Political Crossfire Forums

[jimison1]

Thank you Grandmaster. Though I haven't read the entire post, I have yet to notice an insult. I appreciate that you have refrained from insulting me. Thanks. I vow to extend to you the same courtesy, as none of my posts, save those written directly to Steen, are meant to be insulting to anyone. If insulting were my aim, I'd put my energies into getting on Nick Cannon's Wild n' Out.

That's an awfully long post sir/ma'am, and well written. Thanks again. Clearly thought out and clearly expressed work is so much more rewarding to read. I'm kind of in the middle of something else right now, but I'd like to get back to you ASAP. Hopefully we can both learn something.

What really stood out in your post, aside from the unusually clear writing, is an issue in which we find ourselves in agreement: A fetus is taxonomically human at 8 weeks, and that you are opposed to abortions beyond this point (if I'm reading your statements correctly, which I may not be, please correct if not). This is important, as 88% of abortion procedures occur between 8-12 weeks after conception (US NIH), and hardly any legal abortions occur before (from what I've been told by doc buddies of mine, is that the fetus hasn't grown large enough at that point to facilitate successful removal of the whole fetus; leaving arms, legs, etc., still in the womb). As the vast majority of abortions occur beyond this magic point, talk of abortions before that point are superfluous and irrelevant to a real world discussion of applied abortion rights.

Take care GM,

Jimison

[The Grandmaster]

Selfish_Meme wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote:
I’m not sure I agree with this as well. The analogy still seems to hold in that a person, through exterior actions outside of their control, is now tied physiologically to another entity, in both scenarios. The person never had a chance to eliminate the threat of the violinist being attracted to them as they weren’t aware it was going to happen, and the raped individual or the individual pregnant by incest obsouly, by virtue of not being able to overpower a person far superior to them in strength, was unable as well, to fend off the threat in the same manner.
Incest is irrelevant because he is positing both as forced intercourse. Also the rape victim knows about contraception and the possibility of being raped, so the burden of morality is not lifted according to jimison1's scenario about property, if she didn't take contraception.

Indeed.

[The Grandmaster]

jimison1 wrote: Thank you Grandmaster. Though I haven't read the entire post, I have yet to notice an insult. I appreciate that you have refrained from insulting me. Thanks. I vow to extend to you the same courtesy, as none of my posts, save those written directly to Steen, are meant to be insulting to anyone. If insulting were my aim, I'd put my energies into getting on Nick Cannon's Wild n' Out.

Indeed Jimison. I don’t feel I need to insult, for I believe the tools in my argument arsenal are sufficient that I do not have to. You seem to be the same type of person.

jimison1 wrote: That's an awfully long post sir/ma'am,

Yeah, it’s sir. Indeed, I have been gone a couple days, and got behind on my abortion debating, and was trying to catch up. As a multimedia developer, the 3d modeling and illustration needed to get caught up.

jimison1 wrote: and well written. Thanks again. Clearly thought out and clearly expressed work is so much more rewarding to read.

Indeed, thanks as well. You appear to be trained in argumentation like myself. You seem to be well suited to help me train my skills.

jimison1 wrote: I'm kind of in the middle of something else right now, but I'd like to get back to you ASAP. Hopefully we can both learn something.

Indeed.

jimison1 wrote: What really stood out in your post, aside from the unusually clear writing, is an issue in which we find ourselves in agreement: A fetus is taxonomically human at 8 weeks, and that you are opposed to abortions beyond this point (if I'm reading your statements correctly, which I may not be, please correct if not). This is important, as 88% of abortion procedures occur between 8-12 weeks after conception (US NIH), and hardly any legal abortions occur before (from what I've been told by doc buddies of mine, is that the fetus hasn't grown large enough at that point to facilitate successful removal of the whole fetus; leaving arms, legs, etc., still in the womb). As the vast majority of abortions occur beyond this magic point, talk of abortions before that point are superfluous and irrelevant to a real world discussion of applied abortion rights.

Indeed, we are close in agreement here. However, while my posit maintains legality between 8-12 weeks, it is mostly dependant upon the acquisition of the EEG, which occurs roughly around the end of the first trimester, perhaps later, giving her time to make a decision. My only wish is for there to actually be time to make a decision, but this posit is also backed by science. Even after this point, I still remain uncertain that there exists such a thing as a “right” to live in another’s body, but as of yet, I have not had to argue this point very often.

jimison1 wrote: Take care GM,

Jimison

I intend to, as always. Take your time. I'll be around. Bulding more 3D models, working on more flash, playing more chess, and studying more philosophy. :-D

[Gilbert1908]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: jimison1 wrote: Thank you Grandmaster. Though I haven't read the entire post, I have yet to notice an insult. I appreciate that you have refrained from insulting me. Thanks. I vow to extend to you the same courtesy, as none of my posts, save those written directly to Steen, are meant to be insulting to anyone. If insulting were my aim, I'd put my energies into getting on Nick Cannon's Wild n' Out.

Indeed Jimison. I don’t feel I need to insult, for I believe the tools in my argument arsenal are sufficient that I do not have to. You seem to be the same type of person.

jimison1 wrote: That's an awfully long post sir/ma'am,

Yeah, it’s sir. Indeed, I have been gone a couple days, and got behind on my abortion debating, and was trying to catch up. As a multimedia developer, the 3d modeling and illustration needed to get caught up.

jimison1 wrote: and well written. Thanks again. Clearly thought out and clearly expressed work is so much more rewarding to read.

Indeed, thanks as well. You appear to be trained in argumentation like myself. You seem to be well suited to help me train my skills.

jimison1 wrote: I'm kind of in the middle of something else right now, but I'd like to get back to you ASAP. Hopefully we can both learn something.

Indeed.

jimison1 wrote: What really stood out in your post, aside from the unusually clear writing, is an issue in which we find ourselves in agreement: A fetus is taxonomically human at 8 weeks, and that you are opposed to abortions beyond this point (if I'm reading your statements correctly, which I may not be, please correct if not). This is important, as 88% of abortion procedures occur between 8-12 weeks after conception (US NIH), and hardly any legal abortions occur before (from what I've been told by doc buddies of mine, is that the fetus hasn't grown large enough at that point to facilitate successful removal of the whole fetus; leaving arms, legs, etc., still in the womb). As the vast majority of abortions occur beyond this magic point, talk of abortions before that point are superfluous and irrelevant to a real world discussion of applied abortion rights.

Indeed, we are close in agreement here. However, while my posit maintains legality between 8-12 weeks, it is mostly dependant upon the acquisition of the EEG, which occurs roughly around the end of the first trimester, perhaps later, giving her time to make a decision. My only wish is for there to actually be time to make a decision, but this posit is also backed by science. Even after this point, I still remain uncertain that there exists such a thing as a “right” to live in another’s body, but as of yet, I have not had to argue this point very often.

jimison1 wrote: Take care GM,

Jimison

I intend to, as always. Take your time. I'll be around. Bulding more 3D models, working on more flash, playing more chess, and studying more philosophy. :-D

Have you posted the links to the studies we discussed last week? I know you were going to, I don't think I have seen them yet, on the subject of how the EEGs are measured in fetuses?

[Selfish_Meme]

Also just thought I would post this as it is closely analogous to my position. Since my next tack was going to look at the difference in laws for minors.

Quote: As is reported in the August 24, 2005 article in Clinical Review, Foetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence, at 29 weeks of development fetuses have mature somatosensory evoked potentials that indicate that pain signals travel above the spine, through the thalamus and to the somatosensory cortex; and at around 30 weeks of development the brain's EEG signals suggest the first signs of wakefulness. Wakefulness is a necessary condition for any awareness, including pain recognition, but is insufficient for awareness without a functional somatosensory cortex to recognize pain signals as such - which is lacking for people in permanently vegetative states. Because these two necessary conditions for consciousness do not occur before the 29th week of development, fetuses cannot be consciously aware (and therefore subjects of experience) before the 29th week.

Another view amongst scholars is that personhood is not all-or-nothing: there can be degrees of personhood, based on how close to a fully working mind the individual in question has. Thus, a typical adult is entirely a person, while a human permanently in a persistent vegetative state would not be considered a person at all. Partial personhood is tacitly recognized by law in most cultures as reflected by parental rights and obligations, and in legal treatment of minors, the mentally handicapped, and the comatose.

Oops link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

As you can tell I was going to suggest the varying degrees of personhood, stemming from the arguments already presented and the difference in minors treatment by the law. Of course someone has already thought of it.

It does seem to me a relatively sound position to rest on. So an embryo/fetus starts to gain personhood as soon as it is conceived but cannot attain a 'right to life' that supersedes the mothers autonomy until it has the capacity for awareness that would allow subjective experience.

[AmericaFirst]

steen wrote: galba wrote: I don't care what you do, so long as you don't kill any children. And fetuses and embryos are not children.

I love it ( :roll: ) how pro-choicers are big on throwing out the "Fetuses and emryos are not children" yet they still get all giddy and happy when they choose to have a child and see the ultrasound. Talk about hypocritical.

My wife and I are expecting our second child in a short period of time and I THANK GOD I never looked at that child as a pile of meaningless cells as you "pro-choicers" do when it is convenient for you....

I won't address each and every post in this thread but I skimmed and I can see the "usual suspects" are all here.

My opinion is this: Men are (should be) equally responsible for the lives they take part in creating.

If a man is expected to support a child (and in the US, he is), he should have some say as to the outcome of that child's life (i.e., a woman shouldn't have the final say on having an abortion)

Men who impregnate (notice I don't use the term "father") and then leave should be drawn and quartered publicly. Women who have multiple children by different men who refuse to support them should be sterilized.

Rape (which includes incest) and the life of the mother should be the ONLY reasons abortion is allowed.

Just my personal feelings on it.

[The Grandmaster]

Gilbert1908 wrote:
Have you posted the links to the studies we discussed last week? I know you were going to, I don't think I have seen them yet, on the subject of how the EEGs are measured in fetuses?

Admittedly I have not. I am tardy in doing that as I promised. I have to get them mostly from a book, and will need to do some typing. I won’t forget, and will endeavor to do it sooner than later.

[Selfish_Meme]

AmericaFirst wrote: I love it ( :roll: ) how pro-choicers are big on throwing out the "Fetuses and emryos are not children" yet they still get all giddy and happy when they choose to have a child and see the ultrasound. Talk about hypocritical.
Have you got some proof for this ascertion?

AmericaFirst wrote: My wife and I are expecting our second child in a short period of time and I THANK GOD I never looked at that child as a pile of meaningless cells as you "pro-choicers" do when it is convenient for you....
I have never thought of it as convenient, you have to go the doctors to get the ultrasound, make the appointment and all that, hardly convenient...

AmericaFirst wrote: I won't address each and every post in this thread but I skimmed and I can see the "usual suspects" are all here.
Maybe because you havn't got a chance of forming a coherent argument?

AmericaFirst wrote: My opinion is this: Men are (should be) equally responsible for the lives they take part in creating.
Great thats not what we are discussing.

AmericaFirst wrote: If a man is expected to support a ....yada yada yada, still not what we are discussing.

AmericaFirst wrote: Rape (which includes incest) and the life of the mother should be the ONLY reasons abortion is allowed.
Oh no! an opinion on the subject matter.

AmericaFirst wrote: Just my personal feelings on it.
:gdgf:

[AmericaFirst]

[quote="Selfish_Meme"] AmericaFirst wrote: I love it ( :roll: ) how pro-choicers are big on throwing out the "Fetuses and emryos are not children" yet they still get all giddy and happy when they choose to have a child and see the ultrasound. Talk about hypocritical.
Selfish_Meme wrote: Have you got some proof for this ascertion? Geez, I don't know if that is a quaint English spelling of it or that you're not bright enough to spell "assertion" - and yes, I do. Any Pro-Choice woman that has kids. Live ones, not dead ones in the garbage somewhere...

AmericaFirst wrote: My wife and I are expecting our second child in a short period of time and I THANK GOD I never looked at that child as a pile of meaningless cells as you "pro-choicers" do when it is convenient for you....
Selfish_Meme wrote: I have never thought of it as convenient, you have to go the doctors to get the ultrasound, make the appointment and all that, hardly convenient... I shouldn't expect any different answer from someone with "selfish" as part of their username...

AmericaFirst wrote: I won't address each and every post in this thread but I skimmed and I can see the "usual suspects" are all here.
Selfish_Meme wrote: Maybe because you havn't got a chance of forming a coherent argument? No - more like some of us WORK for a living and don't have time to read pages and pages of posts from people trying to rationalize and justify murder to know what is being said.

AmericaFirst wrote: My opinion is this: Men are (should be) equally responsible for the lives they take part in creating. Selfish_Meme wrote:
Great thats not what we are discussing.

Listen Snotty_Meme, it's what I'M discussing. Tell me you've never strayed SLIGHTLY off topic on a thread. Someone as chatty and critical as you? I'm sure you have...

AmericaFirst wrote: If a man is expected to support a Selfish_Meme wrote: ....yada yada yada, still not what we are discussing. Do you have ANY friends or does everyone find you to be this much of a b*tch? What are you, twelve years old?

AmericaFirst wrote: Rape (which includes incest) and the life of the mother should be the ONLY reasons abortion is allowed.
Selfish_Meme wrote: Oh no! an opinion on the subject matter.

Is it THAT time of the month? Must be because you are obviously on the rag...

AmericaFirst wrote: Just my personal feelings on it.
Selfish_Meme wrote: :gdgf:



:moon:

[steen]

AmericaFirst wrote: Any Pro-Choice woman that has kids. Live ones, What about her?

Quote: I shouldn't expect any different answer from someone with "selfish" as part of their username... Ah, an ad hominem. What a lame attempt at avoiding the issue. :roll:

Quote: No - more like some of us WORK for a living and don't have time to read pages and pages of posts Ah, so you want to spew out nonsense and avoid being challenged on it. Yes indeed, how lame.

Quote: from people trying to rationalize and justify murder to know what is being said. Nobody here are trying to do so, so you must be lying.

Quote: Do you have ANY friends or does everyone find you to be this much of a b*tch? What are you, twelve years old? Ah, another pro-lifer whose posts must contain ad hominems to cover up the lack of substance.

Quote: Is it THAT time of the month? Must be because you are obviously on the rag... :lm:

[Selfish_Meme]

AmericaFirst wrote: Geez, I don't know if that is a quaint English spelling of it or that you're not bright enough to spell "assertion" - and yes, I do. Any Pro-Choice woman that has kids. Live ones, not dead ones in the garbage somewhere...
That isn't proof its an anecdote.

AmericaFirst wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Maybe because you havn't got a chance of forming a coherent argument? No - more like some of us WORK for a living and don't have time to read pages and pages of posts from people trying to rationalize and justify murder to know what is being said.
But you HAVE got time to come in here and waste our time with rambling tirades lacking proof or substance.

AmericaFirst wrote: Do you have ANY friends or does everyone find you to be this much of a b*tch? What are you, twelve years old?

Is it THAT time of the month? Must be because you are obviously on the rag...
Attack, attack...ho hum your post has been reported

:td:

[Gus]

LOCKED!