vbnautilus 48 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 vb, you have the patience of a saint.sounds so official in your accent, thanks! Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I bring up the chance of becoming human because that seems to be your criteria for treating something as human. You are saying that it has human rights because it is going to be human. But what chance is enough? 1 in 1000? 1 in 2? More on this below.I realize I phrased that wrong. What I was saying is that IMO it makes sense to start calling it life after it takes the jump from a 1/millions to 1 in 2. Something extremely unlikely all of a sudden now has a 50/50 chance of coming into the world. That would provide you with the "magic moment" you asked me about earlier. Is that important? Are you saying that somehow having a complete genetic code is what grants the organism rights? But as to your metaphor, what is misleading about it is that in roulette there is a discrete moment at which the number is decided, where possibility becomes reality. Before that point the final number is unknown, after that point, it is known. With a developing organism there is no corresponding point in time really. The wheel continues to spin even after fertilization, so to speak. I think it would be when the genetic structure comes into place. The genetic structure would equal the winning number in the metaphor. Maybe one of the built-in mechanisms here is the decision of the mother. While this is possible, I think it highly unlikely. A mother's instinct is to protect her offspring. Abortion seems to me to work in opposition to that instinct. Yes, that's what I meant, sorry to be obscure. The fetus is not an independent organism, it is part of its mother, not too much unlike her arm is part of her.My ignorance, not your obscurity. This part of your argument contains a logical fallacy called "begging the question". The issue at stake is whether embryos should enjoy the same rights as adult humans, and your comments here only make sense if we already assume that they should. For instance, you assume that "all men" refers to men, women, and their embryos, but that's exactly the point of contention. (Also, I'm not sure why this document is important - does the declaration of independence even have any legal consequences?)Anyways, I think we are pretty close to going in circles here. I appreciate your thoughts in this thread, I think its been a good discussion, so thanks.I suppose you are correct. I have never taken a logic course.(Obviously) I do make the assumptions for the reasons I have discussed throughout this thread. I see what you mean about going in circles. I agree it has been a good discussion and I always enjoy your input in this and in other threads. I read several posts by you in a thread about Public v. Private funding for Science Research. Reading your posts actually caused me to change my previously held views. In the case of abortion, however, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree I enjoyed the discussion. Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I don't understand your point. If anything a "properly" performed abortion would more resemble disembowelment than it would a lethal injection. Either one performed on an innocent is tragic. The end result is exactly the same in both cases.I would assume from the above remark that you are also in favor of abolition of the death penalty. The fact is that thousands of innocent men and women are convicted of crimes every year. So to impose the death penalty takes the risk of killing some of those innocents. So by your logic, we should not impose the death penalty. I'm pointing this out because it would be my hope that you would at least be consistent in your pro-life position. Also if you truly believe that it's God's will that the embryo is formed then you should be able to trust God for the life of the mother also and be against abortion even to save the mother's life. Is not the mother's life also in God's hands? To be a truly consistent pro-life advocate you would have to take both of the above positions. (I have to say that I'm not totally consistent in my pro-life beliefs because I do believe that abortion should be legal in the case of endangering the life and physical health of the mother). Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I don't understand your point. If anything a "properly" performed abortion would more resemble disembowelment than it would a lethal injection. Either one performed on an innocent is tragic. The end result is exactly the same in both cases.I would assume from the above remark that you are also in favor of abolition of the death penalty. The fact is that thousands of innocent men and women are convicted of crimes every year. So to impose the death penalty takes the risk of killing some of those innocents. So by your logic, we should not impose the death penalty. I'm pointing this out because it would be my hope that you would at least be consistent in your pro-life position. Also if you truly believe that it's God's will that the embryo is formed then you should be able to trust God for the life of the mother also and be against abortion even to save the mother's life. Is not the mother's life also in God's hands? To be a truly consistent pro-life advocate you would have to take both of the above positions. (I have to say that I'm not totally consistent in my pro-life beliefs because I do believe that abortion should be legal in the case of endangering the life and physical health of the mother). Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,722 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I am a simple blackjack and roulette dealer. Lets imagine the spinning roulette wheel and let it represent the egg. Now lets picture the ball spinning in its groove around the wheel in the opposite direction. There are things that can happen that prevent the ball from ever dropping in a numbered slot. The ball could bounce out, the ball could float, or the dealer could remove the ball before it drops. If any of these things happen there is no consequence whatsoever. There is no way to know where the ball would have dropped if it would have dropped at all. No one is paid and nothing is collected by the house. Once the ball drops in a slot it immediately becomes a number. The wheel and the ball have come together to create a winning number. Now that the number has been marked winning wagers are paid and the losers are collected. The only way not to pay the winning number would be to cheat.this is absolutely hilarious. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I would assume from the above remark that you are also in favor of abolition of the death penalty. The fact is that thousands of innocent men and women are convicted of crimes every year. So to impose the death penalty takes the risk of killing some of those innocents. So by your logic, we should not impose the death penalty. I'm pointing this out because it would be my hope that you would at least be consistent in your pro-life position. Also if you truly believe that it's God's will that the embryo is formed then you should be able to trust God for the life of the mother also and be against abortion even to save the mother's life. Is not the mother's life also in God's hands? To be a truly consistent pro-life advocate you would have to take both of the above positions. (I have to say that I'm not totally consistent in my pro-life beliefs because I do believe that abortion should be legal in the case of endangering the life and physical health of the mother).I have left religion out of my part of this discussion. The Catholic Church goes much further down the path in which VB was talking about. They are more protective of all potential life. They are against birth control. They are also anti death penalty with some exceptions, which I am not well versed on. I am anti-death penalty.If a doctor has determined that the only way he could save the mother would be to abort a pregnancy I don't see it as a conflict with my religious beliefs. The Catholic Church goes into great detail on how each of these issues should be most appropriately approached. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Stir fried zygote in peanut sauce nom nom nom Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I have left religion out of my part of this discussion. The Catholic Church goes much further down the path in which VB was talking about. They are more protective of all potential life. They are against birth control. They are also anti death penalty with some exceptions, which I am not well versed on. I am anti-death penalty.If a doctor has determined that the only way he could save the mother would be to abort a pregnancy I don't see it as a conflict with my religious beliefs. The Catholic Church goes into great detail on how each of these issues should be most appropriately approached.Pretty hard to take religion out of this debate since that is the true basis of most of Pro-life positions. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 vb, you have the patience of a saint. this is absolutely hilarious.Read the last page of this thread then watch the clip below. Which one is vb, and which one is suitedaces21? Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/bre...,0,900628.storyHialeah abortion clinic denies throwing newborn away after botched procedure Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/bre...,0,900628.storyHialeah abortion clinic denies throwing newborn away after botched procedureSo the baby just appeared in the garbage can by magic? Actually it doesn't surprise me that they pleaded not guilty. It annoys me that it takes something like this for the medical profession to be willing to take this guy's medical license. Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I see no problem with abortion at all.Why do we want the kind of person who would abort to reproduce.? Link to post Share on other sites
irishguy 14 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I see no problem with abortion at all.Why do we want the kind of person who would abort to reproduce.?That's a solid thought process. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted May 15, 2009 Author Share Posted May 15, 2009 http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Ame...First-Time.aspx Link to post Share on other sites
checkymcfold 0 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Ame...First-Time.aspxit's worth saying that if you're "unsure" about this issue, you are pretty much pro-choice unless you don't understand what pro-choice means.it's also worth saying that polls and reality are two profoundly different things. Link to post Share on other sites
solderz 0 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 My first memory is at 9 months. So the way I figure it, I wasn't really alive then. So I propose we extend the permitted abortion period into the 6 months after birth (we should now call this period probationary-life since that's what it will be - this way we can call all newborns probie). And since there will actually be some meat as a result of these post-gestation abortions, we can help feed the hungry. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted May 15, 2009 Author Share Posted May 15, 2009 My first memory is at 9 months. So the way I figure it, I wasn't really alive then. So I propose we extend the permitted abortion period into the 6 months after birth (we should now call this period probationary-life since that's what it will be - this way we can call all newborns probie). And since there will actually be some meat as a result of these post-gestation abortions, we can help feed the hungry.I agree with this, but can we still save the whales? Link to post Share on other sites
Sheiky 0 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Ame...First-Time.aspxMore accurate picture - http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/is-...n-abortion.html Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 More accurate picture --- link to 538.com haha, good one.http://people-press.org/report/513/public-...ontrol-abortion Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090531/ap_on_...tiller_shootingThis dude was a sick mother f-er... but the shooter was obviously no better. Link to post Share on other sites
Sportsmack 0 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090531/ap_on_...tiller_shootingThis dude was a sick mother f-er... but the shooter was obviously no better.why do I have this sick feeling that he's gonna claim "God told me to do it," and feel completely justified in doing so. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090531/ap_on_...tiller_shootingThis dude was a sick mother f-er... but the shooter was far worse.fyp Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 fypI totally disagree with the 'far worse' comment. This 'doctor' was sucking the brains out of viable human babies. That's probably not a great thing. I mean, let's have a discussion about the pluses and minuses of abortion when the baby is still goo, but when it could live on it's own and is still killed it's a pretty open and shut case that it's down right awful. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I totally disagree with the 'far worse' comment. This 'doctor' was sucking the brains out of viable human babies. That's probably not a great thing. I mean, let's have a discussion about the pluses and minuses of abortion when the baby is still goo, but when it could live on it's own and is still killed it's a pretty open and shut case that it's down right awful.it may be awful but it isnt as bad as shooting someone in a church. sorry. Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 why do I have this sick feeling that he's gonna claim "God told me to do it," and feel completely justified in doing so.Unfortunately, I have that sick feeling too. A nut is a nut is a nut no matter what religious convictions he may claim. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now