[Chuckit]

I am making the point that I am not my genes. Having human genes is not what makes me a person. In the respect that neither has the essential qualities of intelligence or self-awareness that you or I do, yes, I am comparing a developing human to a bacterium. I am saying, Why should I consider the loss of one unintelligent creature that contributes nothing to society more tragic than the loss of another? Just saying "I'm saddened by the loss of life" doesn't really cover it, because I'm not universally saddened by the loss of life.

I suppose I was kind of terse the first time 'round.

[SSharon]

Originally posted by Nick:
Just because something has "potential" means nothing. There is infinite potential for human lives to be created. If your parents didn't have you, that potential would have gone to waste. Does that mean a person was killed? No.

Agreed. Potential isn't an argument. Can we kill retarded kids since they don't have the potential to do [insert some complicated job]? I don't think so, but I see very few issues with abortion. That being said it does bother me that people rely on it instead of birth control or abstinence.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
oh yeah. i could have sworn people treat animals and other "beings" like sh1t all over the planet while espousing to "moral perfection"...

Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't invalidate arguments.

the bottom line is, you (fig.) don't and never will get to determine when and where (human) life starts or ends.

Very true.

if abortion is murder (for the reasons you stated) then so is masturbation (and no, no OTHER sperm can produce a human being)...and i don't think you (not fig.) would want to draw the line there.

Biologically speaking, sperm is not a human being. It only has 23 chromosomes. If you feed sperm nutrients it does not develop into a human being. The only difference between an embryo and a new born baby however is that a new born baby is at a different stage of development.

eventually "life itself" transcends everything, and by that token there are very very few true "pro-lifers" on this planet (and i am 100% sure they would rather err on the side of human dignity, than on the side of a morbid obsession with "judgementalism"/"hypocracy").

I think the mentality of 'if it doesn't affect anyone, it's OK' is wrong because in the long run, everything we do somehow affects us. Masturbation and pornography seem harmless now, but the mentality which it fosters degrades women to the status of objects of pleasure. If we kill fetuses or euthanise adults, where do we draw the line? Things become so grey that we can end up justifying anything as what happens often in the Netherlands.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Weyland-Yutani:
A fetus is only a potential life. This is a fact. While I'm not taking up any sides in the pro life/pro choice debate, I will speak against lies, misrepresentation of facts, wishful thinking and ignorance of life.

Is this fact? Really?

People in vegetive state are dead, when the CNS has been damaged beyond repair. It is that simple. We may be human but we are not our mortal bodies.

Does consciousness determine humanity?

The "art" of keeping someone "alive" by feeding through tubes, by breathing with the assistance of machines.. it isn't much of an accomplishment. It simply demonstrates the body can function without a concious or even working CNS if you mechanically replace the things that relied on the CNS. Let nature take its course. Death is part of life. That has got to be accepted, especially by those of us who believe in God and eternal life.

If someone is artificially kept alive, for example with an artificial heart, I see no harm in turning the machine off. But if the matter is simply denying nutrients to the person, denying the person food and water, then that is a murderous matter.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by undotwa:
But if the matter is simply denying nutrients to the person, denying the person food and water, then that is a murderous matter.

That's funny.
By that logic, millions of people worldwide are "murdered" every year.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't invalidate arguments.

yes, it does.

Originally posted by undotwa:
Biologically speaking, sperm is not a human being. It only has 23 chromosomes.

so, who are you to say we need to focus on the chromosomes (or the act of feeding nutrients)? biologically speaking, an early stage "embrio" isn't a human being either. if you don't have a "female body" for example, it does not develop into a human being.

forget it, philosophically you can't objectively draw the line, because you have to focus on a certain aspect.

the bottem line is: there is nothing biologically unique about a human embryo

Originally posted by undotwa:
Things become so grey that we can end up justifying anything as what happens often in the Netherlands.

b.s. nothing "happens" in the netherlands that is that much out of the ordinary. just another piece of fud. there is a world of difference between "killing" a human being and terminating an early stage embryo.

the rest is just philosophical nit picking, in order to, let's admit it, control human sexuality.

if you really want to care about human beings, start engineering societies and quit the whole "life is precious" crap (while millions of lives are destroyed every day).

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
the bottem line is: there is nothing biologically unique about a human embryo

There are several that would disagree with you including Jerome LeJeune, MD,PhD; arguably the most important geneticist in the world in his lifetime;
"Each human has a unique beginning which occurs at the moment of conception. A unique personal constitution is spelled out for the specific human being created, whose personal constitution has not occurred before and will never occur again. The zygote is the most specialized cell under the sun in that no other cell will ever have the same instructions in the life of the individual being created. As the zygote develops, nothing new is learned, but progressively a lot of things are forgotten. In other words, the information is written in the first cell and it is not written progressively in the other cells. These new findings prove differentiation and further demonstrated that from the very beginning there exists a human embryo. "

Why you insist on trying to compare sperm to a human zygote is beyond me, but it certainly doesn't make you appear knowledgeable. I'm at least glad you're not spelling it as embrio. That's progress.

The rest is just philosophical nit picking, in order to, let's admit it, control human sexuality.

While we're admitting things, let's admit that you'd like to exploit women and their possible plight in dealing with the worthless embryo you've left inside them for nothing more than 1 hour of getting off. I hope that puts things into perspective for you.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
Well I'm glad someone finally responded in a serious way, but I'm afraid you forgot to answer my question, which I guess was a little muddled so here's a more concise version:
To the pro-life person: "would you still object to the practice that is now abortion if instead of terminating the zygote it was instead transferred into your womb (for women) or intraperitoneal cavity (for men), then you were to raise the child afterwards?"

Men are not equipped emotionally nor physically to incubate a fetus. If you can cite an example of where this is even feasible I'll entertain the debate. As long as you remain on this tangent, I will remain on the notion of eliminating irresponsible sex. BTW; I'll even let you use the best science-fiction writer you can find to show that a man will be able to carry a fetus to term without his body wholly rejecting the foreign matter, and nurse it.

To the pro-choice person: "would you still object to laws that forbade terminating your zygote if instead they mandated transplanting it to another person to be raised as their own?"

While this makes sense, there would be some to disagree because it is erring on the side of life in general. They will see this as a political move in any one direction and will reject it on principal alone. It's unfortunate, but that's the society we live in. It entirely depends on where the idea comes from.

No, I don't have a family, which is why I wanted to stay out of the debate. I do understand the arguments of both sides (even if I am leaning towards one over the other), and I was hoping to steer the debate (here or nationally, whatever, eyes on the prize) away from all the useless bickering and towards looking for an option that would appease both sides so we can move on with our lives. Or failing that, towards letting both sides see the problem from a new perspective, a little role reversal.

The initial point you made seemed to be along the lines of; "if men want to impose their pro-life will on women, let's implant the fetus to them and let them deal with it then." This is not only adversarial and immature, but so far as I know biologically impossible. Though, I can personally guarantee you; we live in a great, big, huge world and there's no doubt in my mind there would be a line of men to give it a shot. Some with positive intentions, others for nothing more than scientific notariety and book deals. In short, yeah sure.

I do believe that is the root of the pro-choice angst. The fact is, you can't legislate morality.

By what law can we not legislate morality? Moral law? On what basis do you determine right or wrong in legislation? No cheating, you can't just say it's wrong to legislate against morality.

It doesn't work for underage drinking, it doesn't work for drug use, and it would never work for sex.

Do we allow drug users to use cocaine or meth only under doctor supervision so they do it safely? Do we allow underage drinking even if done in the comfort of adult supervision in the home? No. Both above acts carry legal implications.

Sex is a biological function, perhaps the most powerful one, and you can't just force people not to do it.

Drug use and minor drinking are illegal activities and by engaging them you encounter legal implications. Sex is a biological function and as such has biological implications, one of which is pregnancy. The other implications include STD's, suicide, depression, and stretch marks.

Just try changing the name of the movement from Pro Life to Anti Sex and see how many people stay on the roster.

There's no need to change the name. No one can stop an important biological function of sexuality. What you can stop is the unfettered killing of babies because of an inability to control your sexuality. We've allowed sexuality to control us instead of us controlling our sexuality.

I won't deny that some women are pressured to have abortions by their partners, but that is an entirely different issue. But it really highlights the pro-choice argument: women shouldn't be forced to kill their fetus' (fetii?) by their partners, and they shouldn't be forced to have children by the state.

The parties involved are the ones that decided to engage the activity of child-bearing, not the State. The purpose of sex, while pleasurable to encourage propogation of species' was intended to do just that; propogate the species. I believe one abortion should be made legal and all repeat abortions illegalized. This would cut the rate of killing in half and allow for instances of health of mother, rape, and incest. Health of mother, rape, and incest are actually at the core of the Pro-Choice debate and I've eliminated that argument in one sentence. One legal abortion for all. No repeat.

It should be their decision what to put their own bodies through.

Right! Unless and until their decision affects the body, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of another.

You'll notice that the above argument does not need to be about killing, if only we could address my first question...transplantation.

I would be in favor of a surrogate mother-hood type program.

It's not my style to gloat, but this is too ripe to pass up. So I'll just leave it to the reader to know what I mean and say this. If what you're worried about is men making women have abortions, make the debate about those men, not about the women's option to have the procedure at all.

It's never been just about men or women. Men are losing their rights in this as well, but let's go back to the beginning of this; irresponsible sex. The taking of life for nothing more than a desire to eliminate the biological consequence of your irresponsible actions.

Sex is an important part of human psychology,

I would argue that sex for pleasure has become way too important to our psychi and we live in a society enveloped in sexuality for nothing more than pleasure. At some point we have to realize that our personal pleasures come at a cost to others. This is how peaceful co-existence works in society. If I want your wife I should not simply go and rape her. Arguably, it's sex, it's biologically necessary that I should rape your wife, but for some reason I can't can I? Why? Because it tramples on the rights of the woman and the man in which she is married. Because it's just plain wrong and immoral to do it. You may know, this has not always been so in societies. This is the direct result of legislating morality and I'm personally in favor of it.

and there's a lot more to it than reproduction.

No, there isn't. The purpose of sex while pleasurable is to propogate the species. It's pleasurable to encourage the propogation. We've eliminated the purpose in favor of the pleasure.

If you try to force people to abstain from it, you're going to have a lot of psychologically damaged people.

Our focus on sex for pleasure has psychologically damaged people. Breaking up in general psychologically damages people. Since when have we become so fragile as a society that we cannot confine ourselves to any form of discipline. Are we no better than an orangutan? Ahhh. If we believe we are nothing more than animals, our moral fiber will degrade to that of the animal kingdom. There are many damaging things to society, morality and common sense are not one of them. That said; my aim has never been to stop sexuality as you and I both know this certainly is not possible. All we can do is legislate against what this is doing to the rights of others. It's not a personal choice if it affects the rights of another. This is what pro-lifer's argue.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
SNIP
That said; my aim has never been to stop sexuality as you and I both know this certainly is not possible. All we can do is legislate against what this is doing to the rights of others. It's not a personal choice if it affects the rights of another. This is what pro-lifer's argue.

And those of us who are pro-choice argue that the personal choice of the mother trumps any rights the sperm/egg/blastocyte/zygote/fetus has.

Pro-Lifers: Rights of the fetus trumps rights of the mother
Pro-Choicers: Rights of the mother trumps rights of the fetus

So we will just keep on arguing back and forth with both sides criticizing the other, guaranteeing a never-ending supply of reasons to argue about this issue.

[budster101]

ANSWER:

Bill Clinton
Dick Gephardt
?????????????????

QUESTION:

Who were 3 democrats who were pro-life before running for office?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Men are not equipped emotionally nor physically to incubate a fetus.

Typically role reversal is used to allow opposing sides to try to see the debate from the other point of view. In this case, I was was trying to get men to imagine exactly what they are proposing to force women to do against their will. I was merely asking for the emotional reactions of men who might have actually considered this, whether it be "yeah, sure, no problem, if you can find a fetus, stick in me" or be it "Not in my belly, but yeah let's try it on someone else." I know the circumstance I came up with to illustrate it is unprecedented, and I would hope in the spirit of debate that we wouldn't use that as an excuse to dodge the question. But can see I was being overly optimistic and I will drop it. I will point out, though, that your quote patently contradicts a pro-life argument put forward in this thread that the only difference between a newborn baby and a fetus is just the length of its own development; it would seem now that we agree more than just nutrients are required to bring a zygote to term.

They will see this...

Lets wait for "they" to speak for themselves please. It would be silly to put words in other people's mouths and then continue discussion based solely on that.

The initial point you made seemed to be along the lines of; "if men want to impose their pro-life will on women, let's implant the fetus to them and let them deal with it then."

I'm sorry if I was unclear. My initial point assumed that the pro-life movement was gender-neutral, and that if woman A wanted to force woman B to bear children, I wondered if woman A would be comfortable taking on that burden herself. I also wanted to avoid man A from stepping in and saying "yeah, sure, woman A would be happy to" without considering it from the standpoint of his own body as well. That's why I didn't mention men until the last paragraph. I guess in hind-sight I should have labeled it an official post script, because it was certainly not my intention to make this an issue of men oppressing women.

On what basis do you determine right or wrong in legislation? No cheating, you can't just say it's wrong to legislate against morality.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it won't work. Are you implying that the "war on drugs" is in any way a success?

There's no need to change the name.

I was unclear. Let me rephrase: Imagine how many people would support the movement if it was called "Anti Sex" instead of "Pro Life." I was just trying to illustrate that people like sex, and they would be very upset if they were suddenly not allowed to have it.

We've allowed sexuality to control us instead of us controlling our sexuality.

This is entering a psycho-social realm that will be very hard to pursue (by either side) on a factual basis, but I would suggest that "we" are our sexuality, in part, and that to separate the two reflects a gross misunderstanding of human nature.

I believe one abortion should be made legal and all repeat abortions illegalized.

This is what I was hoping for, a little creativity. I'd be very interested to see how people react to this idea; has it been discussed before and I've missed it? (I don't frequent this forum) To me, it seems like a compromise (which is good), but I don't see much logic in it beyond that. But if both sides can agree on it, that's the most important thing. Too bad there aren't very many women on this board

I would be in favor of a surrogate mother-hood type program.

Good. Would you be interested in particpating in one or just supporting it? If you still refuse to entertain the idea that it might be possible for you to be impregnated, would you volunteer your wife or daughter for it?

...sex for pleasure...

Perhaps I was unclear again. I'm sorry. When I talk about sex I don't mean what you see in beer commercials and rap videos. I mean the physical expression and natural extension of the feelings people have for each other when they are in love. I don't think it's wise or even possible for government to stifle that aspect of society. I'm curious, are you proposing that a married couple who doesn't intend to ever have children, should never have sex with each other?

After reading my own post, I think it's time to jump ahead to the issue of birth control not being 100% effective. Is this the reasoning behind the "first one's ok" suggestion? What about a rule where abortion is ok if the couple can prove they used birth control and it failed? This might require a new technology added to the birth control to verify the date it was used...thoughts?

[SVass]

Some suggest that all "underage drinking" is illegal and that this is GOOD.
Some religious ceremonies serve wine and some homes all over the world including this country have served a glass of wine to younguns. I can not believe that any here suggest that that should be a "crime". For those who think so, I guess that they want to impose their idiotic religious beliefs on the rest of us. sam (It is and should be illegal to sell or serve alcohol and any mind altering chemical/speech to minors without the specific approval of their guardians.)

[deej5871]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
And those of us who are pro-choice argue that the personal choice of the mother trumps any rights the sperm/egg/blastocyte/zygote/fetus has.

Pro-Lifers: Rights of the fetus trumps rights of the mother
Pro-Choicers: Rights of the mother trumps rights of the fetus

So we will just keep on arguing back and forth with both sides criticizing the other, guaranteeing a never-ending supply of reasons to argue about this issue.

I think that's an oversimplified view. The pro-lifers think that the fetus' rights trump the mothers because a birth won't kill the mother, but an abortion will kill the fetus, and in our society life trumps just about everything else. If the pro-choicers agreed that the fetus was alive and then said that the mother's rights trump the fetus', then they are advocating murder. But they don't. Pro-choicers don't think that fetuses are alive and so they see nothing wrong with abortion. It isn't as simple as one group's right's trump another group's rights. It's just that pro-choices believe that one group isn't alive, and so no rights are being taken away in their view.
(Yeah...maybe I just overcomplicated your oversimplification...hopefully that combination makes one rational view. )

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
And those of us who are pro-choice argue that the personal choice of the mother trumps any rights the sperm/egg/blastocyte/zygote/fetus has.

No one is talking about sperm and egg rights. So, by this reasoning anyone in your care has less rights than you do? Does this include the elderly in your care. Do your rights trump your grandmother's rights because she is dependant upon you for life???

Pro-Lifers: Rights of the fetus trumps rights of the mother

rights of the mother include closing her legs for men for which she has no desire of remaining with to raise a child. Sex is not designed for pleasure, but for propogation. When the mother engages in selfish pleasure without forethought and caution, she is acting with malice and negligence and has engaged an activity that affects the life of another. I may "want" to have sex with your wife, but I can't without her consent. Why? Because this affects the life of another. If I decide to have sex with your wife without her consent, I have raped her and as such am subject to losing rights. I've made a conscious decision to potentially trample the rights of another. It's not about the result as you so conveniently like to put it, it's about the act that begat the result. In this case, the woman has already made a decision using her rights. She chose to have irresponsible sex. She decided to engage an act of creating another life and at that point, both lives are to be considered. Not just hers.

Pro-Choicers: Rights of the mother trumps rights of the fetus

In some convoluted way assigning a hierarchy of rights based on... well we're not sure. In cases where we're in doubt-the pro-choicer defaults to a choice between life and death. The Pro-lifer defaults to life, period. That's the difference.

So we will just keep on arguing back and forth with both sides criticizing the other, guaranteeing a never-ending supply of reasons to argue about this issue.

No. Not really, I've done a pretty good job of closing this issue.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
In some convoluted way assigning a hierarchy of rights based on... well we're not sure. In cases where we're in doubt-the pro-choicer defaults to a choice between life and death. The Pro-lifer defaults to life, period. That's the difference.

Nope. The existence of non-vegetarian pro-lifers rules out this possibility. Everybody has some kind of hierarchy of rights. Not to do so is completely impractical.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by deej5871:
I think that's an oversimplified view. The pro-lifers think that the fetus' rights trump the mothers because a birth won't kill the mother, but an abortion will kill the fetus, and in our society life trumps just about everything else. If the pro-choicers agreed that the fetus was alive and then said that the mother's rights trump the fetus', then they are advocating murder. But they don't. Pro-choicers don't think that fetuses are alive and so they see nothing wrong with abortion. It isn't as simple as one group's right's trump another group's rights. It's just that pro-choices believe that one group isn't alive, and so no rights are being taken away in their view.
(Yeah...maybe I just overcomplicated your oversimplification...hopefully that combination makes one rational view. )

An overcomplication of an oversimplification just about evens everything out. Good summary.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Nope. The existence of non-vegetarian pro-lifers rules out this possibility.

I'm not sure what your point it Chuckit, it seems you've chuckedit out the window. We don't have these nice, sharp canine teeth for ripping through celerly stalks. I'm pro-meat, and pro-life. It's entirely possible.

Everybody has some kind of hierarchy of rights. Not to do so is completely impractical.

As argued by Sen. Robert Byrd or what??? Where is this hierarchy of rights written?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
So, by this reasoning anyone in your care has less rights than you do? Does this include the elderly in your care. Do your rights trump your grandmother's rights because she is dependent upon you for life???

Now there's a fascinating question. Does the right to survive of your grandmother trump yours if she depends on you for food and shelter? I'd say yes. What about if she depends on you for a kidney? Maybe, maybe not. If I am unwilling to donate a kidney to my elderly ailing grandmother, should the state force me to?

Sex is not designed for pleasure, but for propogation.

That sounds like a religious argument. Seems to me a secular government wouldn't be concerned with what they think sex was "designed" for, by an unnamed party. Are you making a religious argument?

Either way, by that reasoning humans were designed to increase in population exponentially, and to be periodically culled by predators, disease and famine. I don't think most people would prefer a return to that paradigm, but I don't want to put words in peoples' mouths. Let's take a poll. I vote no.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
Now there's a fascinating question. Does the right to survive of your grandmother trump yours if she depends on you for food and shelter? I'd say yes. What about if she depends on you for a kidney? Maybe, maybe not. If I am unwilling to donate a kidney to my elderly ailing grandmother, should the state force me to?

Actually, a more fascinating question would be; Can you address my points??? No, in this case you've made no decision to put your grandmother at risk. Nature is taking it's course with your grandmother. There is no entity in a free society that would require you to donate living organs to another person against your will. With all due respect, the question you pose is not relevant in any way, shape, or form.

That sounds like a religious argument. Seems to me a secular government wouldn't be concerned with what they think sex was "designed" for, by an unnamed party. Are you making a religious argument?

You're saying that "sex was designed for the purpose of multiplying the species" is a religious statement? Okay, let me reword it so I don't make anyone cringe like a vampire touched by a crucifix; The purpose of sex is to propogate. To argue otherwise is to come from a place where common sense does not prevail. The benefits might be a happier day, and softer skin, but the purpose is undoubtedly to propogate the species. This is not religious, it's common sense. Let me ask you this then; What is the purpose of sex? Is sex necessary and why?

Either way, by that reasoning humans were designed to increase in population exponentially, and to be periodically culled by predators, disease and famine. I don't think most people would prefer a return to that paradigm, but I don't want to put words in peoples' mouths. Let's take a poll. I vote no.

Return to a paradigm? It won't be long now with the approaching summer before we're watching news accounts of shark attacks and other bicyclists being taken out by moutain lions and campers being malled by bears. Now take into account diseases like AIDS, and various forms of famine occurring on a daily basis across our globe and you end up with a guy who never leaves his computer nor his gated community. Common sense to this guy is developing ways of cloning humans while legislating ways of eliminating the original. This, in this man's opinion is progress. I'm not so sure the old paradigm was such a bad place across the board brother, but I can understand how that LaZboy recliner's got you fooled. That said; the human population has grown and continues to grow exponentially and we are culled by predators, disease, and famine.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Actually, a more fascinating question would be; Can you address my points???

I addressed everything you directed at me. If I missed something important to you, or my response was unclear, please remind me what it was and I will consider it again. If what you're talking about is your points directed at someone else, I would be happy to address them if you would kindly restate them so I don't have to wade through personal attacks and what not to find exactly what points you're talking about. I might point out that you have also neglected to address my own questions about whether you would donate your own body or the body of your close family members to a surrogate mother-hood type program, about whether you think married couples who don't intend or can't afford to have children should never have sex, and about how you propose to deal with instances of failed birth control.

Moving on:

the question you pose is not relevant in any way, shape, or form.

Yes. It is. Watch:

dmcmacdaddy: "the personal choice of the mother trumps any rights the zygote has."

ebuddy: "Do your rights trump your grandmother's rights because she is dependant upon you for life?"

Uncle Skeleton: example: "Does the right of your grandmother trump yours if she depends on you for a kidney?"

ebuddy: That's not relevant, becaues "you've made no decision to put your grandmother at risk. Nature is taking it's course"

The original question was "does the zygote's right to survive give it the right to invade/occupy/abuse its mother's body to do so?" Both donating refuge to zygotes and donating kidneys to family members are physically detrimental but not lethal to the donor, and both are done by many and refused by many others. The issue of the dependence being "natural" had never come up until now, and I will address it below in regards to the "paradigm" remark. The issue of who's fault it is is no more applicable in your comparison than it is in mine. Furthermore, in the case of failed birth control it's not the woman's decision to conceive a zygote either but she is still faced with having one in her body.

religious statement? Okay, let me reword ... The purpose of sex is to propogate... The benefits might be a happier day, and softer skin,

Thank you for removing the explicit reference to a creator with an intention for creating. But you and I seem to differ on the nature of, well, nature. Namely: sex wasn't designed. It simply is. One of its effects is self-propagation, and among (many) others are as you stated, a happier day. Isn't "the pursuit of happiness" one of the rights of all citizens on which this country was founded? And before some smart-mouth says it, I am aware of the irony of an atheist citing a clause about being "endowed by my creator" in the course of making an argument that there was no creator. The fact that the country's founding fathers saw people's inalienable rights as having a different source than I do does not negate the fact that those rights are inalienable and are a fundamental part of the country's philosophy.

Return to a paradigm? the human population has grown and continues to grow exponentially and we are culled by predators, disease, and famine.

Yes, and it is something we try to reduce at any opportunity. Here's the point; "Nature's" way is to overpopulate, because conditions exist that will compensate for overpopulation through great suffering. The primary purpose of technology is to change the way things are from "nature's" way to something that involves less suffering, as little as possible. We try to reduce incidence of disease, and famine, and predation (our own at least), to raise the overall quality of life for humanity. If we were then to make all our public policy decisions based on what is most "natural," it would completely reverse any gains we have made in quality of life. It's just a backwards and nonsensical argument to promote nature's way over another without something specific and factual to back it up.

developing ways of cloning humans while legislating ways of eliminating the original.

That's funny, I was thinking a similar thing. We are talking about legislating ways of increasing the number of unwanted people in the world, while at the same time bombing, starving and failing to medicate the ones we already have. Furthermore, if a zygote has the right to fulfill its potential to become a human, would each cell in your body have the same right, once cloning is made possible? Obviously, all these arguments (yours and mine) are ridiculously unreasonable and are purely inflamatory rhetoric. Social engineering has no place in this discussion. I won't bring it up again, and I would be grateful if no one else did either.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
That's funny.
By that logic, millions of people worldwide are "murdered" every year.

In a way yes. Famines often occur because of deliberate attempts to suppress people or incompetent administration.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
No. Not really, I've done a pretty good job of closing this issue.

Pretty good? Superb.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Sex is not designed for pleasure, but for propogation.

I would disagree. Pleasure is a very important aspect of sex. Sex was designed for man and woman to express their mutual love. However, part of this love is to foster a child if it to result from the experience and to not use any artificial means to prevent a pregnancy from occuring. The intention doesn't necessarily have to be there, but they can't deny the possibility of having a child because if they did, the love which they express would not be complete. In a way, the couple would be lying to each other.

To say that sex was only designed for propogation certainly denies many human aspects of the sexual act and really reduces us to animals.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by undotwa:
To say that sex was only designed for propogation certainly denies many human aspects of the sexual act and really reduces us to animals.

Isn't that a bit like reducing ice to frozen water?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by Chuckit:

Originally posted by undotwa:
To say that sex was only designed for propogation certainly denies many human aspects of the sexual act and really reduces us to animals.

Isn't that a bit like reducing ice to frozen water?

You're forgetting the hidden message in the quote. Apparently God designed humans to have a different sexual function than he did for other animals. To argue over what it is is silly. Why don't we just ask God what he had in mind?

PS. While pondering what could possibly be meant by the absurd statement beginning with "sex was designed for..." I happened across the following thread in which a great many of the inevitable variations had already been tossed around. It might save some of you some time to see them already discussed:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/...m/365001922731

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
I addressed everything you directed at me. If I missed something important to you, or my response was unclear, please remind me what it was and I will consider it again. If what you're talking about is your points directed at someone else, I would be happy to address them if you would kindly restate them so I don't have to wade through personal attacks and what not to find exactly what points you're talking about.

Several had posted after you and I think a 'refresh' was in order. I apologize and will try to address your points below.

I might point out that you have also neglected to address my own questions about whether you would donate your own body or the body of your close family members to a surrogate mother-hood type program,[/b]

This would be in essence forcing my will on someone else. I do not have the right to force my daughter to carry someone else's child. If she decided to do this of her own accord, I'd support her decision to do so. If my wife and I agreed we wanted another child and this was an available option we could consider it as a viable alternative. I do not force the women in my life to do anything against their will.

about whether you think married couples who don't intend or can't afford to have children should never have sex

Sex creates children. If you are non-married, have no desire to be married nor raise children you should practice sex in a safe manner or not at all. A manner in which a pregnancy will not occur. I believe it is wreckless to have sex with multiple anonymous partners, but one cannot legislate such a thing. However, once a child is conceived; the woman must uphold the decision she made in creating life. Once the life of another is involved, it's rights must also be upheld by the State.

and about how you propose to deal with instances of failed birth control.

For men and women who engage sex, they take on the possibility that they are engaging an act that could produce life. In most cases of irresponsible sex, we're expecting the parties involved to become rational and calculated at the moment of stimuli. We're expecting too much. Two kids doing what they aren't supposed to be doing too often includes improperly sized condoms, not pulling out even with condom on, and skipping Monday through Wednesday's birthcontrol pill and taking 4 on Thursday. None of the above trump the life of another and in particular show malice, wrecklessness, and negligence. When you are guilty of these things there are implications. Because the biological implication of unprotected sex is (aside from STDs, depression, and suicide) pregnancy and the creation of life, the measure of implication and State involvement is not to be viewed as punitive, rather protectionary of the created life. The only 100% effective means of birth control is abstinence. Studies show abstinence when properly used, cannot fail. We can't stop sex, but we can and are obligated to protect life. Everyone is allowed one abortion. Professionals from orgs like Planned Parenthood claim no one just has an abortion without careful consideration. My idea is right in line with this careful consideration mentality. You have a choice. You can continue to have unprotected, irresponsible sex, but in so doing you are creating the life of another and as such have a wealth of choices as a result of your actions; you can use your one abortion now, or you can birth and give to an adoption agency, birth and drop off at hospital, or raise the child within the confines of law in your State.

dmcmacdaddy: "the personal choice of the mother trumps any rights the zygote has."

Assigning a convoluted hierarchy of rights that is not found in any legislative document of this country. These are concepts that died with black-only water fountains. This hierarchy of rights however does not consider a fetus to be life. One holding this view cannot as there is no such hierarchy of rights to our citizens and he'd be left actually facing his negligence.

ebuddy: "Do your rights trump your grandmother's rights because she is dependant upon you for life?"

Illustrating that even though this woman is wholly in your care and dependant upon you for her existance, you cannot just take her life. This would be considered murder no matter how many lawyers you had arguing how inconvenient it was having her around.

Uncle Skeleton: example: "Does the right of your grandmother trump yours if she depends on you for a kidney?"
ebuddy: That's not relevant, becaues "you've made no decision to put your grandmother at risk. Nature is taking it's course"

Clearly illustrating that any possible point you were attempting to make from a "dependance" argument failed miserably. And now to address your below complete redirect; I'm not real sure how I was supposed to get the intended question below, from the banter above, but oh well. Onward...

The original question was "does the zygote's right to survive give it the right to invade/occupy/abuse its mother's body to do so?"

First I'd like to give you a quick definition of the terms you present;
invade;To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
By this definition, you suppose the zygote was not the result of the person's both deliberate and/or negligent sexual malpractice, but a neutral third party with mal intent having nothing to do with the calculated act of sex. I must say I've not seen this argument before. I'm thinking it's because it elicits more laughter than any serious consideration. Are you a Harvard grad?
occupy; To dwell or reside in.
Well, the zygote does indeed do this. Afterall, it was welcomed in.
abuse; To hurt or injure by maltreatment
Giving birth is painful. One engaging in sex ought to carefully consider that she is entering into the realm (in essence, in agreement) of possibility that the sex while pleasant for an hour, could lead to several hours in labor in a hospital bed. That said; the fetus is not "maltreating" a home that was constructed to house it in most cases and a larger majority of women consider this whole prospect to actually be quite beautiful. If I'm offending you it's because I find your angle to be both insulting and moronic. Worse is the fact that it requires all I have in me to find your point at all. Unless you can find an instance where a hapless sperm cell crawled across the floor with shear victimization in his little white mind, entered into this poor unsuspecting woman's vagina, you have no point whatsoever.

Both donating refuge to zygotes

moronic angle. Absolutely moronic. I'm sorry, it's the truth. I cannot say you unlawfully entered my home if I've opened the door for you. There is no comparison. The act of sex is calculated and a decision to take these chances exists by the nature of the activity for which you are about to engage. Are you donating refuge to your brains? In fact, you are your mother's property and as such, she should've been allowed to cut off your limbs so you popped out more easily. Afterall, we didn't want her to suffer any more after all the abuse you were already putting her through.

and donating kidneys to family members are physically detrimental but not lethal to the donor, and both are done by many and refused by many others.

and your point already??? I've made a conscious decision to donate a kidney to you. A kidney is not a life, a person, a human. It's a human organ. There is no constitutional protection for one kidney. There is constitutional protection for human life.

Furthermore, in the case of failed birth control it's not the woman's decision to conceive a zygote either but she is still faced with having one in her body.

When she said "yes" to the guy, she said yes to the possibility that his sperm would enter her vagina and facilitating the inception of the life of another. If she cannot bear that burden, she shouldn't say "yes". Birth control by it's nature, has a failure rate. If one is engaging in an activity that requires the use of a product for which he or she is not aware of it's limitations, they are in fact acting with negligence, and malice. I have the right to drive. Everyone does it. Everyone should be allowed to do it. If I misuse the vehicle and kill someone, I am guilty of negligence called vehicular homicide. I'm not guilty of unfortunate consequence, I'm guilty of the negligent and wreckless use of a motor vehicle. I understand this when I start the vehicle. If I can't adhere to the confines of proper use of that vehicle, for example if I'm drunk (no matter how badly I want to drive) I don't drive.

Thank you for removing the explicit reference to a creator with an intention for creating. But you and I seem to differ on the nature of, well, nature. Namely: sex wasn't designed. It simply is.

Scientists refer to design all the time. I didn't think this was riding the grey of prostelytising. Rather than argue another tired debate, it is beyond question that the primary function and result of sex is the propogation of species. In nature, it is impossible to multiply the species without it. Knowing this, one can reasonably assume it's primary function is that of birthing another of your kind.

One of its effects

Correction, it's primary effect...

is self-propagation, and among (many) others are as you stated, a happier day. Isn't "the pursuit of happiness" one of the rights of all citizens on which this country was founded?

Indeed. The key word being "all".

And before some smart-mouth says it, I am aware of the irony of an atheist citing a clause about being "endowed by my creator" in the course of making an argument that there was no creator. The fact that the country's founding fathers saw people's inalienable rights as having a different source than I do does not negate the fact that those rights are inalienable and are a fundamental part of the country's philosophy.

Do you know why they founded those documents and worded them the way they did? Because the overwhelming majority of them believed in God. It was this belief that gave them a compass if you will. A rock that never moves and from which references can be drawn and drafted. When that rock is moved or is placed on wheels, ideals become confused, convoluted and we begin to doubt very basic concepts of common sense. Why? Because they have no truly solid place from which to draw reference. We live in a society that has no absolutes nor do they want to be subject to absolutes. This was not so at the inception of our country. Life was more important to them because they believed that everyone is created and called with a purpose. That life is precious and should always be maintained to the best of the Legislative Branch's ability. The presumption that we happened by accident (the "just is" argument) leaves us ultimitely with no purpose and you begin to see the affect of an increasing indifference to the importance of life in our society. Ethics begin to wash away with personal desires. You got philosophical briefly, I thought I'd interject mine in accordance with the Christian influence found throughout the documents we're discussing in creating arguably the best and most successful system of government ever witnessed.

Yes, and it is something we try to reduce at any opportunity.

Agreed. Because life is important.

Here's the point; "Nature's" way is to overpopulate, because conditions exist that will compensate for overpopulation through great suffering.

At one time nature's way was to migrate to more open territory. This earth is nowhere near overpopulation today. It's only because of politics that we can't go anywhere we want or need to go.

The primary purpose of technology is to change the way things are from "nature's" way to something that involves less suffering, as little as possible.

In cases of life and death, what we've done is not necessarily more effective, efficient, or humane.

We try to reduce incidence of disease, and famine, and predation (our own at least), to raise the overall quality of life for humanity.

Because life is important.

If we were then to make all our public policy decisions based on what is most "natural," it would completely reverse any gains we have made in quality of life.

You wouldn't be the first to suggest that genocide is for our own good. I still disagree. It is nothing less than social engineering. Look at the inception of the organizations supporting abortion. This is not a new concept. It's sold to a woman who does not want to deal with inconvenience by people who want to control economic conditions, population, and crime. Besides, it's also an insanely lucrative industry.

It's just a backwards and nonsensical argument to promote nature's way over another without something specific and factual to back it up.

Yet, you've offered nothing positive about abortion as a proclaimed "pro-choicer". I do appreciate some of the ideas you've offered for keeping the option of life on the table, but they seemed to have been convoluted with some "nonsensical" and severely (honestly for lack of a better word) "backwards" reasoning. To suggest that a zygote has invaded the body of the unsuspecting woman is as backwards a reasoning for a Pro-choice argument I've ever heard.

That's funny, I was thinking a similar thing. We are talking about legislating ways of increasing the number of unwanted people in the world, while at the same time bombing, starving and failing to medicate the ones we already have.

Furthermore, if a zygote has the right to fulfill its potential to become a human, would each cell in your body have the same right, once cloning is made possible?

More than one cell is necessary for producing life in a lab. Life in a lab in context of cloning full strands of DNA-once life has begun, it should be protected under the laws afforded us as citizens. Until then, each cell is not subject to the same protection offered under our constitution. That said; I don't think we'll last long enough to see "clones" walking among us or the harvesting of their organs.

Obviously, all these arguments (yours and mine) are ridiculously unreasonable and are purely inflamatory rhetoric. Social engineering has no place in this discussion. I won't bring it up again, and I would be grateful if no one else did either.

If you're cool, I'm cool. I'm done talking about abortion.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The only 100% effective means of birth control is abstinence. Studies show abstinence when properly used, cannot fail.

I thought you believed in Jesus?

[Uncle Skeleton]

I can see you're tripping on all the extra words, so I'm going to simple it up for you in this post.

Originally posted by ebuddy:

Uncle Skeleton:
would you donate your own body...

If my wife and I agreed we wanted another child...

Ah, dodging the question. First with the "sci-fi" rant, now with "I wouldn't force them." Here's the simple version (SV):

Would you offer your own body for the same purpose you demand abortion seekers offer theirs (to save the lives of zygotes)? Again: Would you put your money where your mouth is? (in this one the money is your body, in case you were thinking of twisting that into another dodge). Not whether you want another child, not whether it's an available option, based solely on your objection to their wish.

I'm interested to know what your actual thoughts are on the matter of your own body and what the state can force you to do with it.

married couples who don't intend or can't afford to have children should never have sex?

If you are non-married...

married couples. I'm going to assume you just got side-tracked while typing, so please read it again. If it still doesn't make sense please tell me so I can dumb it down a little more.

and about how you propose to deal with instances of failed birth control.

In most cases of irresponsible sex...

SV: When birth control is used correctly. And it fails anyway. This is not irresponsible sex. Just normal sex. Would you still want to prevent these cases from getting abortions?

Assigning a convoluted hierarchy of rights that is not found in any legislative document of this country.

SV: self-defense. the zygote would cause physical harm to the woman. she has a right to defend herself. If the zygote were a grown adult, threatening significant injury, intentional or not, the woman would have cause to use lethal force to free herself if no reasonable non-lethal means was available. IANAL, please correct me if this is not true of self-defense.

Illustrating that even though this woman is wholly in your care and dependent upon you for her existence, you cannot just take her life.

Who said anything about taking her life? I thought this was about refusing to care for her. Is it a crime to refuse to support a relative?

Clearly illustrating that any possible point you were attempting to make from a "dependance" argument failed miserably.

I don't know what you're saying; what's a "dependance" argument? I'm saying the act of donating a kidney to save the life of a grandparent is on par with the act of carrying a fetus to term in order to save the life of a zygote. If I don't want to do it, do you think the state should force me to?

invade; To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
By this definition, you suppose the zygote was not the result of the person's both deliberate and/or negligent sexual malpractice
occupy; To dwell or reside in.
Well, the zygote does indeed do this. Afterall, it was welcomed in.

Again, I don't advocate unsafe sex. Nobody is pro-unsafe-sex. I'm talking about cases in which birth control was used correctly and it still failed. If a couple uses a condom, spermicide, and the pill, and still gets pregnant, I hardly call that negligent sexual malpractice or welcoming the zygote in.

abuse; To hurt or injure by maltreatment
Giving birth is painful.

So then we agree that the zygote's affect on the mother is hurtful and injurious?

Both donating refuge to zygote

moronic angle.

That wasn't an angle. I was doing my best to use similar language to help you with the similarity of the comparison you started, since you seemed to be having so much trouble with it.

and your point already???

I don't understand how you're not getting this; it was your comparison to start with. You obviously didn't make the connection between the grandmother who's life is dependent on me for a kidney and the zygote who's life is dependent on me for a womb. So I elaborated, and now you're accusing me of not getting to the point?

I've made a conscious decision to donate a kidney to you. A kidney is not a life, a person, a human. It's a human organ. There is no constitutional protection for one kidney. There is constitutional protection for human life.

Look, the kidney does not represent the zygote. The grandmother represents the zygote. Same as in your original analogy. What's so confusing about this? Can someone else who's reading along please let me know if this comparison is too complicated?

in the case of failed birth control...

When she said "yes" to the guy...

Please refer to my above question. Namely: are you suggesting that married couples who do not intend to have children should never have sex with each other?

I didn't think this was riding the grey of prostelytising...the primary function and result of sex is the propagation of species

Whatever, this is a tangent. I don't care if you think your body was designed by a higher power for a singular purpose. All I want to know is if you think no one should ever have sex who is not trying to conceive a child. Do you deny the fact that sex helps couples to bond and become partners during their lives instead of just roommates? Do you deny that it relieves tension between people who are in love and reminds them why they are?

This earth is nowhere near overpopulation today. It's only because of politics that we can't go anywhere we want or need to go.

If it's because of politics or because of using the world up, the result is the same. Anyway, I don't see what this has to do with what you think sex was supposedly designed for.

It's just a backwards and nonsensical argument to promote nature's way over another without something specific and factual to back it up.

Yet, you've offered nothing positive about abortion as a proclaimed "pro-choicer"

Aren't you confused. What you quoted was a response to two things, and both of them had already wandered away from the actual concept of abortion. One was the muddled concept that sex has a singular purpose of procreation and that based on that it should never be engaged in for another purpose. And two was this: "Nature is taking it's course with your grandmother" which I still can't get a handle on why you said or what significance it has. If you like I will just forget you said it.

I'm done talking about abortion.

I'm not here to convince anyone; it's a lost cause. People don't make decisions like this based on logic. They make their decision based on impulse and then their brains come up with logic to convince them they were right. So why am I here? I just want to see how far those impulses go. Under what circumstances does each side say "yes, that at least is too far, and in that case the other side is right."

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I thought you believed in Jesus?

I believe in you AKcrab.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
I can see you're tripping on all the extra words, so I'm going to simple it up for you in this post.

Yeah, too many words for a simple question. I understand you're trying to be all intellectual and stuff, but you really need to try to state your questions more succinctly.

Would you offer your own body for the same purpose you demand abortion seekers offer theirs (to save the lives of zygotes)?

Ahhh. Now I know why you danced around the question. Because I've already addressed it two posts ago and you didn't like the answer so you're going to say I never addressed it. To suggest; "Gee, you want to force your view on someone else, why don't you offer up your own body for child-bearing?!?" I told you this was a childish and moronic question. I do not have the physical nor emotional capability to bear children. I asked you to find even a prolific sci-fi author to explain how this could work. You couldn't. Just in case you're thinking; "boy isn't my proposterous idea convenient for you to ignore just because it could never happen". The answer is; No. If the man and woman are about to engage in irresponsible sex, I would not replace the man and give my body to her in sex that could produce a child I didn't want.

Again: Would you put your money where your mouth is? (in this one the money is your body, in case you were thinking of twisting that into another dodge). Not whether you want another child, not whether it's an available option, based solely on your objection to their wish.

I don't need to give up any part of my body due to someone else's irresponsible action. Someone may drink their liver into highly refined rubber. I may have been telling them they shouldn't be drinking, they'll destroy their liver-doesn't mean it's reasonable to suggest that I agree to give my liver to this individual. This isn't how society works. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is including walking into an abortion clinic, having a baby removed from your stomach, feeling immense guilt at what you had done? Not interested? I should hope not.

I'm interested to know what your actual thoughts are on the matter of your own body and what the state can force you to do with it.

The State requires me to wear my safety belt while driving. If I'm caught not protecting myself, I'm subject to a fine. This is not a new concept either. Suffice it to say, The State's actions cannot be viewed punitive to a woman who has deliberately engaged in the activity of creating a life. Once the life is created, it is to be protected under law. A woman who does not want to bear this responsibility should not engage the activity. I don't know why you insist on assuming that a woman's vagina is a Venus Fly-trap going about, unwittingly gobbling up penis's and sperm. News Flash, a woman can deny a man sex. If she does not deny him sex she is taking a calculated risk that she may become pregnant and create the life of another.

If you are non-married...married couples. I'm going to assume you just got side-tracked while typing, so please read it again. If it still doesn't make sense please tell me so I can dumb it down a little more.

A married couple engaging a healthy sexual lifestyle also understands the possibility that they are engaging an act that could create the life of another. A married man and woman who do not want nor can they afford to have children, do not go and have multiple abortions. Abortions aren't cheap. Don't tell me about funding for abortion from the State and that women who can't afford one can get one for free because this is exactly what the State will do via Medicaid for childbirth and ongoing aid from WIC as well. I know this because my wife became pregnant while we were very young and poor. The cost of the birth was over $4,000.00 of which my wife and I paid nothing. I used this aid to get back on my feet and am now a productive father who pays more than my fair share in taxes. Was it tough? Hell yeah it was tough, but you don't conduct yourself with wreckless abandon and eliminate the life of another. There's no such thing as; "can't afford to have children in America." If you can afford multiple abortions, you can afford childbirth and child-rearing. Most of my friends in this postion have either had tuballigation or visectomy. Why? Because they do not want more children. It makes more sense than returning to an abortion clinic each time you become pregnant.

In most cases of irresponsible sex...
SV: When birth control is used correctly. And it fails anyway. This is not irresponsible sex. Just normal sex. Would you still want to prevent these cases from getting abortions?

Yes, but with clarification. I'd say one abortion is legal and should be carefully considered because it's the only abortion you'll legally obtain. Knowing the failure rate of birth control is critical to understanding the implications of the act for which you are about to engage. The only 100% effective birth control is abstinence. I know that's a really bad word and all, but it goes back to society having lost it's common sense for nothing more than the possible political implication behind the statement.

SV: self-defense. the zygote would cause physical harm to the woman. she has a right to defend herself. If the zygote were a grown adult, threatening significant injury, intentional or not, the woman would have cause to use lethal force to free herself if no reasonable non-lethal means was available. IANAL, please correct me if this is not true of self-defense.

One abortion is legal and should adequately address the minimal instances in which health of the mother is truly at risk. A woman who does not have tuballigation and continues to have irresponsible sex is repeatedly putting herself in harm's way. (at least in your context of argument.) Now. When I walk into a tattoo or piercing shop and get the latest band on my wrist or my bellybutton pierced, I know going in that the effects of my decision will be very painful. Some piercings, tattoos, and even leg-hair removal products cause bruising and much pain. I am not able to turn around and sue the artist for the abuse they put me through. Why? Because it is my action that brought in the abuse. If I've put too much faith in the artist (birth control pill), that is not the artist's fault, it is my own.

Who said anything about taking her life? I thought this was about refusing to care for her. Is it a crime to refuse to support a relative?

The relative in question here was not brought into your life as a direct result of something you had done. That said; it depends on the relationship. If I refused to take my child to the doctor for antibiotics, or refused to feed them, or refused to support them in various ways, I'd be deemed an unfit parent and as such would lose my children to the State and be subject to a fine, jail time, or both. Unless you're a legal guardian of a person, you are ultimitely not responsible to care for them. Mothers are immediately deemed the legal guardian of her child. As such, she should be subject to the legal care of the dependant. That said; it's a heartless, self-centered and cruel individual that would deny care to her own grandmother, but that's not a direct indictment of you so much as an illustration of the type of society you're suggesting.

I don't know what you're saying; what's a "dependance" argument? I'm saying the act of donating a kidney to save the life of a grandparent is on par with the act of carrying a fetus to term in order to save the life of a zygote.

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. I've already stated my position on this several times. We disagree. First of all, the illustration you present shows a woeful lack of biological knowledge. You are not saving the life of a zygote. You are carrying the result of sex. If my actions caused my wife's kidney to fail, it'd be right for me to donate my organ to save her, but there is no legislation for this. However, I could be sued by my own wife for my negligence in having done this to her.

If I don't want to do it...

Then you shouldn't do 'it'. Again, please reference Venus Fly-trap analogy.

Again, I don't advocate unsafe sex. Nobody is pro-unsafe-sex. I'm talking about cases in which birth control was used correctly and it still failed. If a couple uses a condom, spermicide, and the pill, and still gets pregnant, I hardly call that negligent sexual malpractice or welcoming the zygote in.

Birth control has a failure rate. Those engaging an activity that requires the use of a product that has a failure rate should know all the implications behind their decision to engage in the activity. The zygote is a result of the actions you engaged. It is innocent. It is not some neutral third party with intent to invade. It's existance is due solely to actions of the man and woman.

So then we agree that the zygote's affect on the mother is hurtful and injurious?

No. I told you this angle was both insulting and moronic.
SV; stupid!
Would we agree that abortions are hurtful and injurious to the mother?
Let's see here; pelvic inflammatory disease, Uterine perforations, placenta retention in future childbirths, ABC link to breast cancer, depression requiring counseling, botched reproductive organs, suicide, and the list goes on and on.

Look, the kidney does not represent the zygote. The grandmother represents the zygote.

Impossible, because the grandmother's existance is not the direct result of your actions. You are not the legal guardian of her according to Statute unless you elect to be. If you elect to be, you are subject to State Law regarding the care of that dependant. A mother who gives birth to her child whether she wanted the child or not is still required to care for that dependant in accordance with State Law. If she does not; whether she really wanted the child or not, she is held accountable for the care of that dependant. I believe a woman who is spreading her legs for a man is doing so knowing she could become the legal guardian of a dependant. To not understand this prior is to be negligent and wreckless. Conversely, I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

Same as in your original analogy. What's so confusing about this? Can someone else who's reading along please let me know if this comparison is too complicated?

I don't think folks will say the comparison is confusing. I think they'll say there really is no comparison at all. With this lack of adequate comparison is the failure to make any point at all.

When she said "yes" to the guy...
Please refer to my above question. Namely: are you suggesting that married couples who do not intend to have children should never have sex with each other?

That certainly is an option, but not one I'd suggest. I'd suggest the same as several of my friends have suggested; vistectomy or tuballigation. It's cheaper in the long run, than several abortions and the adverse affects thereof.

Whatever, this is a tangent. I don't care if you think your body was designed by a higher power for a singular purpose. All I want to know is if you think no one should ever have sex who is not trying to conceive a child. Do you deny the fact that sex helps couples to bond and become partners during their lives instead of just roommates? Do you deny that it relieves tension between people who are in love and reminds them why they are?

It depends on the relationship. Sex can also cloud an otherwise poor situation. A woman may stay with an abusive man because he's extremely accomodating in bed, she believes she can make him accomodating outside the bedroom. It can destroy friendships. A man's sexual desire when not isolated to the woman of whom he's committed can ruin the relationship causing depression and suicide. Sex is like anything else. When used wrecklessly it becomes destructive. When used in moderation and carefully, can be a beautiful thing. I believe sex is an abused drug and is causing more problems than it's solving. Namely; hundreds of thousands of babies heaped in trash bins. Overall, sex is a very good thing for couples that are committed to one another for various reasons including bringing into existance, another of their own. It's very beautiful thing. If they don't want to do this, they should have tuballigation or visectomy.

Yet, you've offered nothing positive about abortion as a proclaimed "pro-choicer"
Aren't you confused. What you quoted was a response to two things, and both of them had already wandered away from the actual concept of abortion. One was the muddled concept that sex has a singular purpose of procreation and that based on that it should never be engaged in for another purpose. And two was this: "Nature is taking it's course with your grandmother" which I still can't get a handle on why you said or what significance it has. If you like I will just forget you said it.

The "grandmother" analogy was used to illustrate the relationship between guardian and dependant. If this was difficult for you to follow I apologize. Based on your line of questioning regarding this relationship, it's apparent to me you are unable to follow along.
Regarding abortion. You've mentioned how abusive child-bearing and birth is, I thought it was important for you to also consider how abusive and injurious abortion is. If I've opened the door for you, I cannot say you unlawfully entered my home. If you can't get it, you're right-the discussion is futile.

I'm not here to convince anyone; it's a lost cause. People don't make decisions like this based on logic.

Yeah, I know. That's the problem.

They make their decision based on impulse and then their brains come up with logic to convince them they were right.

You might know decisions based on impulse frequently come with a cost. Well, it's nice to know you are subject to the above human condition as well.

So why am I here? I just want to see how far those impulses go. Under what circumstances does each side say "yes, that at least is too far, and in that case the other side is right."

There were a couple of good ideas out of it anyway.

[budster101]

Hey, Hitler was pro-abortion... "500,000 abortions annually in Germany during his stay in power."

[ebuddy]

Good point Budster. Apparently to UncleSkeleton, if I abuse you my sentence should be death. I'm a zygote in your body abusing you and as such I'm subject to death. I guess I'm biased though since I'm fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
Who said anything about taking her life? ... Look, the kidney does not represent the zygote. The grandmother represents the zygote.

If the grandmother is the zygote how is killing her not a good comparison? An abortion is killing the zygote. So the correct comparison is killing the grandmother.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I hope you get pregnant.

He can't. But if he were a woman, I'd hope he gets raped by her own father at 14-years-old.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by budster101:
Hey, Hitler was pro-abortion... "500,000 abortions annually in Germany during his stay in power."

So? If I can show that Hitler liked bisque, does that mean bisque is patently immoral?

Good grief, Hitler was a darned evil guy, but he was not the definition of evil.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
He can't. But if he were a woman, I'd hope he gets raped by her own father at 14-years-old.

Why would you even say such a thing? Honestly. I hope no one gets raped by their father @ 14 yrs old. I also hope they decline the opportunity to engage irresponsible sex with a peer. IMHO; allowing one legal abortion covers almost all cases of health of mother, rape, and incest. The elimination of the repeat abortion discourages the use of it as birth control.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Why would you even say such a thing? Honestly. I hope no one gets raped by their father @ 14 yrs old. I also hope they decline the opportunity to engage irresponsible sex with a peer. IMHO; allowing one legal abortion covers almost all cases of health of mother, rape, and incest. The elimination of the repeat abortion discourages the use of it as birth control.

Maybe, but it's also ridiculous. It seems more like an attempt to cover up an agenda than an actual attempt to protect the public safety (which is not especially more threatened by two abortions than one). If we view abortions as dangerous, then we shouldn't be greenlighting one abortion. If we don't, then we shouldn't be arbitrarily limiting it to one.

It's kind of like getting rid of justifiable homicide laws and just saying everybody gets to legally kill one person in his or her life.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Maybe, but it's also ridiculous. It seems more like an attempt to cover up an agenda than an actual attempt to protect the public safety (which is not especially more threatened by two abortions than one).

You've illustrated my earlier point as good as anything I could've said. It doesn't matter if policy is good or not, it matters who authored the policy. You will assume it's a Pro-Life policy and reject for fear of an "agenda". Are you defending abortions because they are a lucrative industry? Is that your agenda? Are you defending the right to kill babies for nothing more than an act of irresponsible sex? Are you defending careful consideration that all supposedly have prior to getting an abortion? You're not defending choice if you're eliminating a choice because of dependance and/or innocence. You are in fact Pro-Liberal Sex and multiple abortions. Why not discourage the use of abortions as birth control? Why is abortion a good thing?

You sound as if you're not real sure about what you're saying. Abortion is in fact unhealthy and can be very dangerous. Even Clinton admitted that we should keep abortion rates as low as possible while allowing the freedom of choice. My idea is right in line with that reasoning and cuts the amount of death in half. Surely, whether you view it as death or not, 50 abortions are better than 100.

If we view abortions as dangerous, then we should...

Do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions conducted in the US annually. My idea cuts the rate of abortion in half.

It's kind of like getting rid of justifiable homicide laws and just saying everybody gets to legally kill one person in his or her life.

I love the analogies. We can stretch just about anything can't we??? Homicide is illegal. Clearly. No doubt about it. Currently, legislation does not acknowledge a fetus as a citizen and protected under the Constitution. At least, not in the case of abortion. The view however is debateable. When in doubt, Pro-Choice allows the option of death to the innocent. The default is the choice between life or death. A Pro-Lifer defaults to life and believes we are obligated to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. Death should not be one of the options. Again, according to Clinton; "abortion should remain legal and rare." My idea supports that concept better than anything else I've seen because it ensures careful consideration, particularly when contemplating whether or not having sex with an individual is worth the potential result. If the argument truly is; health of mother, rape, and incest-my idea will statistically cover those instances. Otherwise, we encourage a society of impulse and wreckless sexual behavior. Which is exactly what we see.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
.... lots of info

Have a read of the Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II (May God's peace be with him). It is the most thought provoking book on marriage, sex, and relationships in general ever. The book is basically a collection a speeches on biblicial passages dealing especially with: the Genesis, the sermon on the mount etc.

The theological ramifications of 'in the beginning' are so deep.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Is this fact? Really?

A fetus is just a potential life, yes. It does not matter how you (fig.) look at it. From the mother's POV the fetus is growing inside her but it can't grow without her. None of today's machines or technology can create an artificial environment where a fetus can develop. The mother's body is constantly trying to destroy the fetus while it is growing inside her to begin with but the fetus seeds immunosupressive hormones to defeat this natural reaction from the mother's body. This is a struggle and here the fetus has a potential of surviving given that it will manage to keep the immune-response from the mother down and that the mother herself will continue to survive and prosper for the fetus will not live otherwise. A large percentage of fetuses is destroyed by the immune system of the mother. Should we sent her to prison? (don't answer that..)

From the POV of the fetus it is a potential life as well. Given the above the zygote (before becoming a fetus) has to end up in the right place in the uterus. The zygote has to travel from the far end of the ovary duct all the way down to the uterus. Many zygotes don't make it because it is a long way and the ducts are tight. If the zygote attaches to the mother outside the uterus it will be aborted. Even those who manage to attach themselves to the uterus at the right place and the right time, survive the inital immune-system attack from the mother and manage to start growing need to face the most common reason for spontanious abortion. The genes. It is only when the fetus starts growing, after the notochord stage when organs and spine and CNS are developing (a few weeks into pregnancy - the mother probably doesn't even know she is pregnant yet) that the integrity of the genes is tested. The absolute majority of abortions occurs here, completely without the knowledge of the mother.

From the POV of science a fetus is a potential life. The odds of it growing and developing successfully are slim, while it is less likely to win the national lottery it just a potential. This is a part of evolution as well, humans and most other animals and plants have this weeding of potential life to make sure that the individuals that survive are the cream of the species. Fish lay thousands of eggs. So do frogs. Only a handful survives, if that. This is nature. Abortion in the first trimester of humans is the removal of potential life. I'm not here to argue if this is right or wrong at this stage but to underline that this is potential life. As opposed to guaranteed life. Far from it in fact.

Birth control is even farther out. I wouldn't call gametes or zygotes potential life, closer to hypothetical life. The odds of one single gamete to become a zygote and later a child are astronomical against one. The odds of the millions of sperm and that one egg are still very very very bad to one. Certainly I acknowledge that abortion is on a grey area morally speaking, but biologically it is clear-cut. The life is a potential one. Birth control is even more clear-cut. Morally sound as well as biologically IMO. As a Catholic this strains me.

Originally posted by undotwa:

Does consciousness determine humanity?

Humans should always be treated with respect and care, I'm sure we can all agree on that. We do try to give more of our effort to the living and those who need our help. Those who are dead, we pray for. The life on this earth is fine but we should rejoice when someone is called beyond the great beyone, while we may miss them much they are going to a better place. That I believe. I don't think it is respect or care to keep someone artificially "alive". Nature and God are one and in the cycle of life, death is ineviatable. It is necessary. Keeping someone breathing and physiologically functioning enough for the basic system to work is really rather creepy. It isn't a miracle, not even a miracle of science. It is a feeding tube, breathing aparatus (if necessary) and an assortment of other instruments that keep the body and cells alive. The brain is an organ just as much as the heart. Without the brain the body will stop functioning and die, if for no other reason than that we stop moving and stop eating. If the heart fails we die as well. There is no long-time replacement for the heart, because of its fundamental and active physiological role in the body. There is no replacement for the brain either, but because of a different role the body can "live" without it for some time if it is given nourishment. But the body will decay. Muscles will decay and bones will decay. In the end, without an active CNS you (fig.) will not live - your health will give in. Is this respectful treatment? This isn't life. This is a perversion of live, a wishful thinking by the modern man. Death is not to be feared, but embraced, remembered and respected. We'll all go there one day. There is respect in letting go when there is no hope of ever finding a cure. That is humanity.

Originally posted by undotwa:

If someone is artificially kept alive, for example with an artificial heart, I see no harm in turning the machine off. But if the matter is simply denying nutrients to the person, denying the person food and water, then that is a murderous matter.

Perhaps. My great-grandmother died recently at the age of 100 (and 10 months). She didn't die from any direct disease. She stopped eating slowly and stopped drinking slowly. Eventually she dies. Was it wrong not to force-feed her? Hardly, even if it was possible. This is common practice for the elderly. Are they being murdered at the age of 100? Or are they simply being let go? People brain-damaged beyond help can surely be kept alive for a few years, a decade perhaps in the hope of a miraculous recovery, if so desired. I see nothing particularly wrong with that but then letting go is the right thing to do. The humane thing and the morally strong thing. Let God reclaim his children. Who are we to deny Him that?

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Why would you even say such a thing? Honestly. I hope no one gets raped by their father @ 14 yrs old. I also hope they decline the opportunity to engage irresponsible sex with a peer. IMHO; allowing one legal abortion covers almost all cases of health of mother, rape, and incest. The elimination of the repeat abortion discourages the use of it as birth control.

You're right, I wouldn't want it to happen. But it may give him some new light on why some people chose to have abortions and why it shouldn't be illegal.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
He can't. But if he were a woman, I'd hope he gets raped by her own father at 14-years-old.

You pro-abortionists are a happy lot eh?

Originally posted by olePigeon:
You're right, I wouldn't want it to happen. But it may give him some new light on why some people chose to have abortions and why it shouldn't be illegal.

Nope. No new light here. It's still murder. And the situation you are wishing upon me is EXTREMELY rare and does not justify the killing of children (in my opinion.)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
anyone in your care has less rights than you do? Does this include the elderly in your care.

I have the right to drive...negligence called vehicular homicide.

Someone may drink their liver into highly refined rubber...

The State requires me to wear my safety belt while driving...

When I walk into a tattoo or piercing shop...

please reference my Venus Fly-trap analogy...

If I've opened the door for you, I cannot say you unlawfully entered my home.


I love the analogies. We can stretch just about anything can't we???

Yes, you do love the analogies. I do too. Analogies are a very good way of asking ourselves if we're thinking logically or irrationally. Sometimes they are not as apt as possible, and we point out the weaknesses to each other. You can't fault someone for using analogies, especially not after using so many of them yourself in the same discussion.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I've already addressed it two posts ago and you didn't like the answer so you're going to say I never addressed it. To suggest; "Gee, you want to force your view on someone else, why don't you offer up your own body for child-bearing?!?" I told you this was a childish and moronic question. I do not have the physical nor emotional capability to bear children.

What you did was side-step in a way that revealed to me that what I asked second (about your family members) was not what I had intended, and that I only offered that alternative because I detected that you were uncomfortable with using your imagination and I was trying to ease you into it. "Why don't you offer up your own body for child-bearing?" It's moronic? It's exactly what you're proposing to ask other people, and then force them to answer yes.

I asked you to find even a prolific sci-fi author to explain how this could work. You couldn't.

Couldn't? I thought you were joking. This sci-fi thing is as childish as anything else in this thread. Of course it can work (vitamin supplements, immunosuppressants, anti-depressants, light plastic surgery, etc), it just wouldn't be very pleasant and no one would force you to do it (ahem).

The State requires me to wear my safety belt while driving. If I'm caught not protecting myself, I'm subject to a fine. This is not a new concept either.

Actually, that is a pretty new concept, and that's one of the reasons the cops can't pull you over just for not wearing a safety belt. Furthermore, I request you ammend this analogy to one where the safety belt is hurtful and injurious to the user.

Knowing the failure rate of birth control is critical to understanding the implications of the act for which you are about to engage.

I agree, but stupidity is not a valid factor for determining who should be protected under the law.

I am not able to turn around and sue the artist for the abuse they put me through.

No, but you can ask them to stop. If they refuse, threatening bodily injury with their equipment, you have the right to defend yourself.

If I refused to take my child to the doctor for antibiotics, or refused to feed them, or refused to support them in various ways...

Yes, but does that responsibility extend to an act of causing bodily harm to yourself? Are you required to jump in front of a car to push your child out of the way? I think most people would do it if they thought they'd probably survive, but should it be required by law?

Would we agree that abortions are hurtful and injurious to the mother?

I think we would, and no one is suggesting we force people to have abortions. Choice.

Overall, sex is a very good thing for couples that are committed to one another for various reasons including <reproduction>

Ok, finally. So we're over that whole "Sex is not designed for pleasure, but for propogation" thing?

If they don't want to do this, they should have tuballigation or visectomy.

I agree this makes the most sense to do. Unless you want children later in life instead of earlier. Either way, I strongly disagree that the state should have any say in enforcing it.

Off topic: anyone know the history of how republicans went from small government and state's rights to wanting to control the personal reproductive habits of its citizens? I'm curious.

Based on your line of questioning...

Yes, sometimes on the internet, people aren't entirely clear, and questioning is required in order to understand what they meant. I still have one about this analogy: what does "nature's course" have to do with it?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by deej5871:
If the grandmother is the zygote how is killing her not a good comparison? An abortion is killing the zygote. So the correct comparison is killing the grandmother.

You're right, and the grandmother is also not threatening bodily harm. Let's try an analogy that is closer: If my grandmother is psychotic, and is threatening me with a knife, and there is no way to escape save clocking her on the head with a candlestick, am I obligated to endure her non-lethal attack in order to prevent killing her in my defense?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
You pro-abortionists are a happy lot eh? It's still murder...the killing of children

That's a lot of misleadingly vivid language you've got there. I guess everyone is a happy lot. Are you as strong in your beliefs without the buzz words?

Anyway, I'm interested in a second opinion: if the technology presents itself in a year, will you be willing to put your body through a pregnancy and C section to prevent a "murder" from taking place?

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
That's a lot of misleadingly vivid language you've got there. I guess everyone is a happy lot. Are you as strong in your beliefs without the buzz words?

"Buzz words"?!?! I used the correct words for the meaning I had. No need for using euphemisms.

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
Anyway, I'm interested in a second opinion: if the technology presents itself in a year, will you be willing to put your body through a pregnancy and C section to prevent a "murder" from taking place?

I would LOVE to carry a child. But that's simply not what God wants. But it would be a great blessing.

An aside, how would that prevent a "murder" from taking place? If I was able to get pregnant?

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
You're right, and the grandmother is also not threatening bodily harm. Let's try an analogy that is closer: If my grandmother is psychotic, and is threatening me with a knife, and there is no way to escape save clocking her on the head with a candlestick, am I obligated to endure her non-lethal attack in order to prevent killing her in my defense?

Bodily harm? The risk of keeping the baby full term killing you is very low. In fact, in the United States mothers died in only 17 per 100,000 births in the year 2000 (link).

The deaths aren't really close in terms of deaths from abortions, but here are a few interesting facts:

In a recent tabulation, deaths in the developing world from unsafe, usually clandestine, abortion accounted for 64 percent of the 687,000 women who died as a result of unintended pregnancy between January 1995 and December 2000.12 The mortality rate due to unsafe abortion in less developed nations was 330 per 100,000 abortions: in Africa, 680; in southern and southeastern Asia, 283; and in Latin America, 119 per 100,000.13

Most recent data on mortality due to legal induced abortion in the United States indicated less than one death (0.6) per 100,000 legal abortions.5,13 In other developed nations, where abortion is also legal, the rates were similarly low� Canada, 0.1; Netherlands, 0.2; England and Wales, 0.4; Denmark, 0.5; Finland, 0.7; and Scotland, 1.0 per 100,000 legal abortions.13

Although abortion is a very safe procedure in the United States, the probability of complications and death increases with the length of gestation. For example, abortion at eight weeks or less of gestation has a fatality rate of 0.4 per 100,000 abortions. At 16 to 20 weeks, the fatality rate is nearly seven deaths per 100,000 abortions

linky

Anything you do can be unsafe. I hardly think that having a child can be considered a huge risk for a mother. Especially when compared to the risk of getting in a car accident and things like that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Kilbey: Thanks for your input. My idea as described on page 2 was that if there is interest, a procedure might be developed to transfer a zygote from an abortion seeker into a pro-life activist, instead of allowing the zygote to die with no uterus to sustain it. Just part of an observation that the opposing views "don't let zygotes die" and "not in my body" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.


deej5871: I wasn't talking about the unlikely risk of death (note I said "non-lethal attack" in my analogy), rather about the 100% risk of extended pain, discomfort, hormonal disruption, nausea, weight gain and whatever else comes with pregnancy, not to mention actually raising children. But since you've brought those statistics, they seem to indicate that child-birth is 3400% more dangerous (regarding risk of death) than abortion in the 1st trimester, which account for some 90% of abortions in the US from what I've read. Is that what you were trying to point out?

[krankklown]

Originally posted by macintologist:
If I think life is sacred, then how do I reconcile eating meat, something which was once alive.

Because eating something which was once alive is necessary for you to survive. Having an abortion rarely is a life or death decision for the mother.