Political Crossfire Forums

[steen]

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote: Steed

I find it interesting that you take the point of view you do. I have a few questions/comments.

While it may be true that the human heart would beat on a table, I don't know, it is by no means just an automatic function. There is actually quite the complex nervous system that actually regulates your heart beat (otherwise it couldn't respond to changing conditions). Actually, it merely modulates it. If you cut the nerves, the heart beats at 40 beats/minute automatically.

Quote: Your comment about an independly functioning human being. I was wondering if that meant that I can walk into a hospital and just terminate anyone who is on a ventilator or dialysis machine? They have no dependence on biological function of others. they function as individual, independent beings. Mechanical assistance doesn't make one an un-individual.

Quote: You are concerned with the baby basically sucking the resources out of the women. Perhaps you are in favor of parents killing any child who is refusing to support themselves. I gotta tell you, I was quite a drain on my parents when I was 5. The issue is not the killing but rather the termination of use. It is very possible to give your kid up to the state at age 5 and thus not have a drain on your resources. But the point here, that you missed, is bodily, biological resources are in question. That is where pro-life uniquely want to enslave and control the woman, forcing her to give her bodily resources against her will. YOU personally don't want to endure that, you personally don't want to be strapped down and have a pint of blood extracted from you against your will. yet that is exactly what you want to force the woman to do, just even more so.

[Nicholas]

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote:
Nicholas, I don't know what a systemically fully made production of life is.

It's where I regard the entire body or an entire organism to be functioning like the rest of us. As Steen pointed out, you are a human the moment the umbilical cord is cut and therefore able to be with the current existence, i.e Life. Whereas, if you are still in the mother's womb, you are not yet the production of a fully made life until you are in your mother's hands after birth.

[the_lizard_on_the_wall]

it is disgusting that you would even consider murdering a child because you dont want it.

A. it is not against a womans will to have a child. there is a preventitive measure, once upon a time known asa abstinence, that works very well, i hear.
B. I forget the amendment that says you have the right to youur own body... and if it was there, it would apply to the unborn child.
C.On what gounds do you say it is not alive? YOU have to provide evidence that is is not alive. god help our society if we have lost such repect for life, that it is automaticaly okay to kill it if its sentience is at all in question.
D. Supposing we cant come to a conclusion, which we cant, should we side with lifers or "libbers" (snort)? if lifers are right and we go with libbersl, hundreds of thousands of babys are brutally murdered. if libbers are right and we go with lifers, then we have more humans, each with a capacity for anything. the doctor that conquers cancer might have just been aborted.
E."moralistic thinking" if you have abandoned morals... then i am wasting my time.

I have had friends killed by car bombs, and i have been shot at by insurgents, but they have never killed children. terrorist arent so heinously vile.

[Lost_In_Ambivelence]

Steen (sorry for getting your name wrong last time)

Well, it would seem to me that if a heart beats at 40 beats per minute on its own, almost no one's heart is set on automatic (the average resting heart rate is about 65.

As to your bodily, biological resources, how is this any different from any other finite resources. In fact, humans are far more capable of surviving a drain on biological resources than anything else. If my budget gets tight (or I add another kid) I can't just go to my landlord and say I am only going to use 60 percent of my apartment so charge me 60 percent the rent. However, the human body is able to constantly monitor the enviorment and make adjustments as necessary (ie endorphines, dopimine, even decrease caloric usage). As for being strapped down for a pint of blood, I agree. However, if I sign a donor card and become brain dead, I have no room to protest when they start cultivating my organs. With exception of rape, when I woman consented to sex, she consented to the possibility of pregnancy. There are so many ways of preventing pregnancy that I don't think as a society we can justify having ways of ending unwanted ones.

Nicholas- What about from the time the baby is born until the cord is cut...can we abort or is it human?

[Lost_In_Ambivelence]

previous post

cultivating = harvesting
(sorry, trying to do two things at once.)

[Nicholas]

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote:
Nicholas- What about from the time the baby is born until the cord is cut...can we abort or is it human?

Well for a start, if want to abort the child, you wouldn't let the baby be born then suddenly realise ''Oh, abort it'' the moment before the cord is cut. You can't, no one would consider aborting a child at that time period. You have plenty of time to consider your final decision if you want to abort the child or not. It's common sense. Personally, the moment the cord is cut, the infant is ready - no longer connected to its mother, but with reality.

Secondly, it's not moralistic, it's about convenience. You cannot apply the same quote when the infant is successfully born, only before. Because a born infant is able to survive, but you can't tell if it's able to or not before birth, there's every possible chance of a miscarriage. When an infant is able to breath, sign of total movement and eyes blinking is the sign of a human being, you can't successfully tell from a mother's womb before birth.

[steen]

the_lizard_on_the_wall wrote: it is disgusting that you would even consider murdering a child because you dont want it. Nobody are talking about murder, and nobody are talking about children. Your emotional histrionics doesn't help your credibility.

Quote: A. it is not against a womans will to have a child. there is a preventitive measure, once upon a time known asa abstinence, that works very well, i hear. If a pregnant woman seeks an abortion, then that pregnancy very much is against her will, your sophistry none withstanding.

Quote: B. I forget the amendment that says you have the right to youur own body... The same one that prohibits me from strapping you down and take a pint of blood from you against your will.

Quote: and if it was there, it would apply to the unborn child. :roll: Another pro-life "just because I say so" emotional outburst. Good heavens, how silly.

Quote: C.On what gounds do you say it is not alive? Who says the embryo or fetus are not "alive"? The zygote is alive, the sperm and egg are alive. Who have said anything about being not alive?

Quote: YOU have to provide evidence that is is not alive. Who are you talking to here?

Quote: god help our society if we have lost such repect for life, that it is automaticaly okay to kill it if its sentience is at all in question. God help our society if we have lost such respect for life, that it is automatically okay to let people like you enslave and control women just because they are pregnant.

Quote: D. Supposing we cant come to a conclusion, which we cant, should we side with lifers or "libbers" (snort)? Should we side with the theocratic, misogynistic, hate mongering, oppressive scumbags? (snort)

Golly gee, that was fun. Should we do a couple more rounds of insults or are you going to show some grown up behavior soon?

Quote: if lifers are right and we go with libbersl, hundreds of thousands of babys are brutally murdered. if libbers are right and we go with lifers, then we have more humans, each with a capacity for anything. the doctor that conquers cancer might have just been aborted. Or Hitler II would have been aborted. Pointless drivel, the what-ifs, as they go both ways.

Quote: E."moralistic thinking" if you have abandoned morals... then i am wasting my time. Obviously YOU have abandoned your morals, so advocating making SLAVES out of women. Disgustingly amoral of you.

Quote: I have had friends killed by car bombs, and i have been shot at by insurgents, but they have never killed children. terrorist arent so heinously vile. Hmm, does this qualify for Godwin's Law?

Yeah, it pretty much does, I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

You loose.

[steen]

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote: Steen (sorry for getting your name wrong last time)

Well, it would seem to me that if a heart beats at 40 beats per minute on its own, almost no one's heart is set on automatic (the average resting heart rate is about 65. In persons, yes. In the 3rd trimester fetus, it runs about 130-140. In the embryo, whatever there is that resembles a heart pulsates at 40 bpm. And this lasts well into the fetal stage.

[quote]As to your bodily, biological resources, how is this any different from any other finite resources.[/quote[]Well, are your bodily resources yours, or can others take them against your will? Can I force you to give your bodily resources against your will? Can I take your blood or your extra kidney, EVEN IF TO SAVE A LIFE?

Quote: In fact, humans are far more capable of surviving a drain on biological resources than anything else. And therefore, you can be forced to give blood, right?

Quote: ..As for being strapped down for a pint of blood, I agree. So you disagree with being forced to give of your bodily resources against your will. That is good to know, especially, as that is exactly what pro-life has been pushing WRT to woman.

Quote: However, if I sign a donor card and become brain dead, I have no room to protest when they start cultivating my organs. With exception of rape, when I woman consented to sex, she consented to the possibility of pregnancy. Nope. Consent to sex is no more consent to pregnancy than smoking is consent to lung cancer.

There are risks for unwanted outcomes, but if these occur, we go to the doctor to rectify the unwanted outcome; we don't say "Ah, well. I agreed to get lung cancer, so I should seek treatment for the unwanted outcome of my own action."

Quote: There are so many ways of preventing pregnancy that I don't think as a society we can justify having ways of ending unwanted ones. And I think that we as a society very much should.

That aside, last CDC data regarding this establishes hat almost 60% of all abortions are after the use of contraception.

Quote: Nicholas- What about from the time the baby is born until the cord is cut...can we abort or is it human? Abortion is the termination of pregnancy. When it is born, there is no pregnancy to terminate, it already happened through the birth.

[the_lizard_on_the_wall]

You keep coming back to the whole women issue. You enjoy labeling dissidents as women hating chauvinistic bastards with the goal of enslaving all females, to make them work in the salt mines until they die of exhaustion. I'm sorry, it is just not true. it is obvious that you are not at all interested at examining your own ideas, and so I'm going to leave with this. You say an unborn child is equal to a tumor, to be killed at the leisure of the mother. I doubt you have ever had to kill anybody. You probably have not heard the last breath of Friends and enemies alike, Friends who you could not save and enemies you killed. It is not until you understand the gravity of death that you appreciate the sanctity of life. as i said, if you are right and i am wrong, stopping abortions do nothing but make more people, most of whom will become contributing members of society. But if i am right and you are wrong, hundreds of thousands of baby's are being brutally murdered. Take it from a person who has looked death in the eye- were the unborn children only animals, it would be worth every effort to save them. nothing should die without cause.

[Selfish_Meme]

the_lizard_on_the_wall wrote: It is not until you understand the gravity of death that you appreciate the sanctity of life. as i said, if you are right and i am wrong, stopping abortions do nothing but make more people, most of whom will become contributing members of society. But if i am right and you are wrong, hundreds of thousands of baby's are being brutally murdered. Take it from a person who has looked death in the eye- were the unborn children only animals, it would be worth every effort to save them. nothing should die without cause.
Yet things die every day for no good reason, every second without cause, do you shower? do you clean the toliet. You kill more individual beings than any world war. Not to mention the life down the food chain. We kill and are killed constantly. We kill bugs, bugs kill us.

We eat meat and plants, what happens if we say killing is immoral, we all starve. The only difference between abortion and killing a cow is that the embryo/fetus is human. In many ways the cow is the greater being, it is sentient, while an early embryo is not. It can feel and fear while an embryo cannot. The only justification for the difference is if you believe in a soul, the rest is just sophistry.

PS. Never say someone in a debate has not experienced something, that is not a justification for a debate. That is only your experience and opinion. They count for you but for no one else. Also since the person you were talking about is a doctor hes probably seen even more death than you.

[Sailor Moon]

Selfish_Meme wrote: the_lizard_on_the_wall wrote: It is not until you understand the gravity of death that you appreciate the sanctity of life. as i said, if you are right and i am wrong, stopping abortions do nothing but make more people, most of whom will become contributing members of society. But if i am right and you are wrong, hundreds of thousands of baby's are being brutally murdered. Take it from a person who has looked death in the eye- were the unborn children only animals, it would be worth every effort to save them. nothing should die without cause.
Yet things die every day for no good reason, every second without cause, do you shower? do you clean the toliet. You kill more individual beings than any world war. Not to mention the life down the food chain. We kill and are killed constantly. We kill bugs, bugs kill us.

We eat meat and plants, what happens if we say killing is immoral, we all starve. The only difference between abortion and killing a cow is that the embryo/fetus is human. In many ways the cow is the greater being, it is sentient, while an early embryo is not. It can feel and fear while an embryo cannot. The only justification for the difference is if you believe in a soul, the rest is just sophistry.

PS. Never say someone in a debate has not experienced something, that is not a justification for a debate. That is only your experience and opinion. They count for you but for no one else. Also since the person you were talking about is a doctor hes probably seen even more death than you.

Hey I'm back.. dont know why I was gone yet..

We EAT cows. Who eats embryos or fetuses?

[Prole]

Sailor Moon wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: the_lizard_on_the_wall wrote: It is not until you understand the gravity of death that you appreciate the sanctity of life. as i said, if you are right and i am wrong, stopping abortions do nothing but make more people, most of whom will become contributing members of society. But if i am right and you are wrong, hundreds of thousands of baby's are being brutally murdered. Take it from a person who has looked death in the eye- were the unborn children only animals, it would be worth every effort to save them. nothing should die without cause.
Yet things die every day for no good reason, every second without cause, do you shower? do you clean the toliet. You kill more individual beings than any world war. Not to mention the life down the food chain. We kill and are killed constantly. We kill bugs, bugs kill us.

We eat meat and plants, what happens if we say killing is immoral, we all starve. The only difference between abortion and killing a cow is that the embryo/fetus is human. In many ways the cow is the greater being, it is sentient, while an early embryo is not. It can feel and fear while an embryo cannot. The only justification for the difference is if you believe in a soul, the rest is just sophistry.

PS. Never say someone in a debate has not experienced something, that is not a justification for a debate. That is only your experience and opinion. They count for you but for no one else. Also since the person you were talking about is a doctor hes probably seen even more death than you.

Hey I'm back.. dont know why I was gone yet..

We EAT cows. Who eats embryos or fetuses?
You're arguing semantics; the specifics of why one want to abort a preborn human is entirely subjective, and no justification is innately more right than any other.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with eating embryos, it is merely a social taboo and probably doesn't have much worth as a meal (too small, hardly any meat, probably not a great taste, lacking in nutritional value, etc). It is neither illegal nor in my opinion immoral (though some people's personal belief codes might maintain otherwise).

[Sailor Moon]

I'm arguing semantics? I'm sorry, but youre the one who brought up the cow.

PS if we dont STOP killing, we all die anyways..


By the way, sentience is not the issue.

[steen]

the_lizard_on_the_wall wrote: You keep coming back to the whole women issue. yes, weird, isn't it? That anybody would actually care about the sentient, sensate woman in all this rather than just see her as a self-propelled uterus with no rights to her own body. What IS the world coming to, eh? :bnghd:

Quote: You enjoy labeling dissidents as women hating chauvinistic bastards with the goal of enslaving all females, to make them work in the salt mines until they die of exhaustion. I'm sorry, it is just not true. If it wasn't, then we would have seen pro-life be more willing to look at better, more scientifically correct and timely sex-ed, better, cheaper (or free) and more available contraception and more support for pregnant women and new families, as these things are what REALLY would lower the number of abortions.

But we do NOT see pro-lifers work very much on this. In fact, when pro-lifers act politically on this, it is to make these issues WORSE for the woman who may contemplate an abortion. As such, it clearly is not about having fewer abortions. Therefore, it must be about the woman. Because if there were fewer unwanted pregnancies, then there are fewer women in difficult situations if abortion is outlawed, and thus more women who can be oppressed and controlled. pro-life are not working at all on lowering the number of UNWANTED pregnancies, only on lowering the number of these women who can get abortions. It very much is about the woman, not about the fetus or embryo. It is about oppression and control, it is about misogynistic enslavement.

Quote: it is obvious that you are not at all interested at examining your own ideas, and so I'm going to leave with this. Oh, what a lame attempt at avoiding dealing with my post, claim your own fictitious and false accusation is "obvious" as if you then don't have to justify your false claim. :lm:

Quote: You say an unborn child... There is no such thing, any more than you are an "undead corpse." Your revisionist linguistic hyperbole indicates a propensity for dishonesty.

Quote: .. is equal to a tumor, "equal to"? No, I am not saying that. I am saying that in the arguments that pro-life makes about development, biology and physiology, their "definitions" often do not distinguish between embryos, fetuses, tumors, or hydatidiform moles. If you don't want this, you need to be more specific and accurate in your claims.

Quote: .. to be killed at the leisure of the mother. Oh, that's a nice hyperbole. Care to try for a discussion without the emotional histrionics?

Quote: I doubt you have ever had to kill anybody. You probably have not heard the last breath of Friends and enemies alike, Friends who you could not save and enemies you killed. I have not seen people die in war, no. But then, an abortion in no way mimics war as you describe it. But I certainly have seen people die before when running codes and have called the code on them. What relevance does that have?.

Quote: It is not until you understand the gravity of death that you appreciate the sanctity of life. as i said, if you are right and i am wrong, stopping abortions do nothing but make more people, most of whom will become contributing members of society. What ignorance. It enslaves women. That you call this "nothing" shows the true disregard you hold for them, the true level of your desire to oppress and control them. Your claim is outrageous in its utter and complete disregard for the woman you force to give of her bodily resources against her will. You should be ashamed of yourself for calling this "nothing."

Quote: But if i am right and you are wrong, hundreds of thousands of baby's are being brutally murdered. Regardless of your claims, they are still not babies. And unless abortion is illegal, it also is not murder. Your revisionist linguistic hyperbole is getting tiresome in its irrelevance.

Quote: Take it from a person who has looked death in the eye- Yes, what do you want to know about it?

Quote: were the unborn children only animals, it would be worth every effort to save them. nothing should die without cause. So even if they are animal, that is enough justification to enslave and oppress women. You know, the more you post, the more disgusting you are coming across.

[Prole]

Sailor Moon wrote:
By the way, sentience is not the issue.
I completely disagree. Sentience is what makes humans worthy of having moral status. Not some incredibly minor variation in protein chains.

You know, in my opinion. Though you are welcome to think that the as little as 2% variation that seperates us from other species is what makes us somehow morally superior to them. Seems a bit arbitrary, though.

[Sailor Moon]

Its not about moral status. Its about life.

Its like saying "I can kill you because in my opinion, you have no sentience, but I do"...

Sentience in fetuses is entirely arbitrary, and opinion based. As is the case in embryos. How would anyone know if an embryo is sentient or not? We do not have that kind of technology, unless youre a psychic.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: Hey I'm back.. dont know why I was gone yet..

We EAT cows. Who eats embryos or fetuses?
I believe it would be for thread hijacking and ad hominem attacks,

Welcome back anyway!

The difference between whether something is moral or not is decided upon whether we EAT it! Now thats disgusting.
Sailor Moon wrote: Its not about moral status. Its about life.

Its like saying "I can kill you because in my opinion, you have no sentience, but I do"...

Sentience in fetuses is entirely arbitrary, and opinion based. As is the case in embryos. How would anyone know if an embryo is sentient or not? We do not have that kind of technology, unless youre a psychic.
There is a lot of evidence, gathered from autopsies and brain waves about when exactly a fetus can feel and when its brain starts working. We do have the technologly to look right at it via camera in utero, while it is alive, and to learn about it afterwards with electron microscopes peering at individual cells. So sentience is not arbitrary. The senses are not hooked up via the spinal chord until after the 20th week. Even then it's brain is entirely non-functional. It doesn't require the structures to even generate the delta wave until after the 26th week. The higher waves cannot be generated before the 32nd week. It is only at that point where the more complex structures have grown that it can even be considered to have a functioning brain.

[the_lizard_on_the_wall]

Sailor, i understand the neccesity of killing. i have come to respect life more as result of my experiences, but i still will not hesitate to kill. and i love steak. my point was, why? i would be disturbed if someone killed cows... and then left the body to rot.
But the whole issue comes down to the question of whether or not we have soul, doesnt it? because if we have souls, then it is present from conception. and abortion is murder. and if we dont have souls, "murder" is only a violation of the social contract. and if we dont have souls, there probably isnt a god. if there is no god, there are no self-evident rights, and "murder" is a fiction anyways!
and again, we come back to the women

(yogi, i think we are walking in circles. -noonsense booboo! we're walking to aaa picinick basket!)

issue. women are not enslaved. if anything YOU disrespect women by claiming that what a women naturally does and is made for is at all "enslavement". its like saying men are enslaved, because we have testicles, and it hurts to be kicked in them.
and supposing they WERE enslaved. Do you think the draftees in WWII rescuing jews from camps would have thrown down their guns and said "screw this! screw them! im no slave!" and walked off? no, because it was saving lives. it is pretty arrogant to deny a child 70 years or so, because you were [questioning] enslaved [/questioning] for nine months.and "the more i post, the more disgusting i get" ??? i thought i was childish for slighting YOU! but, of course, you can do that. because, of course, i enslave women and you liberate them, fighting bravely, letting no child stand in the way!

[Selfish_Meme]

the_lizard_on_the_wall wrote: Sailor, i understand the neccesity of killing. i have come to respect life more as result of my experiences, but i still will not hesitate to kill. and i love steak. my point was, why? i would be disturbed if someone killed cows... and then left the body to rot.
What you do with the carcass is irrelevant to the question of the morality of killing in the first place.

the_lizard_on_the_wall wrote: If there is no god, there are no self-evident rights, and "murder" is a fiction anyways!
An unprovable falsehood, a soul is not necessary for the description of 'murder', murder is killing another 'person', a soul is not needed for the definition of a 'person'. Your just showing speciation. eg. If a gorilla learned to talk and could be proven to have the IQ of a normal human adult, is it a person? By your definition it isn't because God doesn't give souls to non-humans.

the_lizard_on_the_wall wrote: again, we come back to the women

(yogi, i think we are walking in circles. -noonsense booboo! we're walking to aaa picinick basket!)

issue. women are not enslaved. if anything YOU disrespect women by claiming that what a women naturally does and is made for is at all "enslavement". its like saying men are enslaved, because we have testicles, and it hurts to be kicked in them.
In a sense we are enslaved by them, the hormones generated by them drive us to behaviour we might not have chosen otherwise. Enslavemnet is taking away choice. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, and you deny her the choice, you are enslaving her.

the_lizard_on_the_wall wrote: and supposing they WERE enslaved. Do you think the draftees in WWII rescuing jews from camps would have thrown down their guns and said "screw this! screw them! im no slave!" and walked off? no, because it was saving lives.
Was that an anology, if it was it mystified me.

[Lost_In_Ambivelence]

Selfish_meme:
Quote: We eat meat and plants, what happens if we say killing is immoral, we all starve. The only difference between abortion and killing a cow is that the embryo/fetus is human. In many ways the cow is the greater being, it is sentient, while an early embryo is not. It can feel and fear while an embryo cannot. The only justification for the difference is if you believe in a soul, the rest is just sophistry.


It would seem to me that you view us a similar to animals (if there is nothing that differentiates us then we must be the same). We constantly impregnate livestock and force them to breed in order for us to eat. Perhaps all you pro-choice individuals would like to go to each farmer and verify that their cows wished to procreate. If not, then there must be some inate difference between us and livestock. Therefore, comparing embryos to them is just illogical and rediculus.


Steen:
Quote: If it wasn't, then we would have seen pro-life be more willing to look at better, more scientifically correct and timely sex-ed, better, cheaper (or free) and more available contraception and more support for pregnant women and new families, as these things are what REALLY would lower the number of abortions.


While perhaps it is true that the US could be doing a better job of sex ed however, I would like to give people more credit. I gotta be honest, it didn't take much thought even as a sixth grader to figure out how a condom worked. Birth control pills are pretty self-explanitory also. If you can afford an abortion, you can certainly afford a condom so the cost issue clearly isn't prohibitive. What it comes down to is that you don't want people to take responsiblity for their actions. Perhaps the contraception failed, that was a risk you took. I have no sympathy for smokers with lung cancer or obese people who have heart problem either. In this day in age, it is always just who can fix the problem that I got myself into. Perhaps if people would just think ahead then they would act more responsibly.

I actually really don't care about most people's initial actions, I just have a problem with the fact that they refuse to step up to the plate when the consequences come. You wanna have sex without protection, fine. Just know what you are getting into. You wanna smoke 2 packs a day, great. But don't come to me when you are dying. The people that we should be spending our limited resources helping are those who had limited or no control over their situation. A 4 y.o. with diabetes deserves our full attention where as a 55 y.o. who is 500 lbs with the same disease does not.