The World Can't Wait Drive Out the Bush Regime

[outsider]

This thread has been hijacked... if you want to start an abortion thread, please do...

 

[1123581321]

So, contraception is OK?

anything that stops the egg from being fertalized is ok with me.

 

[1123581321]

This thread has been hijacked... if you want to start an abortion thread, please do...

if you read the first post by redwinter, he mentions abortion. we are simply discussing that part of the thread.

 

[pattylou]

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM

Thank you, Fib.

I must say, this has some direct contradictions in it:

"Only God is the master of life!" vs. "the right to protect one's own life."

Why do you believe you have the right to protect your life?

Outsider: Sorry about the hijacking. Abortion *was* one of the issues in the initial post. The post was so long, and had so many issues, that it would be impossible to discuss any of them at length without seemingly going "off topic," IMO.

 

[1123581321]

I believe that i have that right because i value my life more than the life of someone who is trying to kill me, as do most people. I will always try to find a way to protect myself without using leathal force, but i won't hesitate if i need to, even if it would say in the Bible that i shouldn't (which, as you pointed out, the bible isn't clear on).

 

[outsider]

if you read the first post by redwinter, he mentions abortion. we are simply discussing that part of the thread.

fair enough.. in that case...

a fetus relies completely on the mother for it's life. without the mother, the fetus does not have life and cannot survive. it does not have a mind of it's own and is unable to make decisions. It is not a being unto itself until separated from the umbilical cord. Therefore the baby is actually a part of the mother's biology. It is her body and her decision.

it is seldom that any woman who has carried a fetus for more than 2 months would change their minds about abortion (unless the baby was created under false pretence to keep a man or something like that). The fetus has no rights. The person who has the right to decide if they want to carry an extra 30-60lbs for 9 months is the mother. No one else has the right to force her to go through all the pain.

poor people are generally less responsible hence is what keeps them poor... therefore the are likely to have accidents. These poor folk have a hard time supporting themselves, what would make one think that they will do much better with a child? (I'm not saying that its impossible, just improbable). I think growing up poor is great suffering for these children and often poverty is perpetuated due to the preoccupation with their circumstances. Becoming motivated to go to school and excelling is very rare as these children do not have the support systems at home the same as children of average homes.

I can give a shoit what god or dog has to say about it... we are in a new era that allows for people to make this choice for themselves. people want to have sex... no matter if they can afford it or not... forcing them to have a child they cannot afford will likely destroy their relationship, and stack the odds against the child in life.

i'd like to know if YOU are having any sex? And if not, is it by choice or due to your circumstances?

 

[1123581321]

poor people are generally less responsible hence is what keeps them poor... therefore the are likely to have accidents. These poor folk have a hard time supporting themselves, what would make one think that they will do much better with a child? (I'm not saying that its impossible, just improbable). I think growing up poor is great suffering for these children and often poverty is perpetuated due to the preoccupation with their circumstances. Becoming motivated to go to school and excelling is very rare as these children do not have the support systems at home the same as children of average homes.

Accidents? you say it like they have no control over themselves.

I can give a shoit what god or dog has to say about it... we are in a new era that allows for people to make this choice for themselves. people want to have sex... no matter if they can afford it or not... forcing them to have a child they cannot afford will likely destroy their relationship, and stack the odds against the child in life.

If they need to have sex so bad, then they can use condoms or put babies up for adoption.

i'd like to know if YOU are having any sex? And if not, is it by choice or due to your circumstances?

Yeah, i'll publish info like that on the internet.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm sory but I think the abortion discussion is rather a moot. Vanesch brought up the point "When does a fetus become a human with rights?" So far neither side really can make a definitive case for itself though good cases they may be. Since the pro-lifers are the ones that want to create a law taking away someone's right to undergo a certain medical procedure the burden of proof is on them(in my opinion). Since this proof can not be satisfactorily established then I do not believe a law should be put in place regarding the medical procedure. Again my opinion. Though we may argue how well such a proof has been established, which seems to only show that it hasn't been, I doubt we will argue that no such law should be put in place until such time as the proof has been established.
I have my own feelings on abortion but I do not let them cloud the issue of other's opinions and rights.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I do agree with you though Fib that people should be more responsable about their sex lives and that adoption should be preferable to abortion.

 

[Evo]

Accidents? you say it like they have no control over themselves.

If they need to have sex so bad, then they can use condoms or put babies up for adoption.


Yeah, i'll publish info like that on the internet.

I've pretty much decided to stay out of this kind of discussion because it goes nowhere, but 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 there is no perfect form of birth control. The most responsible of people may still have an accident. They may not be ready to have a child and I am in full support of first trimester abortions for any reason. I am in full support of abortion in later trimesters for medical & psychological reasons.

I have to ask how many unwanted children you have adopted, or if you're too young, how many you plan to adopt? It's so easy to tell people how to live their lives, not so easy to put your money where your mouth is.

Also, there is no way adoption would be a viable alternative to abortion, are you aware of the numbers?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Also, there is no way adoption would be a viable alternative to abortion, are you aware of the numbers?

I've tried looking. I know that adoption numbers aren't very good in general but from what I have been told the adoption of new borns is very successful. I have yet to see numbers specifically for new born adoptions though.
---edit---
sorry to drag you in Evo.

 

[Townsend]

I've pretty much decided to stay out of this kind of discussion because it goes nowhere, but 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 there is no perfect form of birth control. The most responsible of people may still have an accident. They may not be ready to have a child and I am in full support of first trimester abortions for any reason. I am in full support of abortion in later trimesters for medical & psychological reasons.

I have to ask how many unwanted children you have adopted, or if you're too young, how many you plan to adopt? It's so easy to tell people how to live their lives, not so easy to put your money where your mouth is.

Well said Evo...well said

 

[Evo]

I've tried looking. I know that adoption numbers aren't very good in general but from what I have been told the adoption of new borns is very successful. I have yet to see numbers specifically for new born adoptions though.
---edit---
sorry to drag you in Evo.

It's been discussed here before, if you look at the number of abortions performed annually and add that to the number of babies currently up for adoption, it's impossible. So, we open up orphanages where these unwanted kids can live unwanted without the chance of living in a family, no hope for a normal life, institutionalized until they're old enough to be cut off from support, then thrown into a world they've never lived in. Oh, yeah, that's great. And where is the money going to come from? And what about these millions and millions of unwanted kids? How is society supposed to absorb them? Got any answers? (not directed at you TSA) It's just that people do not think things through.

 

[vanesch]

Ok, then I repeat my question: is it ok to spit ?

Ok, I expected in fact no answer to this question, because it seems to be totally unrelated, and maybe even perceived as something ad hominem. It isn't, it is straight to the point.

1) The difference between a fecondated egg cell and another one is of course the DNA content. All the rest of the cellular machinery is the same. So if it is the DNA content that is "sacred", so be it. Now, this must be a quite specific DNA content, because between a Chimp fecondated egg and a human fecondated egg, there's only about 1% of the base pairs that's different.
So we seem to have a DNA molecule with "human rights" here if it contains a very specific sequencing order.
Again, it cannot be the egg cell, because the egg cell without fecondation is exactly the same as the one with fecondation, except for the DNA.

2) Now, if you spit on the ground, chances are there are several human cells in it ; that's btw how forensic science can find DNA strings from saliva to identify criminals. IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME DNA ! Each cell in your body has exactly the same DNA. So if that molecule is so sacred, you shouldn't be allowed to loose cells. Spitting and abortion are on the same level !

3) you could argue that "an egg cell, given the right circumstances, can grow into a human". Well, EXACTLY THE SAME IS TRUE FOR YOUR OTHER CELLS ! You can (in principle) take its DNA, put it in an egg cell and grow a copy of you ; that's what's called cloning. So if human DNA "has rights" you shouldn't be allowed to loose any of your cells !

So tell me again, when/what exactly has human rights ?

 

[vanesch]

I'm curious Vanesch, what is this suppose to imply? Are you a pro-choice individual as well?

What's pro-choice ? Giving a woman the right, if she absolutely wants to keep her child, not to have abortion ?

 

[vanesch]

Since the pro-lifers are the ones that want to create a law taking away someone's right to undergo a certain medical procedure the burden of proof is on them(in my opinion). Since this proof can not be satisfactorily established then I do not believe a law should be put in place regarding the medical procedure.

I think the point is quite clear. You can discuss about whether a fetus is a human being who can suffer (that's in fact the essential point !) in the last trimester ; in the beginning, the first few months, scientifically it is total bull**** because your goldfish is a more advanced creature at that moment than the fetus. In between, it is a grey zone. So being against abortion in the first few months cannot have any scientific underpinning, and is purely religious. Now, a *religious* view should not be imposed legally upon others. I don't want a law imposing me to respect the Shabat ; in the same way religious arguments should not be used (in an enlightened democracy) to impose these views on OTHER people.

So allowing for abortion until a certain early period in the term seems to me totally impossible to argue against from any scientific point of view. It is only for the later period that there can be different arguments. I find the solution they have in France not so bad: there's possibility of abortion, I think it is something like 12 weeks or so. After that it is illegal, but you can give birth to the child and abandon it immediately.

Personally, I'd have no difficulties shifting that 12 weeks to 6 months, because the fetus is not viable on its own up to that moment. But I can uderstand that people want to set the limit earlier.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's been discussed here before, if you look at the number of abortions performed annually and add that to the number of babies currently up for adoption, it's impossible. So, we open up orphanages where these unwanted kids can live unwanted without the chance of living in a family, no hope for a normal life, institutionalized until they're old enough to be cut off from support, then thrown into a world they've never lived in. Oh, yeah, that's great. And where is the money going to come from? And what about these millions and millions of unwanted kids? How is society supposed to absorb them? Got any answers? (not directed at you TSA) It's just that people do not think things through.

I still can't find the numbers in regards to new borns. The only thing I could find was in this first paragraph here...

Since the end of World War II, interest in adoption primarily has focused on healthy, young infants. By the mid-1950's, the demand for healthy infants grew so significantly that it exceeded the number of children available for adoption, a trend that has accelerated with each passing decade. (Freundlich, 1998)
Adoption.com

Wait I found more...
I can not find actual stats on how many new borns go up for adoption each year though or how many of them are adopted each year. They only give general numbers that I can find.
As far as I understand the vast majority of children that go into foster care aren't infants and the vast majority of infants that go up for adoption are adopted. The idea that opting for adoption over abortion with only put more kids into the system is a fallacy. It's the mothers who keep their children even though they can not properly take care of them that wind up filling the system with unwanted children.
Ofcourse if all the children that get aborted every year were to be placed for adoption instead it could very well clog the system. But if fewer women who are incapable of raising a child were to become pregnant then that would help quite a bit as well, both in the way of fewer abortions and fewer children in the system.

 

[Skyhunter]

I've pretty much decided to stay out of this kind of discussion because it goes nowhere

I agree see post #109. It is also way off topic.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think the point is quite clear. [ect...]

I was being diplomatic by not asserting a stance on direction or the other. I agree with you and I do not agree with making laws based on anything but logic.

 

[outsider]

So allowing for abortion until a certain early period in the term seems to me totally impossible to argue against from any scientific point of view. It is only for the later period that there can be different arguments. I find the solution they have in France not so bad: there's possibility of abortion, I think it is something like 12 weeks or so. After that it is illegal, but you can give birth to the child and abandon it immediately.

somehow i find abandoning a baby after birth is far crueler than killing it before it knows any better. Before you lose, you must gain... and a baby has gained nothing by way of experience or pain until it is born. the psycological duress on the mother is also harmful for the fetus' development. if you (not you vanesch, but pro-lifers) feel that you can judge people for being immoral and cruel, well, I would say that pro-lifers are the cruel ones.

 

[outsider]

I've pretty much decided to stay out of this kind of discussion because it goes nowhere, but 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 there is no perfect form of birth control. The most responsible of people may still have an accident. They may not be ready to have a child and I am in full support of first trimester abortions for any reason. I am in full support of abortion in later trimesters for medical & psychological reasons.

I have to ask how many unwanted children you have adopted, or if you're too young, how many you plan to adopt? It's so easy to tell people how to live their lives, not so easy to put your money where your mouth is.

Also, there is no way adoption would be a viable alternative to abortion, are you aware of the numbers?

wonderfully put... and especially credible since you are a mother too. (aren't you?) you're beautiful!

 

[Skyhunter]

When you have held your babies, fed them, cared for them when they were ill, cried with them, laughed with them, and then had to bury them after they are killed in a war is far worse than having an abortion.

Don't believe me, ask Cindy Sheehan

 

[faust9]

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM

This is an intrepretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself. There are passages that preach the famous "turn the other cheek" philosophy because by doing so you put yourself above the evil and into Gods hands. If you're arguing your pro-life stance from the position of a Christian then you need to do so from the new testiment. The preachings of Jesus supercede the Old Testiment when there is a conflict between the two.

The "Turn the other cheek" philosophy shows itself in many modernday religions.

Talmud: One should choose to be among the persecuted, rather than the persecutors.

Dhammapada: Victory breeds hatred, for the defeated live in pain. Happily live the peaceful, giving up victory and defeat.

Book of Mormon: For behold, they had rather sacrifice their lives than even to take the life of their enemy; and they have buried their weapons of war deep in the earth, because of their love towards their brethren.

Book of Matthew: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

What you're dealing with is an interpretation of God's word. You will not find a passage where Christ advocates self defense---quite the contrary. What you will find is second hand subjective reasoning to support a position allowing Christians to "Defend themselves".

If you look at the reasoning for self defense and juxtapose that with Christ's writings you'll find the self defense may be worse in many instance than turning the other cheek. If you are righteous then your place in heaven and next to God is assured; however, the attacker's(sinner's) place in heaven is not. Self defense may lead to the death of the sinner thus fixing the sinners place in "hell" which is worse than allowing the sinner to live because---and here's the kicker---the sinner may change as Paul did. So, is it better to defend yourself or to 'possible' secure a place in heaven for another? That's a choice you ahve to make but do so knowing that Christ never advocated self defens.

My 2 cents.

 

[DM]

Please describe pro choice, and I am also curious why you ask, or why it is relevant? I'd prefer to answer your question after I know what you mean by "pro choice."

Fom Oxford dictionary:
Pro-choice adj. believing that a pregnant woman should be able to choose to have an abortion if she wants.

I'd like to know your stance in abortion, do you support it or condemn it? I'm unable to identify it from your answers.

 

[vanesch]

This is an intrepretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself.

Yes, but according to the scriptures of the Great Bangaloo (which are unfortunately not available online) a totally different ethical code of conduct is proposed (book XI, phrase 1062.2): "hit those that might one day hit you, and you will receive the Ointment of the Great White Handkerchief" (similar to God's paradise for Christian worshippers - though there are big differences too, especially concerning the choice of golden spoons). I'm (probably the sole) worshipper of the Great Bangaloo, but these scriptures should have similar legal and ethical rights than any other religious code, no ?

 

[DM]

What's pro-choice ? Giving a woman the right, if she absolutely wants to keep her child, not to have abortion ?

The converse, choosing to have an abortion.

Now, if you spit on the ground, chances are there are several human cells in it ; that's btw how forensic science can find DNA strings from saliva to identify criminals. IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME DNA ! Each cell in your body has exactly the same DNA. So if that molecule is so sacred, you shouldn't be allowed to loose cells. Spitting and abortion are on the same level !

From this written statement, I'm able to deduce that you're a pro-choice individual.

I fail to understand why you compare "spit" with an embryo. By spitting you're not killing an organism, one that is being developed into a full human being. Spitting and abortion are not on the same level, your statement actually comes to me as a shock.

You challenge pro-life individuals, like me, to answer "when/what exactly has human rights?"

Are you saying that a full grown person with a mental deficiency; unable to orally communicate, move and think should not have rights? Are you thus saying that this person should be killed?

Abortion is in many levels connected to euthanasia. There are people in this world that choose the fate of others.

 

[faust9]

Yes, but according to the scriptures of the Great Bangaloo (which are unfortunately not available online) a totally different ethical code of conduct is proposed (book XI, phrase 1062.2): "hit those that might one day hit you, and you will receive the Ointment of the Great White Handkerchief" (similar to God's paradise for Christian worshippers - though there are big differences too, especially concerning the choice of golden spoons). I'm (probably the sole) worshipper of the Great Bangaloo, but these scriptures should have similar legal and ethical rights than any other religious code, no ?

This was my popint earlier. Abortion is not explicitly prohibited by many religions but for some reason Christians feel it necessary to force their own brand of righteousness upon the rest of the world. Many religions have "health of the mother" clauses.

The thing that bugs me is when people preach about responsibility. Well, it's hard to be responsible when you're being raped. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050831/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_safrica_rape

It's hard to be responsible when the educating of the poor is stopped because we feel abortion should not be an option so to help prevent abortion we stop educating poor Africans all together.


It's hard to be responsible when your a Thai sex slave.

These poeple who preach responsibility have probably never been to Olongapo City or Padia Beach or Singapore or Oman or Yeman or Dakar or anyone of a number of poor nations were sex is a sole means of income or selling daughters into sexual slavery to feed the rest of the family is an acceptible practice.

 

[faust9]

The converse, choosing to have an abortion.



From this written statement, I'm able to deduce that you're a pro-choice individual.

I fail to understand why you compare "spit" with an embryo. By spitting you're not killing an organism, one that is being developed into a full human being. Spitting and abortion are not on the same level, your statement actually comes to me as a shock.

You challenge pro-life individuals, like me, to answer "when/what exactly has human rights?"

Are you saying that a full grown person with a mental deficiency; unable to orally communicate, move and think should not have rights? Are you thus saying that this person should be killed?

Abortion is in many levels connected to euthanasia. There are people in this world that choose the fate of others.

At what point does a Human become a human and what doctrine are you using to base this upon?

Also, euthanasia is typically the right of individuals to choose when where and how they expire---people choosing their own fate.

How much mental capacity does a zygot have? Can a zygot survive without the mother? If I have a kidney can you force me to give it to you to save your life?

 

[DM]

Abortion is not explicitly prohibited by many religions but for some reason Christians feel it necessary to force their own brand of righteousness upon the rest of the world.

Abortion is also not explicitly prohibited by Christians.

The thing that bugs me is when people preach about responsibility. Well, it's hard to be responsible when you're being raped.

Do you like distorting facts? Responsibility is directed to those that willingly practise sex. Individuals that are raped are adviced to have the baby and if the person does not wish to nurture the child, it's best to give it to an institution.

It's hard to be responsible when the educating of the poor is stopped because we feel abortion should not be an option so to help prevent abortion we stop educating poor Africans all together.

Why should the education of the poor be stopped when we feel abortion should not be an option?

 

[faust9]

Abortion is also not explicitly prohibited by Christians.

Then you need to tell the evangelicals and catholics this.

Do you like distorting facts? Responsibility is directed to those that willingly practise sex. Individuals that are raped are adviced to have the baby and if the person does not wish to nurture the child, it's best to give it to an institution.

Why should a woman be advised to carry a baby to term which would endanger her life---poor women have high labor mortality rates---to support your view that the child should be allowed to live?

Why should the education of the poor be stopped when we feel abortion should not be an option?

Why indeed.

 

[vanesch]

The converse, choosing to have an abortion.

Mymy, if for every joke one needs a smiley !

From this written statement, I'm able to deduce that you're a pro-choice individual.

Great deduction

I fail to understand why you compare "spit" with an embryo. By spitting you're not killing an organism, one that is being developed into a full human being. Spitting and abortion are not on the same level, your statement actually comes to me as a shock.

But you ARE. I was responding to what's its series' name, who claimed that a SINGLE EGGCELL was a human being with rights. My argument was a "reductio ad absurdum" in that if we take that as a point of departure, you arrive at the crazy conclusion that each human cell has those rights !

You challenge pro-life individuals, like me, to answer "when/what exactly has human rights?"

Are you saying that a full grown person with a mental deficiency; unable to orally communicate, move and think should not have rights? Are you thus saying that this person should be killed?

A grown person, no matter how deficient, is NOT biologically dependent on the body of someone else. Imagine that a totally deficient person has no liver, and that YOU must stay biologically connected to that person in order for him to live. Imagine him almost brain dead. Wouldn't you think about arguing that, hey, it is YOUR liver, and you have the right to "disconnect" from that other person. If that would make him die, too bad.

Also, I think that yes indeed, beyond a certain level of "brain deadness" you loose your "human rights to live". But it is a much more difficult question to answer because one doesn't know about the irreversibility in many cases.

Imagine that my left leg got ripped off in an accident, but is still "alive", while I got crushed under a truck. Should one keep my leg alive with artificial blood irrigation and so on ?

Abortion is in many levels connected to euthanasia. There are people in this world that choose the fate of others.

As I said, there's the difference of biological dependence. I'm however pro euthanasia in 2 cases: 1) if it is clearly the DEMAND of the person in question and 2) if the person is totally and irreversibly brain-damaged to the point where every form of "human life" is impossible.
But this is another discussion, because I fully realize the dangers of abuse.

 

[DM]

At what point does a Human become a human and what doctrine are you using to base this upon?

Since it becomes a Zigote. That simple.

Also, euthanasia is typically the right of individuals to choose when where and how they expire---people choosing their own fate.

There are many types of euthanasia. Allow me to introduce you to:

"Involuntary euthanasia is when a patient's life is ended without the patient's knowledge and consent. This may mean that the patient is kicking and screaming and begging for life, but in practice today it usually means that the patient is unconscious, unable to communicate, or is too sick and weak to be aware of what is happening or to take any action on his own behalf."

Involuntary Euthanasia
http://www.hospicepatients.org/actual-hosp-euth-cases.html

How much mental capacity does a zygot have? Can a zygot survive without the mother? If I have a kidney can you force me to give it to you to save your life?

Your comparison is not valid. Notice your "How much mental capacity does a zygot have?" comment. Exactly the same as involuntary euthanasia. Sickening.

 

[vanesch]

Since it becomes a Zigote. That simple.

And the other part of the question: on what doctrine do you base yourself to say that this is a human being ?

I tried to argue that such a zigote is about the same thing as just any OTHER cell of a human being. So what differentiates a zigote from that other cell ?

 

[DM]

Why should a woman be advised to carry a baby to term which would endanger her life---

Why would it endanger her life?

Why indeed.

Would you like to tell me how does the education of the poor stop when abortion is not an option?

 

[faust9]

Since it becomes a Zigote. That simple.



There are many types of euthanasia. Allow me to introduce you to:

"Involuntary euthanasia is when a patient's life is ended without the patient's knowledge and consent. This may mean that the patient is kicking and screaming and begging for life, but in practice today it usually means that the patient is unconscious, unable to communicate, or is too sick and weak to be aware of what is happening or to take any action on his own behalf."

You mean like the Schaivo case huh?

Involuntary Euthanasia
http://www.hospicepatients.org/actual-hosp-euth-cases.html

Unsubstianted e-mails. Let me clue you in on a little secret---people lie on the internet sometimes. People do not always tell the truth when they feel passionately about a subject.

Your comparison is not valid. Notice your "How much mental capacity does a zygot have?" comment. Exactly the same as involuntary euthanasia. Sickening.

Ok your opinion. You conveniently avoided the free will to choose your kidney aspect but that's because you feel a zygot is a human while I feel a living breathing child is a human.