, especially in the second generation, which makes people cling all the more to their right to be recognized as "(their country)-Americans".

It's not a racism that leads them to encourage families of same race and culture, but multi-culturalism.

I am aware of the multi-culturalism, but I won't advocate it if it prevents a child from having a healthy home life. If they want to experience it when they're older, they can research it, or become acquainted with people who share their nationality/culture and learn from them. Also, many parents who adopt children from another culture are more than willing to help them learn about it if/when they ask. What I'm saying is that it appears that people are focusing on culture and race to the detriment of the children's wellbeing, and I find that unexcuseable.


Basically, you can't kill humans just on the basis that their life will be poverty-stricken. I bet that if you asked *most* poor people, whether they'd prefer to have been killed before both, they'd say "no".

Also, this thing about mothers "having right to do what they like to their own body", and "pro-CHOICE". I don't see the foetus having much choice in the matter. Judging it on whether it can survive outside the womb is stupid - medical technology will probably eventually allow embryos to be grown in incubators, so the law is partially based on current medical technology. Ten years ago, 24 week old foetuses were not alive, but now, they are.

Um, no. You totally missed my part in this entire conversation. I'm talking about the welfare of children in foster care/orphanages/children's shelters, not foetal rights. Now, everyone else is talking about foetal rights or lack thereof, but not me, and if you'd read all my posts you would see that. I think you've quoted the wrong person. Please go back and check, will you?

I always think that you had your opportunity to choose when you made the decision to have intercourse.
Every moment of your life is an opportunity to choose.

Basically, you can't kill humans just on the basis that their life will be poverty-stricken. I bet that if you asked *most* poor people, whether they'd prefer to have been killed before both, they'd say "no".

Also, this thing about mothers "having right to do what they like to their own body", and "pro-CHOICE". I don't see the foetus having much choice in the matter. Judging it on whether it can survive outside the womb is stupid - medical technology will probably eventually allow embryos to be grown in incubators, so the law is partially based on current medical technology. Ten years ago, 24 week old foetuses were not alive, but now, they are.
The fetus has no choice in the matter at all. I'm sure you realise the ridiculousness of setting up a little fibre-optic camera recorder, skooting it up into the womb, and asking the little fella.

I am aware of the multi-culturalism, but I won't advocate it if it prevents a child from having a healthy home life. If they want to experience it when they're older, they can research it, or become acquainted with people who share their nationality/culture and learn from them. Also, many parents who adopt children from another culture are more than willing to help them learn about it if/when they ask. What I'm saying is that it appears that people are focusing on culture and race to the detriment of the children's wellbeing, and I find that unexcuseable.
I agree, it shouldn't be a limiting factor, simply a consideration in choosing from the pool of parents. If there's none that meet the culturalistic criteria, others should be considered.

Also, this thing about mothers "having right to do what they like to their own body", and "pro-CHOICE". I don't see the foetus having much choice in the matter.

the fetus does not have the ability to make choices. it lacks the structures necessary for making choices, and therefore it would be impossible to consider it's "choice" in the matter.


Judging it on whether it can survive outside the womb is stupid - medical technology will probably eventually allow embryos to be grown in incubators, so the law is partially based on current medical technology. Ten years ago, 24 week old foetuses were not alive, but now, they are.
from my point of view, abortion is about the female's right to have a fetus removed from her body whenever she wishes. i don't much care what is done with the fetus once it is removed; if technology evolves to the point where a fetus can be removed intact through a procedure as non-invasive as the corresponding abortion procedures, and if the technology makes it possible to keep that fetus alive, then that's fine with me. i don't have any particular interest in killing or preserving the fetus, all that is relavent to me is the rights of the woman, so i see no problem with using viability as a standard for abortion rights...viable fetuses could be removed intact, while non-viable fetuses should be aborted because they aren't going to live anyhow.

I have noticed that, but I wonder if it's the state's adoption regulations, again. There aren't quite as many requirements for adopting healthy children as there are for adopting physically handicapped, unhealthy, and/or addicted children. And as for the minorities thing, well... I know the people in my area are pretty stupid, and it seems to me they want to give children to a family that shares their race or culture (a.k.a. they're being racist bastards), which is nothing short of idiotic to me. Maybe it's some bizarre sort of mispercieved supply-and-demand? I don't know.

Thank you, you're going to make me blush. ^.^ I find it very disturbing that the pro-life advocates would ignore such an issue... One would think they should be concerned with all forms of human life, not just the child in the womb. But also, there might be people who might never have a child because they believe that there will never be a high enough quality of life in this world for them to subject a child to. And no one is ever truly prepared for how much a child can change their life... Nor are they prepared for old age. The quality of life needs to improve for every age group.

Oh, no. I tend to give more information than is needed. And yes, some people are trying, and don't have the financial backing to do as good a job as they could. I'd like to see that become a big issue in an election: who's going to give Child Protective Services more money. And no, most of them can't. I know I couldn't imagine all the horrible things that could happen back when I started college, and that was just a couple of years ago.

I don't feel that the pro-life vision of family values is the correct one. Their tunnel vision of a two-parent family with 2.5 kids and a dog in a suburban setting is nowhere near realistic. I would feel much better if the recognized any family, in any way, shape, or form, that cares for its children and teaches them good morals and how to properly function in society as having good values. I'm more concerned for the children than their sensitive egos.

In my own imaginary perfect world, social workers and school teachers are the highest paid professions, and actors and professional sports players are paid by the hour. But that's neither here nor there, unless I use it to better the world. Hm. Maybe I should run for office?

I can think of no other comment than to simply say:

Take a bow, Kaitoupia!

Excellent post. *Applause, the Crowd goes WILD*

Do it! Run for office... I'd vote for that platform.

Yes. Well done.

I tried to move towards this point once before but got distract... ooh, look! shiny!

Funny.

:)

While I agree it's not in the best interests of the child to limit the pool of "parental units" allowed to connect as a family, I also understand the reasoning in light of the importance that culture has in our multi-cultural lands.

As I'm sure you're aware, the U.S.A. and Canada are deliberately multi-cutural, and quite proud of the fact. That doesn't mean that people of other cultures coming into our countries must conform to our "American" way of life; rather that they are welcome to bring their culture with them when they settle here, and continue to practice it amongst all the other cultural groups. Of course, the end result is an Amercanisation of sorts, especially in the second generation, which makes people cling all the more to their right to be recognized as "(their country)-Americans".

It's not a racism that leads them to encourage families of same race and culture, but multi-culturalism.

I didn't want to, but I have to disagree with you.

There is something about some societies... and I'm not sure quite what it is, but I SUSPECT it is something to do with being largely BORN of one ethnic cluster.

America falls into this 'generic type' (especially since they carried out a war of extermination on the initial diversity factor), as does Canada, and Australia.

There seems to be something built into this model that favours segregation... or maybe it is the amount of available space, that enables people to seperate out?

My model of contrast is the UK, which has something like one-fifth of the population of America, crammed into a country smaller than several of the States... Now, I'm not saying there is NO racial tension... there are still hotspots (Like Tower Hamlets, the Neo-Nazi stronghold), but, on average it has far less racial tension than these other models... and, perhaps not coincidentally, far less of the 'ghetto' setup.

Looking at France, there is a similar Ghetto problem in certain areas... so maybe it really DOES come down to surface area...?

But, back to my UK model... even though there is isolation - especially, as you said - in second generation newcomers - this seems to be much lower, and the cross-pollination much higher... and this really does seem to be linked to the fact that there are far fewer 'ghetto' areas, of far more limited scale, and that people are pretty much forced to get along by proximity.

In my dream, there are no racial distinctions, everyone sees the world as I do (a celebration of the palette of human skin), and all are citizens of the world, not one set of borders....

*sigh*

I can think of no other comment than to simply say:

Take a bow, Kaitoupia!

Excellent post. *Applause, the Crowd goes WILD*

Do it! Run for office... I'd vote for that platform.

*blushes, then bows*

*does a few magic tricks, which distract Willamena again, then bows again*

But seriously... "Please, think of the children" as a motto? It might work, but I'd drive everyone crazy once I got elected. I'd give teachers a salary of about $50,000, but I'd take it out of the school board's paychecks, since most of the members I've seen are rather greedy and grasping. I'd get rid of banned books, but that would make the parents mad, since they don't want their children reading "offensive material"... I'd tax the rich and corporations, but then they'd be outsourcing more, and fewer people would have jobs... And of course, the media would hate me. Movie stars paid only by the hour? Heaven forbid that their acting should actually be a job, instead of just an art...

Oh, foul balance! Why must you make it so hard for people to get what they need, instead of what they want? :headbang:

*blushes, then bows*

*does a few magic tricks, which distract Willamena again, then bows again*

But seriously... "Please, think of the children" as a motto? It might work, but I'd drive everyone crazy once I got elected. I'd give teachers a salary of about $50,000, but I'd take it out of the school board's paychecks, since most of the members I've seen are rather greedy and grasping. I'd get rid of banned books, but that would make the parents mad, since they don't want their children reading "offensive material"... I'd tax the rich and corporations, but then they'd be outsourcing more, and fewer people would have jobs... And of course, the media would hate me. Movie stars paid only by the hour? Heaven forbid that their acting should actually be a job, instead of just an art...

Oh, foul balance! Why must you make it so hard for people to get what they need, instead of what they want? :headbang:

Yes... you wouldn't want to upset the political process would you... I mean, people would lose faith in the democracy that so obviously works so.... oooh, shiny!!!

I have noticed that, but I wonder if it's the state's adoption regulations, again. There aren't quite as many requirements for adopting healthy children as there are for adopting physically handicapped, unhealthy, and/or addicted children. And as for the minorities thing, well... I know the people in my area are pretty stupid, and it seems to me they want to give children to a family that shares their race or culture (a.k.a. they're being racist bastards), which is nothing short of idiotic to me. Maybe it's some bizarre sort of mispercieved supply-and-demand? I don't know.

It may in fact be legislation, or some other BS reasoning behind it, and not the preference of the parents. I have no statistics handy to be able to quantify what potential adopters ask for as criteria.

However, the point still stands that adoption doesn't work as an alternative to abortion in every case.

Yes... you wouldn't want to upset the political process would you... I mean, people would lose faith in the democracy that so obviously works so.... oooh, shiny!!!

Maybe if I just put on magic shows while telling people what I'm doing, they'd be so distracted they'd agree with whatever I said! :D

*can just imagine Congress's reaction to a flock of doves flying around the room* :D

Basically, you can't kill humans just on the basis that their life will be poverty-stricken. I bet that if you asked *most* poor people, whether they'd prefer to have been killed before both, they'd say "no".

You cannot kill what isn't alive. You also cannot equate potentiality with actuality, they are not human until they are. And noone is suggesting that fetus/embryos should be aborted because of poverty. In fact, last time I checked the groups of women most often considering the choice were young middle class professionals, and not welfare moms. The 'quality of life' argument is about a lot more than money.

Also, this thing about mothers "having right to do what they like to their own body", and "pro-CHOICE". I don't see the foetus having much choice in the matter. Judging it on whether it can survive outside the womb is stupid - medical technology will probably eventually allow embryos to be grown in incubators, so the law is partially based on current medical technology. Ten years ago, 24 week old foetuses were not alive, but now, they are.

A fetus/embryo cannot make a choice, it also cannot recognize the results of that choice, and if done when legally elective cannot even feel the actuality of that choice. I haven't been (and I don't see many people here, or many pro-choicers period) suggesting that a 24 week old fetus (I put the limit at ~20, but that is where my objective rules say life and humanity can be said to begin) be aborted electively. When it can be said that any given egg can be carried ex-vitro, or by the father, and there are enough willing parents to care for them, then that may be the better option, until then, it is 'their own body' and the woman has every right to do whatever she goddamn wants with it.

It may in fact be legislation, or some other BS reasoning behind it, and not the preference of the parents. I have no statistics handy to be able to quantify what potential adopters ask for as criteria.

However, the point still stands that adoption doesn't work as an alternative to abortion in every case.

Which is both the point and the problem.

No, it isn't now, but if the system can be changed it might be.

I didn't want to, but I have to disagree with you.

There is something about some societies... and I'm not sure quite what it is, but I SUSPECT it is something to do with being largely BORN of one ethnic cluster.

America falls into this 'generic type' (especially since they carried out a war of extermination on the initial diversity factor), as does Canada, and Australia.

There seems to be something built into this model that favours segregation... or maybe it is the amount of available space, that enables people to seperate out?

My model of contrast is the UK, which has something like one-fifth of the population of America, crammed into a country smaller than several of the States... Now, I'm not saying there is NO racial tension... there are still hotspots (Like Tower Hamlets, the Neo-Nazi stronghold), but, on average it has far less racial tension than these other models... and, perhaps not coincidentally, far less of the 'ghetto' setup.

Looking at France, there is a similar Ghetto problem in certain areas... so maybe it really DOES come down to surface area...?

But, back to my UK model... even though there is isolation - especially, as you said - in second generation newcomers - this seems to be much lower, and the cross-pollination much higher... and this really does seem to be linked to the fact that there are far fewer 'ghetto' areas, of far more limited scale, and that people are pretty much forced to get along by proximity.

In my dream, there are no racial distinctions, everyone sees the world as I do (a celebration of the palette of human skin), and all are citizens of the world, not one set of borders....

*sigh*
*shrug* I thought myself stretching a bit to include the U.S. as proud of its multi-culturalism, but I have seen a few instances of it lauded by posters here and elsewhere. But as for Canada, I can assure you many Canadians are fiercely proud of our multi-culturalism; it is written into our Constitution. In many places you'll find the word "Americanisation" spoken with a touch of scorn. Multi-culturalism does not automatically lead to racism and segregation, and I think Canada's large cities are a fine example of that (with the exception of Vancouver and Toronto, the two most "Americanised" of the lot). Our Prime Minister's stance on multi-culturalism, in contrast to his opponent, was one of the deciding factors that led me to switch parties in the last election.

We're not perfect in this regard --being made of humans we hardly could be --but Canada, in general, is a very safe place to be non-white and flout the colours of your culture.

While I totally believe you shouldn't engage in risky activity if you can't fully appreciate the consequences, I do think this world would be much better off if everyone would take a step out of their narrow views of "I know what's best" and put themselves in the shoes of someone actually going through something like this. You think that's an easy decision for someone to make? Judge not lest ye be judged.

Is it beyond the scope of this conversation to mention that this arguement is completely avoidable with a bit of forsight..

I'd just like to respond to a comment made on the first page (yes, I was too lazy to read through 70 some pages of arguments).

"What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot."

To me this argument is idiotic, simply because you only show one side of the spectrum. You talk about the number of people that could have become researchers and scientists, but you don't talk about the 99.999999% of them that would have been just another person, and you definetly don't go near how many of them might have been rapists, murderers, drug dealers etc... I'm not saying that that's a basis to "kill" them, but your argument failed to recognize the possible neutral and negative outcomes.

Lastly, I'm adding this emoticon because I think it is the fuggin' coolest emoticon I've ever seen.
:sniper:

I'd just like to respond to a comment made on the first page (yes, I was too lazy to read through 70 some pages of arguments).

"What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot."

To me this argument is idiotic, simply because you only show one side of the spectrum. You talk about the number of people that could have become researchers and scientists, but you don't talk about the 99.999999% of them that would have been just another person, and you definetly don't go near how many of them might have been rapists, murderers, drug dealers etc... I'm not saying that that's a basis to "kill" them, but your argument failed to recognize the possible neutral and negative outcomes.

Lastly, I'm adding this emoticon because I think it is the fuggin' coolest emoticon I've ever seen.
:sniper:

thank you for pointing that out!! i thought i was the only one

Abortion or not really isn't an issue, but it is better than cruder home made ways to reach the same ends. Also, what about the "kid" born to the drug addict? Born mentally slower, addicted to some substance and probably at least a little phisicly deformed right off the bat. Or how about those that are tested positive for some long, painful (and usually lethal) disease before birth? They aren't all scientists.

She should be more careful handling sperm.

Simple.

so when the guy gets some on his hand and fingers her, she should have been more careful handling sperm?
when they dry hump and he comes all over her, she should have been more careful handling sperm?

yeah, way to read the whole post there. and blame the girl at that.
geez... are men always blame-free in your little world?

And which one of these examples would still be considered abstinence? That's kind of Clinton-esque, isn't it? :D

they're not having intercourse, therefore it's abstinance.

and you were saying that virgin pregnancies were impossible, i just pointed out how they were possible.

ROFL Sure you do! You have faith that Christians or Atheists may or may not be right. ;)

there are more groups out there than just christians and atheists, you know. as far as i know, the hindhus are right, hell, maybe the vodun are right. who knows.

i still fail to see how that's faith though.

Or asserting that they are parts of our body, as they will eventually be digested. Exactly. "You are what you eat." You have this one mind-set you've outlined here, they have another.

what?

no, i'm saying that the ingredients for cookies might not end up being cookies, therefore the ingredients are not cookies until they're all mized together and hell, even then, i might want to eat some cookie dough rather than cookies. they're not cookies until they come out of the oven as cookies. before then, they have the potential to become cookies, but they're not cookies.

Probably a case of 'catching up on the most recent 3 or 4 pages, and stumbling across some amazing level of stupidity (in this case, that everyone knows everything they need to about AIDS), and just needing to either reply or kill something'.

I do it all the time, to be honest. Usually I go back an edit out repeated points once I've finished reading the latest additions to the thread.

But then, who am I to talk for other people?

*wanders off into the land of pointless points*

you got it right. i was catching up on a couple pages worth of posts and going through them... as i am now, incidently. ;)

i'm too lazy for editing though...

I have read teh fist page and the last two pages (No I don't have enough time to read 70 pages), so I hope I don't repeat anything that's been said.

But anyway I'm anti-abortion. I believe abortion devalues human life, and although I am not a 100% sure whether a fetus is alive or not, when it comes to human life I err on the side of caution.

As for the labels pro-choice and pro-life, I believe all they do is muddy the waters and engender hatred. For very few people will say they are anti-choice or anti-life.

The debate comes down to two main questions:
1) At what point does a fetus become a living human?
2) Which is more important: a woman's right to choose or the fetus' right to live?

First off, when does a fetus become a living human. Nobody knows for sure. You could say when the brain develops, but a what point of it's development?When the first brain cell emerges? When a certain part of the brain develops?
Or Maybe when the fetus can support itself without the mother?

But seen as this is a rather arbitrary line to create, I prefer to err on the side of caution and set it at when the fetus is concieved and the full set of chromosomes for a human is created.

I dislike when any form of human life is said to be less than human, not a human, not fully human, etc. As when this occurs so does slavery, genocide, war, massacres, suffering, and needless death. Almost every genocide in history has been started because the "other" was thought to be subhuman. Slavery was allowed because the "other" was thought to be inhuman, a savage, a barbarian, or born to be a slave.

In this case the "other" is the fetus. We view a fetus as being less than human, and what right do we have to do that?

If the fetus is a human life, than there is no right to kill it. Our whole law, morality, and society is based on the sanctity of life. The moral reasons to kill another human are based on that it will result in less human life loss. There is nothing other than a threat to someone's life that can justify a human killing another human. But this means nothing if the answer to the first question was a fetus is not a living human.

Even if there is a small chance that the fetus is alive we must not let it be killed. Freedom has always been removed to protect life. We make drunk driving illegal because there is a small chance it would kill someone. We put restrictions on gun ownership, because there is a small chance a gun will be used to kill someone. We make seatbelt wearing mandatory because there is a small chance of death. We put safety regulations on almost everything, because of a small chance of a human dying. So if there is even a small chance that the fetus is alive, we must protect it.

As for choice, every person has the right to choose to have sex or not. Anybody who takes that choice away should be dealt with very severely. But a child should not have to die because of someone's irresponsibility.

We do not let a mother or father kill a baby who is always crying for food and changing. We do not let a caregiver kill a handicapped person who is in constant need of attention. We do not let a guardian kill a rebellious or troubled child. Why should we put allow a child to be killed because of a women's "right to choose"?

As for the fetus not being able to choose, because it doesn't have the capabilities to: neither does the mentally handicapped person or a young child, does that mean we should be able to kill them because they can't choose life?

All the more reason to protect the fetus. It can't protect itself. People who can't protect themselves are those that need society's protection the most.

Philadendra stated
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
While I totally believe you shouldn't engage in risky activity if you can't fully appreciate the consequences, I do think this world would be much better off if everyone would take a step out of their narrow views of "I know what's best" and put themselves in the shoes of someone actually going through something like this. You think that's an easy decision for someone to make? Judge not lest ye be judged.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be nice. I am male and as such will never face pregnancy. But even if I was female I would not have had this problem as I have resisted the urge to have sex so far and plan to until I marry and am ready to support a child. I know it would be a difficult choice to make and am glad I don't have to make it. But that's why prevention is important.

It would also be nice if people on the pro-abortion side would see it throught the aborted child's eyes. Think about the pain the child goes through (if you don't think it would be painful click the link below) as it is killed before it's even born.

Now a question; what if it had been you who had been aborted? What if you never had a chance to experience life?

Anyway, here's some pictures. http://www.blackgenocide.org/photos.html

Why should a pro lifer explain themselve? Thats like asking a non asking to explain themselves.. Stupid is what that is...we all get to believe in whatever it is we believe. Its when we try to lump it into a way of thought that all must abide by is when problems happen. Having laws that effect more than yourselve is dumb. plain stupid. If you lived by the law of doing right whatever right is for yourselve as long as that right did not harm another then you are living the right way of life. "Do what you want to do, not what others want you to do" "No formalities" "No labels" Maybe then we could all experience a heaven on earth.

I contend that a fetus, since it has its own set of dna from conception and its own body, its own heart, and its own brain and brain waves shortly thereafter, is a human being. With all these characteristics how can one justify that it is not a human being just because it has to be harbored inside a womb for nine months

it doesn't have its own body, heart brain, et c from conception.

hell, the brain waves don't start until the 20th week... that's hardly shortly after conception, and that's long after most abortions are carried out.

so if you don't define it to be a human being until it has all these characteristics, then theoretically, you should be pro-choice until the 20th week.

Why should a pro lifer explain themselve? Thats like asking a non asking to explain themselves.. Stupid is what that is...we all get to believe in whatever it is we believe. Its when we try to lump it into a way of thought that all must abide by is when problems happen. Having laws that effect more than yourselve is dumb. plain stupid. If you lived by the law of doing right whatever right is for yourselve as long as that right did not harm another then you are living the right way of life. "Do what you want to do, not what others want you to do" "No formalities" "No labels" Maybe then we could all experience a heaven on earth.

this was in response to two threads entitled "abortionists, explain yourselves" and hey, at least i got the title right...

this was in response to two threads entitled "abortionists, explain yourselves" and hey, at least i got the title right...

Good for you!! I would like to say the same thing to the ones in that thread as well then :) Rise above the hate, you may see something new in you're life. Don't take offense to my opinion, I take none to any others. I still love you as any other. Getting a title right can be a formality. So who cares. :)

The debate comes down to two main questions:
1) At what point does a fetus become a living human?

You would have to define what a human is to answer this. However, I can pinpoint the time at which a fetus becomes an organism, and that is when the nervous system has developed to the point that it can sense and respond to stimuli.

But seen as this is a rather arbitrary line to create, I prefer to err on the side of caution and set it at when the fetus is concieved and the full set of chromosomes for a human is created.

Do you wish to give full human rights to a zygote at conception? Because that's going to cause all sorts of problems.

As for choice, every person has the right to choose to have sex or not. Anybody who takes that choice away should be dealt with very severely. But a child should not have to die because of someone's irresponsibility.

A child does not die.

We do not let a mother or father kill a baby who is always crying for food and changing. We do not let a caregiver kill a handicapped person who is in constant need of attention. We do not let a guardian kill a rebellious or troubled child. Why should we put allow a child to be killed because of a women's "right to choose"?

Again, no child is killed.

It would also be nice if people on the pro-abortion side would see it throught the aborted child's eyes. Think about the pain the child goes through (if you don't think it would be painful click the link below) as it is killed before it's even born.

In nearly all cases, the aborted embryo or fetus doesn't even have eyes yet.

As for painfulness, nearly all elective abortions occur before the developing embryo can feel anything, so no - it is not painful. Anything that occurs much later is not elective anyways.

Now a question; what if it had been you who had been aborted? What if you never had a chance to experience life?

I wouldn't know the difference because there would be no me.

Why should a pro lifer explain themselve? Thats like asking a non asking to explain themselves.. Stupid is what that is...we all get to believe in whatever it is we believe. Its when we try to lump it into a way of thought that all must abide by is when problems happen. Having laws that effect more than yourselve is dumb. plain stupid. If you lived by the law of doing right whatever right is for yourselve as long as that right did not harm another then you are living the right way of life. "Do what you want to do, not what others want you to do" "No formalities" "No labels" Maybe then we could all experience a heaven on earth.

Different people have different moralities. A law you create that affects only you is not a law but a moral code. Laws are made to protect people from others.

What is constituted as an other? What if someone believes you are not a human and that they have a moral obligation to kill you? Since that is right for them should they be allowed to do it?

That is why we have laws to protect people from twisted thinking like that.

What about the case in which the fetus has developed hydrochephalus, when this is really the only safe form of aborting the pregnancy and trying to give natural birth would likely kill the mother (the fetus is going to die no matter what anyone does)?

http://www.medicinenet.com/hydrocephalus/page1.htm
Pardon the extreme delay in posting this particular link. I wanted to make sure I found something purely factual. It seems doubtful that the infant's head could swell to the point that birthing it could/would kill the mother. It is still a treatable disorder, and hydrocephalics can and do survive, and live relatively normal lives. Also, even this disorder can usually be picked up before the third tri-mester. I still say there is no legitimate reason for partial birth abortion, and agree that it should be banned.

Different people have different moralities. A law you create that affects only you is not a law but a moral code. Laws are made to protect people from others.

What is constituted as an other? What if someone believes you are not a human and that they have a moral obligation to kill you? Since that is right for them should they be allowed to do it?

That is why we have laws to protect people from twisted thinking like that.

Exactly everyone has a different moral code. their own moral code. If God wanted us to have the same beliefs and personalities then he would of made us all look the same. That is why I am saying you should not have laws that effect others. Meaning you live you're own life without hindering or harming another. You can live you're own life however you like then. As far as killing someone else, isnt that harming someone else? hmm. Now thats twisted thinking

Yes, but if you are trying to legislate your point of view, you are stepping all over my rights, and the rights of my family and friends, and that is not something I will abide lightly. It is well within your rights to say a fetus is a turnip seed if you want, but If you want to make a law to force us to plant them in a turnip farm, you've got another thing coming.

I know there are a lot of posts on this thread, so I'll just assume you hadn't read my previous ones. Apart from partial birth abortion, I do not think the government has any business legislating the issue. Therefore, I am not trying to legislate my point of view.



Abstinance doesn't work because people do not abstain. It isn't 100% because it doesn't happen. Exercise cures a LOT of problems, but exercise isn't the answer because not everyone can or will do it.

IF someone were to practice abstinence, then it would be 100%. But since it is highly unrealistic to believe people will do this, obviously it does not work. Not because the method itself is flawed, but because people usually don't want to not have sex.

http://www.medicinenet.com/hydrocephalus/page1.htm
Pardon the extreme delay in posting this particular link. I wanted to make sure I found something purely factual. It seems doubtful that the infant's head could swell to the point that birthing it could/would kill the mother. It is still a treatable disorder, and hydrocephalics can and do survive, and live relatively normal lives. Also, even this disorder can usually be picked up before the third tri-mester. I still say there is no legitimate reason for partial birth abortion, and agree that it should be banned.

Your article did not even discuss severe cases of hydrocephalus in utero. This is currently a condition that is accurately treatable only outside the womb.

http://www.websearch.com/search/framed.aspx?qkw=hydrocephalus+in+utero&Aff=1010&Link=http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/hydrceph.html&fr2=http://www.websearch.com/xfb_redir.aspx?CP=X2nq6cf0slTVAMjFT352PHQ1R10Jc--9rDcC9r1ZIxn6DWkCpnGhKcDZQGVtEZ0qaLryzWdgNGxOocXk5P78qnbjp7O1IPIZvZkVcqr_jtQBYaPh1_Zywa4fntPjNr0LYJ0 tzU4wboAVEMJNw2pPyViWTOxLfeBOqEhoyme-w61UmmKGddB3VPKsKRWeq9AOikHh9YHalL1_pBI0hOn-gba1omYg6xlo39qv6Ejy5ur09mdYUDKSEHtPq-rcl1FadVctdpftblPWY5RVWnfRElobrTSlDRW9hyJkYZOS_9Bf4aqNYwyy1bHwCohD3QCbtTw4Kk5mi_6J9W3w_m0BpdtGzdnlru ROmESg5GEeDWwOAmEkaDaWnsIRHLHlHzVRrVMtWuMg8mqGi1w4Pyb_Rkic3u1DQAQXL7DV4veho-0757q9skTWZdPGKlWfgpGAXiK9poK5NZHoEdaKnVvKJCHgF-w_CSCEDQ6TEdEtHssGnUfpTCy3H-dZfdZ0ptSoXZh5gSCLMgiwtHFKibDHDsdavf6dkZnCSop8Tse6m-yQlIAMfYs1AL-F9K0XktuB15c3GjhctDYKCvSO4_UfQGEYNXCQ7nRR0jiTFFE3iA9BBrI3

If you don't think 50 cm is big enough to cause harm to the mother, I'm scared of you.

there are more groups out there than just christians and atheists, you know. as far as i know, the hindhus are right, hell, maybe the vodun are right. who knows.

i still fail to see how that's faith though.

It's a stretch of logic, and I was tired. ;) I should not type when I'm tired...
Although, I pretty much think all religions have a basis in truth, so the label doesn't matter. Vodun?

Your article did not even discuss severe cases of hydrocephalus in utero. This is currently a condition that is accurately treatable only outside the womb.

If you don't think 50 cm is big enough to cause harm to the mother, I'm scared of you.

According to Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology writing in the Arkansas _Times_ a weekly newspaper, "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." Usually not discovered until LATE in the second trimester, "it is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain ... close to two gallons ... of cerebrospinal fluid." (The average *adult* skull is about 7 to 8" in diameter.)

Not all of those 1 in 2000 will develop that level of swelling, and discovery is still usually before the third trimester. "It is not unusual" does not constitute "always". This is one of those personal decision situations, where the mother can decide if she's willing to take the chance that it won't get that bad, and the fetal development will be monitored closely. Factually, abortion is a personal decision in any circumstance. This doesn't make partial birth abortion any more legitimate.

According to Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology writing in the Arkansas _Times_ a weekly newspaper, "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." Usually not discovered until LATE in the second trimester, "it is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain ... close to two gallons ... of cerebrospinal fluid." (The average *adult* skull is about 7 to 8" in diameter.)

Not all of those 1 in 2000 will develop that level of swelling, and discovery is still usually before the third trimester. "It is not unusual" does not constitute "always". This is one of those personal decision situations, where the mother can decide if she's willing to take the chance that it won't get that bad, and the fetal development will be monitored closely. Factually, abortion is a personal decision in any circumstance. This doesn't make partial birth abortion any more legitimate.

If it does get that bad, then abortion is perfectly legitimate, and that type of abortion is really the only available option.

Your article did not even discuss severe cases of hydrocephalus in utero. This is currently a condition that is accurately treatable only outside the womb.

Approximately 500 women face this procedure each year. Mild to moderate hydrocephalus can be sometimes be treated in utero and the fetus saved, and some very mild cases can be delivered and treated after birth. Those which have advanced or severe hydrocephalus cannot. Without the "partial birth" abortions, their births can easily kill their mothers with no chance of fetal survival.

I think in the case of severe hydrocephalus, it should be considered a special circumstance, and since it is very likely the fetus is already dead, it's not the same as killing it just to avoid a pregnancy.

what?

no, i'm saying that the ingredients for cookies might not end up being cookies, therefore the ingredients are not cookies until they're all mized together and hell, even then, i might want to eat some cookie dough rather than cookies. they're not cookies until they come out of the oven as cookies. before then, they have the potential to become cookies, but they're not cookies.
Well, now you've taken the analogy off in an irrelevant direction. If the cookie ingredients are not used to make cookies, they can no longer function as an analogy of the fetus.

This is terribly nit-picky, but.. abortion could never be any sort of 'birth control' even if it's regarded that way by the person doing it. That's an incorrect use of the term 'birth control', which applies to methods used to prevent pregnancy.

I disagree with you on this. "Birth Control" is the control of birth, the act of giving birth to a child, therefore anything done before it is born is birth control. Other wise it would be Pregnancy control. That is just my thought. They consider the morning after pill birth control even though you may indeed be pregnant. That is just my thought and definition of the term.

Well, now you've taken the analogy off in an irrelevant direction. If the cookie ingredients are not used to make cookies, they can no longer function as an analogy of the fetus.
sure they can. the "ingredients" of a pregnancy, all of which are essential for producing the final product of the infant, are mostly reabsorbed into the woman's body in the event of a miscarriage. the materials that would have gone to make the baby are instead put to other uses. you must remember that the fetus is only one of the ingredients for the making of a baby; without the leavening agents and the oven, you aren't ever going to go from dough to cookies :).

http://www.medicinenet.com/hydrocephalus/page1.htm
Pardon the extreme delay in posting this particular link. I wanted to make sure I found something purely factual. It seems doubtful that the infant's head could swell to the point that birthing it could/would kill the mother. It is still a treatable disorder, and hydrocephalics can and do survive, and live relatively normal lives. Also, even this disorder can usually be picked up before the third tri-mester. I still say there is no legitimate reason for partial birth abortion, and agree that it should be banned.

umm... there have been a number of instances where the fetal skull has swelled to 50 cm in diameter. and it is not detected until late in the second trimester... which means that a dilation and extraction procedure is still necessary.

and yes, 50 cm through a 10 cm hole would either kill or severly cripple a woman.

Well, now you've taken the analogy off in an irrelevant direction. If the cookie ingredients are not used to make cookies, they can no longer function as an analogy of the fetus.

i'm saying that any number of things can prevent an embryo from becoming a baby...

similarly with the materials i purchased with the intent to make chocolate chip cookies, any number of things could happen that means they won't end up being cookies.

I disagree with you on this. "Birth Control" is the control of birth, the act of giving birth to a child, therefore anything done before it is born is birth control. Other wise it would be Pregnancy control. That is just my thought. They consider the morning after pill birth control even though you may indeed be pregnant. That is just my thought and definition of the term.

no, pregnancy does not begin until the fertilized ovum has implanted itself in the uterine wall. the morning after pill does not do anything to such ovums. therefore, it does not do anything to a pregnancy, other than prevent it.

more on hydrocephalus.

http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/hydrceph.html

According to Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology writing in the Arkansas _Times_ a weekly newspaper, "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." Usually not discovered until LATE in the second trimester, "it is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain ... close to two gallons ... of cerebrospinal fluid." (The average *adult* skull is about 7 to 8" in diameter.)

Vodun?

the african basis of voodoo and hoodoo... (though they are grouped as vodun)

basically, the religion before the people were taken from their ancestoral homelands and had their beliefs intermixed with christianity and adapted for life under different circumstances.

Not all of those 1 in 2000 will develop that level of swelling, and discovery is still usually before the third trimester. "It is not unusual" does not constitute "always". This is one of those personal decision situations, where the mother can decide if she's willing to take the chance that it won't get that bad, and the fetal development will be monitored closely. Factually, abortion is a personal decision in any circumstance. This doesn't make partial birth abortion any more legitimate.

for one thing, dilation and extraction procedures are the only kinds of abortions available past a certain point in the second trimester. it's not excluslively a third trimester affair.

and it is not unusual might not mean all the time... but it means that it's not some freak, once in a lifetime rare occurance. i.e. it does happen on some kind of regular occasion where it would not be considered unusual.

and a direct threat to a woman's health and life to produce something that won't survive to gain consciousness does make "partial birth abortion" more legitimate than what many pro-lifers view it as... i.e. a fun excursion that a woman does to keep from having a kid she doesn't want.

i'm saying that any number of things can prevent an embryo from becoming a baby...

similarly with the materials i purchased with the intent to make chocolate chip cookies, any number of things could happen that means they won't end up being cookies.
And that's fine, but the analogy I was using wasn't about the assembling of the ingredients. ;-)

To reiterate, a fetus can be regarded as a child by people who utilize symbolic thinking to identify that the fetus represents what it will become; the same thinking takes a baker to the baking goods isle, rather than the cookie isle, at the store to buy his or her "cookies."

I think in the case of severe hydrocephalus, it should be considered a special circumstance, and since it is very likely the fetus is already dead, it's not the same as killing it just to avoid a pregnancy.

Well, it isn't dead - but it will be soon after any sort of delivery.

And do remember that D&X is *never* performed "just to avoid a pregnancy." It cannot be performed without a health risk to the mother.

I know there are a lot of posts on this thread, so I'll just assume you hadn't read my previous ones. Apart from partial birth abortion, I do not think the government has any business legislating the issue. Therefore, I am not trying to legislate my point of view.

If the statement I made was directed at you, I apologize then. In this debate (here and elsewhere), I typically find myself on the opposite side of the 'vehemently anti-abortion' and argue with that assumption.

IF someone were to practice abstinence, then it would be 100%. But since it is highly unrealistic to believe people will do this, obviously it does not work. Not because the method itself is flawed, but because people usually don't want to not have sex.

You are correct. It is however my opinion that if a method is too difficult to use, then the methodology is flawed. I base this opinion on the knowledge that in general (and only in my experience) people are lazy, selfish, irresponsible, and uncaring. A proposed method that doesn't take this into account is a flawed method. That's just my opinion, though.

I thought this was a cool quote:

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"

I thought this was a cool quote:

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"

It's probably true. Insurance covers Viagra, but not the birth control pill. What does that tell you?

It's probably true. Insurance covers Viagra, but not the birth control pill. What does that tell you?

It tells you that Viagra is a remedy for a medical condition, and the birth control pill isn't.

Btw, I'm not completely anti-abortion. I think it's a horrible thing and I see a feotus as a child. But I can completely understand that other people see it differently, and I would never condemn someone who had taken their decision seriously.

It tells you that Viagra is a remedy for a medical condition, and the birth control pill isn't.

Poppy-cock and balderdash. Birth control has a lot of health benefits for many women who take them beyond the prevention of pregnancy (which is a medical condition). Certainly some of them are of much greater import than if I can get my willie up.

You are correct. It is however my opinion that if a method is too difficult to use, then the methodology is flawed. I base this opinion on the knowledge that in general (and only in my experience) people are lazy, selfish, irresponsible, and uncaring. A proposed method that doesn't take this into account is a flawed method. That's just my opinion, though.

The biggest flaw in the system, I think... is how it is taught. Or rather, how it is NOT taught... which must be giving conspiracy theorists plenty to think about.

Either it is a deliberate plan, or someone has not been able to realise that: NOT educating the youth to the basic facts of sexuality AND NOT providing them information about contraception AND NOT allowing them any other sexual releases IS the PERFECT way to create pregnancy. And my spider-senses are telling me that this is how the christian church is planning to boost it's numbers in another 15 years...

Poppy-cock and balderdash. Birth control has a lot of health benefits for many women who take them beyond the prevention of pregnancy (which is a medical condition). Certainly some of them are of much greater import than if I can get my willie up.

Any woman can use birth control at any time. Therefore, insurance companies are not going to stump up for it because it would lose them money. Most men, on the other hand, are not going to need Viagra, so insurance companies are happy to take the premiums of the many and pay the bills of the few. It's a simple matter of economics.

Now, if you had a national health insurance system...

To G-n-I: very interesting....

To Torching Witches: That would be the reason I would surmise.

I disagree with you on this. "Birth Control" is the control of birth, the act of giving birth to a child, therefore anything done before it is born is birth control. Other wise it would be Pregnancy control. That is just my thought. They consider the morning after pill birth control even though you may indeed be pregnant. That is just my thought and definition of the term.
"Birth Control" is a term that was invented to describe contraceptive devices (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwmed&q=contraception) when they first became popular in the mid-20th Century. Use of contraceptives is an attempt to prevent pregnancy (conception).

EDIT: While I think it's lovely that you feel comfortable in creating your own relationship to the definition of the term (and I think this is a skill that is sorely lacking in some people), the term has been around a bit too long for it to be redefined at such a late stage in the game without creating some confusion.

so when the guy gets some on his hand and fingers her, she should have been more careful handling sperm?
when they dry hump and he comes all over her, she should have been more careful handling sperm?

yeah, way to read the whole post there. and blame the girl at that.
geez... are men always blame-free in your little world?

Dakini you sure have got a filthy mind. :) ;)

Of course I can just as easily say why should it always be the guys fault, the

way you present it.

Its both their fault, I guess if they had a bit of morality or even common

sense, they wouldnt create an accidental pregnancy in the first place.

Its both their fault, I guess if they had a bit of morality or even common sense, they wouldnt create an accidental pregnancy in the first place.Morality is subjective, you know. And, as for 'common' sense, even if you know the "sperm and egg" thing, you could still be ignorant of those still-risky methods of fertilisation, especially if you were hung up on avoiding penetrative methods of having fun...

Can it survive without the mother? If not then it is a parasite. Instead of allowing abortions, how about we remove whatever is inside the mother surgically, and if it can survive on its own outside the womb, it is meant to survive by god?

The problem is that the vast majority of people who oppose abortions are men who never have to worry about going through childbirth. The anti-Choice people are also anti-freedom. Stop pushing your nanny-state fascists.

Emmanuel "Ronin" Goldstein
Speaker for the region of Sludgia :sniper:

[QUOTE=E B Guvegrra]Morality is subjective, you know.

Only to people who want to change it around for their own benefit, I believe

it is of course objective.

And, as for 'common' sense, even if you know the "sperm and egg" thing, you could still be ignorant of those still-risky methods of fertilisation, especially if you were hung up on avoiding penetrative methods of having fun...

Well I guess it all comes back to the importance of marriage, meaning dont

touch the girl until you marry her, then everything works out, silly old

fashioned ways, I dont know...

Morality has qualities both subjective and objective, at the same time. We take in input from others and society (objectives), evaluate it and add it to our own cache of experiences (subjective), then present it back to others for them to evaluate (objective to them). We determine if something is "good" or "bad" based on both our own evaluation and on what others (including "God") might think of it.

Morality is subjective, you know.Only to people who want to change it around for their own benefit, I believe it is of course objective.I'm talking about socially accepted norms. For example look at the discrepancies between different countries' legal ages to be married and/or have intercourse (not always matched, even per locale). And throughout history. Throughout all these cases there's going to be wildly-varying legal lower-limits on such activities that can be considered either too draconian or too immoral for any given population within another random point in time or space. Look at (the admitedly fictional) Romeo and Juliet. The age that Juliet was supposed to be was an acceptible one for marriage and love in their appropriate slot in history (arguably a more religiously controlled era than today) but are distinctly 'wrong' in the England of this day and age. Morality is a social norm that can change. There are undoubtedly cases where individuals (for personal reasons, possibly for their own benefit and possibly in light of other circumstances) break with the social norm and consider a nationally (even legally) recognised immorality as acceptible to themselves, but that's not significant.

Even to say that sex should not occur before marriage is contrary to wildly-held beliefs in not-so-benighted cultures worldwidea,d there will always be prudes and 'uberliberals', perhaps with their own agendas and perhaps not.

And, as for 'common' sense, even if you know the "sperm and egg" thing, you could still be ignorant of those still-risky methods of fertilisation, especially if you were hung up on avoiding penetrative methods of having fun...Well I guess it all comes back to the importance of marriage, meaning dont touch the girl until you marry her, then everything works out, silly old fashioned ways, I dont know...Actually, the 'universal' concept of marriage you provide is, in the grand scheme of things, quote a modern invention and by no means universal. (Which, again, disputes a non-localised concept of morality.)

Some of the Popes had seriously dubious morals, by today's standards (and possibly their own time's, admitedly, but not necessarily).

Morality has qualities both subjective and objective, at the same time. We take in input from others and society (objectives), evaluate it and add it to our own cache of experiences (subjective), then present it back to others for them to evaluate (objective to them). We determine if something is "good" or "bad" based on both our own evaluation and on what others (including "God") might think of it.Yes, I meant to include something about that as well...

the african basis of voodoo and hoodoo... (though they are grouped as vodun)

basically, the religion before the people were taken from their ancestoral homelands and had their beliefs intermixed with christianity and adapted for life under different circumstances.

laugh, you make it sound like christians took them from their homes, christians never did such a thing, and in fact more of them were sent as slaves to muslim nations, but the muslims didn't take them from their homes either.

Morality is subjective, you know. And, as for 'common' sense, even if you know the "sperm and egg" thing, you could still be ignorant of those still-risky methods of fertilisation, especially if you were hung up on avoiding penetrative methods of having fun...

Morality is not subjective, what each person's opinion of the moral choice however arguably is, but empirically at least, weight of opinion would favour the correct morality, but by no stretch guarantee it the correct choice.

Actually, the 'universal' concept of marriage you provide is, in the grand scheme of things, quote a modern invention and by no means universal.

Augustine and the Justinian verdict aren't by any stretch of the imagination modern. If you wanted to use "older" variants of marriage as examples, there would be an argument for polygamy, but never one for same sex.

i think us pro-choicers have had to explain outselves plenty over the past week. it's your turn.

while it's all well and good that you don't have abortions yourselves, what makes you think you can deny others the right?



I am anti-abortion partly because I am pro-choice. If a woman has an abortion, she is denying the unborn child the opportunity to decide for him/herself if (s)he wishes to live. If the unborn child has an illness that means (s)he will never be able to make such a decision, then I think the parents have the right to decide. If (s)he commits suicide at a later date, then fair enough, but I don't think anybody has any right to deny someone that right. The principle of libertarianism says that people should be allowed to live their lives as they choose on the condition that in doing so, they don't infringe anybody else's right to do the same. Under this principle, one can then deny a woman an abortion on the basis that she is denying the baby his/her libertarian rights.

I also feel that the father's consent should be sought. I think it is unjust that men have to pay HUUUUUUUGE amounts in child support, but don't have any rights over the children.

Actually, the 'universal' concept of marriage you provide is, in the grand scheme of things, quote a modern invention and by no means universal. (Which, again, disputes a non-localised concept of morality.)

Some of the Popes had seriously dubious morals, by today's standards (and possibly their own time's, admitedly, but not necessarily).

Unfortunately, there seems to be a core of people who want a 'return' to a past that never existed... they talk about 'family values' of the nuclear family... and are too uninformed to know that the nuclear family is an invention of only about 50 years duration so far. They talk about acceptable ages for marriage... and have done no research which would have clearly shown that it is a new invention to marry a female who is much OLDER than her first menstruation. They talk about the 'long history' of marriage, and lack the knowledge that, for most of western history of the last few thousand years, almost nobody got married unless it was to ensure progression of titles, lands or goods.

If some of these people had even gone so far as to read the bible, they would see how ridiculous the claim was. Joseph and Mary were not married, merely betrothed... and it was acceptable for them to have had sexual liaisons (even though the book claims they hadn't done so yet).

So - the 'good book' teaches it's okay to have sex before marriage, if you intend to honour your commitment.

Morality is not subjective, what each person's opinion of the moral choice however arguably is, but empirically at least, weight of opinion would favour the correct morality, but by no stretch guarantee it the correct choice.


I disagree with your stand on morality... I have seen morality defined as "a system of right or wrong, or a particular system of such principles" In the case of the 'particular system', there is a definite argument for subjectivity.

But, if we assume you are right, and that weight of opinion is what makes a thing moral... eventually, with the current growing trend of support for gay equality... gay marriage will eventually become moral.

Also - looking back at, for example, the roots of the judeo-christian faiths... the majority of religions believed you needed an 'avatar' - an image of your god - to act as a go-between... and the Hebrews claimed to have a god that didn't HAVE an image. The majority of religions considered them 'wrong' for that belief.

So, with the application of you 'majority = morality' mechanism... christianity is immoral.


Augustine and the Justinian verdict aren't by any stretch of the imagination modern. If you wanted to use "older" variants of marriage as examples, there would be an argument for polygamy, but never one for same sex.

St Augustine's 'summary' of Christian ethics was a concise, precise, and surprisingly accepting approach for his era. He delicately summed it up as "Love, and do what you will".

Pity more of the christian 'faith' can't bring themselves closer to Augustine's theology.

Oh, and here's one you'll like:

The truth is that same-sex marriage has a long and distinguished history. Judaic scripture, for instance, indicates that same-sex marriages were recognized in ancient Egypt. Of course, it's no secret that the ancient Greeks and Romans recognized homosexual marriage, not to mention imperial China and some Native American tribes and a host of other peoples living around the world.

There's even evidence that the Catholic Church recognized same-sex marriage in the early Middle Ages. Scholars dispute whether these unions should actually be called marriages, but there is no doubt that the Church conducted formal ceremonies to recognize the bond between same-sex partners. The Church endorsed sexual union between members of the same sex!

http://www.waf.org/familyarchives/marriage/Historys%20view%20on%20gay%20marriage.htm

i would like to see this evidence you speak of grave n idle.

while it's all well and good that you don't have abortions yourselves, what makes you think you can deny others the right?

The same reason that it is all well and good that I don't murder my neighbor, but I can certainly deny others the "right" to murder their neighbor.

St Augustine's 'summary' of Christian ethics was a concise, precise, and surprisingly accepting approach for his era. He delicately summed it up as "Love, and do what you will".

Um....you are kidding, right? Augustine was the guy who said that all babies are sinners because they cry when they want food.

Pity more of the christian 'faith' can't bring themselves closer to Augustine's theology.

Pretty much all of the Catholic Church is based on Augustine's theology -that's why their dogma is so screwed up.

i would like to see this evidence you speak of grave n idle.

Erm... which of my 1500 posts is this a reference to?

Joseph and Mary were not married, merely betrothed... and it was acceptable for them to have had sexual liaisons (even though the book claims they hadn't done so yet).

Well considering one would had to have consummated to actually be married, it sort of makes sense that they wouldn't be married prior to this occuring....

So - the 'good book' teaches it's okay to have sex before marriage, if you intend to honour your commitment.

Actually the good book would have taught that jewish law had the marriage enacted upon the actual consummation, but why get lost in the details when discrediting it....


http://www.waf.org/familyarchives/m...%20marriage.htm

yawn, marriage in ancient greece was nothing more than a contract to produce children etc, Plato (and possibly Socrates) were the first people to suggest that sexual relations become marriage based and monogamous, and Greece had long fallen to Rome before anything of the sort occured in European society. Plato believed he had discovered one of the major causes for the fall of Greece's greatness, perhaps he was right...

Rome followed much the same discression, marriage was definitely not for the same sex.

And Augustine most certainly didn't condone marriages between anything but male and female (he however did bring an end to polygamy, the first to really recognise a level of gender equality), but he was considered too humanistic for his forgiving approach to fornication and adultery....

Um....you are kidding, right? Augustine was the guy who said that all babies are sinners because they cry when they want food.

Pretty much all of the Catholic Church is based on Augustine's theology -that's why their dogma is so screwed up.

Hey, I KNOW Augustine was a nutbar... it's him we owe the theory of 'Divine Right of Kings' and the idea that there are earthly cities that are NOT good to mirror the fact that there is a heveanly city that IS good...

But, that was his 'summary', if you will, of the philosophy of Christianity.

Sure, finding a quarter doesn't make it worth swimming in a sewer... but it is an interesting little gem, especially from such a colourful character.

Augustine was very much a scholar of Plato, it was his approach that the eastern churches considered "too humanistic", although Justin could probably be the one who drove the wedge that led to the eventual split.

Modern western society probably owes more to Aquinas and his Aristotlean foundations than Augustine though.

It's very simple: There is nothing fundamentally different between a baby in the womb 2 minutes before it's born, or out of the womb 2 minutes after it is born, aside from its environment. Thus, if it is wrong to kill it 2 minutes after it is born, it is just as wrong to kill it 2 minutes before it's born. And if its wrong to kill it 2 minutes before its born, its wrong 2 months before, or 4 months, or 8 months. Or 2 minutes after conception.

It's very simple: There is nothing fundamentally different between a baby in the womb 2 minutes before it's born, or out of the womb 2 minutes after it is born, aside from its environment. Thus, if it is wrong to kill it 2 minutes after it is born, it is just as wrong to kill it 2 minutes before it's born. And if its wrong to kill it 2 minutes before its born, its wrong 2 months before, or 4 months, or 8 months. Or 2 minutes after conception.

This is completely illogical.

Let's keep going, shall we? It is wrong 2 minutes before conception - don't kill those eggs and sperm!

Eating a sunflower seed is the same as picking a sunflower, then?

They aren't killed two minutes before birth... unless they pose a direct and substantial risk to the mother, and/or will die soon after birth.

Most elective abortions occur BEFORE a nervous system is present.

And yes, there is a huge difference between a 2-minute-premature baby and a clump of cells that does not possess a nervous system.

hmm anyone remember that case from France, where a doctor performed an abortion on the wrong woman, but was acquitted because the unborn child wasn't a human?

Think it was like 6 months into the pregnancy too.

I am anti-abortion partly because I am pro-choice. If a woman has an abortion, she is denying the unborn child the opportunity to decide for him/herself if (s)he wishes to live. If the unborn child has an illness that means (s)he will never be able to make such a decision, then I think the parents have the right to decide. If (s)he commits suicide at a later date, then fair enough, but I don't think anybody has any right to deny someone that right. The principle of libertarianism says that people should be allowed to live their lives as they choose on the condition that in doing so, they don't infringe anybody else's right to do the same. Under this principle, one can then deny a woman an abortion on the basis that she is denying the baby his/her libertarian rights.

I also feel that the father's consent should be sought. I think it is unjust that men have to pay HUUUUUUUGE amounts in child support, but don't have any rights over the children.

Here's where you get conflicted, though. Why does the fetus have more important libertarian rights than the mother? Is it not equally her right not to carry the baby to term as it is the unaware zygote's right to live? What's more, the level of consciousness in the fetus is FAR less than that of the mother. Wouldn't that denote a greater right on the part of the mother? Should she not, then, be able to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy?

Furthermore, on the father's consent, the point is moot. He doesn't have to carry the child. It shouldn't be his right to impose his will on the mother of his child. I also adamantly disagree with men who decide to fork over some cash suggesting that the woman get an abortion. If she wants financial help, sure, but suggesting that she should choose this way so he can get out of child support is obscene (and believe me, it happens all the time).

Life is life, let's let people live it their way, shall we? I don't think we need to make decisions for sentient beings on behalf of non-sentient beings.

On morality: It's subjective. Subjective means that it is subject to the differing beliefs of the individual. If it was Objective, Hitler wouldn't have thought it was okay to kill and torture people just because they were Jewish. Right-wingers wouldn't decide to deny homosexual couples the ability to engage in some kind of legal union. And Homophobes wouldn't tie a promising, young college student to a fence, beat him to within an inch of his life, and leave him to die alone then declare in court that they did it because he was coming on to them. It seems to me that the greatest harms ever done come about when people impose their subjective morality on other people who do not share their views.

It's very simple: There is nothing fundamentally different between a baby in the womb 2 minutes before it's born, or out of the womb 2 minutes after it is born, aside from its environment. Thus, if it is wrong to kill it 2 minutes after it is born, it is just as wrong to kill it 2 minutes before it's born. And if its wrong to kill it 2 minutes before its born, its wrong 2 months before, or 4 months, or 8 months. Or 2 minutes after conception.

Okay, let's outline the difference for you one more time.

Infant just prior to birth: Ability to react to outside stimulus and interact with surroundings. Ability to nose around for food source. Ability to feel outside stimulus (such as touch) and react to same.

Fetus pre-central nervous system: No outside stimulus reaches brain because brain is not formed yet. Reacts ~exactly~ like a lump of clay in the base of a bowl of water...

Anyone care to get more scientific and help me out here?

Here's where you get conflicted, though. Why does the fetus have more important libertarian rights than the mother? Is it not equally her right not to carry the baby to term as it is the unaware zygote's right to live? What's more, the level of consciousness in the fetus is FAR less than that of the mother. Wouldn't that denote a greater right on the part of the mother? Should she not, then, be able to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy?

Furthermore, on the father's consent, the point is moot. He doesn't have to carry the child. It shouldn't be his right to impose his will on the mother of his child. I also adamantly disagree with men who decide to fork over some cash suggesting that the woman get an abortion. If she wants financial help, sure, but suggesting that she should choose this way so he can get out of child support is obscene (and believe me, it happens all the time).

Life is life, let's let people live it their way, shall we? I don't think we need to make decisions for sentient beings on behalf of non-sentient beings.

On morality: It's subjective. Subjective means that it is subject to the differing beliefs of the individual. If it was Objective, Hitler wouldn't have thought it was okay to kill and torture people just because they were Jewish. Right-wingers wouldn't decide to deny homosexual couples the ability to engage in some kind of legal union. And Homophobes wouldn't tie a promising, young college student to a fence, beat him to within an inch of his life, and leave him to die alone then declare in court that they did it because he was coming on to them. It seems to me that the greatest harms ever done come about when people impose their subjective morality on other people who do not share their views.

At the risk of getting boring by repeating myself...

*hats of to Riven Dell*

Take a bow. Another excellent post.

Okay, let's outline the difference for you one more time.

Infant just prior to birth: Ability to react to outside stimulus and interact with surroundings. Ability to nose around for food source. Ability to feel outside stimulus (such as touch) and react to same.

Fetus pre-central nervous system: No outside stimulus reaches brain because brain is not formed yet. Reacts ~exactly~ like a lump of clay in the base of a bowl of water...

Anyone care to get more scientific and help me out here?

You could just point out the lack of logic at the '2 minutes after conception stage': A fertilised egg is never going to 'become' anything, UNLESS it implants in the uterus wall, which is by no means guarunteed...

morality as a concept is objective. A person's individual morals are subjective.
Unless I'm mistaken, we almost all see morality in the same context, what we may consider moral may be different, but our concept of what morality refers to, I would hazard a guess would be almost perfectly aligned.

For example, one could assume with perhaps greater than 99% certainty that killing an innocent person is simply not subjectve morality, but immoral.

However to automatically remove the possibility of a given moral being a universal, and to be entirely individually subjective, is to effectively dismiss the concept of anyone else but yourself existing.

To give an example, we would both see morals (very loosely worded) as things we consider are just and right ways to live, correct? we're not getting the concept of morals mixed up here.

Consider an argument of the rightness of morals, as something like this.

The two of us stand in a room looking at an object, you call it a horse, i call it a car, a 3rd person is looking on but can't see the object, what they can however deduct is that within the given scenario, one of us is wrong, they can't be certain either of us is right, they however can be certain that we both can't be right.

Here's where you get conflicted, though. Why does the fetus have more important libertarian rights than the mother? Is it not equally her right not to carry the baby to term as it is the unaware zygote's right to live? What's more, the level of consciousness in the fetus is FAR less than that of the mother. Wouldn't that denote a greater right on the part of the mother? Should she not, then, be able to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy?

I've been told by a libertarian, that the right to life of the innocent supercedes all else, as without it, the rest are meaningless.

At the risk of getting boring by repeating myself...

*hats of to Riven Dell*

Take a bow. Another excellent post.

*blushes*

Only to people who want to change it around for their own benefit, I believe it is of course objective

Prove it. List a set of objective moral rules that do not get adjusted for culture, race, religion, tradition, sex, age, social class, or individual taste. Until then, you are wrong. My rules have allways been, and will always be different than yours.

morality as a concept is objective. A person's individual morals are subjective.
Unless I'm mistaken, we almost all see morality in the same context, what we may consider moral may be different, but our concept of what morality refers to, I would hazard a guess would be almost perfectly aligned.

Well, until you can take the individual out of morality, you're looking at subjectivity, my friend. No matter how objective the concept might be, morality is pointless without the human aspect. It is the individual that decides her/his own morality and whether or not to impose it on others. Find me one single person objective enough to have a completely objective morality, and I'll give you a cookie.

For example, one could assume with perhaps greater than 99% certainty that killing an innocent person is simply not subjectve morality, but immoral.

But if that "person" has not achieved any FORM of consciousness, than can you consider it an innocent person... or even killing? I don't think so.

However to automatically remove the possibility of a given moral being a universal, and to be entirely individually subjective, is to effectively dismiss the concept of anyone else but yourself existing.

Actually, it's just the opposite. If you think for a split second that there is a single concept out there that is truly universal, you're looking for a world of disappointment. We're human beings, not gods. Everything we see, think, feel, do, is subject to our own personal interpretation. I've spent years studying the mind and how it develops. Nobody looks at the same thing in exactly the same way, therefore, there can be no universal concept, and asserting that there is a universal concept is more akin to dismissing everyone but yourself (since you're not willing to take other people's experiences into account).

To give an example, we would both see morals (very loosely worded) as things we consider are just and right ways to live, correct? we're not getting the concept of morals mixed up here.

"Thing we consider are just and right ways to live" suggests that we define our own morals. I agree with you completely there. But you have to realize that people's individual definitions are subject to extremely unique interpretation.

Consider an argument of the rightness of morals, as something like this.

The two of us stand in a room looking at an object, you call it a horse, i call it a car, a 3rd person is looking on but can't see the object, what they can however deduct is that within the given scenario, one of us is wrong, they can't be certain either of us is right, they however can be certain that we both can't be right.

Okay, try this... is it wrong to steal? People in early stages of morality development say, "yes." People in middle stages say, "mostly." People with fully developed moral concepts realize that it depends entirely on the situation. If you're stealing the cure for cancer from an opportunistic scientist who won't give it to you to cure your beloved wife or husband, stealing is right because it is the lesser of the two crimes.



I've been told by a libertarian, that the right to life of the innocent supercedes all else, as without it, the rest are meaningless.

But if it doesn't have consciousness, or a mind, or independant life support, is it even "the life of an innocent"? If it isn't even a separate organism yet, how can its even have human rights? It cannot respond to or process outside stimulus of ~any~ kind, it does not feel hunger, cold, heat, movement, etc. That's not an innocent life. It's not even a life yet.

Morality has qualities both subjective and objective, at the same time. We take in input from others and society (objectives), evaluate it and add it to our own cache of experiences (subjective), then present it back to others for them to evaluate (objective to them). We determine if something is "good" or "bad" based on both our own evaluation and on what others (including "God") might think of it.

Even if everyone you ever met believed in one thing (your society), it is still subjective to your society. Objectivity requires lack of perspective. When trying to argue that something is 'objectively' immoral, one must show that it is immoral reguardless of society, circumstance, or any other criteria. There have never been any rules in the history of our species that have done this. Even those 'tried and true' staples of murder and theft and rape are viewed completely differently in non-western and non-judeo-christian cultures, and even in some of those.

There is no such thing as objective morality.

The same reason that it is all well and good that I don't murder my neighbor, but I can certainly deny others the "right" to murder their neighbor.

No, but their neighbour can. As I can deny someone the 'right' to murder me.

Society has a long history of protecting itself first, and others second. This is not going to change any time soon. And I would argue, shouldn't.

In the same way that I have a 'right' to defend myself should someone try and do harm to me, even to the point of taking their life, so too does a woman have a right to defend her own body and life should she be unwittingly/unwillingly impregnated.

When you, in addition to that, take into account that the thing doing harm to the woman is neither truly alive, or capable of experiencing it's termination in any way, then one cannot argue that the termination is even in the same sport as something akin to murder.

It's very simple: There is nothing fundamentally different between a baby in the womb 2 minutes before it's born, or out of the womb 2 minutes after it is born, aside from its environment. Thus, if it is wrong to kill it 2 minutes after it is born, it is just as wrong to kill it 2 minutes before it's born. And if its wrong to kill it 2 minutes before its born, its wrong 2 months before, or 4 months, or 8 months. Or 2 minutes after conception.

It's very simple: There is nothing fundamentally different than a Pear on a tree, or a Pear that has fallen from a tree, aside from its environment. Thus, if one can eat a pear after it has fallen, one can eat a pear just before it falls. And if one can eat it just before it falls, then one can eat it when it is a flower, one can eat it when it is a bud, one can eat it when it is a twig, or when it is a newly grown tree. It's obviously still a pear, right?

Listen, jackoff, very few people are suggesting that abortion just before birth is an acceptable practice. Most of the pro-choicers here are stating that anything after the 20th week or so (which is when the brain develops, and it objectively can be said to be a living organism), is unnacceptable unless the life of the mother is at stake, or in other severe circumstances. The law currently reflects that.

There are however, HUGE differences between a fetus just before birth and one that is in the embryo or zygote stages in the first and second trimester. Making it out like those differences are non-existant in a 80 page thread where the differences have been pointed out multiple times in plain language is both ignorant and flameworthy.

Even if everyone you ever met believed in one thing (your society), it is still subjective to your society. Objectivity requires lack of perspective. When trying to argue that something is 'objectively' immoral, one must show that it is immoral reguardless of society, circumstance, or any other criteria. There have never been any rules in the history of our species that have done this. Even those 'tried and true' staples of murder and theft and rape are viewed completely differently in non-western and non-judeo-christian cultures, and even in some of those.

There is no such thing as objective morality.
I see your reasoning, and I somewhat agree. However, I was using "objective" in a slightly different context.

I would say rather that objectivity requires a lack of the subject's perspective. Objective, like subjective, is a perspective. When I look out through my individual eyes, I am the subject, specifically my mind, and everything I view is the object, everything outside of my mind. When I generate an idea, it is an idea with subjective reality, existing entirely internally until I express it. When I express it, it takes on objective (material) reality. Subjectivity in this context does not necessarily mean coloured by emotion and opinion, although that is implied.

When I abstract an objective viewpoint, such as imagining a viewpoint above and apart from a crime scene in order to see how all the elements, including myself, work together, I am removing my "self" into the air and imagining from a perspective of "no self". This doesn't necessarily remove the colour that I might add to the reporting, but hopefully minimizes it. But when I take input in from others that input is objective input, because it comes from the object. It is not initially coloured by me at all, so it can be viewed as "objective."

I could recognize that it is subjectively coloured on the part of the other if it obviously contains opinions and valuations, in which case I can refer to it as "subjective" input. That is using the words in a different context that what I was.

I agree that it isn't "objectively true" in the sense of having some material reality apart from man's mind, as some people seem to use the phrase, but in another context it is an objective statement that is real, this idea that was told to me by the object and didn't come from me, the subject.

a zygote immeadiately after conception has human dna. I would like to give me an independent example of something thathas human dna and is not human.

a zygote immeadiately after conception has human dna. I would like to give me an independent example of something thathas human dna and is not human.
a mosquito, just after biting a human.

seriously, though...

human stomach cells have human DNA, and you shed thousands of them today (possibly millions). having human DNA does not make something a human person. even having "unique" DNA does not determine personhood, because if it did then identical twins would be considered one person.

a zygote immeadiately after conception has human dna. I would like to give me an independent example of something thathas human dna and is not human.

All weebles are wobbles, but all wobbles are not weebles.

that doesnt seem like the type of response from people who sure that they have science on their side.

that doesnt seem like the type of response from people who sure that they have science on their side.
wait, i state the scientific facts, show how they support my position, and you find that inconsistent with my belief that science supports my position?

stomach cells and mosquitos cannot use their human dna to develop human legs, arms, a brain, and a nervous system. now tell me something that can do this and has human dna and is not human.

stomach cells and mosquitos cannot use their human dna to develop human legs, arms, a brain, and a nervous system. now tell me something that can do this and has human dna and is not human.

Neither can an embryo that does not implant in or is removed from the mother

Mice injected with human ES cells can use those cells to develop legs, arms, a brain, and a nervous system with cells with human DNA.

And unless you have some definition of human that doesn't require something to be an organism, a zygote is not a human.

how is a zygote not considered an organsim. It seems to me that it is at least as much an organism as bacteria is. Also, no bacteria that i know of has the ability to grow human arms, legs, and a brain. Just because it needs a place to live and nourishment from its mother does not make a zygote any less of an organism, you and i need a place to live and recieve nourishment and we usually recieve this from others too.

how is a zygote not considered an organsim. It seems to me that it is at least as much an organism as bacteria is.

And that is where you would be wrong. A bacteria meets all of the requirements needed to be considered an organism. A zygote does not.

Also, no bacteria that i know of has the ability to grow human arms, legs, and a brain.

And this has what to do with the price of eggs in China?

Just because it needs a place to live and nourishment from its mother does not make a zygote any less of an organism, you and i need a place to live and recieve nourishment and we usually recieve this from others too.

You're right. Needing nourishment is actually part of what makes it an organism once it develops far enough to have the traits necessary to make it an organism.

you keep saying that a zygote is not an organism. I want to know why it isn't.
Here is an intersting article that might interest you.

http://www.unbornperson.com/section_3.htm

i have a question for all you who do not believe life begins at conception. When does life begin?

you keep saying that a zygote is not an organism. I want to know why it isn't.

And I have told you: It doesn't meet all the requirements to be deemed an organism.

To be deemed an organism, certain requirements must be met. One of these is the ability to sense and respond to stimuli *as an organism*. The fetus cannot do so until it has a sufficient nervous system.

i have a question for all you who do not believe life begins at conception. When does life begin?

The fetus can be deemed a separate organism when it develops enough of a nervous system to sense and respond to stimuli (ie. around the end of the first trimester).

After that, it gets tricky. However, one thing is obvious - the fetus cannot be given the full rights of a human at least until it is viable. Anything else reduces the woman's rights to a point that cannot be tolerated, reducing her to nothing but an incubator who must do nothing for fear that she may cause harm.

what is it before a nervous system develops?
Now let me get this clear. You believe that a fetus obtains life when it develops a nervous system and with this life it becomes human. Yet even though you believe that life begins at the first trimester, you still think that it is alright to kill the fetus after this just because it is dependent upon its mother.

what is it before a nervous system develops?

Scientifically? A bunch of proliferating and differentiating cells.

Now let me get this clear. You believe that a fetus obtains life when it develops a nervous system and with this life it becomes human.

I personally believe a fetus obtains life when it gets a soul. However, this is a religious view and doesn't enter into discussion about legislation.

Scientifically, a fetus becomes an organism - a life of its own (parasite or not) when it has developed a nervous system.

Yet even though you believe that life begins at the first trimester, you still think that it is alright to kill the fetus after this just because it is dependent upon its mother.

Did I ever say that? No, I think it is alright (should she so choose) to remove the fetus after the first trimester if the mother's health is in danger, as no one can be expected to provide sustenance to another when it endangers them.

you need to explain this to me i am kind of dense tonight. I do not understand how something can be a bunch of cells one day and then a human life the next. Please explain. I always figured that life comes from life.

you need to explain this to me i am kind of dense tonight. I do not understand how something can be a bunch of cells one day and then a human life the next. Please explain. I always figured that life comes from life.

Read a Biology book - it isn't that hard to understand.

An organism has to meet certain requirements. Until it meets those requirements, it is not an organism.

Now, if you define "human" as something that doesn't have to be an organism, you can argue all you like.

Prove it. List a set of objective moral rules that do not get adjusted for culture, race, religion, tradition, sex, age, social class, or individual taste. Until then, you are wrong. My rules have allways been, and will always be different than yours.

By your reasoning then, societys through out history have held different vices

that effect people in a different light to each other, ie; greed.

Can you give me one civilisation that subjected greed as a good thing in

society, not a bad one?

As for your rules, lets test that, I think greed is bad, and is not subjected to

moral change that will make it any better, you therefore, having as

you say, always different rules to mine on morality, think it could be good,

right?

Life does not generate spontaneoulsy. Either it is life before it develops a nervous system or it is not life afterwards. Again i say life can only come from life.

i think us pro-choicers have had to explain outselves plenty over the past week. it's your turn.

while it's all well and good that you don't have abortions yourselves, what makes you think you can deny others the right?

Face the consequences of your sexual carelessness! And if you're raped, i'll allow an abortion, but the state won't pay for it:) I'm generally pro-life.

Life does not generate spontaneoulsy. Either it is life before it develops a nervous system or it is not life afterwards. Again i say life can only come from life.

There is a difference between life (as in all of your cells are alive) and being a separate life (as in a lifeform apart on its own).

so according to your defintion the cells of a zygote are not its own cells but cells of its mother. i find this difficult to believe because it has a different set of dna than its mother.

The more research advances, the more this unity appears to be guaranteed by the new genome, where a large number of regulatory genes ensure the exact timing, the precise placement and the specificity of the morphogenetic events. All this leads to the conclusion that the human embryo - like every other embryo - even in the earliest stages is not a "cluster of cells". Rather, the entire embryo at every stage, even in the first 14 days, is a real individual where the single cells are closely integrated in a single dynamic process through which, moment by moment, it autonomously translates its own genetic space into its own organic space.

This paragraph of information came from the website: http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2004/feb2004p10_1534.html
I encourage you to read it for it contains some scientific facts that will help you understand my postion.

The more research advances, the more this unity appears to be guaranteed by the new genome, where a large number of regulatory genes ensure the exact timing, the precise placement and the specificity of the morphogenetic events. All this leads to the conclusion that the human embryo - like every other embryo - even in the earliest stages is not a "cluster of cells". Rather, the entire embryo at every stage, even in the first 14 days, is a real individual where the single cells are closely integrated in a single dynamic process through which, moment by moment, it autonomously translates its own genetic space into its own organic space.

This paragraph of information came from the website: http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2004/feb2004p10_1534.html
I encourage you to read it for it contains some scientific facts that will help you understand my postion.

Biased source

If you want scientific facts, go to a scientific journal. Or ask a scientist. I'll volunteer and answer on those areas which I know.

And you *do* know that many of the cells in your body have different DNA, right?

the man who wrote this was a highly thought of scientist in europe. Am i to believe that you will present me with an unbiased source. And just because this man comes to a conclusions that is different than yours he is biased.
Explain to me how my cells have different dna.

do you of a french physician named Jerome Lejune who discovered the cause of Down's syndrome in 1959?

An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health."

-- Planned Parenthood 'Plan Your Children' pamphlet, 1963
Please explain.

Well, until you can take the individual out of morality, you're looking at subjectivity, my friend. No matter how objective the concept might be, morality is pointless without the human aspect. It is the individual that decides her/his own morality and whether or not to impose it on others. Find me one single person objective enough to have a completely objective morality, and I'll give you a cookie.

Do I believe that we lack the ability to ever reach that stage of thought? no. Is it possible someone may have gotten it right? possibly, not likely, but not entirely impossible.

But if that "person" has not achieved any FORM of consciousness, than can you consider it an innocent person... or even killing? I don't think so.

innocent it is, person is the argument.

"Thing we consider are just and right ways to live" suggests that we define our own morals. I agree with you completely there. But you have to realize that people's individual definitions are subject to extremely unique interpretation.

Yes I'm aware of that, but morality is a concept which was my point. What is a moral action is based around an almost universal belief (I would say greater than 99.99% empirically certain) that morality is a concept of doing the right thing.

To give an example, imagine i said for you to go west (referring to the direction), I imagine you and nearly everyone else here would either be able to go west, or I could say you don't understand the concept of "going west", now imagine that every single one of us was blind, just because not one of us could ever probably be entirely sure that we're "going west" doesn't mean that it's impossible to actually "go west" and be right. It's a lot harder for a blind man to figure out the correct answer to a solution based upon one's sight, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Okay, try this... is it wrong to steal? People in early stages of morality development say, "yes." People in middle stages say, "mostly." People with fully developed moral concepts realize that it depends entirely on the situation. If you're stealing the cure for cancer from an opportunistic scientist who won't give it to you to cure your beloved wife or husband, stealing is right because it is the lesser of the two crimes.

Umm, your point makes no sense, one person says yes, one person says no, a 3rd person looking on would be drawn into their own perspective, and would admit that they can't be certain who is right, they could however be certain that one must be "wrong"....


I mean look at this entire argument, noone could be entirely sure they are 100% correct, but they could be certain that one of the viewpoints on whether the foetus is a "person" or not, has to be wrong.

the man who wrote this was a highly thought of scientist in europe. Am i to believe that you will present me with an unbiased source.

Try a biology book.

And just because this man comes to a conclusions that is different than yours he is biased.

The source is biased because it is a religion site, not a scientific one. The article you posted to has not been peer-reviewed, and thus is not a credible scientific source.

Explain to me how my cells have different dna.

Individual cells mutate. Thus, many of the cells in your body have different DNA from the rest.

Some people are the product of fraternal twins that merge in the womb. These people are chimeric, with different DNA from each zygote throughout their bodies.

Anyone who has ever had a bone marrow transplant or an organ transplant has many cells in their body with entirely different DNA.

Biased source

If you want scientific facts, go to a scientific journal. Or ask a scientist. I'll volunteer and answer on those areas which I know.

Heh, they're not biased if they agree with me?

Finding an unbiased source of anything is like trying to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, it might happen, but I wouldn't bet my house on it.

Heh, they're not biased if they agree with me?

Finding an unbiased source of anything is like trying to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, it might happen, but I wouldn't bet my house on it.

So you believe all peer-reviewed scientific journals are necessarily biased? To what? The scientific method?

Individual cells mutate. Thus, many of the cells in your body have different DNA from the rest.

Some people are the product of fraternal twins that merge in the womb. These people are chimeric, with different DNA from each zygote throughout their bodies.

Anyone who has ever had a bone marrow transplant or an organ transplant has many cells in their body with entirely different DNA.

Correct me if i am mistaken but this is not what happens when an egg is fertilized and becomes a zygote.

Correct me if i am mistaken but this is not what happens when an egg is fertilized and becomes a zygote.

And your point would be?

You were the one arguing that cells having different DNA necessarily made them a separate human being.

the statement i qouted from you is your response to my statement that the cells in a zygote are not a part of the mother because they have different dna.

So you believe all peer-reviewed scientific journals are necessarily biased?

yes, some moreso than others.

To what? The scientific method?

Their opinions

Anyone that says "they're biased, and we're unbiased" is a liar.

Being biased doesn't necessarily make you wrong though, and "they have religious views" as a reason for dismissing someone's opinion is as bigoted as them calling someone who doesn't an "Evil sinner".

It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, you would need the latter or a real colourful way of reading the former to think it implies religious belief = biased and wrong.

the statement i qouted from you is your response to my statement that the cells in a zygote are not a part of the mother because they have different dna.

You stated that the zygote is a separate organism because it has different DNA. I just demonstrated that different DNA does not make a separate organism.

i need to get to bed but i leave you with this.

The debate, on when human life exists, that takes place among us and among scientists is a very important one. Until this debate is complete and a decsion is made on whether or not life begins at conception, i believe that abortion should be halted if only out of the desire to avoid unknowingly kill millions of innocent human beings. Once a conclusion is drawn on whether or not life begins at conception abortion should be dealt with according to which side the truth is found. If it is found that life begins at conception than abortion should be banned. If it is found that life begins at a later point, i still believe that abortion should be used only sparingly for you may not be destroying human life but you are destroying the direct source of human life. So with this postion i not only hope that you may act on the side of caution but also that you will see that i am not a raving lunatic like i may seem but someone who has a genuine concern for human life in all forms and do not wish to see it unknowingly thrown in the garbage.

yes, some moreso than others.

You do realize that the point of peer review is to make sure that the scientists' biases didn't get in the way too much of the science, as well as to ensure that the science is good science?

Being biased doesn't necessarily make you wrong though, and "they have religious views" as a reason for dismissiong someone's opinion is as bigoted as them calling someone who doesn't an "Evil sinner".

I didn't dismiss someone's opinion because they have religious views. I dismissed their opinion as scientific fact because it is based in religion, rather than science. I dismissed the option of legislating based on purely religious opinion.

i need to get to bed but i leave you with this.

The debate, on when human life exists, that takes place among us and among scientists is a very important one. Until this debate is complete and a decsion is made on whether or not life begins at conception, i believe that abortion should be halted if only out of the desire to avoid unknowingly kill millions of innocent human beings. Once a conclusion is drawn on whether or not life begins at conception abortion should be dealt with according to which side the truth is found. If it is found that life begins at conception than abortion should be banned. If it is found that life begins at a later point, i still believe that abortion should be used only sparingly for you may not be destroying human life but you are destroying the direct source of human life. So with this postion i not only hope that you may act on the side of caution but also that you will see that i am not a raving lunatic like i may seem but someone who has a genuine concern for human life in all forms and do not wish to see it unknowingly thrown in the garbage.

Here's the problem: If you say that the zygote is human from the moment it is fertilized, you've got an awful lot of women out there you need to prosecute for neglect because their embryos get spontaneously aborted due to their busy lifestyles.

Anti-Abortionists:

Is a zygote ALREADY a human being, or does it BECOME a human being?

Because it seems like you use both lines.

As in, "You're killing a potential life", and "the fetus is life". :confused:

...

Really, take a look at a single fertilized egg cell...are you telling me that is a human being? As in, if you had to choose whether to kill a fully grown person or a single fertilized egg cell, it would be a tossup in your eyes.

If you say it becomes a human, then the zygote itself has no rights, because it is not human. Also, just because something has potential to become human doesn't mean jack shit. Every single one of your cells can potentially be cloned. Therefore, EACH ONE of your cells is a potential life.

you need to explain this to me i am kind of dense tonight. I do not understand how something can be a bunch of cells one day and then a human life the next. Please explain. I always figured that life comes from life.

And yet you have no problem with the concept that it can be one sperm and one egg... then, a second later, you call it a human life?

Until it can respond to external stimulus, it cannot truly be referred to as a life form. Whereas simple single-cell creatures are 'designed' to be able to respond to simple stimuli, the 'conceptus' is not, at least, not until it has a developed nervous system.

Also, if you care to read around the subject, life is FULL of rapid transitions... one day it is in the uterus, the next day it is a 'born' baby... one day she is a girl, the next day she has menstruated for the first time... on moment you are alive, the next moment you are a piece of cooling meat.

I didn't dismiss someone's opinion because they have religious views. I dismissed their opinion as scientific fact because it is based in religion, rather than science.

That's not a particularly good argument, it's akin to saying "because I don't like you", you work in this field no? could you at least pinpoint where it's wrong?

People seem far too willing to dismiss an opinion based purely on it's source and not on its merit, as the saying goes, the sun even shines on a dog's ass some day.

I dismissed the option of legislating based on purely religious opinion.

You do understand that if I were to say that laws shouldn't be based on scientific opinion, that my only legitimate reason is because I believe scientific views are wrong? Religion spent centuries suppressing scientific opinion because they felt threatened by the fact that they could be right, you go full circle, then reverse the tables and what do you see?

Do you think if you had a right that guaranteed freedom of choice that it would be interpreted to mean that any law based upon choice is wrong as opposed to forcing people into a given choice is wrong?

You do realise that to say that any law based entirely on religious grounds is wrong, implies that religion must be wrong?

It may well be wrong, but it also may be right, and it's up to the legislature within given parameters to decide, and unless you live in China, you're not guaranteed freedom from religion :P

An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health."

-- Planned Parenthood 'Plan Your Children' pamphlet, 1963
Please explain.

1963.

There, explained.

Outdated resource = unrealiable data.

i need to get to bed but i leave you with this.

The debate, on when human life exists, that takes place among us and among scientists is a very important one. Until this debate is complete and a decsion is made on whether or not life begins at conception, i believe that abortion should be halted if only out of the desire to avoid unknowingly kill millions of innocent human beings. Once a conclusion is drawn on whether or not life begins at conception abortion should be dealt with according to which side the truth is found. If it is found that life begins at conception than abortion should be banned. If it is found that life begins at a later point, i still believe that abortion should be used only sparingly for you may not be destroying human life but you are destroying the direct source of human life. So with this postion i not only hope that you may act on the side of caution but also that you will see that i am not a raving lunatic like i may seem but someone who has a genuine concern for human life in all forms and do not wish to see it unknowingly thrown in the garbage.

Abortion has nothing to do with when the embryo becomes human. No human can use another human's body to survive, regardless of *anything*, unless that person gives consent.

So even if a fetus IS human, a woman should always have the right to say "No, I don't want it using my body". Just like you have the right to refuse to donate organs, or to donate blood even if it is to your own child, even if that child will die without the donation, and even if the child needs to donation due to your actions. No matter WHAT, you cannot legally be forced to give your body, or any part of it, to another person. Why should pregnent women lose this right? Because they dared to enjoyed sex? Ahhhh, I see, the bigoted-ness becomes ever clearer...

If you want to save the fetuses, get the government to pump money into research that can save premature children - then we'll get ever closer to the point where abortion isn't an issue, because children can be removed and grown outside of the women that don't want to bear them.

That's not a particularly good argument, it's akin to saying "because I don't like you", you work in this field no? could you at least pinpoint where it's wrong?

People seem far too willing to dismiss an opinion based purely on it's source and not on its merit, as the saying goes, the sun even shines on a dog's ass some day.

You do understand that if I were to say that laws shouldn't be based on scientific opinion, that my only legitimate reason is because I believe scientific views are wrong? Religion spent centuries suppressing scientific opinion because they felt threatened by the fact that they could be right, you go full circle, then reverse the tables and what do you see?

Do you think if you had a right that guaranteed freedom of choice that it would be interpreted to mean that any law based upon choice is wrong as opposed to forcing people into a given choice is wrong?

You do realise that to say that any law based entirely on religious grounds is wrong, implies that religion must be wrong?

It may well be wrong, but it also may be right, and it's up to the legislature within given parameters to decide, and unless you live in China, you're not guaranteed freedom from religion :P

The way I see it, religion can be used as the basis for laws of a society, ONLY when that society is a religious society... which would limit that law-making ability to voluntary organisations or unions.

Since many people in the US, (and the rest of the world), are NOT Christian, it makes no sense for Christianity to make the laws... hence, the nation was set up with a) freedom to worship and b) a republic government, rather than a theocracy.

The other problem is, of course, that religion isn't ONE religion. Religion says it is okay to be polygamous, if you are a Mormon, or if you follow the Pre-Augustinian line of christian thought.

So - religion cannot have, in all fairness, have 'law-making' ability, because it is always subjective... and even it's subjective 'parts' do not agree.

No matter WHAT, you cannot legally be forced to give your body, or any part of it, to another person. Why should pregnent women lose this right? Because they dared to enjoyed sex? Ahhhh, I see, the bigoted-ness becomes ever clearer...

Yes you can be...

Since many people in the US, (and the rest of the world), are NOT Christian, it makes no sense for Christianity to make the laws... hence, the nation was set up with a) freedom to worship and b) a republic government, rather than a theocracy.

The other problem is, of course, that religion isn't ONE religion. Religion says it is okay to be polygamous, if you are a Mormon, or if you follow the Pre-Augustinian line of christian thought.

Why are these problems? Most of us live in some sort of parliamentary democracy or representative republic, if the government legislates in polygamy, so be it (Didn't Utah once even have it legalised?).

The republic government was meant to have very limited powers anyway, from what I've read it wasn't that uncommon for each state to have their own state religion, as the interpretation of "Congress is not allowed to X" was read to mean that congress only refers to federal government.

If you live in a western nation, your laws and culture will reflect western values, which includes Christianity moreso than any other religion. There's nothing wrong with it, you don't need to hate the cultural background of your nation. Why exactly is it that you think hegemony is the solution to western cultural history?

Yes you can be...

In which nation?

Which nation enforces amputations or organ harvest?

I can't really agree with either side on this issue.

The pro-lifers don't seem to care what happens to the mother. It doesn't seem to matter to them if the girl is too young, or if she was raped, or if giving birth will put her life in danger, or anything else. They just say you can't have an abortion, ever. I can't agree with that.

The pro-choicers seem to think of the unborn baby as an internal organ, like an appendix or tonsils, rather than a living thing. They think a woman should always be able to choose to have an abortion, even if there is no danger for her. She should be able to kill a baby just because she doesn't feel like giving birth. I can't agree with that either.

Both sides are just too uncompromising.


- Professor Mayhem, Ruler of the Kingdom of Mayhem

In which nation?

Which nation enforces amputations or organ harvest?

England was tossing up compulsory organ donation I believe.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030630/text/30630w42.htm

Organ Donation

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make organ donation compulsory; and what assessment has been made as to whether this would affect organ trafficking. [121132]



Ms Rosie Winterton: There are no plans to make organ donation compulsory in the United Kingdom.

The question wouldn't come up if they couldn't do it...

Taking it to extreme levels like that is one of the checks of the democratic system, but if you think the government can't legislate to control your body you're deluding yourself.

Why are drugs illegal? Why can they conscript you and throw you into war? Why can they illegalise abortion (the US is about the only country where they couldn't, but then congress could push it through with a constitutional amendment, ie it could, but chooses not to)

England was tossing up compulsory organ donation I believe.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030630/text/30630w42.htm

The question wouldn't come up if they couldn't do it...

Taking it to extreme levels like that is one of the checks of the democratic system, but if you think the government can't legislate to control your body you're deluding yourself.

Why are drugs illegal? Why can they conscript you and throw you into war? Why can they illegalise abortion (the US is about the only country where they couldn't, but then congress could push it through with a constitutional amendment, ie it could, but chooses not to)

One person 'suggesting' a concept in the House of Commons is pretty far from making it a state legislation, don't you think?

Also - that 'suggestion' (which has been made before) is aimed at harvesting organs from dead people - not enforcing organ removal from the living.

There is currently no 'legal' method of enforcing organ harvesting from an unwilling human host in the UK, neither, I believe, anywhere else.

Drugs are illegal... depends on a) the drug... and b) where you are.

Up until the turn of the last century, a common cure for headaches was opium dissolved in alcohol... and marijuana is legal in a number of nations (and even in certain areas of the US, for medical reasons).

My personal belief is that 'drugs' are illegal because the government cannot monopolise the import of narcotics, or the market of 'home-grown' materials.

England was tossing up compulsory organ donation I believe.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030630/text/30630w42.htmYou did notice that this was post-mortem organ donation, didn't you?

And I don't see what the problem with this is. The only reason I'm not solidly behind this initiative is that there may be some religious group in the UK that (like the famous Pharoes) aren't of the "a human body is just a shell once the spirit has left it" pursuasion and believe the body should be as whole as possible for the funeral process. So, obviously, some provision might, perhaps, have to be made for such cases, i.e. explicit registering for non-donation (or, in the case of minors, parental withdrawl of consent), but otherwise I'm all for it, if it saves lives of thoe still living and in need. I've got a little card on my person (somewhere) that allows them to cut'n'shut me with someone else if they feel it would help that person (and my parents know/are of like opinion), but this does not mean that they can come to my house in the middle of the night say "you don't need that second lung, do you?" and remove it...

One person 'suggesting' a concept in the House of Commons is pretty far from making it a state legislation, don't you think?

one vote and a queen's signature away....

There is currently no 'legal' method of enforcing organ harvesting from an unwilling human host in the UK, neither, I believe, anywhere else.

Since the UK doesn't have a constitution, the queen's signature is the only thing that prevents parliament from doing anything.

Those sort of laws are kept out because a) the people wouldn't accept it, and b) the parliamentary members in many cases wouldn't ever consider something like that.

They "can't do it" is not true.

My personal belief is that 'drugs' are illegal because the government cannot monopolise the import of narcotics, or the market of 'home-grown' materials.

A little conspiracist isn't it? according to what I can find, cocaine was banned due to widespread public support in favour of the ban due to the damage it was doing to people, and this seems to shift over to similar reasons/outcomes in many countries

Sometimes, there really isn't a secret plot of control....

one vote and a queen's signature away....You're still ignoring the fact that this is totally different from the case you're putting.

'Compulsary' harvesting of organs (for medical needs only, nothing like a garage sale) will mean that a post-life person's body will be used to save one or more existing lives (directly or indirectly), as long as the opinion of that person (when living) or their immediate kin (for sensibility's sake) is not actively against it.

Enforced continuation of pregnancy (through the utter illegilisation of elective abortion, whatever way you swing on medical necessitated procedures) is forcing a currently living woman to donate her time and energies and body to something that is pre-life, just because someone else (who is /not/ directly related in any way) deems that it be so.

Edit: And I use 'pre-life' advisedly.

one vote and a queen's signature away....

Since the UK doesn't have a constitution, the queen's signature is the only thing that prevents parliament from doing anything.

Those sort of laws are kept out because a) the people wouldn't accept it, and b) the parliamentary members in many cases wouldn't ever consider something like that.

They "can't do it" is not true.


Please. Tell me you are an American or something.


A little conspiracist isn't it? according to what I can find, cocaine was banned due to widespread public support in favour of the ban due to the damage it was doing to people, and this seems to shift over to similar reasons/outcomes in many countries

Sometimes, there really isn't a secret plot of control....

Maybe true for one drug, one times.

The same was also true for alcohol, hence Prohibition, but was subsequently repealed... explain why? The most likely answer is revenue.

It doesn't HAVE to be a secret plan of control... simple human needs and greeds are sufficient motivation to cover a multitude of sins.

Don't forget, that equation runs both ways. You're just as likely to abort a criminal as a scientist.

Are there really the same ammount of criminals as there are scientists? I believe there are more criminals than scientists in this world.

If I may just interject here, is it not true that an aborted fetus exists just as little as if the woman had used the proper protection at the appropriate time?
If you think about it, we're all 'killing' thousands and thousands of beautiful little children by not copulating right now (I assume you're not while you read this).
Additionally, might the child only have a terrible life were it to be born? Perhaps the mother had not the financial means to support a child, and, if born, it would have been hungry every day of its life and, perhaps, died miserably early.
Of course, this does not apply to all cases, but you must see sometimes different measures can be appropriate.

If I may just interject here, is it not true that an aborted fetus exists just as little as if the woman had used the proper protection at the appropriate time?
If you think about it, we're all 'killing' thousands and thousands of beautiful little children by not copulating right now (I assume you're not while you read this).
Additionally, might the child only have a terrible life were it to be born? Perhaps the mother had not the financial means to support a child, and, if born, it would have been hungry every day of its life and, perhaps, died miserably early.
Of course, this does not apply to all cases, but you must see sometimes different measures can be appropriate.

You are going to have a hard time persuading hardliners by using tools of rationality, science of fact.

In the pro-life mindset, it appears, you have to acquire a certain mindset, that enables you to ignore how crappy life is for so many people. You have to ignore the fact that abortion is symptomatic of all that is wrong with society, rather than the cause.

Abortion has nothing to do with when the embryo becomes human. No human can use another human's body to survive, regardless of *anything*, unless that person gives consent.

So even if a fetus IS human, a woman should always have the right to say "No, I don't want it using my body". Just like you have the right to refuse to donate organs, or to donate blood even if it is to your own child, even if that child will die without the donation, and even if the child needs to donation due to your actions. No matter WHAT, you cannot legally be forced to give your body, or any part of it, to another person. Why should pregnent women lose this right? Because they dared to enjoyed sex? Ahhhh, I see, the bigoted-ness becomes ever clearer...

If you want to save the fetuses, get the government to pump money into research that can save premature children - then we'll get ever closer to the point where abortion isn't an issue, because children can be removed and grown outside of the women that don't want to bear them.

wow, i have never met another person who held my opinion on this subject. far out.

i have a question for all you who do not believe life begins at conception. When does life begin?

I believe that life begins for the zygote before conception because its life is the life of its mother. Until it meets the requirements of an organism (some time around the 20th week), it doesn't qualify as separate life, any more than a cancer or the differing cells of a chimeric individual.

Without it being a separate life, it can be treated, protected, or discarded at the mother's discretion as it is just a part of her own body.

what is it before a nervous system develops?

Technically? Cancer.

Now let me get this clear. You believe that a fetus obtains life when it develops a nervous system and with this life it becomes human. Yet even though you believe that life begins at the first trimester, you still think that it is alright to kill the fetus after this just because it is dependent upon its mother.

I believe that it doesn't matter whether it is 'alive' or not. What matters is whether or not it can be distinguished as an organism seperate from the mother and whether or not it can be considered human. It doen't meet the first requirments until it has a fully formed nervous system. It furthermore, doesn't become human until it meets the requirements for being so much later in the pregnancy. And even then the requirements are suspect.

I think that it is alright to allow the mother to determine for herself wether or not she wishes to be host to a parasite. In the same way that it is alright for me to determine whether or not I would like a cancer removed.

By your reasoning then, societys through out history have held different vices that effect people in a different light to each other, ie; greed.

Can you give me one civilisation that subjected greed as a good thing in society, not a bad one?

As for your rules, lets test that, I think greed is bad, and is not subjected to moral change that will make it any better, you therefore, having as you say, always different rules to mine on morality, think it could be good, right?

You're kidding me, right? There are plenty of cultures and in our own country, which greed is not only not a 'bad' thing, but is exhonnorated as a virtue. Or have you never been to Wall Street? Greed is the basis of consumerism in the world, the same impetus that encourages people to 'keep up with the jones's'. Capitalist cultures are built on greed.

Okay, greed is the same emotional impetus that encourages people to strive for more and better things in their life. It is the drive that causes people to work harder to get a raise, to save money to have more, and to buy all those products that make the captialist economy run. So yeah, Greed can be quite good. And I feel that there isn't anything necessarily wrong with it.

Next?

so according to your defintion the cells of a zygote are not its own cells but cells of its mother. i find this difficult to believe because it has a different set of dna than its mother.

Chimeric individuals have cells of more than one individual in their body, as do conjoint twins. The DNA of those cells are different, though it doesn't necessarily mean that they are seperate organisms. Even 'normal' individuals often have cells that, due to mutations, differ from their own DNA. Cancer cells, for example, have severe changes in certain key areas of their DNA.

The same was also true for alcohol, hence Prohibition, but was subsequently repealed... explain why? The most likely answer is revenue.

Cultural tradition and absolute impossibility to control.

We're talking about a giant and historical european industry, how do you stop a product that's legal everywhere else in the world without locking your doors to trade?

prohibition might have been able to survive if it had been left in for generations, but with an addictive substance, the addiction itself is as much a commodity as the product.

The debate, on when human life exists, that takes place among us and among scientists is a very important one. Until this debate is complete and a decsion is made on whether or not life begins at conception, i believe that abortion should be halted if only out of the desire to avoid unknowingly kill millions of innocent human beings. Once a conclusion is drawn on whether or not life begins at conception abortion should be dealt with according to which side the truth is found. If it is found that life begins at conception than abortion should be banned. If it is found that life begins at a later point, i still believe that abortion should be used only sparingly for you may not be destroying human life but you are destroying the direct source of human life. So with this postion i not only hope that you may act on the side of caution but also that you will see that i am not a raving lunatic like i may seem but someone who has a genuine concern for human life in all forms and do not wish to see it unknowingly thrown in the garbage.

The debate, on when human life exists, that takes place among us and among a few scientists is a very important one. Until this debate is complete and a decision is made on whether or not life begins at conception, I believe that abortion should be allowed if only out of the desire to avoid knowingly forcing millions of innocent women to have unwanted children at the risk of their own lives, health, and well being. So with this position, I not only hope that you may act on the side of caution and see that I have a genuine concern not only for the quantity of life but moreso on the quality of life, both for the child and the mother. I do not wish for the mother's life to ever be knowingly thrown in the garbage to protect someone else's sensibility.

(I assume you're not while you read this).


You know what they say about assumptions? They make an ass out of u and mptions.

Of course I am copulating right now.

Cultural tradition and absolute impossibility to control.

We're talking about a giant and historical european industry, how do you stop a product that's legal everywhere else in the world without locking your doors to trade?

prohibition might have been able to survive if it had been left in for generations, but with an addictive substance, the addiction itself is as much a commodity as the product.

On the contrary, cultural tradition ensured that there was still a 'tolerance' for the use of alcohol, especially where governmental controls were weakest.

Impossibility to control was always going to be part of the problem... there are always ways of trafficking in any substance if you need it badly enough... the christian church smuggled bibles into communist russia for the small, illegal christian movement.

The fact was that prohibition closed down legal, taxable outlets for alcohol, and made it difficult to obtain the product. Obviously, they couldn't make it entirely impossible, because people still wanted it. Thus, organised crime, and a backwoods tradition of 'home-distilling' sprang into the fray, supporting the demand for the product, but completely beyond the governmental capacity to tax... although they could still 'control' that market, by making it difficult to trade the product, and by closing down operations they located.

Prohibition was repealed, not because of moral outrage, social condition, or lack of ability to enforce. It was repealed because it was a very lucrative market, and the government missed the taxes it generated.

If governments were REALLY all about stopping substances that were harmful, there would have been no lead in fuels after the 1960's, there would have been no benzene production in fuels, asbestos would have been quarantined the moment it was found to be dangerous (and wouldn't still be in public buildings), there would be no chemical pesticides or growth hormones used in farming, there would be no Tartrazine (or whatever they call it nowdays... yellow number 5?) in children's drinks, there would be no monosodium glutamate in ANY food, and cigarette companies would have been illegal for many years now.

Oh, and regarding your comment:

"We're talking about a giant and historical european industry, how do you stop a product that's legal everywhere else in the world without locking your doors to trade?"

Slavery did not become illegal at the same time in every country, and yet trade flourished on a global scale. Borders don't have to be closed to prevent trade in undesirable products.

Also, alcohol wasn't being brought in under prohibition... it was being manufactured 'in house'... hence ALSO dodging governmental revenue on importing. (Note: I'm sure SOME alcohol might have come in through illegal trade, but the industry was mostly self-contained).

Also, if you care to read around the subject, life is FULL of rapid transitions... one day it is in the uterus, the next day it is a 'born' baby... one day she is a girl, the next day she has menstruated for the first time... on moment you are alive, the next moment you are a piece of cooling meat.
Amen.

For goodness sakes! All this heated debate about something that is so clearly murder! Geez, I thought we were somewhat informed here.

That's not a particularly good argument, it's akin to saying "because I don't like you", you work in this field no? could you at least pinpoint where it's wrong?

Well, the particular article that was linked to is completely based in the "It has its own DNA and therefore is a separate life" idea that any logical scientist would see is not enough. A culture of bone marrow cells can set up gradients and differentiate along them.

And saying "it is not based in the scientific method" is nothing at all like saying "because I don't like you."

You do understand that if I were to say that laws shouldn't be based on scientific opinion, that my only legitimate reason is because I believe scientific views are wrong? Religion spent centuries suppressing scientific opinion because they felt threatened by the fact that they could be right, you go full circle, then reverse the tables and what do you see?

Religion in government is bad because most religious views are not based in this world and are so widely varying. Saying that a law can be based in religion would mean that you would be just fine with a law requiring women to wear burquas, or a law that says the police can come round you up and make you go to church every Sunday. Religion is subjective - there are many different flavors, each of which thinks they are absolutely right, and generally based in word-of-mouth rather than evidence (this is not true for all, of course - my religion is not based soley in word-of-mouth). Science is an objective look at what we know of the world around us. Matters of faith are wonderful - but one cannot legislate their faith upon another.

You do realise that to say that any law based entirely on religious grounds is wrong, implies that religion must be wrong?

Only if you're the person pushing the religion and can't understand the concept of "separation of church and state." How many different religions are there in this world? How many agree on every little point? A law based entirely in a particular religion says that that particular religion is right, to the detriment of all others. However, banning all laws based only in religion does not in any way suggest that all religion is wrong - it simply makes the point that religions disagree and people have a right to their religion.

It may well be wrong, but it also may be right, and it's up to the legislature within given parameters to decide, and unless you live in China, you're not guaranteed freedom from religion :P

I never asked for "freedom from religion." I simply want "freedom of religion," and in my country, we are guarrenteed that right.

The republic government was meant to have very limited powers anyway, from what I've read it wasn't that uncommon for each state to have their own state religion, as the interpretation of "Congress is not allowed to X" was read to mean that congress only refers to federal government.

It has been held since the Constitution was written (and hence approved by the writers) that the phrase "Congress shall not..." was meant to apply to all legislatures across the country.

A law cannot be passed in a state that violates the US Constitution.

It has been held since the Constitution was written (and hence approved by the writers) that the phrase "Congress shall not..." was meant to apply to all legislatures across the country.

A law cannot be passed in a state that violates the US Constitution.
That's not so. Many laws have been overturned, deemed "unconstitutional" by contention in court, after the law came into effect.

That's not so. Many laws have been overturned, deemed "unconstitutional" by contention in court, after the law came into effect.

Hey! Don't argue semantics! I'm running off of 3 hours sleep here! =) hehe

Ok, what I meant was that no law will stand that is unconstitutional. The legislature can pass a law that says we have to sacrifice a baby on every alternate Tuesday - but I'm pretty sure it would be overturned.

Hey! Don't argue semantics! I'm running off of 3 hours sleep here! =) hehe

Ok, what I meant was that no law will stand that is unconstitutional. The legislature can pass a law that says we have to sacrifice a baby on every alternate Tuesday - but I'm pretty sure it would be overturned.
Only if contested. :-)

Only if you're the person pushing the religion and can't understand the concept of "separation of church and state." How many different religions are there in this world? How many agree on every little point? A law based entirely in a particular religion says that that particular religion is right, to the detriment of all others. However, banning all laws based only in religion does not in any way suggest that all religion is wrong - it simply makes the point that religions disagree and people have a right to their religion.

The concept of separation of church and state is thoroughly and utterly overstated.

Take the no homosexual marriages.

If that goes to the supreme court, do you think "it's based on religious views" is an argument? No the court would dismiss that argument as utterly irrelevant.

"Based on religious values" is also not a valid argument for allowing abortion.

There are good laws, there are bad laws, there are constitutional laws, there are unconstitutional laws.

We would prefer good laws over bad laws, but the government is only restricted to constitutional laws, never will you hear the supreme court claim "this law is unconstitutional because its coiner based it upon his religious values", because it's simply just not a valid argument.

The point was to prevent religious demagoguery, usurpation of power or indoctrination, not to prevent people whose opinions are based upon a religion from having an equal right to have their opinions expressed throughout the political system, through their reps, senators etc.

Voting against recognising homosexual marriage/abortion because of a religious value, neither establishes the Episcopalian church as a state religion, nor does it somehow harm people's right to practice Islam, Hindu or Buddhism.

And as for those religions whose views are considered pervasive to western culture, that's where being able to restrict them for significant national/state interest comes into play.

If that goes to the supreme court, do you think "it's based on religious views" is an argument? No the court would dismiss that argument as utterly irrelevant.

Which is why they would be forced to overturn any laws banning them. All religions do not ban them and the only reason for the ban is religion. Thus, the government would be placing the tenets of one religion over another.

We would prefer good laws over bad laws, but the government is only restricted to constitutional laws, never will you hear the supreme court claim "this law is unconstitutional because its coiner based it upon his religious values", because it's simply just not a valid argument.

There is a difference between based on religious values and entirely based on religion. When it comes to civil rights, the court looks for a compelling interest. If the only interest is "my religion says so," that is not a compelling interest of the state. Therefore, said law is unconstitutional.

The point was to prevent religious demagoguery, usurpation of power or indoctrination, not to prevent people whose opinions are based upon a religion from having an equal right to have their opinions expressed throughout the political system, through their reps, senators etc.

And if they could come up with any non-religious based arguments, no one would care that it was based in religion. However, as I said, "my religion says so" is not a compelling state interest. Therefore, legislation based soley on religion is unconstitutional unless every single religion everywhere in all times agrees with the particular law.

Voting against recognising homosexual marriage/abortion because of a religious value, neither establishes the Episcopalian church as a state religion, nor does it somehow harm people's right to practice Islam, Hindu or Buddhism.

It harms those who believe homosexual marriage/abortion is fine by forcing them to abide by the religions of other people against their wiill. And yes, it does establish those religions as it quite clearly demonstrates that the government values those religions above all others.

Which is why they would be forced to overturn any laws banning them. All religions do not ban them and the only reason for the ban is religion. Thus, the government would be placing the tenets of one religion over another.

Huh? They don't need a reason for a law unless they wish circumvent the constitution (which is dodgy in itself). The onus is on the opposition to prove it's unconstitutional, their reason for it is irrelevant.
Unless you are referring to the government playing the general welfare clause.

It harms those who believe homosexual marriage/abortion is fine by forcing them to abide by the religions of other people against their wiill. And yes, it does establish those religions as it quite clearly demonstrates that the government values those religions above all others.

You keep missing the point entirely, the concept of why, is "why it breaches x part of the constitution".

If you were to bring up the first amendment, the courts would just shake their head at you, in regards to DOMA, you have an argument on the 10th but that's about it (state constitutions are much easier to break down, but the federal constitution, the 10th is really the only argument), in regards to abortion, you have an argument on the 14th, although I wonder why it took 150 years for someone to figure out that states didn't have a right to ban abortion, could it have been judicial activism? no couldn't be :rolleyes:

There is no restriction besides their own state constitution upon state legislatures from banning gay marriage though.

As for the federal government, well obviously they can prove it's in the general welfare of the country to have marriage laws, so the onus will get thrown back onto the other side to prove what part of the constitution their marriage laws then breaches.

Huh? They don't need a reason for a law unless they wish circumvent the constitution (which is dodgy in itself). The onus is on the opposition to prove it's unconstitutional, their reason for it is irrelevant.
Unless you are referring to the government playing the general welfare clause.

If a law restricts rights (especially to a specific group), you have to demonstrate a damn good reason for that law. Otherwise, it is unconstitutional according to either the 14th amendment, lack of due cause, or violation of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You keep missing the point entirely, the concept of why, is "why it breaches x part of the constitution".

Yup, which is what I just said.

If you were to bring up the first amendment, the courts would just shake their head at you, in regards to DOMA, you have an argument on the 10th but that's about it (state constitutions are much easier to break down, but the federal constitution, the 10th is really the only argument), in regards to abortion, you have an argument on the 14th, although I wonder why it took 150 years for someone to figure out that states didn't have a right to ban abortion, could it have been judicial activism? no couldn't be :rolleyes:

As a single example, in McGowan vs. Maryland, the court stated that if a law were based soley in religion, it would be struck down in light of the first amendment. However, as long as there is a good secular reason for the law, it can be upheld.

And this quote from Findlaw.com demonstrates my point perfectly, making it obvious that a law based entirely in religion establishes a state relgion. (emphasis mine)

In Wallace v. Jaffree,118 the Court held invalid an Alabama statute authorizing a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools ''for meditation or prayer.'' Because the only evidence in the record indicated that the words ''or prayer'' had been added to the existing statute by amendment for the sole purpose of returning voluntary prayer to the public schools, the Court found that the first prong of the Lemon test had been violated, i.e. that the statute was invalid as being entirely motivated by a purpose of advancing religion. The Court characterized the legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools as ''quite different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the schoolday,''119 and both Justices Powell and O'Connor in concurring opinions suggested that other state statutes authorizing moments of silence might pass constitutional muster.120

By the way, the Lemon test is the one used in cases which require compelling interest.

There is no restriction besides their own state constitution upon state legislatures from banning gay marriage though.

The 14th Amendment applies to state legislatures as well as the federal legislature.

As for the federal government, well obviously they can prove it's in the general welfare of the country to have marriage laws, so the onus will get thrown back onto the other side to prove what part of the constitution their marriage laws then breaches.

The 14th, quite clearly.

Besides, why should anyone have the right to say, arbitrarily, they will not allow their fetus to grow to adulthood? Seems to me, they're saying their possible Einstein or Ghandi is utterly without worth and unimportant to the world. Unless you know exactly what will happen in the future (which no one can, and possibly never will), you cannot have that right to say 'I want an abortion'. And even if you could, why would you give up the happiness that comes with a baby?

So you're saying we shouldn't kill babies because they have the potential to be something great. Well thats all fine and dandy, but what if someone is about to give birth to the next Ted Bundy ... does that mean that child is ok to abort? Who determins worth. If you think the baby deserves to live, don't cloak it with statements of them potentially being great because there is a better chance they will probably be an asshole/deviant.