NationStates Jolt Archive

The liberals' Culture of Death
The liberal bible, the New York Times, is in full death-promotion mode. Liberals love the whole culture of death.

Their whole article about the Terri Schiavo case is about how dying is really no problem at all -- quite lovely actually -- or as their big March 20 2005 headline promotes, "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death".

I guess they don't have any particular problem with the starving and dehydration death of children in Africa then. Oh they do? Well how odd.

The rest of the story -- as if you need any more after that informative headline -- quotes numerous "health professionals", paradoxically, and their "expert" opinions on what Terri Schiavo will feel as she passes from life to into yummy and convenient death.

Medical professionals can determine how we think and feel now. Did not know that. Of course from this sad case of Terri Schiavo we already know that liberal activist judges possess that unique quality.

"It's very quiet, it's very dignified - it's very gentle," quotes one wonderful doctor, Dr. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. Which reminds me: I must make sure in my living will to indicate by name specific doctors that I do NOT want looking after me when I'm ill.

And a quick note to northern Canadian seal hunters: lose the club, the harpoon, and the guns, and start killing seals by simply starving them and denying them hydration -- then nobody will have a problem with it apparently. Sure I know they're innocent creatures, not evil criminals but it's very "dignified", after all. "Very gentle". What's that? Terri is innocent too? Well that's OK. There's other people's interests involved here who want her to die for cultural reasons.

Yet another health expert says: "From the data that is available, it is not a horrific thing at all." And you know it's true because that was a quote by an health expert. Apparently no health experts were found in the entire universe who were of the mind that dying isn't the ultimate objective of health care.

One must remember that it is doctors (who I grew up thinking were "healers" but I now know better) who also perform abortions, including the late-term abortions in which they kill the "fetus" (they hope!) before completely removing it from the uterus, just so the darn "fetus" won't wiggle around and scream tiny screams in the bedpan into which it is dumped just prior to ultimately being thrown into the garbage. At least I assume they check to ensure it is in fact dead prior to throwing it away. God knows if a live seal were thrown away there'd be hell to pay.

Well, actually I guess that whole "checking if it's alive" thing is a nuanced thing -- a matter of choice; and if it is alive, it's yet another choice: to "let it die", or not. For example that whole abortion thing didn't work out so well for Ximena Renaerts, who today is a handicapped young woman living in British Columbia. Here's an old story written up in the JusticeJunction.com web site. Those of you who are pro-abortion will clearly have no problem at all reading this story. Pro-life people will be bothered, so I suggest you don't read this quoted portion:



Then 22 year old [pregnant mother] had attempted to have an abortion at approximately 6 months into her pregnancy at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bellingham, Washington. She arrived at Vancouver General Hospital on the evening of December 16, 1985 feverish with a rapid pulse. The ER doctor called in the gynecology resident, Dr. Kamal Jaroudi, who decided that [pregnant mother] was suffering from complications of a botched abortion.

It would seem the hospital staff underestimated Ximena's will to live, for she was born alive at 3:20 a.m. on December 17, 1985. She was 11-14 weeks premature, but still in good health. It is a proven fact that babies born up to 18 weeks premature can survive if given the proper medical treatment. Not all of them make it, but overall, the evidence supports that with the proper care, the survival rate is very high. So what did the hospital staff do with little Ximena?

Rather than place her in an incubator and begin medical treatment, nurses placed little Ximena in a small bucket called a "hat" and placed in her in a room where fetal remains are kept. This despite that fact that Ximena was moving her arms, kicking her legs and crying weakly, but still crying.

It would later come out in pretrial testimony that Dr. Jaroudi instructed nurses NOT to resuscitate her. A nurse checked on her approximately 26 minutes later and found her still clinging to life at which point she called nursing supervisor Joyce Hatherall. She arrived at 4:00 a.m. and found Ximena still alive, uncovered and in the bucket. Within three minutes a resuscitation team arrived at nurse Hatherall's call. They wrapped little Ximena in a blanket then placed her on a stainless steel counter, which lawyers for the child would later claim contributed to hypothermia.



So as you can see, you can never automatically assume that health professionals are interested in your "health" as much as your death, actually. Or as in Ximena's case, left in a large plastic bucket, wiggling around and uttering tiny tiny screams, and "allowed to die". Because that's what she would have wanted. According to the liberals. Oh sorry I've gotten that wrong -- it has absolutely nothing to do with what the person involved in the actual dying would have wanted. Somebody else has "the right" to make that choice FOR them according to the liberals.

Is there such a thing as a "living will" that is automatically applied to newborns -- or indeed pre-borns? I only ask because the liberal media have been wagging their fingers at us and tsk-tsking us reminding us that like all of them already have, we all must have a living will -- and as such all this could be avoided. Babies in buckets or in the womb don't likely have access to a notary public however. That's my concern.

Not needed! The pregnant mothers and the state and the abortionists and other "healthcare professionals" and judges will decide the fate of those babies and make the "choice" that satisfies them and their "needs". And all taxpayers will pay for it because it's part of our unique Canadian "culture".

Apparently doctors and nurses at hospitals that perform abortions are so steeped in the abortion mentality that they have been known to refer to babies who survive abortions simply as "the dreaded complication", or more often as "fetuses ex-utero" -- a phrase that simply denies altogether the reality of a newborn's life outside the womb. There then. That makes it easier for the liberals, which is the point, isn't it?

Denial of reality -- of life -- is the foundation of the culture of death. And denial, in favor of self satisfaction and narcissism (both well-known to be liberal qualities), is why despite my admonition to only suffer through the reading of the above quoted description if you're pro-abortion, liberals didn't read it anyway. In fact few people in Canada will have read this. The culture of death and yet the very denial of it has become part of our glorious Canadian "culture" at the behest of liberals and liberal governments, and now all major political parties in Canada.


By Joel Johannesen

Permission to republish Joel Johannesen's (entire) column (on occasion) is granted,
but acknowledgement of source is REQUIRED. Use:
Joel Johannesen
www.ProudToBeCanadian.ca
or
www.ConservativeGroundswell.com


from: http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=5671&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

The liberals' Culture of Death
*snip*



HAHAHAHAHAHHAH HAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Contrary to UN regulations many Europeans will be using incindiaries in this thread.

now that youve learned how to copy and paste how about some of your OWN analysis

The liberals' Culture of Death
Liberals love the whole culture of death.


Sorry, I stopped reading here. Did you make any good points?

Do I spy trolling?
I think I do!

Awwwwwwwwwww

http://www.chu-toulouse.fr/fiv_lg/images/IMGFIV/8cell.jpg

Look at the cute wittle baby. I think he has his father's eyes. Dontcha just want to pinch his cheeks and ... oooh was that a smile? Awww. Such a dear. Ooops ... I think someone needs a diapie change.

*coughs a little*

*walks slowly out of the room*

Todays biased, bile filled diatribe comes to you from Joel Johansen.

Seriously though, a few of his points are pretty laughable. In the case of a woman who was a vegetable, and most likely going to remain one for the rest of her life, the cessation of feeding probably was kinder.

As for his points on abortion, I don't think that very late term abortions should be legal anywhere. Any point past six months, I don't think they should be available. In this case, she'd given birth to the child, and it should've been put up for adoption. Poor call by the medical staff there I'm sure.

as someone who does support the culture of death i find this statement to be extremely offensive. i beleive that all people everywhere should die a horrible painful death. these liberals are bible humpers compared to any real true pro-death people!

-snip-

*Fed-Exes Keruvalia a box of cookies*

We could talk about about right-wing cultures of death also but I must say at 6 months no fetus should be aborted except if there is very serious risk to the mother (by serious risk I mean she has a high risk of dying if an abortion does not take place).

Awwwwwwwwwww

http://www.chu-toulouse.fr/fiv_lg/images/IMGFIV/8cell.jpg

Look at the cute wittle baby. I think he has his father's eyes. Dontcha just want to pinch his cheeks and ... oooh was that a smile? Awww. Such a dear. Ooops ... I think someone needs a diapie change.

*coughs a little*

*walks slowly out of the room*

*chuckles* nature itself aborts 33%-90% of embryos a few days old like that 8-cell embryo and the mother most of the time does not notice it happened.

What's funnier than a dead baby?

Not Choo-Choo Bear.

What's funnier than ten babies in a garbage can?

A baby in ten gargage cans!

You shouldn't make jokes like this, I feel bad while I laugh at them :)

As for you Choo-Choo Bear, the fact that you just used the same joke but replaced the bins with nails makes me think you a troll and/or idiot and from this point on I'm just gonna ignore you.

The liberals' Culture of Death


This coming from people who have quite a bit of blood on thier hands as well.

blah blah blah blah blah.

Your post, IToba, is pretty much entirely rhetoric and relies on emotional appeal and (in the case of the abortion section) a fairly unique horror story rather than the common reality. All that on top of being taken directly from someone else. Thanks for your contribution to society, IToba, feel free to remove yourself from the genepool.

It's a waste even trying to refute this article, because you didn't write it; you apparently don't actually have any opinions of your own.

In any case, no one seems to support the killing of babies as much as Choo-Choo Bear and I do, which is why late terms abortions are illegal and why the doctors were put on trial, but apparently the author of the article doesn't care that action was taken against them because if it happened anytime, anywhere, those dirty liberals supported it.

I personally am not simply pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion. Let's make ourselves the last generation. All the babies should be skinned to make fashionable boots and their entrails should be pureed and used to intravenously feed any comatose individuals. That way everybody wins. I win because there are no more stinking, crying babies plus I have a bitchin' new pair of boots. Liberals in general win because they can support their culture of death as much as they want; anything below the age of 18 is fair game. Tired of listening to that kid in the grocery store whine about wanting a new toy? Drop kick him and club him to death with a banana-bunch. The conservatives win because they just got a new way to extend the length of time it takes for an irreparable (sp?) vegetable's organs to stop functioning. Plus bitchin' new boots.

I read of a hospital where babies that were still born alive were put onto a gurney in a mop closet with a nurse, waiting for them to die.

I believe it was in Washington, but I could be wrong. It was years ago when I read the article. Some of the babies were due to saline abortions, so their skin was all burned.

The nurses weren't allowed to touch or treat the babies, just wait for them to die.

As has been said: the article is a horror story and republican rhetoric.

Constitutionals Quote:
Originally Posted by IToba
The liberals' Culture of Death
Liberals love the whole culture of death.
Sorry, I stopped reading here. Did you make any good points?


Typical Liberal responce. Only pays attention to that which supports his ideas and ignores those that refute them.

'Ya see, the reason he didn't read is because all he'd find is more crap he's heard before from all the other rhetoric-spouting conservatives.

I read of a hospital where babies that were still born alive were put onto a gurney in a mop closet with a nurse, waiting for them to die.

I believe it was in Washington, but I could be wrong. It was years ago when I read the article. Some of the babies were due to saline abortions, so their skin was all burned.

The nurses weren't allowed to touch or treat the babies, just wait for them to die.

thats gruesome...you sure that's true?

I was born three months early/six months into term, three days before the child in the first post, actually, and I lived. The only reason I was three months premature was because my would-have-been twin sister died in the womb, and the doctors thought my mother would birth the dead child, note child not fetus, fetus is mearly a special term, and I would have been allowed to go full term via medication. However I came out first and went through three months of hospitalization with tube feeding and whatnot. So you wanna call me an abortion, huh? Well I'm one hell of a 19 year old abortion then. IF YOU DON'T WANNA HAVE A BABY, THEN EITHER DON'T FUCK, OR USE PROTECTION!!!

Constitutionals Quote:
Originally Posted by IToba
The liberals' Culture of Death
Liberals love the whole culture of death.
Sorry, I stopped reading here. Did you make any good points?


Typical Liberal responce. Only pays attention to that which supports his ideas and ignores those that refute them.


I think the typical thinking-person response would be to ignore this, not just because it's biased (if you have a strong feeling about any subject, it will probably show through in your writing, unless you're a very good writer), but because it is hollow;when you read someone's broad, false stereotype and know that they're going to then try to justify their incredibly stupid opening statement by making a series of similarly stupid statements, it sort of turns you off to the whole idea of paying attention to that person. Hell, I mostly read it just to see if this guy was really serious. Since he didn't stick around to defend his views (technically, he never actually posted his views), can only assume the only purpose of this article was to lay down the kindling and watch the flames rise.

Premature babies are not abortions, and I don't think anyone would call you an abortion. HOWever, would you oppose the right of a woman who has just been raped to have an abortion? And, people have lapses in good judgement, and this is generally how most unwanted pregnancies happen: a loving couple say "what the fuck, let's just not use the condom tonight, we'll be fine" and then the girl gets pregnant, or gets pregnant and gets an STD, and depending on which one she got, she could give it to the baby. Now, assuming the girl only got pregnant, it's most likely that she's in college or high school, and has the rest of her life ahead of her. Now, because she couldn't get an abortion, she has to become a single parent, overburden her parents, and go straight to working in a seriously middle-of-the-road or worse job.
Point of that dragged out story is that shit happens, and abortion is really needed in cases like that, which happen, believe it or not.

I would think that clubbing seals and letting a woman in a vegetable state of life die is ... quite different. I'm pretty sure seals, contrary to Terry, are able to feed themselves, clean themselves, and communicate 100% with their own species.

The Almighty 138 wrote: "In any case, no one seems to support the killing of babies as much as Choo-Choo Bear and I do, which is why late terms abortions are illegal and why the doctors were put on trial, but apparently the author of the article doesn't care that action was taken against them because if it happened anytime, anywhere, those dirty liberals supported it."

Funny you should assume those laws are universal, they're not. Here in Manitoba, Canada, a child can be aborted up until the time the water breaks.

And yes, its clear that by posting an article of interest, I must be a mindless zombie.

I am disgusted by abortion and I do think that they should be illegal anytime after conception. The only exception would be if the mothers life was at risk (better for the just the child to die, than for both to die).

Then there is Samuel Alexander Armas. Twenty-one weeks after conception, the child was to undergo spina bifida surgery within his mothers womb. A camera man was present because this was such a new procedure. During the operation, the child actually reached through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. The picture was titled "Hand of Hope" and appeared in Life Magazine. More info at: http://members.tripod.com/~joseromia/samuel.html or http://www.justfacts.com/clancy.htm or just type his name into any search engine.

To Itoba: As I've said above, but edited:

...Would you oppose the right of a woman who has just been raped to have an abortion? And, people have lapses in good judgement, and this is generally how most unwanted pregnancies happen: a loving couple say "what the fuck, let's just not use the condom tonight, we'll be fine" and then the girl gets pregnant, or gets pregnant and gets an STD, and depending on which one she got, she could give it to the baby. Now, assuming the girl only got pregnant, it's most likely that she's in college or high school, and has the rest of her life ahead of her. Now, because she couldn't get an abortion, she has to become a single parent, overburden her parents, and go straight to working in a seriously middle-of-the-road or worse job.
Point of that dragged out story is that shit happens, and abortion is really needed in cases like that, which happen, believe it or not.

Now, if you were that girl (just think of the responsibility part of the mother), you'd really like it that some legislature didn't let her fulfill her life, because she now had to take care of a baby that came about, essentially by accident. Do you believe that it's so wrong that thousands of teenage mothers from middle and low-income families should have their lives destroyed because people like you are too insensitive to THEIR problems?

Why does that story in the original post sound like complete crap? You would have to be one sick motherfucker to kill that child after it's been born. No doctor worthy of the title could do that.

The quote he used in the original article is from http://www.justicejunction.com/innocence_lost_ximena.htm


To DoDoBirds,

You seem to assume that the mother must keep the child after it is born. Why isn't adoption another option? While thousands of couples go without a family because they simply can not have children, women who can, and have already become pregnant, now have the child killed.

A life is a life. Why should the child's life be ended just because the parents don't want them around? There are other ways.

To quote a great man.

"hahahahahahahaha"
-anyone with more than "amoeba" for intelligence when they hear "liberal culture of death".

IToba, if you are so hellbent on people not having abortions, why don't you go out and support every unwanted child born. I get tired of you fuckers who find it nessisary to go out of thier way to tell people that thier perfectly legal choice is wrong, yet where are you folks when the mother is stuggling as a single parent? Where are you when the kids are running loose? Where are you when the kid doesn't grow up with a loving parent? Lets not forget the pain of childbirth, having to carry something for nine months that leaves you in a sickly state that one dosen't even care for. Until you can be there for every unwanted child, get bent.

--snip--
And denial, in favor of self satisfaction and narcissism (both well-known to be liberal qualities), is why despite my admonition to only suffer through the reading of the above quoted description if you're pro-abortion, liberals didn't read it anyway. In fact few people in Canada will have read this.
--snip--


So Johansen got NO self-satisfaction and wasn't engaging his own narcissism with this screed? Hyporcite much?

Okay, I'll dispense with the obvious. I read it all, thank you, because it's wise to know how the opposing side is attempting to frame the issue. If this complete tool can't see the difference between Terry Schiavo and a bunch of incompetent doctors in Hongcouver, then he's a bigger idiot than his writing suggests. He's also likely a death penalty supporter and cheerer of iatrocidal religious assassins as well. So let's all just sit down to big heapin' bowl of horseehit and dig in, shall we?

Premature babies are not abortions, and I don't think anyone would call you an abortion. HOWever, would you oppose the right of a woman who has just been raped to have an abortion? And, people have lapses in good judgement, and this is generally how most unwanted pregnancies happen: a loving couple say "what the fuck, let's just not use the condom tonight, we'll be fine" and then the girl gets pregnant, or gets pregnant and gets an STD, and depending on which one she got, she could give it to the baby. Now, assuming the girl only got pregnant, it's most likely that she's in college or high school, and has the rest of her life ahead of her. Now, because she couldn't get an abortion, she has to become a single parent, overburden her parents, and go straight to working in a seriously middle-of-the-road or worse job.
Point of that dragged out story is that shit happens, and abortion is really needed in cases like that, which happen, believe it or not.

So you're saying murder justifies an error in judgement? Or a lady's success in life?

The legal definition of 1st degree murder: First, the defendant unlawfully killed [victim]; A baby can't say no now can it?

Second, the defendant killed [victim] with malice aforethought; See below

Third, the killing was premeditated;(planned) and

Fourth, the killing occurred at [location stated in indictment]. At the hospital??

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life. Abortions are deliberate and intentionally.

The Almighty 138 wrote: "In any case, no one seems to support the killing of babies as much as Choo-Choo Bear and I do, which is why late terms abortions are illegal and why the doctors were put on trial, but apparently the author of the article doesn't care that action was taken against them because if it happened anytime, anywhere, those dirty liberals supported it."

Funny you should assume those laws are universal, they're not. Here in Manitoba, Canada, a child can be aborted up until the time the water breaks.

And yes, its clear that by posting an article of interest, I must be a mindless zombie.

I am disgusted by abortion and I do think that they should be illegal anytime after conception. The only exception would be if the mothers life was at risk (better for the just the child to die, than for both to die).

Then there is Samuel Alexander Armas. Twenty-one weeks after conception, the child was to undergo spina bifida surgery within his mothers womb. A camera man was present because this was such a new procedure. During the operation, the child actually reached through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. The picture was titled "Hand of Hope" and appeared in Life Magazine. More info at: http://members.tripod.com/~joseromia/samuel.html or http://www.justfacts.com/clancy.htm or just type his name into any search engine.

Your statement about the status of abortion in Canada is highly misleading.

In Canada, over 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester, only 2-3% are done after 16 weeks, and there are essentially no abortions past 20 or 21 weeks except for compelling health or genetic reasons.

So you're saying murder justifies an error in judgement? Or a lady's success in life?

The legal definition of 1st degree murder: First, the defendant unlawfully killed [victim]; A baby can't say no now can it?

Second, the defendant killed [victim] with malice aforethought; See below

Third, the killing was premeditated;(planned) and

Fourth, the killing occurred at [location stated in indictment]. At the hospital??

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life. Abortions are deliberate and intentionally.

So would you call medically necessary abortions murder as well? If you go by the assumption that organically alive yet unsentient cells can be considered murder victims, then wouldn't cancer therapy be globally sanctioned genocide by that definition?

Intangelon wrote: "He's also likely a death penalty supporter and cheerer of iatrocidal religious assassins as well. So let's all just sit down to big heapin' bowl of horseehit and dig in, shall we?"

Yes, obviously it is impossible to support life without also supporting some form of death on the side.

Another liberal stereotype. I hate how while claiming to be open-minded, liberals prove just how close-minded they are.

This is bullshit. It's just a lump of cells. Should doctors be banned from performing amputations? An arm contains a bunch of cells that could be cloned and are therefore a "possibility of life".

Another liberal stereotype. I hate how while claiming to be open-minded, liberals prove just how close-minded they are.

Damn those liberals. They're all always having all those stereotypes of us. :rolleyes:

[/sarcasm]

*snip*

As for his points on abortion, I don't think that very late term abortions should be legal anywhere. Any point past six months, I don't think they should be available. In this case, she'd given birth to the child, and it should've been put up for adoption. Poor call by the medical staff there I'm sure.

We could talk about about right-wing cultures of death also but I must say at 6 months no fetus should be aborted except if there is very serious risk to the mother (by serious risk I mean she has a high risk of dying if an abortion does not take place).

I'm glad to see you both fully support the current state of the law in the US and UK.

In the US, abortion can be and generally is banned after the point of viability (roughly the end of the second trimester) except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. I say "generally" because each state has slightly different laws. Some try to ban abortion altogether (despite the fact that is unconsitutional) and some allow late-term abortions under additional extreme circumstances such as rape or incest of a minor or severe fetal abnormality.

In the UK, abortion is prohibited beyond 24 weeks except when there is a substantial risk to the mother's life or severe fetal abnormalities.

The practice of abortion in the US and UK is even more to your liking.

In the US, 59% of abortions are performed in the first 8 weeks. 90% are performed within the first 12 weeks. 4.3% are performed between 16 and 20 weeks, about 1.4% at over 20 weeks, and only 0.08% at over 24 weeks.

In the UK, 43% of abortions are performed in the first 9 weeks. 89% are performed within the first 12 weeks. 10% occur between 13 and 19 weeks. 1% occur at 20 weeks and beyond.

The Cat-Tribe wrote: "Your statement about the status of abortion in Canada is highly misleading."

I apologize if anyone was confused. The law does not lay down any limit as to when an abortion can take place. My statement is correct.

The Cat-Tribe wrote: "Your statement about the status of abortion in Canada is highly misleading."

I apologize if anyone was confused. The law does not lay down any limit as to when an abortion can take place. My statement is correct.

Current law does not place such a limit. Current medical practices do.

Canada has a particularly low rate of abortions among developed countries.

And almost no abortions occur late in pregnancies in Canada.

As there is no problem despite a lack of a specific law, what is your point?

Constitutionals Quote:
Originally Posted by IToba
The liberals' Culture of Death
Liberals love the whole culture of death.
Sorry, I stopped reading here. Did you make any good points?


Typical Liberal responce. Only pays attention to that which supports his ideas and ignores those that refute them.
you fail to understand his point. hes not going to bother reading anything who's title alone just screams LOOK AT ME IM CONSERVATIVE PROPOGANDA! when someone makes the statement "liberal culture of death" it implies that all liberals beleive in a culture of death...oh wait it doesnt imply anything, it just says it...you can't just say that all liberals or even most liberals beleive anything because it simply isnt true and it makes the author look like a moron. he isnt going to read anything that stupid is basically what im trying to say.

I was born three months early/six months into term, three days before the child in the first post, actually, and I lived. The only reason I was three months premature was because my would-have-been twin sister died in the womb, and the doctors thought my mother would birth the dead child, note child not fetus, fetus is mearly a special term, and I would have been allowed to go full term via medication. However I came out first and went through three months of hospitalization with tube feeding and whatnot. So you wanna call me an abortion, huh? Well I'm one hell of a 19 year old abortion then. IF YOU DON'T WANNA HAVE A BABY, THEN EITHER DON'T FUCK, OR USE PROTECTION!!!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411857 read the whole thread, the responses get pretty convincing towards the end.

To long man....my attention span with reading caps at 1min 35sec tops, unless its a good book. I like to sum up my points.
But as for pro-choice, In my opinion, I dont support abartions in any way shape or form, I may waiver this to a rape case....but it better be a good one, not that I was drunk and he took advantage....then dont get drunk.
If your a teen, or a person in poverse conditions, you have to make the coherent decision to not to risk concieving a child, if you make the decision and get pregnant, then the choice is no longer yours to make, youve created life. To decide to eliminate the life form is not yours and never will be yours to make.
BTW
Contrary to what you may think, I'm not saying this with religious overtone, in fact I'm actually athiest.
also, I dont proofread what I write so ignore spelling errors, and punctuations...the lack there of so to speak.

That article was so painfully stupid it wasn't funny. I really hope that was a joke.

I am a full supporter of zygote abortion. On the other hand, after 6 months, abortions need to be stopped, unless it poses serious risk to the mother. A child can be put up for adoption otherwise.

I find it funny how he calls Liberals a death cult. Conservatives are a death cult too. Look at the Christian Bible, the basis of the Conservative ideology, it is filled with murder, genocide, anti-life teachings and blood sacrifice (Jesus was a blood sacrifice). It believes every life is precious unless: it's a life in an ethnic minority, in which case it is an affront to God and must be converted or purged; it's a life in a different religion, in which case it is a heretic and must be purged; unless its holy, in which case it must be promptly given to God as a sacrifice; except that the flesh is the domain of Satan and you must throw away all of its pleasures and waste it away to nothing. No other religion in the world has killed more people and no other religion in the world has killed people for such stupid reasons. No other religion in the world has persecuted racial minorities more than Christians (I would say women as well, but that has to go to radical Muslims). Conservatives were also if I recall the ones supporting the war in Iraq, which killed thousands of civilians, and is sending the troops out to die in vain. It was also Conservatives, who fearing that Communism would topple their capitalist buddies getting rich off of our suffering that there was the Vietnam war, that nukes were tested and developed so rampantly, polluting the world. Those same Conservatives who are blatantly refusing to stop destroying the planet so their buddies can stay rich.

The Almighty 138 wrote: "In any case, no one seems to support the killing of babies as much as Choo-Choo Bear and I do, which is why late terms abortions are illegal and why the doctors were put on trial, but apparently the author of the article doesn't care that action was taken against them because if it happened anytime, anywhere, those dirty liberals supported it."

Funny you should assume those laws are universal, they're not. Here in Manitoba, Canada, a child can be aborted up until the time the water breaks.

And yes, its clear that by posting an article of interest, I must be a mindless zombie.

I am disgusted by abortion and I do think that they should be illegal anytime after conception. The only exception would be if the mothers life was at risk (better for the just the child to die, than for both to die).

Then there is Samuel Alexander Armas. Twenty-one weeks after conception, the child was to undergo spina bifida surgery within his mothers womb. A camera man was present because this was such a new procedure. During the operation, the child actually reached through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. The picture was titled "Hand of Hope" and appeared in Life Magazine. More info at: http://members.tripod.com/~joseromia/samuel.html or http://www.justfacts.com/clancy.htm or just type his name into any search engine.

I took you up on it and type the kid's name into google. I found michael clancy's (AKA: the photographer)homepage (http://www.michaelclancy.com/story.html) and it seems the guy has by his own account become obsessive because the doctor involved in the photo claims TO HAVE POSED THE BABY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF TAKING THE PICTURE. Since the only official opinions are the ones of the photographer himself and the doctor, I am more prone to believe the doctor not just because of my political standing (which is a factor mentioned in the article), but because posing for a picture is not exactly unique and the photographer had a lot to gain from the doctor agreeing that it was a true candid piicture. Though the fervor with which he seems to pursue provinghis point may persuade some, desperately hoping for something isn't enough to make it true, and the only evidence that what he says is true involves virtually imperceptible aspects of the photograph(s) that rely on some form transfer of energy that he doesn't clearly explain. So, statement of person taking picture versus person in pcture, I will believe the person in the picture.

And no, starting a post by posting someone else's opinion then abandoning it, makes you a mindless zombie but i forgive since you were apparently on hiatus.

No, I don't support extremely late-term, "up until the time the water breaks" abortions, but your support of the statement regarding the "liberal culture of death" is foolish and insulting, not simply to a liberal like myself, but I hope to everyone that hates stereotypes.

as i posted in another thread, consider this

a crack whore gets pregnant. she knows she will not take care of herself and have a healthy child...she will continue her habit and whoring around. would you rather that child be ended before it gets a chance to suffer, and the spirit given a chance at a healthy life, or would you rather that child be born brain damaged, physically handicapped, and addicted to crack, as well as born with god only knows how many diseases and disorders from his whore drug abusive mother?

also, my personal opinion, as a mother of 3 beautiful daughters, is that no abortion should be legal beyond the end of the first trimester (12 weeks gestational age). maybe as long as the middle of the second (18 weeks or so), unless there is extreme danger to child and mother.

also, terri schiavo died of starvation because nobody wants to get the balls to pass euthanasia laws. making her starve to death was cruel. making her live in the prison that was her body, with her brain that had literally turned to liquid, with absolutely no chance at recovery was even more cruel.

if i ever get to the point where i will not recover, i want my HUSBAND (not parents or children or cousin, or president or governor, my husband, the man i vowed to love till our lives together end, the father of my children, the one i planned to be my life partner for the rest of my life, and who the law recognizes as such) to make the decision to let my life end as quickly and painlessly as possible.

terri should have been given an extra strong dose of nitrous oxide about 10 years ago, imo.

I took you up on it and type the kid's name into google. I found michael clancy's (AKA: the photographer)homepage (http://www.michaelclancy.com/story.html) and it seems the guy has by his own account become obsessive because the doctor involved in the photo claims TO HAVE POSED THE BABY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF TAKING THE PICTURE. Since the only official opinions are the ones of the photographer himself and the doctor, I am more prone to believe the doctor not just because of my political standing (which is a factor mentioned in the article), but because posing for a picture is not exactly unique and the photographer had a lot to gain from the doctor agreeing that it was a true candid piicture. Though the fervor with which he seems to pursue provinghis point may persuade some, desperately hoping for something isn't enough to make it true, and the only evidence that what he says is true involves virtually imperceptible aspects of the photograph(s) that rely on some form transfer of energy that he doesn't clearly explain. So, statement of person taking picture versus person in pcture, I will believe the person in the picture.


but, it is possible for the child to have grasped the finger like that..i mean, babies can suck their thumbs in utero, it's not impossible that they could grab hold of a foreign object (my sister has an ultrasound of my nephew holding him"self" *cough*

http://homepage.mac.com/michaelgoran/sucking%20thumb%20at%20week%2014.jpg

an ultrasound of a 14 week old sucking his thumb...so the fist ability is there

Thanks Cat-Tribe for clearly that up. with my slow dial-up, in addition to a generally crappy computer, I have a hard time keeping up. I'm glad you took the time to expose his "fact" as misleading in its presentation of reality.

also, terri schiavo died of starvation because nobody wants to get the balls to pass euthanasia laws. making her starve to death was cruel. making her live in the prison that was her body, with her brain that had literally turned to liquid, with absolutely no chance at recovery was even more cruel.

if i ever get to the point where i will not recover, i want my HUSBAND (not parents or children or cousin, or president or governor, my husband, the man i vowed to love till our lives together end, the father of my children, the one i planned to be my life partner for the rest of my life, and who the law recognizes as such) to make the decision to let my life end as quickly and painlessly as possible.

terri should have been given an extra strong dose of nitrous oxide about 10 years ago, imo.

good call, particularly the bit about leaving the decision to the spouse; if I've pledged my life to someone, they alone can make the decision whether I pass peacably or falsely cling to a "life" that is simply waiting for my organs to finish deteriorating. I would pray they choose the former.

but, it is possible for the child to have grasped the finger like that..i mean, babies can suck their thumbs in utero, it's not impossible that they could grab hold of a foreign object (my sister has an ultrasound of my nephew holding him"self" *cough*

http://homepage.mac.com/michaelgoran/sucking%20thumb%20at%20week%2014.jpg

an ultrasound of a 14 week old sucking his thumb...so the fist ability is there

True, it is possible; according to Clancy, the nurse told him it happens fairly often. By that time it has developed enough to become capable of such actions, which is again, why I don't support late-term abortions.(21 weeks...that's about 3/4 through the second trimester, yes? I think the second trimester is the very outside point that someone should consider an abortion in most cases) My greatest problem is that to back up the point he was making he used incrdibly shaky evidence.

People who can't live on their own bodily functions shouldn't be forced to live. It's God's way isn't it? Case closed.

Awwwwwwwwwww

http://www.chu-toulouse.fr/fiv_lg/images/IMGFIV/8cell.jpg

Look at the cute wittle baby. I think he has his father's eyes. Dontcha just want to pinch his cheeks and ... oooh was that a smile? Awww. Such a dear. Ooops ... I think someone needs a diapie change.

*coughs a little*

*walks slowly out of the room*
No, he has part of his father's DNA. And part of his mothers. ANd part his own, making a unique combination which makes him a unique human, which makes it illegal to kill him.

No, he has part of his father's DNA. And part of his mothers. ANd part his own, making a unique combination which makes him a unique human, which makes it illegal to kill him.

Pfff.

Pfff.
Well, not illegal yet, but it should be illegal, for the reasons i mentioned.

Here is the deal: I would accept freedom of sexuality, and most other liberal stands, if that would result in abortions being forbidden.

as for the abortioner in the dark alley, argument: well, hitmen sometimes take out many people at once, with their weapons. So should we legalize murder so only proffesional hitmen can kill, and thus decrease the deathtoll? No. Same way, black market abortioners would be taken for murder, and probably executed (if they aborted a lot).

No, he has part of his father's DNA. And part of his mothers. ANd part his own, making a unique combination which makes him a unique human, which makes it illegal to kill him.A cancerous growth has mostly the hosts DNA with some uniqueness. Should we now stop trying to cure cancer? And btw life at least in medical terms are determined by brain activity not DNA.

Sorry, I stopped reading here. Did you make any good points?
That's exactly what I did. :D

That's exactly what I did. :D

I'm finding that this path is often the best one!

A cancerous growth has mostly the hosts DNA with some uniqueness. Should we now stop trying to cure cancer? And btw life at least in medical terms are determined by brain activity not DNA.
So bacteria, trees, and sponges aren't alive then?

So bacteria, trees, and sponges aren't alive then?

Perhaps when the anti-choice lobby stops confusing the terms "life," "human," and "person" this would be clever.

Perhaps.

Perhaps when the anti-choice lobby stops confusing the terms "life," "human," and "person" this would be clever.

Perhaps.
Maybe when the pro-death lobby stops confusing the terms "fetus" and "cancer" you'll be a bit more tolerable.

Maybe when the pro-death lobby stops confusing the terms "fetus" and "cancer" you'll be a bit more tolerable.

Actually, that would by zygote and cancer.

And, pray tell, what are the moral distinctions between them?

Actually, that would by zygote and cancer.

And, pray tell, what are the moral distinctions between them?
Few people are killed by zygotes. Few cancer cells become humans.

Maybe when the pro-death lobby stops confusing the terms "fetus" and "cancer" you'll be a bit more tolerable.I meant human life, sorry for the confusion, I thought it'd be obvious...

No one is confusing the 2 terms, however there are some similarities that allow me to use cancer as a comparison. Both cancer and fetus are parasites that leech nutrients from the host in oder to stay alive. Neither has brain waves, and are not sentient.

Yes, fetus do have potential to become sentient, and I oppose late abortions except when host is in trouble for this reason. But if the fetus has no brain waves and does not react to stimuli then I don't see why it can be considered on the same level as a cancer and delt with according to the mothers wishes.

Few people are killed by zygotes. Few cancer cells become humans.

Again, what is the moral distinction?

So bacteria, trees, and sponges aren't alive then?
I'd like to see your moral argument about why I shouldn't kill bacteria.
I'll need to stop showering, but really it's just my narcissism that makes me want to shower each day, at the expense of all that bacteria.

I've also dared to kill trees and sponges too.

It's life? yes.
It's sacred? No.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on...

sheesh, comments like this really do nothing but confuse the issue with irrelevant comparisons. Kind of like comparing the choice to kill seals with the choice as to whether we should indefinately extend a non-concious life. They're both important issues. They're also both completely seperate issues that can't be compared in this way. I'm sick of misleading arguments, they just loose credibility for the actual arguments. Which are valid (at times).

I meant human life, sorry for the confusion, I thought it'd be obvious...

No one is confusing the 2 terms, however there are some similarities that allow me to use cancer as a comparison. Both cancer and fetus are parasites that leech nutrients from the host in oder to stay alive. Neither has brain waves, and are not sentient.

Yes, fetus do have potential to become sentient, and I oppose late abortions except when host is in trouble for this reason. But if the fetus has no brain waves and does not react to stimuli then I don't see why it can be considered on the same level as a cancer and delt with according to the mothers wishes.
A child is a parasite that leeches his parent's time and financial resources. They have little independent thought or capacity for thinking abstractly. Let's abort them. You can't find two similarities between something and make an analogy out of it.

You oppose abortions based on a random standard of humanity. Under your stance, we shouldn't abort anything with brain waves, correct? Why? It's all electricity and chemicals, the brain isn't some magical thing. You simply decide that this organ trumphs all the other ones, because to you, that is palatable. It's arbitrary and it's foolish.

Again, what is the moral distinction?
What's the moral distinction between killing a child and killing a dog?

I'd like to see your moral argument about why I shouldn't kill bacteria.
I'll need to stop showering, but really it's just my narcissism that makes me want to shower each day, at the expense of all that bacteria.

I've also dared to kill trees and sponges too.

It's life? yes.
It's sacred? No.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on...

sheesh, comments like this really do nothing but confuse the issue with irrelevant comparisons. Kind of like comparing the choice to kill seals with the choice as to whether we should indefinately extend a non-concious life. They're both important issues. They're also both completely seperate issues that can't be compared in this way. I'm sick of misleading arguments, they just loose credibility for the actual arguments. Which are valid (at times).
I'd like to see your moral arguments as to why we can kill fetuses, but not kick dogs. Or are you a dog kicker?

A child is a parasite that leeches his parent's time and financial resources. They have little independent thought or capacity for thinking abstractly. Let's abort them. You can't find two similarities between something and make an analogy out of it.

Um, do you know what the definition of "alive" is?
Regardless of thinking abstractly, the definition of "alive" is much easier to fulfill. One of the requirements is that it responds to outside stimulus.
(and no, poking a rock and having it roll away doesn't count as "responding")

There is something magical about the brain, and the chemicals and electricity. It creates desires, and feelings. I *feel* like I don't want to die. A rock doesn't feel that. I have a moral problem with killing people that have feelings. I have no moral problem with destroying a television set.

Until the child has a developed enough brain to potentially feel like it doesn't want to die, I have no moral problem (ON THIS ISSUE) with aborting it. As long as it isn't concious enough to feel any pain or loss.
A teenager would feel this pain and loss.

Let's be realistic here.

A child is a parasite that leeches his parent's time and financial resources. They have little independent thought or capacity for thinking abstractly. Let's abort them. You can't find two similarities between something and make an analogy out of it.

You oppose abortions based on a random standard of humanity. Under your stance, we shouldn't abort anything with brain waves, correct? Why? It's all electricity and chemicals, the brain isn't some magical thing. You simply decide that this organ trumphs all the other ones, because to you, that is palatable. It's arbitrary and it's foolish.Your right my analogy, makes babies (child is a bit too general) parasites. But I don't believe that. Like I said rights should be granted when the brain becomes active.

Your using "at conception" as the measurement for determing value, your just as "arbitrary and foolish" as me. At least I'm determining life the same way medicine defines death (no brain wave = dead)

::EDITED:: changed "using DNA" to "using "at conception""

What's the moral distinction between killing a child and killing a dog?

Ah, answer a question with a question. Very clever, grasshopper.

I presume you mean killing a fetus and killing a dog.

Killing a child would be wrong because it is a person.

Killing a dog is also wrong, but less so. We actually kill dogs by the thousands because the are unwanted.

A zygote-embryo-early-fetus is not conscious. It has no brain activity.

It is not a person. So killing it is not comparable to killing a child.

Arguably, a dog has more sentience and has a greater claim to life (althogh, as noted, we believe it is moral to kill dogs that are unwanted).

Further, a dog is not dependent on a person's body for survival. No one would seriously argue a dog had a right to live in my yard, let alone in my wife's womb.

I'd like to see your moral arguments as to why we can kill fetuses, but not kick dogs. Or are you a dog kicker?

A dog feels fear, hurt, and any other emotions if it's kicked.
Depending on what stage the fetus is at, I firmly believe there are times in which the fetus isn't developed enough to feel any of these emotions or sensations.

There, a direct, moral difference between the two actions.

Um, do you know what the definition of "alive" is?
Regardless of thinking abstractly, the definition of "alive" is much easier to fulfill. One of the requirements is that it responds to outside stimulus.
(and no, poking a rock and having it roll away doesn't count as "responding")

There is something magical about the brain, and the chemicals and electricity. It creates desires, and feelings. I *feel* like I don't want to die. A rock doesn't feel that. I have a moral problem with killing people that have feelings. I have no moral problem with destroying a television set.

Until the child has a developed enough brain to potentially feel like it doesn't want to die, I have no moral problem (ON THIS ISSUE) with aborting it. As long as it isn't concious enough to feel any pain or loss.
A teenager would feel this pain and loss.

Let's be realistic here.
A bacteria doesn't want to die. You heat it up and it moves away from it. You don't respond to a stimulus any more differently than any other organism. You're just a bunch of cells. Biologically, you're a computer. You take in input and perform an action based on what you've done before. A suicidal teenager wouldn't care if you killed them. Does that make it right? You seem to have an extremely poor understanding of the body and mind, your cells feel just as much as your neurons do. The difference is, that when your skin cells are suffering, they don't let other cells know about it. It's just when your nerve cells are suffering that you suddenly care. It's arbitrary. Either humans are special or they are not. If they are, then they deserve protection by virtue of being human, not by virtue of electrical readings on a monitor. Or they aren't. In which case life and death do not matter any more than they matter for an animal. And if you've ever eaten meat, you'll see how little animals matter.

Further, a dog is not dependent on a person's body for survival. No one would seriously argue a dog had a right to live in my yard, let alone in my wife's womb.
Such a good point.

And what's the biggest difference between dogs and humans, from a moral perspective? Well, we'll all have our own opinions, but I believe it is sentience and self-awareness. That's why we think it's more "okay" to kill dogs. At least I *hope* that's why we think that, and we're not doing the "it's not human so I don't care" argument. That went down really well with people of different colour, didn't it? I hope a dog equally intelligent and self-aware is afforded the same rights. (it won't be, but I can dream)

Next step, killing cows for food? How can we morally justify that, if all life is sacred? Even if it's not self-aware?

Killing plants? It has no brain, but neither does the fetus, if it's caught early enough.

Why can we kill a dog, or pull up a tree, but not have an abortion?
Explain the moral difference between a human and a dog, without using mental capacity or awareness. And if there is no moral difference, explain why it's wrong to abort an unthinking fetus.

A child is a parasite that leeches his parent's time and financial resources. They have little independent thought or capacity for thinking abstractly. Let's abort them. You can't find two similarities between something and make an analogy out of it.

No. A child is not parasite. It does not live in or on its parents.

You oppose abortions based on a random standard of humanity. Under your stance, we shouldn't abort anything with brain waves, correct? Why? It's all electricity and chemicals, the brain isn't some magical thing. You simply decide that this organ trumphs all the other ones, because to you, that is palatable. It's arbitrary and it's foolish.

Nothing random about the standard of personhood. It is firmly grounded in what makes autonomous and gives us a claim to rights.

You appear to have no standard whatsoever.

All life? No.

All human life? No.

Then what?

Consciousness -- thought -- is the foundation of a claim to rights.

Speaking of arbitrary, why do dolphins, chimps, and pigs not have a right to life but a zygote does?

Your right my analogy, makes babies (child is a bit too general) parasites. But I don't believe that. Like I said rights should be granted when the brain becomes active.

Your using DNA as the measurement for determing value, your just as "arbitrary and foolish" as me. At least I'm determining life the same way medicine defines death (no brain wave = dead)
You don't "believe" that. That's comforting to know. You don't need facts or reasoning, you believe something is true, so that's good enough. Kudos to you. Your brain activity is just an arbitrary standard, and hardly one that is enforcable.

I'm using the logical beginning of a cycle. A sperm cell is haploid, it is not human. It does not have the genes nor the capacity to ever become human on its own. A zygote is the beginning of the human life cycle. Before a zygote, you have two cells that will never become human. After the zygote, you have more cells. The beginning isn't arbitrary, it's the beginning. Anymore than zero is arbitrary when you're measuring something.

A bacteria doesn't want to die. You heat it up and it moves away from it. You don't respond to a stimulus any more differently than any other organism. You're just a bunch of cells. Biologically, you're a computer. You take in input and perform an action based on what you've done before. A suicidal teenager wouldn't care if you killed them. Does that make it right? You seem to have an extremely poor understanding of the body and mind, your cells feel just as much as your neurons do. The difference is, that when your skin cells are suffering, they don't let other cells know about it. It's just when your nerve cells are suffering that you suddenly care. It's arbitrary. Either humans are special or they are not. If they are, then they deserve protection by virtue of being human, not by virtue of electrical readings on a monitor. Or they aren't. In which case life and death do not matter any more than they matter for an animal. And if you've ever eaten meat, you'll see how little animals matter.

So, why are humans special?

Or is that arbitrary too?

Ah, answer a question with a question. Very clever, grasshopper.

I presume you mean killing a fetus and killing a dog.

Killing a child would be wrong because it is a person.

Killing a dog is also wrong, but less so. We actually kill dogs by the thousands because the are unwanted.

A zygote-embryo-early-fetus is not conscious. It has no brain activity.

It is not a person. So killing it is not comparable to killing a child.

Arguably, a dog has more sentience and has a greater claim to life (althogh, as noted, we believe it is moral to kill dogs that are unwanted).

Further, a dog is not dependent on a person's body for survival. No one would seriously argue a dog had a right to live in my yard, let alone in my wife's womb.
Why is a fetus any less of a person? A child is less developed than an adult, just as a fetus is less developed than a child. Your standard is arbitrary, mine is not. And if you've ever read any environmental court cases, you'll see many people do argue that animals have a right to live where they aren't wanted, simply by virtue of there not being many of them. But that's beside the point.

Why is a fetus any less of a person? A child is less developed than an adult, just as a fetus is less developed than a child. Your standard is arbitrary, mine is not. And if you've ever read any environmental court cases, you'll see many people do argue that animals have a right to live where they aren't wanted, simply by virtue of there not being many of them. But that's beside the point.


Infants, children, adults and the elderly are all stages of the life of a human being.

Before a human being exists there is a fetus, this fetus is likely to eventually result in a human being, but it is itself not a human being.

A dog feels fear, hurt, and any other emotions if it's kicked.
Depending on what stage the fetus is at, I firmly believe there are times in which the fetus isn't developed enough to feel any of these emotions or sensations.

There, a direct, moral difference between the two actions.
You cut a tree, it will send out a phermone warning nearby trees of danger. LOL! WHAT CAN THEY DO, THEY'RE TREES!
Wrong. Some plants use that phermone as a cue to begin producing a poison. That's why giraffes always start downwind and eat upwind. Their food would poison them otherwise. These trees clearly responds to a stimulus. It communicates with other trees. "Feeling" hurt, fear, or an emotion is simply a nerve cell responding to a stimulus. You're arbitrarily saying that a nerve cell is better than a muscle cell. Well, lot's of things do just fine without nerve cells. In fact, nerve cells account for a very miniscule proportion of the totality of cells. There is no biological reason to say a nerve cell is better than any kind of cell.

Such a good point.

And what's the biggest difference between dogs and humans, from a moral perspective? Well, we'll all have our own opinions, but I believe it is sentience and self-awareness. That's why we think it's more "okay" to kill dogs. At least I *hope* that's why we think that, and we're not doing the "it's not human so I don't care" argument. That went down really well with people of different colour, didn't it? I hope a dog equally intelligent and self-aware is afforded the same rights. (it won't be, but I can dream)

Next step, killing cows for food? How can we morally justify that, if all life is sacred? Even if it's not self-aware?

Killing plants? It has no brain, but neither does the fetus, if it's caught early enough.

Why can we kill a dog, or pull up a tree, but not have an abortion?
Explain the moral difference between a human and a dog, without using mental capacity or awareness. And if there is no moral difference, explain why it's wrong to abort an unthinking fetus.
A human is different than a dog because it is human. It's our species. Nothing matters but the continuation of the species.

No. A child is not parasite. It does not live in or on its parents.

Nothing random about the standard of personhood. It is firmly grounded in what makes autonomous and gives us a claim to rights.

You appear to have no standard whatsoever.

All life? No.

All human life? No.

Then what?

Consciousness -- thought -- is the foundation of a claim to rights.

Speaking of arbitrary, why do dolphins, chimps, and pigs not have a right to life but a zygote does?
A parasite: One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return. A child is a parasite. It uses its parent's resources with no return.

Humans have the right to life because they are human. They're better than anything. Everything else is a resource.

A bacteria doesn't want to die. You heat it up and it moves away from it. You don't respond to a stimulus any more differently than any other organism. You're just a bunch of cells. Biologically, you're a computer. You take in input and perform an action based on what you've done before. A suicidal teenager wouldn't care if you killed them. Does that make it right? You seem to have an extremely poor understanding of the body and mind, your cells feel just as much as your neurons do. The difference is, that when your skin cells are suffering, they don't let other cells know about it. It's just when your nerve cells are suffering that you suddenly care. It's arbitrary. Either humans are special or they are not. If they are, then they deserve protection by virtue of being human, not by virtue of electrical readings on a monitor. Or they aren't. In which case life and death do not matter any more than they matter for an animal. And if you've ever eaten meat, you'll see how little animals matter.

Half of this makes me think you're agreeing with me. Bacteria doesn't want to die, true. Entirely. It's alive.
Are we looking at humans as "a bunch of cells"? If we are, then I am 100% against abortions (in this theoretical environment). After all, you're aborting living cells. And we're just living cells.
I'd like to think there's a bit more to it than that, however.
I have a shower each day, and kill bacteria. If we're looking at humans as "a bunch of cells" isn't aborting a child equally bad as killing a cockroach. Or showering in the morning? Hmm?

Biologically I'm a computer. You're right, and I agree. However, I'm a very special type of computer. I'm a computer that *thinks* and *feels*. And, I believe that the moral thing to do is to not cause pain or suffering to other biological computers that *think* and *feel*. I care nothing about the bacteria I kill when I shower. It's not advanced enough to think or feel (to my limited understanding). I care little for the cockroach, it's also a very simple (mentally speaking) biological computer, so it probably experiences very little as well. I do feel some guilt, and won't kill a cockroach in the bush (where it's not causing any discomfort to me).

Yes, it's when my nerve cells are suffering that I care. You're exactly right. I see no problem with causing damage to someone, if their nerve cells don't suffer (for example, cutting their hair. And don't say that hair isn't alive, there are arguments either way, I care not. It's an example of destroying cells that doesn't cause pain). I'm therefore happy to trim the grass. There is no scientific reason I have to believe that the grass feels pain. I'm still destroying living matter. It just doesn't feel pain, so I have no moral problem with it.

Humans *aren't* special. They matter no more than any other animals. In my opinion.
I do, however, place significance on sentience and self-awareness. That's why I consider smarter or self-aware animals to be more important, from a moral perspective. They are more likely to be aware of any pain caused them.
Give me any animal with as much self-awareness as humans, and I'll think it's morally wrong to cause it pain, on an equal standing as I think that about humans.

As is the suicidal teenager. In his/her case, I'd wonder about his state of mind, and if his opinions will change. If they really won't (he's a quadraplegic, and doesn't want to live his life like that), then I'd support his wish to die. But that's a completely seperate issue. Nobody was suggesting aborting suicidal teenagers.

Why is a fetus any less of a person? A child is less developed than an adult, just as a fetus is less developed than a child. Your standard is arbitrary, mine is not.

You don't appear to have a standard.

No sentience, no brain activity = not a person. Pretty damn clear.

Nothing arbitrary about it.

And if you've ever read any environmental court cases, you'll see many people do argue that animals have a right to live where they aren't wanted, simply by virtue of there not being many of them. But that's beside the point.

Nice try, but you are right that is beside the point. We don't recognize that those species have a right to life -- and you know it.

Apparently you couldn't find any actual flaws in my answer.

Infants, children, adults and the elderly are all stages of the life of a human being.

Before a human being exists there is a fetus, this fetus is likely to eventually result in a human being, but it is itself not a human being.
The definition is arbitrary. A child is no different when it is in the womb than if you pluck it out the next second. It's the same creature with the same capabilities. Just because you're not in a uterus doesn't mean you're any different than you were when you were in a uterus five seconds before. That's arbitrary. A fetus is as much a human being as a child is a human being. The only difference is in some arbitrary standard of personhood, brain capacity. A child is generally not able to reproduce, which is necessary to be defined as life. Therefore, children aren't life and should be extermined, because they don't meet an arbitrary qualification.

You don't "believe" that. That's comforting to know. You don't need facts or reasoning, you believe something is true, so that's good enough. Kudos to you. Your brain activity is just an arbitrary standard, and hardly one that is enforcable.

I'm using the logical beginning of a cycle. A sperm cell is haploid, it is not human. It does not have the genes nor the capacity to ever become human on its own. A zygote is the beginning of the human life cycle. Before a zygote, you have two cells that will never become human. After the zygote, you have more cells. The beginning isn't arbitrary, it's the beginning. Anymore than zero is arbitrary when you're measuring something.You mean like the way you don't need facts or reasoning to believe a zygote is not less then you or me. My belief in brain activity is not arbitray. Medicine has deterimined that the brain is the thing that thinks and controls the rest of our body. Without it functioning we are dead and our body will decay (even Schaivo had a brain stem to allow involuntary actions). Death is determined by the brain why not life?

Zygote is the start of life... so what? It does not think or feel. DNA, or several cells does not a human make.

The definition is arbitrary. A child is no different when it is in the womb than if you pluck it out the next second. It's the same creature with the same capabilities. Just because you're not in a uterus doesn't mean you're any different than you were when you were in a uterus five seconds before. That's arbitrary. A fetus is as much a human being as a child is a human being. The only difference is in some arbitrary standard of personhood, brain capacity. A child is generally not able to reproduce, which is necessary to be defined as life. Therefore, children aren't life and should be extermined, because they don't meet an arbitrary qualification.


A child does exist for a time in the womb.

However, prior to this a mass of tissue exists which is essentially part of the womb itself.

It isnt legal to kill unborn infants and I dont think it ought to be.

You cut a tree, it will send out a phermone warning nearby trees of danger. LOL! WHAT CAN THEY DO, THEY'RE TREES!
Wrong. Some plants use that phermone as a cue to begin producing a poison. That's why giraffes always start downwind and eat upwind. Their food would poison them otherwise. These trees clearly responds to a stimulus. It communicates with other trees. "Feeling" hurt, fear, or an emotion is simply a nerve cell responding to a stimulus. You're arbitrarily saying that a nerve cell is better than a muscle cell. Well, lot's of things do just fine without nerve cells. In fact, nerve cells account for a very miniscule proportion of the totality of cells. There is no biological reason to say a nerve cell is better than any kind of cell.

I never said a nerve cell is "better". I said a nerve cell causes pain.
If I'm unconcious, and you hit my knee to make me kick, I'm not conciously aware of that, so it matters little (morally) to me.
If I'm awake, and you do the same, I notice because of my nerve cells.

Nerve cells aren't better. I believe there is a moral issue with causing pain to another creature. If you cause no pain, I believe that moral issue is gone (even if the creature responds). I have many ways to make you respond without causing pain to you.

Yes, being eaten is undesirable to the tree. I've accepted that any action will result in something undesirable for another creature. I don't want to stop eating. I've accepted I'll cause damage to other creatures. But I can avoid causing *pain* to them. As much as possible. I believe that's where the moral issues lie.

And no, I don't think trees feel pain, due to their lack of nerves. Even if they do respond.

A parasite: One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return. A child is a parasite. It uses its parent's resources with no return.

Silly word games are not serious argument.

You know full well the word has more than one meaning and you have changed from the meaning applied before to a less common one.

Parasite: Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Humans have the right to life because they are human. They're better than anything. Everything else is a resource.

Doesn't answer the question.

Why are humans "better than anything"?

Why do humans have a "right to life"?

Humans have the right to life because they are human. They're better than anything. Everything else is a resource.

Wow, so what makes humans so special?
Can I replace the word "Humans" with "Australians"?

Half of this makes me think you're agreeing with me. Bacteria doesn't want to die, true. Entirely. It's alive.
Are we looking at humans as "a bunch of cells"? If we are, then I am 100% against abortions (in this theoretical environment). After all, you're aborting living cells. And we're just living cells.
I'd like to think there's a bit more to it than that, however.
I have a shower each day, and kill bacteria. If we're looking at humans as "a bunch of cells" isn't aborting a child equally bad as killing a cockroach. Or showering in the morning? Hmm?

Biologically I'm a computer. You're right, and I agree. However, I'm a very special type of computer. I'm a computer that *thinks* and *feels*. And, I believe that the moral thing to do is to not cause pain or suffering to other biological computers that *think* and *feel*. I care nothing about the bacteria I kill when I shower. It's not advanced enough to think or feel (to my limited understanding). I care little for the cockroach, it's also a very simple (mentally speaking) biological computer, so it probably experiences very little as well. I do feel some guilt, and won't kill a cockroach in the bush (where it's not causing any discomfort to me).

Yes, it's when my nerve cells are suffering that I care. You're exactly right. I see no problem with causing damage to someone, if their nerve cells don't suffer (for example, cutting their hair. And don't say that hair isn't alive, there are arguments either way, I care not. It's an example of destroying cells that doesn't cause pain). I'm therefore happy to trim the grass. There is no scientific reason I have to believe that the grass feels pain. I'm still destroying living matter. It just doesn't feel pain, so I have no moral problem with it.

Humans *aren't* special. They matter no more than any other animals. In my opinion.
I do, however, place significance on sentience and self-awareness. That's why I consider smarter or self-aware animals to be more important, from a moral perspective. They are more likely to be aware of any pain caused them.
Give me any animal with as much self-awareness as humans, and I'll think it's morally wrong to cause it pain, on an equal standing as I think that about humans.

As is the suicidal teenager. In his/her case, I'd wonder about his state of mind, and if his opinions will change. If they really won't (he's a quadraplegic, and doesn't want to live his life like that), then I'd support his wish to die. But that's a completely seperate issue. Nobody was suggesting aborting suicidal teenagers.
Biologically, we aren't anymore than that. We're cells. If you want to argue we're more than that, you're leaving the realm of science. If you want to leave science, we can go to religion, where you won't have a leg to stand on.

You aren't special. You can "think," and as vaguely defined as that is, isn't anything unique or special. Dogs can hear frequencies we can't, pigeons see blue as being less red than green, and bees can see X-rays. Those are all interesting things that we can't do, but they don't matter. Because you arbitrarily say that "thinking," whatever that might be, since you know you can't define it, is better.

Pain is simply aversion expressed chemically. A grass feels pain in the actual sense of the word, when you cut it, it causes the grass to react in a way to prevent the damage you just caused to it.

You say humans are special because YOU place emphasis on self-awareness. So what. It's not anything unique nor is it necessarily great, bacteria seem to have done just fine without it.

Under your definitions of life, sentience, purpose, and morality, no, it's the same issue.

The definition is arbitrary. A child is no different when it is in the womb than if you pluck it out the next second. It's the same creature with the same capabilities. Just because you're not in a uterus doesn't mean you're any different than you were when you were in a uterus five seconds before. That's arbitrary.

Strawman.

A fetus is as much a human being as a child is a human being. The only difference is in some arbitrary standard of personhood, brain capacity.

No.

Two differences -

1) living inside and totally dependent on the body of another

2) no consciousness, no brain activity

Nothing arbitrary about the standard. It goes directly to what we consider to be the basis of rights.

Is someone completely brain dead still entitled to a full panoply of human rights? Or are they dead?

A child is generally not able to reproduce, which is necessary to be defined as life. Therefore, children aren't life and should be extermined, because they don't meet an arbitrary qualification.

Pfft. The only arbitrary qualification here appears to be yours -- human DNA. And you are not consistent about that one.

You mean like the way you don't need facts or reasoning to believe a zygote is not less then you or me. My belief in brain activity is not arbitray. Medicine has deterimined that the brain is the thing that thinks and controls the rest of our body. Without it functioning we are dead and our body will decay (even Schaivo had a brain stem to allow involuntary actions). Death is determined by the brain why not life?

Zygote is the start of life... so what? It does not think or feel. DNA, or several cells does not a human make.
A zygote is human. A child is human. An adult is human. I don't need reasoning because the facts support that. As bad as the next abortion of a sentence was, I'm guessing that you mean that scientists believe the brain directs our conscious actions. Well, so what. Without a heart you'll die. Without a liver you'll die. Interestingly, your heart will keep beating after your brain is dead, but your brain won't keep thinking after your heart is dead. Sounds like science determines life by heart, rather than brain function.

It does think and feel. It cells react to stimulus. You are the same way. You just have more power to react a stimulus, just as your parent's have more power than you do to react a stimulus.

Biologically, we aren't anymore than that. We're cells. If you want to argue we're more than that, you're leaving the realm of science. If you want to leave science, we can go to religion, where you won't have a leg to stand on.

You aren't special. You can "think," and as vaguely defined as that is, isn't anything unique or special. Dogs can hear frequencies we can't, pigeons see blue as being less red than green, and bees can see X-rays. Those are all interesting things that we can't do, but they don't matter. Because you arbitrarily say that "thinking," whatever that might be, since you know you can't define it, is better.

Pain is simply aversion expressed chemically. A grass feels pain in the actual sense of the word, when you cut it, it causes the grass to react in a way to prevent the damage you just caused to it.

You say humans are special because YOU place emphasis on self-awareness. So what. It's not anything unique nor is it necessarily great, bacteria seem to have done just fine without it.

Under your definitions of life, sentience, purpose, and morality, no, it's the same issue.

You argue very eloquently that humans are not special. (Setting aside the many flaws in this argument for the time being.)

And yet your entire argument rests on the arbitrary assumption that human DNA is special.

Justification?

I never said a nerve cell is "better". I said a nerve cell causes pain.
If I'm unconcious, and you hit my knee to make me kick, I'm not conciously aware of that, so it matters little (morally) to me.
If I'm awake, and you do the same, I notice because of my nerve cells.

Nerve cells aren't better. I believe there is a moral issue with causing pain to another creature. If you cause no pain, I believe that moral issue is gone (even if the creature responds). I have many ways to make you respond without causing pain to you.

Yes, being eaten is undesirable to the tree. I've accepted that any action will result in something undesirable for another creature. I don't want to stop eating. I've accepted I'll cause damage to other creatures. But I can avoid causing *pain* to them. As much as possible. I believe that's where the moral issues lie.

And no, I don't think trees feel pain, due to their lack of nerves. Even if they do respond.
Why pain? Why does that matter? You know why humans have pain? The biological purpose of it? Because we're inferior. Trees don't need pain because they respond to stimulus on the cellular level. We need pain because so many of our cells have become so specialized they've actually lost function. Pain is to us what phermones are to trees.

Silly word games are not serious argument.

You know full well the word has more than one meaning and you have changed from the meaning applied before to a less common one.

Parasite: Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.



Doesn't answer the question.

Why are humans "better than anything"?

Why do humans have a "right to life"?
The most common meaning of parasite is one that takes something from another without giving it back. That's how most people use it. You're the one playing word games.

Humans are better than anything because we're humans. If we were bacteria, bacteria would be better than anything. In the absolute, athiest sense, no, humans aren't better than anything. In the relative sense, we're humans, so we're better than anything.

A zygote is human. A child is human. An adult is human. I don't need reasoning because the facts support that. As bad as the next abortion of a sentence was, I'm guessing that you mean that scientists believe the brain directs our conscious actions. Well, so what. Without a heart you'll die. Without a liver you'll die. Interestingly, your heart will keep beating after your brain is dead, but your brain won't keep thinking after your heart is dead. Sounds like science determines life by heart, rather than brain function.

It does think and feel. It cells react to stimulus. You are the same way. You just have more power to react a stimulus, just as your parent's have more power than you do to react a stimulus.

Nope. Sorry. A zygote does not think and feel.

You cannot support those assertions.

You argue very eloquently that humans are not special. (Setting aside the many flaws in this argument for the time being.)

And yet your entire argument rests on the arbitrary assumption that human DNA is special.

Justification?
Because we're human. The species is solely and overridingly concerned with the species. Look at any other organism on earth. The only thing common to all life is that it works to support itself. It places more importance on itself than anything else.

Nope. Sorry. A zygote does not think and feel.

You cannot support those assertions.
It reacts, therefore it has a method of sensing the environment around it, feeling to the layperson or person who like to argue semantics in lieu of a point. Thinking and feeling as you describe them are polarizations in nerve cells, which biologically isn't inherently better than polarization in muscle cells.

The most common meaning of parasite is one that takes something from another without giving it back. That's how most people use it. You're the one playing word games.

Now you are being petty.

You know full well that when you looked at the dictionary to pull that earlier definition it was not the primary definition. It was also not the meaning of the word used earlier.

Humans are better than anything because we're humans. If we were bacteria, bacteria would be better than anything.

Talk about arbitrary. Not even an attempt at a moral justification.

Well, I'm a male. Does that mean males are better than anything?

I'm an adult. Does that mean only adults have rights?

In the absolute, athiest sense, no, humans aren't better than anything. In the relative sense, we're humans, so we're better than anything.

What relative sense? Relative to what? Based on what?

What you mean is based on religion, but you don't want to admit it.

Because we're human. The species is solely and overridingly concerned with the species. Look at any other organism on earth. The only thing common to all life is that it works to support itself. It places more importance on itself than anything else.

Again, not a moral argument.

But, fine. Anything that furthers the species is good. If abortion is good for the species, it is good?

Got any evidence abortion harms the species?

Biologically, we aren't anymore than that. We're cells. If you want to argue we're more than that, you're leaving the realm of science. If you want to leave science, we can go to religion, where you won't have a leg to stand on.

Um no, I'm not entering the realm of religion. I'm entering the realm of personal experience. I've suffered pain (emotional and physical) and thought "this is not good. I do not want to experience this again". I then made a moral decision that it would be morally wrong to cause others to experience pain as well. We can argue my moral decision, and the reasons I feel it is correct, but again, that's a tangental topic.


You aren't special. You can "think," and as vaguely defined as that is, isn't anything unique or special. Dogs can hear frequencies we can't, pigeons see blue as being less red than green, and bees can see X-rays. Those are all interesting things that we can't do, but they don't matter. Because you arbitrarily say that "thinking," whatever that might be, since you know you can't define it, is better.

Yeah, they're wonderful things. Isn't nature amazing? I do believe I'm special, but I also think that dogs, pigeons, and bees are special too. They are interesting things, and do matter. But I don't believe they matter from a moral perspective. I have no more moral problem killing a creature that can see X-rays than I do killing a creature that can see blue as being less red than green. Morally those two amazing abilities are equal to me.
Morally, I don't have a problem killing an intelligent creature any more than a stupid creature (it seems like more of a waste, but that's a practical, not moral, consideration).
Morally, I DO have a problem causing pain to another animal. And I'm not talking about pain simply as an aversion expressed chemically. I have an aversion to processed cheese expressed chemically (anyone care to guess how it's expressed?). I have an aversion to pollen expressed chemically. Lovely. I don't care. I'm talking about pain as something analogous(sp?) to what I've experienced as pain. I'm not talking a chemical reaction, I'm talking suffering. I have a moral problem amputating someones arm while they are awake and feeling the pain. I have no moral problem amputating their arm while they are unconcious. There's the issue about when they wake and find I cut off their arm, which is emotional pain. I have a moral problem with causing that.


Pain is simply aversion expressed chemically. A grass feels pain in the actual sense of the word, when you cut it, it causes the grass to react in a way to prevent the damage you just caused to it.

I've got no reason to believe that grass feels pain "in the actual sense". I find it much more plasuable that the grass reacts automatically, much like my knee will kick if you hit the right nerve, without any pain involved. I believe concious pain is reserved for mentally higher functioning creatures (lucky us!)


You say humans are special because YOU place emphasis on self-awareness. So what. It's not anything unique nor is it necessarily great, bacteria seem to have done just fine without it.
Who said humans were special? I think dogs are self-aware, and are special. I don't advocate causing pain to them either.
Bacteria has done fine. I'm not saying it's bad, or that humans are "better". I am saying that there is a moral issue in killing humans that doesn't exist in killing bacteria.


Under your definitions of life, sentience, purpose, and morality, no, it's the same issue.
Um?

Thinking and feeling as you describe them are polarizations in nerve cells, which biologically isn't inherently better than polarization in muscle cells.
Again, are we talking about what is biologically better or worse, or what is morally better or worse?

If we're talking about what is biologically better or worse, we could equally talk about what is economically better or worse.
Is abortion cheaper for the parents? Is that a meaningful point?

Or are we concerned about the moral issues?

It reacts, therefore it has a method of sensing the environment around it, feeling to the layperson or person who like to argue semantics in lieu of a point. Thinking and feeling as you describe them are polarizations in nerve cells, which biologically isn't inherently better than polarization in muscle cells.

So your argument is that biologically any cell "thinks" and "feels."

So blowing my nose kills thinking and feeling human cells?

Dandruff?

When my cat scratches me?

I think any layperson will agree there is a bit more to thought and feeling than are found in your philosophy.*

*which I suspect is adopted solely for this argument.

Now you are being petty.

You know full well that when you looked at the dictionary to pull that earlier definition it was not the primary definition. It was also not the meaning of the word used earlier.

Talk about arbitrary. Not even an attempt at a moral justification.

Well, I'm a male. Does that mean males are better than anything?

I'm an adult. Does that mean only adults have rights?

What relative sense? Relative to what? Based on what?

What you mean is based on religion, but you don't want to admit it.
Ask someone on the street to define parasite. Surprisingly few of them will talk about host organisms.

There is no morality in science. Morality is derived from logical justification. You're using science to defend your position on infan...abortion. I'm arguing against you using science. In science, the individual doesn't matter, only the continuity of the species. Scientifically, you matter less than your children, since you're less likely to reproduce. But that's another argument entirely.

You know what relative means right? It has to do with where you're looking at something from relative to someplace else you could be looking at it from? From an ant's perspective, we don't matter. 6 billion of us could die and the ants would carry on without a care in the world. If six billion of us died, we'd care about it. If six billion ants died, we wouldn't care, but their colonies certainly would.

Again, not a moral argument.

But, fine. Anything that furthers the species is good. If abortion is good for the species, it is good?

Got any evidence abortion harms the species?
Anytime something with the full remainder of its reproductive years is removed from the species that's a bad thing.

A zygote is human. A child is human. An adult is human. I don't need reasoning because the facts support that. As bad as the next abortion of a sentence was, I'm guessing that you mean that scientists believe the brain directs our conscious actions. Well, so what. Without a heart you'll die. Without a liver you'll die. Interestingly, your heart will keep beating after your brain is dead, but your brain won't keep thinking after your heart is dead. Sounds like science determines life by heart, rather than brain function. /snip.Heart and liver can be replaced, and are not responsible for sentience. Please stop making bad comparisons, we both know the different function of the brain and other organs.

Now we're getting to semantics I define human as someone with a working brain while you think a single cell is sufficient. How fun I'm a trillion people and a person at the same time.

::EDIT:: added last 2 sentences.

Anytime something with the full remainder of its reproductive years is removed from the species that's a bad thing.

No.

That would depend on a number of factors.

Is the species over- or under-populated?

Is there a shortage of resources?

Is there a shortage of reproducing members?

.... and still not a moral argument.

Anytime something with the full remainder of its reproductive years is removed from the species that's a bad thing.It is not a bad thing since species were designed to reproduce in excess to allow for death of fertile specimens.

Um no, I'm not entering the realm of religion. I'm entering the realm of personal experience. I've suffered pain (emotional and physical) and thought "this is not good. I do not want to experience this again". I then made a moral decision that it would be morally wrong to cause others to experience pain as well. We can argue my moral decision, and the reasons I feel it is correct, but again, that's a tangental topic.



Yeah, they're wonderful things. Isn't nature amazing? I do believe I'm special, but I also think that dogs, pigeons, and bees are special too. They are interesting things, and do matter. But I don't believe they matter from a moral perspective. I have no more moral problem killing a creature that can see X-rays than I do killing a creature that can see blue as being less red than green. Morally those two amazing abilities are equal to me.
Morally, I don't have a problem killing an intelligent creature any more than a stupid creature (it seems like more of a waste, but that's a practical, not moral, consideration).
Morally, I DO have a problem causing pain to another animal. And I'm not talking about pain simply as an aversion expressed chemically. I have an aversion to processed cheese expressed chemically (anyone care to guess how it's expressed?). I have an aversion to pollen expressed chemically. Lovely. I don't care. I'm talking about pain as something analogous(sp?) to what I've experienced as pain. I'm not talking a chemical reaction, I'm talking suffering. I have a moral problem amputating someones arm while they are awake and feeling the pain. I have no moral problem amputating their arm while they are unconcious. There's the issue about when they wake and find I cut off their arm, which is emotional pain. I have a moral problem with causing that.



I've got no reason to believe that grass feels pain "in the actual sense". I find it much more plasuable that the grass reacts automatically, much like my knee will kick if you hit the right nerve, without any pain involved. I believe concious pain is reserved for mentally higher functioning creatures (lucky us!)


Who said humans were special? I think dogs are self-aware, and are special. I don't advocate causing pain to them either.
Bacteria has done fine. I'm not saying it's bad, or that humans are "better". I am saying that there is a moral issue in killing humans that doesn't exist in killing bacteria.


Um?
Who cares? Your skin doesn't like UV radiation. It makes melanin to block it. It's suffered, it tries not to experience it again. Your decisions don't affect this matter at all.

Suffering is a chemical response. I can inject you with neurotransmitters that will make you think you are suffering. Your body will be fine. Similarily, I can chop off your arm, but block the appropriate pathway. You will be content, maybe even happy if I inject you with something else. But your perception of the matter doesn'tchange the reality of it. The fact remains that when you chop a tree down, you're killing it, even if it can't feel it. The fact remains that if gas you, you're dead. Even if you can't feel it. Reality exists apart from perception. Especially when you only consider one type of perception arbitrarily.

Don't you react automatically? When you put your hand on a stove, do you say, "Wait, should I pull my hand away, or should I continue to evaluate the stimulus"? You react. When someone you don't know says hello in passing, you do you respond automatically or think out your response carefully?

You haven't shown me a moral issue. Show me one and your argument might start to exist.

So your argument is that biologically any cell "thinks" and "feels."

So blowing my nose kills thinking and feeling human cells?

Dandruff?

When my cat scratches me?

I think any layperson will agree there is a bit more to thought and feeling than are found in your philosophy.*

*which I suspect is adopted solely for this argument.
Let's assume all that is true.

Now, where have I ever said that thinking matters for determining humanity? I would assume that you consider yourself human, in spite of your disinclination for thought.

You are the one arguing sentience and pain matter. I have not.

Heart and liver can be replaced, and are not responsible for sentience. Please stop making bad comparisons, we both know the different function of the brain and other organs.
The brain could be replaced, theoretically. We didn't always know how to do heart transplants, you know.

No.

That would depend on a number of factors.

Is the species over- or under-populated?

Is there a shortage of resources?

Is there a shortage of reproducing members?

.... and still not a moral argument.
No it wouldn't. Reproduction is always better than not reproducing. If you made too many, you can die off. No harm done.

My morality is in my reasoning. You are making your morals on emotional appeal, not on reality.

Ask someone on the street to define parasite. Surprisingly few of them will talk about host organisms.

You are right.

The dictionaries are wrong.

The context in which the person you were responding to was wrong.

We cannot refer to a parasite in a medical or biological sense, because you say that isn't what would occur to a random person on the street.

Thank you for correcting us. Please feel free to redefine any other words you like.

There is no morality in science. Morality is derived from logical justification. You're using science to defend your position on infan...abortion. I'm arguing against you using science. In science, the individual doesn't matter, only the continuity of the species. Scientifically, you matter less than your children, since you're less likely to reproduce. But that's another argument entirely.

Actually, I'm making an ethical argument.

I'm less than clear on what you think you are doing.

"In science, the individual doesn't matter, only the continuation of the species." Says who? Why?

You know what relative means right? It has to do with where you're looking at something from relative to someplace else you could be looking at it from? From an ant's perspective, we don't matter. 6 billion of us could die and the ants would carry on without a care in the world. If six billion of us died, we'd care about it. If six billion ants died, we wouldn't care, but their colonies certainly would.

So, you assume that humans care only about humans. You assume that, because humans only care about humans, we should care only about humans. Don't agree with these assumptions.

Moreover, they don't get you from "only care about humans" to "have to care about anything human."

The brain could be replaced, theoretically. We didn't always know how to do heart transplants, you know.Sorry to bring religion into this but that's as ridiculous as saying a soul can be replaced. The surgery to transplant a head exists. If another head was put on me would you say I'm still me?

Let's assume all that is true.

Now, where have I ever said that thinking matters for determining humanity? I would assume that you consider yourself human, in spite of your disinclination for thought.

You are the one arguing sentience and pain matter. I have not.

Ah, insults. A clear sign of desperation.

You have not explained what does matter or why.

You are right.

The dictionaries are wrong.

The context in which the person you were responding to was wrong.

We cannot refer to a parasite in a medical or biological sense, because you say that isn't what would occur to a random person on the street.

Thank you for correcting us. Please feel free to redefine any other words you like.



Actually, I'm making an ethical argument.

I'm less than clear on what you think you are doing.

"In science, the individual doesn't matter, only the continuation of the species." Says who? Why?



So, you assume that humans care only about humans. You assume that, because humans only care about humans, we should care only about humans. Don't agree with these assumptions.

Moreover, they don't get you from "only care about humans" to "have to care about anything human."
You're right. Words are solely defined by how someone says they are, not how they're used. We should extend your irrationality further, and say that since guns are defined as weapons that kill, all gun owners are murderers. Since it's only definitions, and not reality that matter with you.

Says all of goddamn science. You exist to make more of you. Then you die. That's what you do. That's all you do. Nothing else matters but the species. Go read a goddamn biology textbook if you're really so ignorant.

All my assumptions are biologically based. If you want to bring in something to this debate that isn't science, I'll bring in religion and then neither of us will get anywhere.

Sorry to bring religion into this but that's as ridiculous as saying a soul can be replaced. The surgery to transplant a head exists. If another head was put on me would you say I'm still me?
Sorry, I looked through my biology textbook and strangely the word "soul" was absent. Almost as if you were bringing in something that was unrelated to science. And as long as we're on the subject of souls, if those matter, then how can you justify abortion? Or does God only give them to us on our 0th birthday? No headtransplanting surgery exists. Ogliodendrocytes would prevent it. Are you still a person? Yes you are. Are you a person that would behave the same way as Cuddly bunny? Probably not. If you cut off a dog's leg, and replace it with a cat's leg, is it still a dog? Yes. Will it act like one when it runs? Probably not.

No it wouldn't. Reproduction is always better than not reproducing. If you made too many, you can die off. No harm done.

My morality is in my reasoning. You are making your morals on emotional appeal, not on reality.

If some can die off with "no harm done," then some can be prevented from being born with "no harm done." Why is one superior? Why is one immoral?

Since when and why is "reproduction always better than not producing"?

I have yet to make an emotional appeal. I dare you to point out where I did in this discussion.

You have yet to state a single moral principle. In fact, you just argued in another post that you were arguing science and "[t]here is no morality in science." Care to pick a theme?

Ah, insults. A clear sign of desperation.

You have not explained what does matter or why.
No, just an observation.

All that matters is continuity. Go read a book. It matters because that's the goal of life. Because it promotes entrophy. You're just being assinine because you'd rather me jump through hoops than you admit what you already know so you can avoid actual arguing.

If some can die off with "no harm done," then some can be prevented from being born with "no harm done." Why is one superior? Why is one immoral?

Since when and why is "reproduction always better than not producing"?

I have yet to make an emotional appeal. I dare you to point out where I did in this discussion.

You have yet to state a single moral principle. In fact, you just argued in another post that you were arguing science and "[t]here is no morality in science." Care to pick a theme?
One is superior because that's the way species work. It's the way that's worked for 5 billion years. It's the way that your genes code you to behave. It's the way all of nature works.

Since go read a book. You're being assinine.

You aren't arguing with science, you're arguing with emotion. That is the definition of emotional appeal.

Morally has to come from somewhere. Where would you like mine to come from? Religion? Logic? Your ass? I'm trying to present the most logical argument given your original premises.

::sigh:: Arammanar, Instead of resorting to cheap insults and arguing semantics maybe you could just stick to the dsicussion? It's not perfect but head transplants does exist (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1263758.stm).

::sigh:: Arammanar, Instead of resorting to cheap insults and arguing semantics maybe you could just stick to the dsicussion? It's not perfect but head transplants does exist (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1263758.stm).
I don't know why head transplants are relevant to the discussion, but if you insist.

And I fail to see how a partially transplant in monkeys that ultimately resulted in death means the process exists for humans.
EDIT: And take the semi-colon out of your link

Bunny, Earth, and Cat can argue amongst yourselves, it's 4:46 and time for sleeping.

You're right. Words are solely defined by how someone says they are, not how they're used. We should extend your irrationality further, and say that since guns are defined as weapons that kill, all gun owners are murderers. Since it's only definitions, and not reality that matter with you.

Main Entry: dic·tio·nary
Pronunciation: 'dik-sh&-"ner-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nar·ies
Etymology: Medieval Latin dictionarium, from Late Latin diction-, dictio word, from Latin, speaking
1 : a reference book containing words usually alphabetically arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, functions, etymologies, meanings, and syntactical and idiomatic uses
2 : a reference book listing alphabetically terms or names important to a particular subject or activity along with discussion of their meanings and applications

Says all of goddamn science. You exist to make more of you. Then you die. That's what you do. That's all you do. Nothing else matters but the species. Go read a goddamn biology textbook if you're really so ignorant.

Again, insults. Very impressive.

Studied biology, thank you.

Don't remember the chapter on the moral imperative to serve the species.

Nor is it true empirically that we must act to further the species -- unless you want to grant that our current abortion practices further the species?

All my assumptions are biologically based. If you want to bring in something to this debate that isn't science, I'll bring in religion and then neither of us will get anywhere.

No, your assumptions are convenient attempts to justify a conclusion you reached by other means.

You cannot make an ethical distinction between a pig and zygote based on pure biology.

No, just an observation.

All that matters is continuity. Go read a book. It matters because that's the goal of life. Because it promotes entrophy. You're just being assinine because you'd rather me jump through hoops than you admit what you already know so you can avoid actual arguing.

You make unfounded assumptions and assertions you cannot defend.

That you cannot defend your position is hardly evidence that I am being asinine.

Entrophy? Not a word.

I'd assume you meant "entropy" but that doesn't make sense either.

One is superior because that's the way species work. It's the way that's worked for 5 billion years. It's the way that your genes code you to behave. It's the way all of nature works.

Abortion has existed for at least thousands of years. Most probably for as long as there has been mankind there has been abortion and/or infanticide.

Killing of young is common among nature.

As for "the way species work" and "the way that [our] genes code [us] to behave," they clear do not instruct us not to perform abotion. In fact, we tend to feel the opposite of your assertion -- we accept abortion, but tend (weakly I admit) to feel living adults should not just "die off."

Since go read a book. You're being assinine.

Again, with the insults. And it is "asinine."

Your inability to defend your assertions does not make me asinine.

You aren't arguing with science, you're arguing with emotion. That is the definition of emotional appeal.

No. You are arguing from a scientific facade.

I am arguing from ethics. Not with emotion. With logic. The one hurling insults might be a tad emotional.

Morally has to come from somewhere. Where would you like mine to come from? Religion? Logic? Your ass? I'm trying to present the most logical argument given your original premises.

Ethics, dear boy. Ethics.

Mill, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Rawls, etc. Ethics.

As much as I enjoyed reading this ethic-scientific discussion, I think you left out one very important aspect : The mother.

In my humble opinion, she should be the only person to deciede whether or not she wants to have a child.

There are hundreds of unwanted pregnancies, by the mother's fault or other (believe it or not, there simply is no 100% save contraceptive), but the people who are shouting about the rights of the unborn child the loudest are also the people who care the least about the situation of the mother (which will eventually become the situation the child has to grow up in).
Now, I don't believe in abortion as a form of contraception and I don't think it's a decision that can be taken lightly, but then I honestly doubt that any woman on this planet would just go an have an abortion without giving it serious consideration. If she does, she's not very likely to be a good mother anyway...
I've met a number of women faced with the choice, one of my friends gave her child for adoption, one of them had an abortion, two just got and kept their kids. Each time was incredibly difficult, each decision was considered for days and weeks. I hope I'll never have to go through that, but seeing that I don't want to have any children, I might face that myself someday. I am using contraceptives, but I do know that they are not 100% safe - NONE of them. If I have to decide that, I want all my options open, I don't want any man tell me I don't have the right to decide what happens inside my own body! If I don't want a child growing in there, I won't have a child growing in there.
If anybody feels that the life of this foetus is so precious, fine, take it out and have it grow somewhere else.

The liberals' Culture of Death*editted by Bottle for purposes of translation*

Trolling troll troller, troll troll, and cut and paste. Liberal baby-killer, murder baby, liberal, liberal murder liberal kill kill liberal. Trollerly troll troll, cut and paste paste paste. Rant rant troll troll rant troll rant. Everything Ann Coulter says should be taken as gospel. Troll troll. Liberal culture of death liberal murder murder Terry Shaivo. Ignore the fact that conservative judges upheld the Terry Shaivo rulings. Ignore the fact that the majority of conservatives supported removal of Terry Shaivo's feeding tube. Ignore the fact that the majority of conservatives support some legal access to abortion rights. Troooooollll!!!!!!! TRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL!!!!

yeah. so. not a whole lot to be said about that little journey down Crackpot Lane.

Bottle pwns again. :)

Anytime something with the full remainder of its reproductive years is removed from the species that's a bad thing.
you were asked to explain how abortion is bad for a species, and this is your reply?! from a species standpoint, there are many, many, MANY cases in which it would be ideal for a particular individual to not reproduce! for an individual organism the goal may be to pass on one's own genetic information, but on a species level there are many cases in which you don't want certain traits passed on. you may also have cases in which the species would show increased average fitness if birth rates were limited and parental care improved. the reason these things don't always show up in nature is that natural selection works on the individual and not on the population...but fortunately humans are slightly less limited.

The liberals' Culture of Death
The liberal bible, the New York Times, is in full death-promotion mode. Liberals love the whole culture of death.
Stopped reading here.
Typical Liberal responce. Only pays attention to that which supports his ideas and ignores those that refute them.
No, it was absudly sensationalist. Do you think that Joel Johannesen is interested in calm, rational debate after writing things like that?

Few people are killed by zygotes. Few cancer cells become humans.


http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic478.htm

Ectopic pregnancy is the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester, and it is a cause of significant morbidity. It is responsible for 10% of maternal deaths.

No. A child is not parasite. It does not live in or on its parents.



i do believe my three daughters and the two miscarriages lived inside me...fully sustained by my body.

i do believe my three daughters and the two miscarriages lived inside me...fully sustained by my body.

...which was before they were children.

Problem solved.

i do believe my three daughters and the two miscarriages lived inside me...fully sustained by my body.

Please try to follow context.

Before they were born they lived inside you and were sustained by your body.

After they were born they did not live inside you and, at least at some point shortly thereafter, were not sustained by your body.

Arammanar was referring to children -- born children.

Not zygotes, embryos, or fetuses.

Anytime something with the full remainder of its reproductive years is removed from the species that's a bad thing.


and the day humans become an endangered species, this argument will hold water.

as it is, we are coming close to maximum saturation

Now, I don't believe in abortion as a form of contraception and I don't think it's a decision that can be taken lightly, but then I honestly doubt that any woman on this planet would just go an have an abortion without giving it serious consideration. If she does, she's not very likely to be a good mother anyway...


EXACTLY! and well said :)