[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

They have no chance of doing it if there is no gun.

But there is a gun. It's right next to the bullets. And there is an egg, right there next to the sperm. Once they're in the same body, the chances they will find each other are pretty darn good.

I just thought of a possible way to explain this with the A, B, C example, but it might get a little confusing. Now, let's say A1=sperm, or a bullet, or the number 5. A2=egg, or a gun, or the number 2. B=fertilized egg, or loaded gun, or the number 7. C= baby, or killed kid, or the number 21. A1 and A2 can combine to equal B. Certain things can, but won't necessarily be done to B to get it to C. A1 and A2 won't ever become C without becoming B first. That's why the line is set at when A1 and A2 combine to become B, because that's when they first have the ability to become C. Before that, there is no way to do anything to A1 or A2 to get them to C without them becoming B first.

Yeah, I thought of a math analogy too but it was too confusing. Here it is, let's see if it's what you're saying:

If 11 is 1 less than 12, and 12 is 1 less than 13, is 11 1 less 13? This is what you're saying right? The problem is, you actually don't understand the meaning of "potential," because potential doesn't care about distance or value or whatever you want to call "1" in that analogy. For the actual meaning of potential, it would be "if 11 is less than 12, and 12 is less than 13, is 11 less than 13?" Don't tell me it's not.

In another way. If the sperm and egg have potential to make a fertilized egg, and the fertilized egg has potential to become a zygote, you're saying the sperm and egg don't have potential to go STRAIGHT to the zygote. Well by that reasoning, the zygote can become a fetus, and the fetus can become a child, but the zygote has no chance of going STRAIGHT to being a child. It's all nonsense.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

That's the original choice made, but the process doesn't start until the gametes combine. Sometimes the original choice has consequences and sometimes it doesn't.

"Sex is a choice. After that choice has been made, things start happening automatically. It is a process that will continue, unless someone stop it"

So after the choice to have sex has been made, things are automatic, unless they are stopped, but we don't start counting until...when? conception? what about all the signalling and biomechanics that are in play to get the sperm into the fallopian tube to find the egg? That doesn't count? Ok, so basically, it's all an automatic process, and stopping it at any point is tantamount to ending the potential life, but we're only going to start counting that process at a certain point, and that point is...wherever you say. Good reasoning.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Yes, but that someone hasn't read my posts.

No, they read ones just like yours somewhere else. If drunk driving causes accidents, and other people have driven drunk and caused accidents, should I drive drunk without fear because I haven't actually caused an accident yet?

Remember: context. I said someone here because I'm talking about how I defined it via the context of my posts, which only someone here might misinterpret. Outsiders have nothing to do with it.

That would be a very good point if people actually read the whole thread before posting. Most people won't do that; case in point Zimphire who entered late, rehashed a bunch of old arguments that had already been addressed, and left without answering the rehashed rebuttals. Most people don't read the whole thread, especially with a thread over about 4 pages.

Fine. Abortion-rights it is. I think we can finish this futile argument.

yes.

It wasn't a "hissy fit". At least, no more so than yours about me leaving out "legalized"

If the actual meanings of the words are not important to you, how about from now on your side can be called "pro-abortion" and my side will be called "team freedom."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Even if some think heartbeat and brain function are the real deciding factor on whether something is alive or not, others don't.

Exactly. So why should they be allowed to dictate public policy over me? If they want to live their own lives by that assumption, they are free to do so.

Again, in the Schiavo case I don't think she had any brain waves

I'm not entirely sure if brain waves come from just the higher brain function or also from brainstem and other autonomic systems. But in this case she not only had no higher brain function, the physical matter of the higher brain was absent. So for the purposes of brain waves as a sign of sentience, she had no brain waves.

but many people still thought she was alive.

Based on the discussion at MacNN (not conclusive I know, but I've seen no evidence refuting this observation regarding the public at large), those people all refused to ackowledge the absense of Terri's (higher) brain. Once the above was shoved in everyone's face, the discussion no longer suggested she was alive, it was all about the trustworthiness of the husband (classic scapegoat/misdirection tactic).

I'll admit it, I don't know for sure that heartbeat and brainwaves are the necessary and sufficient criteria for declaring someone alive vs braindead. But that's what stupendousman (I think it was him) said, no one else has said anything more strongly than "I don't know" on the matter, and it is consistent with something I saw last week on Grey's Anatomy. Besides which it is believable. I am not inclined to research this point for you, so I leave it to you to verify or discredit it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

If it's your position that talking about sex is not considered "dirty" in American culture, I won't press it. Is that your position?

You tryin' to get to know me son? No, for the record I LOVE talking about sex. That's why I frequent MacNN, it seems few are more focused on sex than in here.

So your kids know perfectly well how to use birth control...but anyone getting an abortion just doesn't? I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

I don't know why you have to try so hard as I'm actually making these points quite clear. They either don't know how to use birth control properly, have an awful LOT of sex in general putting themselves at risk in sheer odds of pregnancy, or at the moment of stimulus throw what they do know about birth control out the window in favor of temporal desires.

There are moments of excitement in driving too. Do you object to kids being allowed to drive? Or do you think it might be better to do a better job of preparing them to do it right?

The most profound affect of driving is getting from point A to point B in as little time as possible. For those in large cities is necessary for independant transportation of themselves and their families and helps to maintain employment which puts food on the table. It usually does not end up in 9 months of torture, nor potential pregnancy. Driving is more than "feeling good". Often times when someone is driving to only "feel good" they speed, become more wreckless and when they put their personal, temporal desires ahead of common sense they put themselves and others at great risk. In this case not only have I taught them how to drive properly, but the State required them to know how to drive properly and rode with them to ensure they knew and could practice safe driving. Should we "ride along" with our teenagers? If you tell them not to speed, but in case they get the urge they should "buckle up" are we not telling them that speeding is a purely natural emotion and how to look out for others while they're speeding? Is this what you mean by "preparing them to do it right". We now teach people how to be cautiously wreckless??? Sex for teens and sex with anonymous parners is wreckless behavior plain and simple. We know too much about STDs, AIDS, unwanted pregnancies,etc... to look the other way. Sex for pleasure alone among those not involved in a participatory long-term relationship is wreckless.

I was just saying that it looked that way (for you) based on the large amount of your empassioned rhetoric that was about the evils of sex. I was half asking if that was the case, and half asking you to give another more legitimate reason for it.

Why do you insist on bringing some type of theology into this? I find you summation of my views to be quite interesting; references to "evil", "sunday school", etc... What are you driving at? I never once said I thought sex was "evil". You seem as if you have an empassioned rhetorical chip on your shoulder. I hope this is not the result of your mother dressing you funny and making you go to Sunday School as she may have embittered you a smidgen.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. By "carelessness vs equipment failure" I specifically meant "user error vs equipment failure." How many abortions are the result of user error and not equipment failure?

Well, if something states it has a labratory effectiveness of 99%, yet fails 20% of the time, one would have to conclude either the manufacturer is lying in which case you'd think they'd be subject to serious litigation, or the operator of the equipment must be at fault. I think you'll find the latter to be the case.

You could ask people. It's not a crime, they have no particular reason to lie about it.

Kids do, absolutely. Failing to walk the dog is not a crime either, but I caught my daughter lying to me once having told me she walked the dog when I found out from the other daughter this was not true. Kids are kids man, you should talk to a couple of them yourself.

Ok, so as you've said, abortion and pregnancy are two results of "irresponsibility period." For one you would want to give medical treatment, the other you would want to outlaw. How about the other things you gave in that list (AIDS, STDs, depression, suicide, botched reproductive organs, etc)? Which would you allow treatment for and which would you outlaw and why?

You do realize that your questions are not really questions at all my friend. What am I supposed to say to the above that would help you establish your point, or do you just like asking questions??? Damn 'em all, I would not offer medical treatment to ANY of the above!!!!
I would urge our system to care for each of the above and work diligently toward ways of minimizing the number of cases and the burden they present to society. Abortion does not answer this. Can you tell me why your question above was relevant to this thread in any way, shape, or form???

What about "botched reproductive organs?" The mother can't be allowed to protect herself from that?

Definitely! One way she can avoid this is avoid sex. Another is to avoid abortion.

I'm sorry that got out of hand. Women say it's painful, I believe them. A website says it might not be so bad, I'm skeptical. That's all.

There are hundreds of thousands of women who claim this is a beautiful thing. Interesting to me that you'd default to the negative. You should really look at that, seriously. I believe it's this attitude that manifests a view one way or the other. You assume children cannot also learn abstinence. You fail to realize that this is a problem primarily among those in poor socio-economic situations. The numbers I presented illustrate this quite succinctly. You can pretend they're not clear, but they are. The answer? Parental participation in the lives of their children, school activities that keep them busy and focused on productive endeavors, miniscule idle and alone time... all things parents are too busy to give their children.

I don't think there is a single poison that is biological (rather than chemical). But go on.

Now we're using common sense? You really must stick to one shtick brother, you're all over the place and back again.

I'm afraid the usefulness of ignoring whether a 6 week zygote is a person is over. In light of that, for women who don't subscribe to the conception = person philosophy, in order to make your poison analogy valid it would have to be a poison that doesn't take effect for 6 weeks, and the antidote is in danger of being outlawed. Like the flu (if there was a treatment for the flu, which was subject to being outlawed).

This is what you equated the zygote to, not me. You, as the man are partially responsible for the creation of that zygote that you claim is "abusing" the mother. If the penalty to the zygote (as you tried to indict it, not me) is death, what then is the penalty to the man who helped create the abuser?

Yes, I gather this pretty much sums up your platform. But if I may, I would like to ask for clarification on the language. By "a life," do you mean all life, or just all human life, or just all human life that is a person?

That's kind of funny. "All Human Life for 500 Alex."

How is that ironic? No one here said they support the death penalty, and furthermore the main justification for moral decisions on your side seems to be fault, for which the death penalty would be clearly different.

At the beginning of this thread, someone tried to suggest that Pro-Lifer's are Pro Death Penalty and this is hypocritical. They made this suppostion based on a generalization that Pro-Lifer's are particularly political and have leanings. i.e. an indictment of the right by the left. I wanted to prove that generalizations are not founded in wisdom, but in partisanship.

But aparently not if it means you would have to carry them to term yourself.

Are you saying you'd be okay with an abortion? I've not got an answer on this. Since we're throwing up completely absurd possibilities; I'll carry to term if you have an abortion okay?

Can't refute the logic so you attack the messenger? What makes you think I'm uneducated or unprofessional, not that it matters? What's your profession, o great master of all things?

Ya know, after careful consideration I'd say you're very educated with severe lack of common sense. In fact, based on your line of reasoning in trying to jump all over the place that you're probably actually a Professor. Say... Berkeley?

Ok, good. Problem? no. I don't agree, but it's not my place to tell you what to believe. But can I just ask does conception mean fertilization?

Almost.

I've never really been clear on this. Is it the moment when the sperm enters the zona pellucida of the egg?

Now you're close. Fertilization occurs when the sperm penetrates the oocyte or egg. Once the egg has been penetrated (through enzymes allowing the penetration of the egg membrane to occur) a fusion of sorts takes place between the oocyte and sperm nuclei and becomes the zygote. The zygote then immediately begins cell division and after approximately 3-4 days from fertilization having then ungenerated approximately 16 cells, the zygote then leaves the fallopian tube, now a morula and enters into the uterine cavity. This is LIFE and a beautiful thing!

Anyway...what about identical twins?

Double homicide!

Since they only had one conception between them, are they 2 people or 1? And, if that's the criteria, it doesn't rule out HeLa cells, since they came from a fertilization event too. And it doesn't rule out animals either, the ones that reproduce sexually anyway. Do you have any other restrictions on what defines a person (for you)?

Nope, no other restrictions.

Incidentally, I believe that a great many animals (apes, elephants, dolphins, etc) are deserving of rights and protections they probably won't get, and they are much higher on the list than 6 week fetii (of any species). But I'm not pompous enough to think I have a monopoly on the right to force everyone else to believe the same thing I do. So in that vein, supposing you get abortion outlawed, what will you say to someone who comes along and says "I believe that life begins at conception, and I believe that conception is the moment the parents' gametes are deployed towards each other. Therefore all forms of birth control are immoral." Will you say "well that's the same reasoning I used to get abortion outlawed, so I will now help you get all birth control outlawed"? Again, I'm just trying to understand your position.

You save the chimp and dolphins, I'll worry about human life. To each their own.

And I know you like to maximize the number of human lives without regard for the rights or quality of life of the ones that are already around.

No, in fact I'd be in favor of not conducting yourself in a wreckless manner. To not use birth control properly is to not wear your safety belt while speeding which is even more wreckless. I'm not interested in maximizing the number of human lives. Nice try. Is this what it is all about though? Less poor people? Rights? Are you considering the rights of all those involved including the man's rights? Why is it do you suppose more women oppose abortion than favor it??? No one is taking your rights away. Someone who drives drunk is behaving wrecklessly, what do we do? We put them in jail. This is not to be viewed as punitive so much as it's be removing this danger to society.

Well ask them then.

I do, all the time. That's how I know.

"what about the numbers tells you that?"
"all of them."
That's not an answer.

Perhaps you should look at those numbers again. It's an answer and a clear one at that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

There have been a lot of arguments lately in this thread about doctors allegedly sidestepping the law regarding late term abortions. This is an argument for better enforcement, not for a different law.

I'm not arguing that they are sidestepping the law. I've said, that according to the law, they can give a woman an abortion on the baby's due date, if they feel for any reason it would be better for their "health". That includes if they feel she'd be stressed, or simply be in pain due to childbirth.

The high courts will not allow you to enforce a law which requires a life or death emergency, because they say that isn't taking into consideration other "health" issues a physcian should be able to weigh. IOW...they aren't going to tell a doctor they can't give a women an abortion, and they are going to let them decide regardless of the circumstances.

A state can try and try to enforce a law requiring a true medical emergency, but the courts aren't going to allow it because they are going under the left-wing assumption that doctors and women have the right to kill their offspring regardless of the circumstances if they agree that's what is best for a woman.

Again..the problem is the court legislating in this regard, and usually not the laws themselves. Our founding fathers left this matter in the hands of the states, and the high courts have time and again violated their constitutional mandate and effectively nullified the laws. You can't enforce a law that the court tells you can't exist in the first place.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I don't know why you have to try so hard as I'm actually making these points quite clear.

No, you're making your points quite frequently. When asked for clarification (or when misunderstood), you simply get defensive and start making accusations. All I'm asking for is a little more explanation on the parts that I don't already understand.

We know too much about STDs, AIDS, unwanted pregnancies,etc... to look the other way. Sex for pleasure alone among those not involved in a participatory long-term relationship is wreckless.

Ok, I get that you refuse to make appologies for people who get themselves in trouble from having sex. What I don't get is the difference (by that reasoning) between abortion and treatment for STDs. I know, abortion involves killing the zygote. If you ignore the zygote's welfare for a moment and think only about irresponsibility, getting an STD and getting pregnant are pretty much the same. This tells me that the zygote's welfare is really the only issue in contention, and irresponsibility is not actually a factor. So either (a) you're saying people shouldn't be allowed treatment for STDs, (b) we should stop arguing responsibility and only argue the zygote's welfare (which includes at what point zygotes can be considered a person like everyone else, with regards to the law restricting all women's rights), or (c) I'm misunderstanding the irresponsibility argument and I would respectfully ask you to explain what I'm missing without any personal attacks.

You seem as if you have an empassioned rhetorical chip on your shoulder. I hope this is not the result of your mother dressing you funny and making you go to Sunday School as she may have embittered you a smidgen.

I sure do have a chip. It's the result of recent events in which uninformed passionate rhetoric got Congress and the President to take time away from other issues (shameful, but what else is new) to make a new law specifically naming one person to be served with no reasoning behind it (unconscionable and definitely worth a chip). Laws should be based on reason. Legal reason, scientific reason, or moral reason, I don't care which. But on "I don't know" or "because I say so," absolutely not. So why am I here? I'm hoping someone can convince me that the "life begins at conception" argument is based on some reasoning stronger than "because I say so."

I apologize for the "sunday school" terminology. What I mean by that is the only reason for putting the cutoff there seems to be "because I say so." Why would someone say so? The only reasons I can think of are (a) because they arrived at that conclusion by deductive reasoning, in which case they should be able to share that reasoning with others and spread understanding, or (b) because it's how they were taught at some point to understand the world, and they are unwilling to see another side to it. I was using "sunday school" to represent (a), but since you object, I will now call it the "because I say so" philosophy instead.

Well, if something states it has a labratory effectiveness of 99%, yet fails 20% of the time

I'm sorry, I haven't seen that figure before. Where does it come from?

<re: lying> I caught my daughter lying to me once having told me she walked the dog

I didn't mean ask them as a parent, I meant the doctor should ask them, confidentially, just like they ask abortion seekers what their motivations are. I wouldn't be surprised if some data has already been gathered somewhere, but if not it definitely should be before this is used as an argument for law-making.

Interesting to me that you'd default to the negative.

Some say it's negative, some say it's not. The only one's who are relevant to this discussion are the first, because they are the ones you would propose to force to acclimate themselves to the rule of the second. It varies person to person, that's why it should be a personal choice.

I believe it's this <negative> attitude that manifests a view one way or the other.

You shouldn't be allowed to legislate me having a positive attitude.

You assume children cannot also learn abstinence.

No, they can. What I assume is that they should not be forced to. Am I wrong on that?

The numbers I presented illustrate this quite succinctly. You can pretend they're not clear, but they are.

I'm sorry, and maybe they are, but I need a little more explanation to see it. Just like the meaning of "potential" is clear but Deej is not getting it, and we are taking the time to try to explain it to him.

That's kind of funny. "All Human Life for 500 Alex."

Ah, then how do you feel about human cell lines in laboratories? Is it just as bad to kill them as it is to kill a zygote or an adult?

At the beginning of this thread, someone tried to suggest that Pro-Lifer's are Pro Death Penalty and this is hypocritical.

That was a ridiculous argument on its face and didn't deserve comment. I ignored it. Just like when Budster tried to use Hitler as a representative of pro-choice. It's just noise.

Are you saying you'd be okay with an abortion? I've not got an answer on this. Since we're throwing up completely absurd possibilities; I'll carry to term if you have an abortion okay?

I wasn't aware you had asked. No, I would probably choose not to have an abortion if I was pregnant. I'm confused, you want me to have one?

Ya know, after careful consideration I'd say you're very educated

Now who's all over the place and back again? Nice work though, on keeping with the personal attacks instead of reasoning.

you're probably actually a Professor.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Fertilization occurs ... a fusion of sorts takes place ... becomes the zygote ... begins cell division ... then leaves the fallopian tube ... enters into the uterine cavity. This is LIFE and a beautiful thing!

Um, ok, but what part of that is what you mean by "conception?" All of it? At what point does it stop being a microorganism and start being a person, by the "conception" dogma?

Double homicide!

So you don't need a conception event of your own to be a person, you just need to have participated in one at some point...?

Nope, no other restrictions.

So all you need to be a person is to have been in a conception. Do you consider animals and laboratory cell lines to be people then? Is is just as wrong to kill them as to kill a person?

You save the chimp and dolphins, I'll worry about human life. To each their own.

That's what I'm saying. I know better than to try to force people to believe what I believe for no better reason than "because I say so." It's wrong.

I believe you missed one of my questions. What will you say to someone who says that "conception" is not the penetration of the egg by the sperm, but instead the act of sex in which the gametes are released on both sides in order to find each other? Why is that philosophy of when life begins less valid than yours?

[budster101]

It's murder.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You can't enforce a law that the court tells you can't exist in the first place.

Yeah, I suppose that is a problem.

An interesting side note; I read this today:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18524903.600

"Last week one of the coalition's members, the Seattle-based King County Bar Association, published a 146-page report recommending that the state should control production and distribution of psychoactive drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin. It has long argued that drug problems should be seen primarily as a public health issue, rather than a criminal justice problem - and hence a matter for state rather than federal government."

I don't know if this will lead anywhere, but if it does I think it has implications for abortion as well, arguably also a public health issue and not a criminal justice one. The article says a dozen other states are making similar cases, so this is not just an anomaly of the evergreen state (at least I hope not).

[macintologist]

Wait, so nobody is talking about fetal complexity, comparative embryology, and such?

[Uncle Skeleton]

I challenge your theory of complexity as a criterion (big or small, partial or in total) for our desire to protect our own offspring.

In its place, I submit that our brains (and most mammals') are hard wired to give us feelings of attractedness and intimacy for certain images which are correlated with our own young, and this feeling has evolved as part of a system which compels us to protect our kin (and their genes, see kin selection) from outside danger, and at the very least not to harm them ourselves. For instance, my dad always said (er, as a joke) "it's a good thing babies are so cute when they're asleep, otherwise every parent would probably smother them at some point before they grew up." Well, what is cuteness, if not a feeling that our brain creates when it sees certain things, things which (I submit) are (non-coincidentally) co-incident with the appearance of our offspring.

As such, the closer related an animal is to us (well, to our young) in physical appearance, the more likely it is to activate this neural pathway which leads to feelings of protectiveness for it. That's the way I see it. At any rate, there are tons of things more complex than us that we feel no motivation to protect (for their own sake, as opposed to for their potential to serve us).

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Don't be an ignoramus. As long as a sperm and egg are currently alive, they have potential. Read a dictionary.

Yeah, I'm the ignoramus... First you say that with my restriction of only things on earth they have no potential and now my other restrictions are invalid. Why? Because you said so?

What you're saying above is that a sperm and egg have no potential if they never meet. In that wording, the only way there's zero potential is if the sperm and egg are already dead. If a zygote is already dead, it has zero potential, too. We could also say a fetus has zero potential if the fetus is stillborn.

You have yet to be convincing as to why the line should be set at fertilization. If the zygote is alive, it has potential, but it could die, and before that zygote is expelled from the body, it has zero potential, just as dead sperm and dead eggs have. But if the sperm is alive, and the egg is alive: potential exists. Look up the word. Look up the word. Look up the word.

You are really stuck on the word "potential". Maybe you're right. That may not be the best word to use for this line of reasoning. I've only used it because everyone calls it the "potentiality argument". A better word might be "ability" (even though that's kinda close to "potential"). Sperm by itself has no ability to become a child. Does that sound better to you?

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

But there is a gun. It's right next to the bullets. And there is an egg, right there next to the sperm. Once they're in the same body, the chances they will find each other are pretty darn good.

Have I said anything to dispute that? I'm saying once they do combine, they cross a line. Their chances of crossing the line are different from their chances of going to the next level.

Yeah, I thought of a math analogy too but it was too confusing. Here it is, let's see if it's what you're saying:

If 11 is 1 less than 12, and 12 is 1 less than 13, is 11 1 less 13? This is what you're saying right? The problem is, you actually don't understand the meaning of "potential," because potential doesn't care about distance or value or whatever you want to call "1" in that analogy. For the actual meaning of potential, it would be "if 11 is less than 12, and 12 is less than 13, is 11 less than 13?" Don't tell me it's not.

If anyone's saying 11 is 1 less than 13 it's you. I'm saying 12(fert. egg) is 1 less than 13 (child) and 11 (sperm or egg) is one less that 12. You are trying to say sperm and eggs are the same as fert. eggs. But that's not my main point.

If you continue adding 1 (1 being a step in the process) to get to the final number, you have to go through certain numbers. With your example, I have to go through 12 for 11 to get to 13. 11's chances of going straight to 13 in 1 step are none, but 12 could do so. So, when 11 becomes 12 with a certain step, why not make that step the step that is the deciding point? I know what you might say here. Why not make any other steps in between the deciding factor (assuming the numbers weren't right in a row like 11, 12, and 13)? This goes back to what I was saying about choice and automatic process, which I'll get to in a minute.

In another way. If the sperm and egg have potential to make a fertilized egg, and the fertilized egg has potential to become a zygote, you're saying the sperm and egg don't have potential to go STRAIGHT to the zygote. Well by that reasoning, the zygote can become a fetus, and the fetus can become a child, but the zygote has no chance of going STRAIGHT to being a child. It's all nonsense.

Alright, from now on "potential" is now "ability" unless you have any objections.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

"Sex is a choice. After that choice has been made, things start happening automatically. It is a process that will continue, unless someone stop it"

So after the choice to have sex has been made, things are automatic, unless they are stopped, but we don't start counting until...when? conception? what about all the signalling and biomechanics that are in play to get the sperm into the fallopian tube to find the egg? That doesn't count? Ok, so basically, it's all an automatic process, and stopping it at any point is tantamount to ending the potential life, but we're only going to start counting that process at a certain point, and that point is...wherever you say. Good reasoning.

No human mind makes a choice during the "signaling and biomechanics" that goes on (are you seriously implying that each individual sperm has a mind and is thinking?). The only place a human mind makes a decision is during sex and during an abortion.''

Edit: Oh, are you implying that the signaling and biomechanics makes it not automatic? To that I say that no human mind has to consciously help in those actions, so in that sense it is automatic.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

No, they read ones just like yours somewhere else. If drunk driving causes accidents, and other people have driven drunk and caused accidents, should I drive drunk without fear because I haven't actually caused an accident yet?

Where are you going with this (or coming from)?

That would be a very good point if people actually read the whole thread before posting. Most people won't do that; case in point Zimphire who entered late, rehashed a bunch of old arguments that had already been addressed, and left without answering the rehashed rebuttals. Most people don't read the whole thread, especially with a thread over about 4 pages.

Or budster101... "It's murder."

If the actual meanings of the words are not important to you, how about from now on your side can be called "pro-abortion" and my side will be called "team freedom."

WOW! Someone referred to himself as a pro-abortionist, and he goes on to say he meant pro-choice! Gee, how could he ever mistake the two? They're just so radically different.

(All I'm pointing out is how pointless our argument really was.)

P.S. Do you know how to get direct links to posts now? It took me a while to figure out a way to get that link, and it isn't a process I'd want to go through every time I link to a post.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Exactly. So why should they be allowed to dictate public policy over me? If they want to live their own lives by that assumption, they are free to do so.

I'm not entirely sure if brain waves come from just the higher brain function or also from brainstem and other autonomic systems. But in this case she not only had no higher brain function, the physical matter of the higher brain was absent. So for the purposes of brain waves as a sign of sentience, she had no brain waves.

Based on the discussion at MacNN (not conclusive I know, but I've seen no evidence refuting this observation regarding the public at large), those people all refused to ackowledge the absense of Terri's (higher) brain. Once the above was shoved in everyone's face, the discussion no longer suggested she was alive, it was all about the trustworthiness of the husband (classic scapegoat/misdirection tactic).

I'll admit it, I don't know for sure that heartbeat and brainwaves are the necessary and sufficient criteria for declaring someone alive vs braindead. But that's what stupendousman (I think it was him) said, no one else has said anything more strongly than "I don't know" on the matter, and it is consistent with something I saw last week on Grey's Anatomy. Besides which it is believable. I am not inclined to research this point for you, so I leave it to you to verify or discredit it.

My whole point with this tangent was that had her wishes been completely unknown and no one claimed to have any idea what she would have wanted, the courts would most likely have ruled to keep her alive. Do you agree? If you do, how can you say the courts shouldn't rule on the side of life in abortion?

[Kilbey]

The question I have for y'all is this: Has anyone changed their mind about abortion? Weakened your earlier stance or compromised?







I'll admit I stopped reading this thread a few pages ago. It all seems like a huge waste of time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Their chances of crossing the line are different from their chances of going to the next level.

Yes, so you agree they have a chance of crossing the line, and a different chance of crossing the line after that (yes?). A fundamental property of chance, is that if you have chance A of doing one thing, and then once you do that you have chance B of doing the next thing, your chance of doing the second thing if the first thing is not yet done is A * B (where A and B are between 0 and 1 by convention). If A and B are both non-zero, there must necessarily be a non-zero chance of the second thing happening before the first thing has been decided.

If anyone's saying 11 is 1 less than 13 it's you.

Yes I am. The problem is in your premise. The "1" is not relevant (as I said last time if you had read the whole post). Potential, probability, ability, none of them are definitive quantities. You have said "it's a human if it has any chance of becoming human." If instead you had said "it's human if it has at least a chance of value 1" (on a certain arbitrary scale where 1 is the value of the chance of a zygote surviving to term), then the x plus 1 analogy would be applicable. But I have suggested you make a cut-off of probability and you specifically rejected that idea, so I know that's not what you're trying to say.

I'm saying 12(fert. egg) is 1 less than 13 (child) and 11 (sperm or egg) is one less that 12. You are trying to say sperm and eggs are the same as fert. eggs.

Well, ok, but in reality it would be more like 11 (gametes), 12 (fert. egg), 13 (morula), 14 (blastula), 15 (gastrula), 16 (zygote), 17 (fetus), 18 (child), and that's skipping a whole lot of steps too. So explain to me how the intermediate steps between zygote and child don't matter, but the the ones between gamete and child do. (hint: unless you list a specific chance necessary for a cell to survive to term for it to count, they don't).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

No human mind makes a choice during the "signaling and biomechanics" that goes on <when a sperm travels from the male to find the egg in the female>

That's correct, they don't. So for a human to interfere with that part of the process (birth control stopping the sperm from travelling to the egg) is no different than for a human to interfere with a later part (early term abortion), or by solely that logic, an even later part (late term abortion).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Where are you going with this (or coming from)?

You said "they didn't read my posts, so whatever I say doesn't matter." I said "but they did read a post just like yours (in that they read 'pro-abortion' somewhere)."

The person who wrote whatever it was they read may have said "no one has misinterpretted me yet," then someone did, and now you say "well they haven't misinterpretted me yet," then at some point in the future, someone else will, then another person will come along and say "well sure, people misinterpretted those two people in the past who wrote exactly the same thing, but I can still say it because no one has specifically misinterpretted me yet." Look, I don't want to descriminate based on age, but you're really coming off like a little kid here.

WOW! Someone referred to himself as a pro-abortionist, and he goes on to say he meant pro-choice! Gee, how could he ever mistake the two?

1. He changed his position after the difference was pointed out to him. I'm not faulting you for getting it wrong once, just for being petty about not admitting a mistake and refusing to stop making it again and again forever.
2. It's ok to refer to yourself any way you want. The stupid part is refering to your adversary by something that doesn't describe him. It's just name-calling, it's not valid and it shows that you don't know what the debate is really about.
3. Again, citing another anonymous internet user is not evidence.

P.S. Do you know how to get direct links to posts now? It took me a while to figure out a way to get that link, and it isn't a process I'd want to go through every time I link to a post.

You can hover over an "edit" button to see the post number in the status view, then add #post<post number> to the url. Safari has been very slow for me about actually scrolling when testing such a url; be patient.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

My whole point with this tangent was that had her wishes been completely unknown and no one claimed to have any idea what she would have wanted, the courts would most likely have ruled to keep her alive. Do you agree?

No, I don't believe so. As I understand it, the parents were completely financing Terri's convalescence (and they seem to be an extreme case anyway since they testified that even if they did know for sure Terri would have wanted to be allowed to die, they would have kept her (body) alive anyway for their own purposes, which sounds like quite an odd thing to say). So it wouldn't have been a ruling to keep her alive, it would have been a ruling to LET the PARENTS keep her alive, which of course any mother is allowed to do in any case with her own fetus if she desires.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

The question I have for y'all is this: Has anyone changed their mind about abortion? Weakened your earlier stance or compromised?

Before I came in here, I pretty much assumed the current laws were as just as they could be expected to be, considering they were decided with 1970's technology. Now I think (based on science, pending evidence instead of blog-style stuff) that the limit for no-questions abortions should be moved from 12 weeks to 6, and there should be some kind of accountability for "doctor's notes" for later ones (including justification for why they waited so long), and also (based on nothing more than creativity and compromise) I think the law on it should be state by state.

I'll admit I stopped reading this thread a few pages ago. It all seems like a huge waste of time.

It is. But keep in mind that you didn't have to come here to change people's minds. I came because I realized I didn't understand what in the hell the other side could possibly be thinking. Now I understand it (better than before).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

No, you're making your points quite frequently. When asked for clarification (or when misunderstood), you simply get defensive and start making accusations. All I'm asking for is a little more explanation on the parts that I don't already understand.

No, you throw up a ludicrous supposition or analogy. I give you clear reasons why the suppositions are ludicrous, you act coy as if to be confused offering up more convoluted and ludicrous suppositions. Then you come back with "okay, so it's not really torture, I got that from the inn'ernet." Then, you bring up impossibilities. Out of pure frustration, I offer up an absurd supposition to counter-act yours and you correct me trying to use common sense. You drew up a sort of template and tone for our discussion and when I played along out of exhaustion, you changed the rules. This is like debating with a pseudo-intellectual college professor. Are you or are you not a college professor?

Ok, I get that you refuse to make appologies for people who get themselves in trouble from having sex.

I'm glad you got that.

What I don't get is the difference (by that reasoning) between abortion and treatment for STDs. I know, abortion involves killing the zygote. If you ignore the zygote's welfare for a moment and think only about irresponsibility, getting an STD and getting pregnant are pretty much the same.

This is where you're wrong IMHO. See, you view carrying a baby to term as some sort of punitive measure. You view it as painful, torturous, abusive, and punitive. This is where our attitudes differ and how they form our views. My view is that pregnancy is miraculous, beautiful, purposeful, and meaningful. Getting an STD and becoming pregnant against your will are both the direct result of an irresponsible act. When you conduct yourself with wreckless abandon, you affect the lives of others. When you do this behind the wheel, you are subject legal implications. When you do this in bed, you are subject to biological implications. Once the decision is made to act with wreckless abandon, you cannot expect people to feel sorry for you and help you through it repeatedly. That said, we do not deny treatment for STDs nor pregnancy. This is where you are losing me. I don't understand why you are equating an STD with the conception of life.

This tells me that the zygote's welfare is really the only issue in contention, and irresponsibility is not actually a factor.

Irresponsibility and the desire to be irresponsible again immediately are the at the core of the issue.

So either (a) you're saying people shouldn't be allowed treatment for STDs,

People should be allowed treatment for STDs. Why is this relevant in any way, shape, or form???

(b) we should stop arguing responsibility and only argue the zygote's welfare (which includes at what point zygotes can be considered a person like everyone else, with regards to the law restricting all women's rights),

Can you tell me what "woman right" I'm suggesting we take away? Right over her own body? What is that anyway; "right over your own body."? Do you have the right to sell your body in sex for money? Are you allowed to not wear a seatbelt in your State? Can you sit in the middle of Center Park downtown and continuously slit your wrists? Why would we allow women to abuse themselves with multiple abortions for no reason other than 20 minutes of temporal pleasure? Women have the right to have sex. When they bear a child, the State should be concerned with not only the mother's rights, but the zygote's life as well. I say we draw the line at the morula as I clearly mentioned before you asked for clarity again. This is within approximately 3-5 days after fertilization.

or (c) I'm misunderstanding the irresponsibility argument and I would respectfully ask you to explain what I'm missing without any personal attacks.

The most popular form of birth control among women and arguably among the most effective at hindering pregnancy is the birth control pill. The National Center for Health Statistics shows that "50% of all unintended pregnancies occur among 96% percent of women who used some type of contraception, probably because the method failed or was used improperly." You asked me the difference between operator error and defective product because you know ultimitely, that number is unmeasurable, however; the report goes on to include data from one-on-one interviews with 12,500 women and men ages 15 to 44. Government interviewers, who spent an average of 85 minutes with each person, found that 98 percent of women reported using contraception during their reproductive years, and the pill was the most popular choice.
Statistics compiled by the FDA on the two most popular forms of birth control pill show 1-2 pregnancies per 100.

I want you to read the above paragraph again please. It is saying, using two very reliable sources not related to Pro-Life nor Pro-Choice advocation; that half of unintended pregnancies occur among 96% of women who used contraception with the most popular contraception being the pill with a 2% failure rate. The remainder aren't using birth control at all, even improperly.

I sure do have a chip. It's the result of recent events in which uninformed passionate rhetoric got Congress and the President to take time away from other issues (shameful, but what else is new) to make a new law specifically naming one person to be served with no reasoning behind it (unconscionable and definitely worth a chip).

Again, you're wrong IMHO. There is a "spirit" to law, a reason already baked into law that serves purpose beyond reason. We are a system that was in great part, designed to defend the "lesser" of us. What is the reason for this? Why protect the infant, the poor, the elderly? Why so much focus and "wasted" legislation ensuring we properly care for the above? Scientifically using the laws of probability-infants will never pay taxes, they will never work, they will never save a life, they will never teach morality, they will never be lawyers to help with legal reasoning, they will never be truly productive to society. Why help them?

Laws should be based on reason. Legal reason, scientific reason, or moral reason, I don't care which. But on "I don't know" or "because I say so," absolutely not. So why am I here? I'm hoping someone can convince me that the "life begins at conception" argument is based on some reasoning stronger than "because I say so."

Legal reasoning; we've already established several travesties in the court system by our discussion of the death penalty. Mistakes in rulings, mistakes in judgments, mistakes in judicial nominees, corruption, scandal, millions to coffee spill victims, and the like that occur across this country on a daily basis. Are we to rely solely upon legal reasoning?

Scientific reasoning; I've already established using the laws of probability that an infant will never be able to produce what an adult can in general. They cannot save lives, they cannot pay taxes, their life is rendered to staring off in space and smiling when mom enters the room, laying down all day long, sleeping most of the time, they cannot communicate, they offer no solutions, only problems, pain, and complexity. They are of no mathematical benefit to society. Reason and logic may offer you an answer, but I'm not convinced scientific reasoning is always the right answer either. Was scientific reasoning used in blood-letting for diarrhea? Was this the last time scienctific reasoning was wrong?

Moral reasoning; This, like the others above has also been used in part to make our laws. We have ethics advisories and boards, we consider "implicatons", we talk of law using terms like "spirit" of law or it's intended purpose. I see that all too often we try to intellectualize ourselves a justification for our irresponsibility. Rather than dealing with the virus directly, we address the symptoms while the virus generally continues to grow. Abortion, STDs, AIDS, Cervical Cancer, Breast Cancer, depression, suicide, are all symptoms of a virus. The virus is not the "rights of women" nor "lack of rights of women" nor "control over our own bodies" but control in general. Self control transcends moral reasoning, scientific reasoning, and legal reasoning. It has no necessary "law" to abide by, it just is. It doesn't need enforcers of it because it's not something that can necessarily be taught. Certainly, with such a diverse culture of individuals to draw from in this country we know that not any one of the above exclusively nor even combined can successfully administer our laws. At the end of the day it's just up to us. When we fail at upholding this unwritten and unwritable law, we witness a society that begins to replace common sense, with book sense, then we intellectualize reasons why it is so and why it is also okay. Knowing this, we form our laws to protect the least of us because it's easy to get trampled in a bustling society of people focused on themselves. We've found the virus, but now we can't deal with it. And it grows. Why am I opposed to abortion? Why am I opposed to starving someone to death because they are not mathematically beneficial to anyone else? Because in a bustling society where it's easy for the least to get trampled, someone has to weigh in with opposition. Someone has to address the real reasons why a problem exists because when you don't; you begin to see news account of the proposed starvation of an elderly woman in Georgia not in a persistent vegetative state, not terminally ill, with a living will specified that she only wanted a feeding tube removed if she was in a coma or vegetative state.

I apologize for the "sunday school" terminology.

and I'm sorry it sounds like Sunday school to you. It makes perfect common sense to me.

What I mean by that is the only reason for putting the cutoff there seems to be "because I say so." Why would someone say so? The only reasons I can think of are (a) because they arrived at that conclusion by deductive reasoning, in which case they should be able to share that reasoning with others and spread understanding, or (b) because it's how they were taught at some point to understand the world, and they are unwilling to see another side to it. I was using "sunday school" to represent (a), but since you object, I will now call it the "because I say so" philosophy instead.

It's certainly more than because "I" say so.

I'm sorry, I haven't seen that figure before. Where does it come from?

I urge you to look up information on these numbers. This should help retention and to overcome that which you were taught or read and your willingness to see another side to it. It's either; "because me and my scientists, doctors, and friends say so" or "Because my scientists, doctors, and friends say so." You might know there many from each side having equal say correct? So is it now because "you" say so?

I didn't mean ask them as a parent, I meant the doctor should ask them, confidentially, just like they ask abortion seekers what their motivations are. I wouldn't be surprised if some data has already been gathered somewhere, but if not it definitely should be before this is used as an argument for law-making.

It truly is difficult to measure, but some measurements I've given you above.

Some say it's negative, some say it's not. The only one's who are relevant to this discussion are the first, because they are the ones you would propose to force to acclimate themselves to the rule of the second. It varies person to person, that's why it should be a personal choice.

Based on whose interpretation of personhood, yours? If I decide to drive carelessly by taking my personal choice to drive drunk and careen through a red light into on-coming traffic; does the law only consider my rights as the driver?

You shouldn't be allowed to legislate me having a positive attitude.

You can't legislate health, but you can certainly promote it.

No, they can. What I assume is that they should not be forced to. Am I wrong on that?

Whose forcing who to do what? I honestly don't understand what you're saying. Are we forcing anyone to be irresponsible and self-centered? Should you force me to believe you killing a neighbor of mine is okay?

Ah, then how do you feel about human cell lines in laboratories? Is it just as bad to kill them as it is to kill a zygote or an adult?

I struggle with that more, but still have an opinion you might have guessed. I believe while at least this milling of life is purposeful, it's still milling of life and should at least be strictly controlled. If you're referring to stem cells and research; Britain has gained much ground in using stem cells from umbilical cords. I believe there's a more elegant way out of this mess with continued research.

I wasn't aware you had asked. No, I would probably choose not to have an abortion if I was pregnant. I'm confused, you want me to have one?

I guess that's another point where you lost me. You want me to become pregnant?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

You've proven that my concern for the "slippery slope" has merit. At least, in your apparent attraction to me.

Um, ok, but what part of that is what you mean by "conception?" All of it? At what point does it stop being a microorganism and start being a person, by the "conception" dogma?

Answered above. Regarding dogma; I find reading scientific dogma is more fun to fall asleep to at night.

So all you need to be a person is to have been in a conception. Do you consider animals and laboratory cell lines to be people then? Is is just as wrong to kill them as to kill a person?

Animals? No. I believe we have sharp, canine teeth up front for eating animals.

That's what I'm saying. I know better than to try to force people to believe what I believe for no better reason than "because I say so." It's wrong.

How do you know it's wrong? Is it scientifically wrong? Is it legally wrong? Is it morally wrong?

I believe you missed one of my questions. What will you say to someone who says that "conception" is not the penetration of the egg by the sperm, but instead the act of sex in which the gametes are released on both sides in order to find each other? Why is that philosophy of when life begins less valid than yours?

I believe the moment the morula enters the place from where it will be born, it is life. There are some that disagree and believe that the birth control pill is murder because it allows the egg in some cases to be fertilized, then destroyed. I'd imagine very few actually go as far as you're going and in fact is so rare that the above is the first time I've even heard such a supposition, but I must say that I've seen many "firsts" in this debate.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Yes, so you agree they have a chance of crossing the line, and a different chance of crossing the line after that (yes?). A fundamental property of chance, is that if you have chance A of doing one thing, and then once you do that you have chance B of doing the next thing, your chance of doing the second thing if the first thing is not yet done is A * B (where A and B are between 0 and 1 by convention). If A and B are both non-zero, there must necessarily be a non-zero chance of the second thing happening before the first thing has been decided.

Yes I am. The problem is in your premise. The "1" is not relevant (as I said last time if you had read the whole post). Potential, probability, ability, none of them are definitive quantities. You have said "it's a human if it has any chance of becoming human." If instead you had said "it's human if it has at least a chance of value 1" (on a certain arbitrary scale where 1 is the value of the chance of a zygote surviving to term), then the x plus 1 analogy would be applicable. But I have suggested you make a cut-off of probability and you specifically rejected that idea, so I know that's not what you're trying to say.

This is getting a little convoluted. Let me sum up: What chance do the sperm or egg have of becoming a child if they do not combine? Zero, right? They have x chance of becoming a child if they do combine. Their chances of combining are not applicable because whether they combine or not is based on choice. Once that choice is made, that is when the chances come into play. So, when the choice is made to combine is the appropriate place to put the line.

Well, ok, but in reality it would be more like 11 (gametes), 12 (fert. egg), 13 (morula), 14 (blastula), 15 (gastrula), 16 (zygote), 17 (fetus), 18 (child), and that's skipping a whole lot of steps too. So explain to me how the intermediate steps between zygote and child don't matter, but the the ones between gamete and child do. (hint: unless you list a specific chance necessary for a cell to survive to term for it to count, they don't).

I already replied to this in my original post (and you tell me I don't read your whole posts?): "Why not make any other steps in between the deciding factor (assuming the numbers weren't right in a row like 11, 12, and 13)? This goes back to what I was saying about choice and automatic process, which I'll get to in a minute." I did get to it, and you replied. I mentioned it a little above as well.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

That's correct, they don't. So for a human to interfere with that part of the process (birth control stopping the sperm from travelling to the egg) is no different than for a human to interfere with a later part (early term abortion), or by solely that logic, an even later part (late term abortion).

How is it interfering with the automatic process if the automatic process hasn't started yet? If the sperm are prevented from getting to the eggs then no process is started. Are you suggesting sex is an automatic process?

Edit: Ugh..VB3 needs to automatically do double quoting (so I would know what you were responding to). Now, to respond to what you said: Does this signaling and whatnot occur inside a condom? Other birth control? Assuming it doesn't, then those forms of birth control are fine.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You said "they didn't read my posts, so whatever I say doesn't matter." I said "but they did read a post just like yours (in that they read 'pro-abortion' somewhere)."

The person who wrote whatever it was they read may have said "no one has misinterpretted me yet," then someone did, and now you say "well they haven't misinterpretted me yet," then at some point in the future, someone else will, then another person will come along and say "well sure, people misinterpretted those two people in the past who wrote exactly the same thing, but I can still say it because no one has specifically misinterpretted me yet." Look, I don't want to descriminate based on age, but you're really coming off like a little kid here.

Let me try and explain this...again. I say it has to be me because I defined it in the context of my posts. If they get the term from anyone or anywhere else they will not have that context and cannot extrapolate the meaning I was inferring. Therefore, it has to be my posts that would get misinterpreted.

(Why are you generalizing again? It sounds like in your mind I'm some 14-year-old who went to Sunday School all his life and is just spouting off what he was told there.)

1. He changed his position after the difference was pointed out to him. I'm not faulting you for getting it wrong once, just for being petty about not admitting a mistake and refusing to stop making it again and again forever.
2. It's ok to refer to yourself any way you want. The stupid part is refering to your adversary by something that doesn't describe him. It's just name-calling, it's not valid and it shows that you don't know what the debate is really about.
3. Again, citing another anonymous internet user is not evidence.

1. Apparently, that's how they say it in his country.
2. It does describe him. How could it not if he's called himself it?
3. He's a pro-choicer. He's using pro-abortion as a synonym for pro-choice. I think it's evidence.

You can hover over an "edit" button to see the post number in the status view, then add #post<post number> to the url. Safari has been very slow for me about actually scrolling when testing such a url; be patient.

Thanks.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

No, I don't believe so. As I understand it, the parents were completely financing Terri's convalescence (and they seem to be an extreme case anyway since they testified that even if they did know for sure Terri would have wanted to be allowed to die, they would have kept her (body) alive anyway for their own purposes, which sounds like quite an odd thing to say). So it wouldn't have been a ruling to keep her alive, it would have been a ruling to LET the PARENTS keep her alive, which of course any mother is allowed to do in any case with her own fetus if she desires.

What I was saying was if no one said anything about her. That is, Terri had no family or friends to even say what she might have wished, much less care for her. In that case, I'm guessing the courts would rule to keep her alive. Unless you have evidence that they normally rule for death in situations like this (I'm just going on assumptions).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

What I was saying was if no one said anything about her. That is, Terri had no family or friends to even say what she might have wished, much less care for her. In that case, I'm guessing the courts would rule to keep her alive. Unless you have evidence that they normally rule for death in situations like this (I'm just going on assumptions).

I don't know for sure, but based on everything I've ever heard about the issue, no they wouldn't have kept her alive after 15 years, or even after 15 days. It's my understanding that when all medical experts who have examined her agree that she has no higher brain function and no chance of recovery, she is not kept in homeostasis (artificially) indefinitely unless someone comes along and offers to keep her alive themselves and hold out hope (like the husband did for the first 7 years). But that is just my understanding, and as this was your comparison raised by you in order to support your argument, I leave it to you to gather evidence on the matter if you wish.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Before I came in here, I pretty much assumed the current laws were as just as they could be expected to be, considering they were decided with 1970's technology. Now I think (based on science, pending evidence instead of blog-style stuff) that the limit for no-questions abortions should be moved from 12 weeks to 6, and there should be some kind of accountability for "doctor's notes" for later ones (including justification for why they waited so long), and also (based on nothing more than creativity and compromise) I think the law on it should be state by state.

It is. But keep in mind that you didn't have to come here to change people's minds. I came because I realized I didn't understand what in the hell the other side could possibly be thinking. Now I understand it (better than before).

Thanks for your comments and your reevaluation of the issue.

I'll admit, I was surprised.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

See, you view carrying a baby to term as some sort of punitive measure. You view it as painful, torturous, abusive, and punitive. This is where our attitudes differ and how they form our views. My view is that pregnancy is miraculous, beautiful, purposeful, and meaningful.

The abortion debate is primarily about whether a fetus/zygote is a person with the same rights as an infant, and if so at what point in development do these rights begin. There are a number of side issues with the potential to make that decision unnecessary. This is one of these side issues, that if pregnancy is nothing to complain about, abortion seekers have no standing to say "no you can't take away my right not to be pregnant." Some people don't object to pregnancy, some do. The question isn't if I personally object to it (I don't), the question is do I dismiss out-of-hand women do think it is, basically calling them liars (I don't do that either).

Once the decision is made to act with wreckless abandon, you cannot expect people to feel sorry for you and help you through it repeatedly. That said, we do not deny treatment for STDs nor pregnancy. This is where you are losing me. I don't understand why you are equating an STD with the conception of life...Irresponsibility and the desire to be irresponsible again immediately are the at the core of the issue.

You were the one who put them both in the same category of "biological consequences of irresponsible behavior." If the reasoning is that irresponsible sexual conduct should not be condoned, then treating STDs is just as bad as aborting unwanted pregnancy; either way you're helping people avoid the biological consequences of "irresponsible sex." If instead the reasoning is that there's a life in danger, the issue of "irresponsible sex" is not relevant, and it seems like it's just a way to help us distance ourselves from the woman who thinks her rights are being violated, so we don't have to care about her objection.

If irresponsibility were really the core of the issue, shouldn't you be arguing to regulate all sexual activity? What makes me think that is your driving analogy. Driving irresponsibly in itself is a crime, because it's irresponsible, so if you think abortion is about irresponsibility then I would expect you to think that irresponsible sex should be a crime, whether or not it happens to lead to an unwanted pregnancy. If you think a license should be required before you can have sex, I guess there's not a lot I can say to refute that argument except that people would reject the idea and riot in the streets if it was implemented (I imagine).

Right over her own body? What is that anyway; "right over your own body."? Do you have the right to sell your body in sex for money?

Actually you can, as long as someone is filming it

Are you allowed to not wear a seatbelt in your State?

Yes, I've already agreed this should be a state issue. Like in NH there is no helmet law. Live free or die. Do you object to NH residents having different values than you do?

Can you sit in the middle of Center Park downtown and continuously slit your wrists?

You know, I've never really understood laws against suicide. At any rate... can you abuse your body by eating at McDonalds every day? Or by getting tattoos or piercings? Or circumcision? Or drinking alcohol? The point is, we do have rights over our own bodies.

When they bear a child, the State should be concerned with not only the mother's rights, but the zygote's life as well.

Again, this is a zygote welfare argument. We can discuss zygote welfare whenever you want. But right now I'm questioning the validity of the irresponsibility argument. They're different.

You asked me the difference between operator error and defective product because you know ultimately, that number is unmeasurable

No, I asked because I wanted to know. Thank you for finding it for me.

half of unintended pregnancies occur among 96% of women who used contraception with the most popular contraception being the pill with a 2% failure rate. The remainder aren't using birth control at all, even improperly.

So shouldn't we be focusing on getting the last 4% to use birth control properly? And getting the other unknown percent (who you earlier described as taking 4 pills on thursday) to do it right? Seems like you could achieve your 50% improvement (or more) that way and not even have to confront people who think their rights are being violated.

I guess that's another point where you lost me. You want me to become pregnant?

I don't want anyone to do anything. That's the whole point of choice. People are not arbitrarily restricted in their actions. They become restricted when their actions impinge on the rights of others, but again that is a question of zygote welfare. The question at hand is in regards to whether there is any reason to take the rights of the woman into account at all. I say there is.

[Uncle Skeleton]

<re: schiavo-only laws> There is a "spirit" to law, a reason already baked into law that serves purpose beyond reason. We are a system that was in great part, designed to defend the "lesser" of us. What is the reason for this? Why protect the infant, the poor, the elderly? Why so much focus and "wasted" legislation ensuring we properly care for the above? Scientifically using the laws of probability-infants will never pay taxes, they will never work, they will never save a life, they will never teach morality, they will never be lawyers to help with legal reasoning, they will never be truly productive to society. Why help them?

I'm not objecting to laws that would protect people in the same condition schiavo was in. I'm objecting to laws that protect specifically and exclusively one particular person, because her parents got a bunch of sleazy lawyers and talk show hosts to create a buzz about it (not to mention the fact that most of the buzz was fueled by rumors that turned out not to be true). This buzz and the resulting law were not about ethics or about spirit, they were about one particular person, specified by name. It's bad enough when you get people to support a cause with nothing but a poster child, but when the result of the cause helps only the actual child in the poster and not even other children in the exact same position, that's outrageous, and that's why I have a chip.

Legal reasoning; travesties, Mistakes, corruption, scandal...
Scientific reasoning; I'm not convinced scientific reasoning is always the right answer either...
Moral reasoning; <another irresponsibility rant>

I didn't mean we should pick one of those three and make all laws based on that one. I meant that any particular law you propose to impose on everyone should at least be based on one of those three, that no law should be made without any reason at all.

Someone has to address the real reasons why a problem exists because when you don't; you begin to see news account of the proposed starvation of an elderly woman in Georgia not in a persistent vegetative state, not terminally ill, with a living will specified that she only wanted a feeding tube removed if she was in a coma or vegetative state.

Is this something that really happened? If she wasn't comatose or vegetative, why did she need a feeding tube?

I urge you to look up information on these numbers. This should help retention and to overcome that which you were taught or read and your willingness to see another side to it.

Jeez, I just asked where you got the statistic from. Are you refusing to cite your source?

You might know there many from each side having equal say correct? So is it now because "you" say so?

That's exactly my point. There are many from each side having equal say. In a pro-choice world, each side can have its own say and do what it wants. My only objection is to taking a situation where there are many from each side with opposing beliefs and forcing one side to blindly adopt the beliefs of the other side.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Originally Posted by skel

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You assume children cannot also learn abstinence.

No, they can. What I assume is that they should not be forced to. Am I wrong on that?

Whose forcing who to do what?

Didn't you mean by the abstinence comment that the solution is abstinence? And that the way to solve the problem would be to force them to practice it since they obviously aren't doing it already? Sorry if I misunderstood, what did you mean by that comment?

If you're referring to stem cells and research; Britain has gained much ground in using stem cells from umbilical cords.

Well I wasn't (I was talking about cell lines derived from cancer tissue), but since you bring it up, those umbilical stem cells would still be 100% human. What about them would make them different from a fertilized egg? The umbilical cord comes from the same conception as the fetus does.

I know better than to try to force people to believe what I believe for no better reason than "because I say so." It's wrong.

How do you know it's wrong? Is it scientifically wrong? Is it legally wrong? Is it morally wrong?

It's tyranny. It's legally wrong and morally wrong.

Animals? No.

Then there must be more to your definition of personhood than just "has been in a conception." Right? As you pointed out with your example of the Georgian woman with the feeding tube, it's important to be precise and thorough when we sit down and decide what it is to be a person. (sorry for not using the cliche "what it is to be human" because that would confuse the issue with cell lines that are clearly human but not people, unless a lot of us change our minds on that).

I believe the moment the morula enters the place from where it will be born, it is life. There are some that disagree and believe that the birth control pill is murder because it allows the egg in some cases to be fertilized, then destroyed. I'd imagine very few actually go as far as you're going and in fact is so rare that the above is the first time I've even heard such a supposition

I thought the catholic church was opposed to using condoms. Is that not true? Anyway, Deej is making that argument right now: "So, when the choice is made to combine is the appropriate place to put the line."

You put the line at "the moment the morula enters the place from where it will be born." Someone else is proposing to put it earlier, at "when the choice is made to combine." If your laws are enacted to make the line at your spot, will you move the line up (earlier) when someone else has an earlier spot?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

if they do not combine?

This is just circular reasoning. "What chance do the two have of combining if they don't combine?" It's the same as saying "What chance does the zygote have of surviving if it doesn't survive?" It's a meaningless question. The question that has meaning is "what chance do they have of combining?" Adding "if they don't combine" just makes the question nothing.

Their chances of combining are not applicable because whether they combine or not is based on choice.

How is it based on choice? The choice to have sex? If the choice to have sex is negated by the choice to use spermicide, or the pill, then the choice to have sex should also be negated by the choice to abort. I'm not seeing the difference.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

If the sperm are prevented from getting to the eggs then no process is started.

The process is started and the act of preventing the sperm from getting to the eggs stops it.

Are you suggesting sex is an automatic process?

Ejaculation is, and then the sperm swimming towards the egg is, and then (one of) them contacting and entering it is. I don't see how stopping any of those parts is different from interfering with your "automatic process" after fertilization.

Edit: Ugh..VB3 needs to automatically do double quoting (so I would know what you were responding to).

You can't remember or look a little up the page? It's always better to open the reply page in a new window so you can look back when you get confused.

Now, to respond to what you said: Does this signaling and whatnot occur inside a condom? Other birth control? Assuming it doesn't, then those forms of birth control are fine.

So it's fine to stop "this signaling and whatnot" with a condom, but it's not fine to stop the other parts of the "automatic process"...why?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

I say it has to be me because I defined it in the context of my posts. If they get the term from anyone or anywhere else they will not have that context and cannot extrapolate the meaning I was inferring. Therefore, it has to be my posts that would get misinterpreted.

I thought we agreed that most people don't read the whole thread, so they would have nothing to extrapolate from. In case you didn't agree to that, Kilbey just demonstrated it.

(Why are you generalizing again? It sounds like in your mind I'm some 14-year-old

You don't have to be a child to act childishly. Saying "even though it's happened to everyone else, it hasn't happened to me, so I don't have to worry about it" is profoundly childish.

1. Apparently, that's how they say it in his country.
2. It does describe him. How could it not if he's called himself it?
3. He's a pro-choicer. He's using pro-abortion as a synonym for pro-choice. I think it's evidence.

1. We aren't discussing his country. (where even is his country?)
2. I've said all along that decribing yourself as something inaccurate is ok, it's name-calling the person you're arguing with that is juvenile and invalid. Besides, he doesn't sound like a native english speaker.
3. It's not evidence. As an anonymous forum poster there is no proof he's not just trolling. As a person from outside the country under discussion he doesn't necessarily know what he's talking about (regarding language).
4. I've asked you nicely to stop. It's not productive to fight over this. If you keep doing it you're just an ass.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

This is just circular reasoning. "What chance do the two have of combining if they don't combine?" It's the same as saying "What chance does the zygote have of surviving if it doesn't survive?" It's a meaningless question. The question that has meaning is "what chance do they have of combining?" Adding "if they don't combine" just makes the question nothing.

That's not what I've said. It's what chance they have of becoming a child if they don't combine. Because combination is a requirement of becoming a child, that makes the chances zero. Don't change what I said. Although, if you think becoming a child and sperm and egg combining are the same, as you implied when you misquoted me, then you must see them as the same; meaning you would think that as soon as they combine they are on the same level as a child.

How is it based on choice? The choice to have sex? If the choice to have sex is negated by the choice to use spermicide, or the pill, then the choice to have sex should also be negated by the choice to abort. I'm not seeing the difference.

Birth control is used at the same time the choice to have sex is made. Abortion is made weeks afterward. One is prevention and one is "fixing" a situation.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I thought we agreed that most people don't read the whole thread, so they would have nothing to extrapolate from. In case you didn't agree to that, Kilbey just demonstrated it.

And? It's not my fault someone doesn't read what I say. Should I have to redefine pro-abortion every time I use it? Do you do the same for pro-choice?

You don't have to be a child to act childishly. Saying "even though it's happened to everyone else, it hasn't happened to me, so I don't have to worry about it" is profoundly childish.

I've given reasons for why it has to be me. All you've countered that reasoning with is that someone might not read what I say, in which case it isn't my fault for their misinterpretation, it's theirs.

1. We aren't discussing his country. (where even is his country?)
2. I've said all along that decribing yourself as something inaccurate is ok, it's name-calling the person you're arguing with that is juvenile and invalid. Besides, he doesn't sound like a native english speaker.
3. It's not evidence. As an anonymous forum poster there is no proof he's not just trolling. As a person from outside the country under discussion he doesn't necessarily know what he's talking about (regarding language).
4. I've asked you nicely to stop. It's not productive to fight over this. If you keep doing it you're just an ass.

1. You're right, we're discussing abortion. And guess what? That happens in more than one country.
2. It's not name-calling if he calls himself it! Unless this is like me calling a black person nigger where it's name calling simply because of who said it, I don't see the problem here.
3. Deimos has enough posts that I'm confident he is not trolling. He's even posted in this thread. What qualifications must you have to be more than an "anonymous forum poster"? Aren't we all anonymous forum posters? As for it being another country, that doesn't invalidate what he's said. If he's speaking in English and he knows what he's saying (he knew the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion when it was pointed out to him) then what country he is in is irrelevant.
4. Fine, I'll stop now. That is, unless you feel compelled to respond to my points here. I don't see why I'm an ass for arguing with you. You counter my points and then tell me to stop responding? I could understand if you simply said stop but I have to respond when you do.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

The process is started and the act of preventing the sperm from getting to the eggs stops it.

Ejaculation is, and then the sperm swimming towards the egg is, and then (one of) them contacting and entering it is. I don't see how stopping any of those parts is different from interfering with your "automatic process" after fertilization.

So I have no control over where my ejaculate goes? It just automatically goes into a vagina?

You can't remember or look a little up the page? It's always better to open the reply page in a new window so you can look back when you get confused.

Do you really have to respond to everything I say?

So it's fine to stop "this signaling and whatnot" with a condom, but it's not fine to stop the other parts of the "automatic process"...why?

Well, as I said I was assuming that the signaling does not happen inside a condom, and therefore is not being stopped. The only way I see the signaling happening in a condom is if it happens in every ejaculation, in which case it is definitely not part of an automatic process because ejaculating anywhere other than a vagina will do nothing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

It's what chance they have of becoming a child if they don't combine. Because combination is a requirement of becoming a child, that makes the chances zero.

You know the chance isn't zero, because people are born all the time. If the chance was zero there would never be any people born.

Birth control is used at the same time the choice to have sex is made. Abortion is made weeks afterward. One is prevention and one is "fixing" a situation.

So for you, life begins at intellectual conception. Does that mean abortion is ok if you decide to use birth control and the birth control fails? What if you wholeheartedly believe in the power of prayer and that is your method of birth control? Does that mean a life was not conceived because no decision was made to conceive it?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Well, as I said I was assuming that the signaling does not happen inside a condom, and therefore is not being stopped.

It is stopped BY the condom. Just like a pregnancy is stopped BY and abortion. You could equally say that the automatic process of development does not happen outside a womb (after an abortion), and therefore is not being stopped.

If you're going to say a life is defined by an automatic process, and that automatic process arbitrarily starts at conception, you might as well say that life arbitrarily starts at conception. This is not an explanation, just an obfuscation.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I'm not objecting to laws that would protect people in the same condition schiavo was in. I'm objecting to laws that protect specifically and exclusively one particular person, because her parents got a bunch of sleazy lawyers and talk show hosts to create a buzz about it (not to mention the fact that most of the buzz was fueled by rumors that turned out not to be true).

I'm not familiar with a bunch of sleezy lawyers having duped Congress with lies and misinformation and/or rumors. Do you have an example of one of these lies? Those lawyers would be liable for slander and would be disbarred yet ironically I've heard nothing about this.

This buzz and the resulting law were not about ethics or about spirit, they were about one particular person, specified by name. It's bad enough when you get people to support a cause with nothing but a poster child, but when the result of the cause helps only the actual child in the poster and not even other children in the exact same position, that's outrageous, and that's why I have a chip.

You might know that people interested in life will not stop at saving one life at a time, no matter what it takes. Schiavo helped to polarize the issue and bring this type of action to the forefront of public opinion. It required many of us to look at our own situations and make decisions to avoid the type of confusion fueling the debate around the Schiavo case. I actually found it positive that legislation was adopted for one person, one case. It certainly didn't take them away from anything more important. These types of issues are important to society and were important to them. Can you tell me what sweeping changes and what ground-breaking thing was going on that we missed out because of their making a law to acknowledge one person?

I didn't mean we should pick one of those three and make all laws based on that one. I meant that any particular law you propose to impose on everyone should at least be based on one of those three, that no law should be made without any reason at all.

Why is it law to wear seatbelts? Is it morally wrong to wear a seatbelt? Is it scientifically wrong to not wear a seatbelt? Since when can we legislate what we can and cannot do with our own bodies? We could always tax people into submission like they are doing with alcohol and tobacco. I say, we add a $2,000.00 luxury tax on abortions.

Is this something that really happened? If she wasn't comatose or vegetative, why did she need a feeding tube?

Magouirk was expected to make a recovery after surgery for a dissecting aorta, she needed a feeding tube throughout the therapy following. Feeding tubes are relatively common Uncle Skeleton and do not always indicate comatose or vegetative states. Yes, it really happened. The granddaughter had her mistakenly placed into hospice care which is generally reserved for the terminally ill, which Magouirk was not. The grandaughter was quoted as saying; "Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus, she has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?" Magouirk's cardiologists told him they believe the aortic dissection, although serious, was contained and not life threatening. Based on this information, after 10 days without food or water, the Grandson was able to use his power of attorney (as the woman had a living will stating that food and water not be discontinued unless she enters a coma or a persistent vegetative state.) she was airlifted from the Hospice and given immediate medical attention. She was almost starved to death because she was an elderly, recovering heart patient with glaucoma. Yes, this is really true.

Jeez, I just asked where you got the statistic from. Are you refusing to cite your source?

What part of CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, and the FDA do not indicate sources? You're welcome to read their findings on or within any forum of your choosing. I do not appreciate disingenuous requests for links.

That's exactly my point. There are many from each side having equal say. In a pro-choice world, each side can have its own say and do what it wants.

Meaning, mill babies because it's lucrative and forcing me to accept this as an okay "right of the mother over her own body" and the overall devaluation of life.

My only objection is to taking a situation where there are many from each side with opposing beliefs and forcing one side to blindly adopt the beliefs of the other side.

One side using strong ethical opposition to the taking of life for nothing more than repeat use of abortion as birth control. The other side using abortion for money, eliminating those of a specific socio-economic condition, and propogating a destructive lifestyle leading to STDs, AIDs, botched reproductive organs, Cervical Cancer, Breast Cancer, depression, and suicide. I see PSAs on the dangers of smoking cigarettes and using drugs all the time, why do I not ever see one on the merits of avoiding teen sex?

Didn't you mean by the abstinence comment that the solution is abstinence? And that the way to solve the problem would be to force them to practice it since they obviously aren't doing it already? Sorry if I misunderstood, what did you mean by that comment?

We've already agreed that you cannot legislate healthy living, you can tax the hell out of elements of unhealthy lifestyles like alcohol and cigarettes (abortion should be included) and you can promote healthy lifestyles by using PSAs, and other federally funded ways of advertising and advocating healthy lifestyles. That is; if it weren't so politically incorrect to suggest that teens avoid sex.

Well I wasn't (I was talking about cell lines derived from cancer tissue), but since you bring it up, those umbilical stem cells would still be 100% human. What about them would make them different from a fertilized egg? The umbilical cord comes from the same conception as the fetus does.

For the purpose of choosing battles and effective time management, my focus remains primarily on the acts of sex that produce a zygote, and the zygote in the mother's womb. Typically, umbilical cords and placenta end up in the garbage after the birthing experience, my aim would be to reduce the numbers of babies included with the above.

It's tyranny. It's legally wrong and morally wrong.

When you enact legislation, you are in fact drawing a template for all to be expected to follow. This is no different than a seatbelt law. You can disagree with law as we do here on MacNN, but you are still "forced" to adhere to the terms of law. Aside from that, no one is "forcing" anyone to do anything. You can say that a woman should not be forced to carry to term, but you fail to realize that the woman had already made a choice in the matter. To engage sex without considering the potentiality of life, STDs, AIDs, etc... is to be wreckless in behavior, the results are not to be considered punitive so much as a mere implication and result of the behavior itself. Why would you insist on making excuses for women who have anonymous sex with multiple partners for which they have no desire of protecting themselves properly or have no desire for longterm relationships. Repeat abortions constitute half of the abortions performed. This is a problem. I believe we should tax them into submission just as we do other lifestyle choices like drinking alcohol and tobacco.

Then there must be more to your definition of personhood than just "has been in a conception." Right?

Are you or are you not a College Professor? In order to engage this discussion, we need to be able to establish 'A' and move on to 'B', yet I find myself having to repeat 'A' over and over again. It is fastly becoming unfruitful and futile to continue this discussion with you. You must tell me what it is that has you so confounded?

As you pointed out with your example of the Georgian woman with the feeding tube, it's important to be precise and thorough when we sit down and decide what it is to be a person. (sorry for not using the cliche "what it is to be human" because that would confuse the issue with cell lines that are clearly human but not people, unless a lot of us change our minds on that).

Do you believe the elderly enjoy "personhood"? Do you believe an elderly woman, recovering from heart surgery, who also has poor eyesight (whether or not you'd want to live this way) is a person? There are many who do not and for whatever reason, they're voices are getting louder. The only way to counteract what I see as a declining view of life, is to give opposite and equal voice. This is how our system works. I'm not forcing you to accept my view any more than you are forcing me to accept yours. I always love this supposition though; "it's wrong to force your morals on me." I sometimes wonder what the template for "wrong" is and why the above statement is right and proper in conjunction with itself.

I thought the catholic church was opposed to using condoms. Is that not true? Anyway, Deej is making that argument right now: "So, when the choice is made to combine is the appropriate place to put the line."

The "combining" if you will is the act of sex. We cannot successfully legislate sex, but we can promote a more healthy lifestyle. The problem is political correctness in not allowing us to even touch on the real problem. The real problem is spreading your legs with blatent disregard for the implications, requiring a surgical procedure that is damaging to a woman and lethal to the baby. I'm not Catholic anymore so I'd have to leave the "condom" argument to them. What I can say is that the Catholic church is opposed to sex outside of marriage for this very reason. I agree with them in that the most profound effect of sex is pregnancy and childbirth and that when we reduce it to the "feel goodz" we are conducting ourselves in a wreckless manner and as such, we are defining value of life downward. I believe this has long-term societal implications such as the proposed starvation of a woman for nothing more than the fact that she's elderly and of no mathematical benefit to society. I'm not setting fire to anything, nor standing in line with pictures of bloody victims unlike those from PETA in defending the dolphin, but I do have an opinion.

You put the line at "the moment the morula enters the place from where it will be born." Someone else is proposing to put it earlier, at "when the choice is made to combine." If your laws are enacted to make the line at your spot, will you move the line up (earlier) when someone else has an earlier spot?

I suppose there's the possibility of the "slippery slope" in either direction. I'd like to see that slope move toward protecting life, but would suggest for the purpose of agreement and success, that we adhere to a strict sense of what it is we're protecting exactly. I'd draw this line at the morula. I think you'll find that my ideal is quite stringent however and would meet most Pro-Lifer's where they are. To be honest though, I'd simply start by eradicating and illegalizing the repeat abortion. The repeat abortion is strictly a case of using abortion carelessly as birth control. Just as Pro-Death and convenience has a starting place, and slips from there, so does Pro-Life.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You know the chance isn't zero, because people are born all the time. If the chance was zero there would never be any people born.

So the chance of sperm or egg becoming a child if they do not combine is above zero? I never said the chance of sperm or egg ever becoming a child was zero, just if they do not combine.

So for you, life begins at intellectual conception. Does that mean abortion is ok if you decide to use birth control and the birth control fails? What if you wholeheartedly believe in the power of prayer and that is your method of birth control? Does that mean a life was not conceived because no decision was made to conceive it?

When did I say that? My point was that BC is used before sperm and egg can touch each other, therefore preventing the process from starting. The process doesn't really begin until the sperm is "free". It isn't free if it is stuck inside a condom. The "same time" thing was simply to illustrate how it was prevention. (This may sound like I'm just repeating myself here but I really don't understand how you interpreted what I said.)

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

It is stopped BY the condom. Just like a pregnancy is stopped BY and abortion. You could equally say that the automatic process of development does not happen outside a womb (after an abortion), and therefore is not being stopped.

The condom stops the automatic process from starting, therefore it is prevention. Abortions stop the process after it has started, and is not prevention.

If you're going to say a life is defined by an automatic process, and that automatic process arbitrarily starts at conception, you might as well say that life arbitrarily starts at conception. This is not an explanation, just an obfuscation.

The automatic process doesn't arbitrarily start at conception, that's just when it starts. You want to continue thinking that the process starts as soon as the man ejaculates thats fine but I don't see how you can rationally think that. If you still have control over where the ejaculate goes then it is not automatic. You have no control over the sperm once it hits that egg.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Before I came in here, I pretty much assumed the current laws were as just as they could be expected to be, considering they were decided with 1970's technology. Now I think (based on science, pending evidence instead of blog-style stuff) that the limit for no-questions abortions should be moved from 12 weeks to 6, and there should be some kind of accountability for "doctor's notes" for later ones (including justification for why they waited so long), and also (based on nothing more than creativity and compromise) I think the law on it should be state by state.).

You and I agree.

Personally, I'm opposed to all abortion. But that is based on my personal moral views which I don't wish to legislate. This issue should be decided, if nothing else, on science. If science tells us that a living human organism has "life" as it is normally measured, then that organism should have legal rights.

The problem is that the courts have unconstitutionally decided to legislate this matter and the people can not come to reasonable compromises based on science and societal norms (which likely wouldn't result in banning of most very early term pregnancies). THIS is why there is such acrimony regarding the placement of judges on the bench. The American people know that putting someone on the higher courts is the equivalent of electing a member of legislature for life...but not getting any say in who that person is or having a way to punish them (remove them from office) when they legislate in ways that goes against scientific, truely constitutional (none of those "penubra" inventions used as excuses to legislate) or societal norms.

Until the courts are reigned in, we will likely continue to be less civil in our discussions about these matters and the laws will reflect neither the constitution or the will of the people, which is sad IMO.