The Unknown Zone - proudly an American forum!

Who decides who's life is precious and who's life isn't?

If everyone's life isn't precious, how is any life precious?

Quote from: Mom on January 05, 2009, 07:24:32 PM
Who decides who's life is precious and who's life isn't?

If everyone's life isn't precious, how is any life precious?

All life is precious.  This is it.

Who decides?  We all do.

If a huge asteroid is headed for earth, and will certainly wipe out all human life, do you think the asteroid made the call?

I see liberals are pro-abortion yet will fight to the death to defend a serial killer, to keep him from the gas chamber. The child is innocent, has done no harm. Didn't ask to be born, but something is owed that life. To me, the killer has had his chance and misspent it, doesn't deserve another chance, so I don't care if he gets gassed. The baby's life represents hope. The killer's life represents death.

I'm a liberal and I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. There's a difference.

There's also a difference between a clump of cells and a viable human.

Quote from: Gardengirl on January 14, 2009, 10:52:36 PM
I see liberals are pro-abortion yet will fight to the death to defend a serial killer, to keep him from the gas chamber. The child is innocent, has done no harm. Didn't ask to be born, but something is owed that life. To me, the killer has had his chance and misspent it, doesn't deserve another chance, so I don't care if he gets gassed. The baby's life represents hope. The killer's life represents death.

So yet another sweeping generalization about those horrid, anti-american, pro-criminal, jesus-hating, baby-killing liberals.

You should thank a liberal for your having the right to vote, madam.

She'll have to study that one to get it, Dan.

Quote from: Gardengirl on January 14, 2009, 10:52:36 PM
I see liberals are pro-abortion yet will fight to the death to defend a serial killer, to keep him from the gas chamber. The child is innocent, has done no harm. Didn't ask to be born, but something is owed that life. To me, the killer has had his chance and misspent it, doesn't deserve another chance, so I don't care if he gets gassed. The baby's life represents hope. The killer's life represents death.

I find that there are more "gun toting" conservatives that would let loose on a human being just because it is their right to defend.  And then go to church on Sunday and denounce the baby killers in the world. 

Just an observation.

Quote from: kimmi on January 17, 2009, 12:54:05 PM
I find that there are more "gun toting" conservatives that would let loose on a human being just because it is their right to defend.  And then go to church on Sunday and denounce the baby killers in the world. 

Just an observation.

But isn't there a difference between killing someone  defending one's self, than killing a defenseless child?  :think: It's a double edged sword.  :yes:

Quote from: Gardengirl on January 14, 2009, 10:52:36 PM
I see liberals are pro-abortion yet will fight to the death to defend a serial killer, to keep him from the gas chamber. The child is innocent, has done no harm. Didn't ask to be born, but something is owed that life. To me, the killer has had his chance and misspent it, doesn't deserve another chance, so I don't care if he gets gassed. The baby's life represents hope. The killer's life represents death.

People who kill don't deserve to breathe the air the rest of us do. Eye for an eye and all that.  :yes: I seriously think we need to go back to earlier times, and handle crime like they use to. Punishment should fit the crime IMO.  :icon_twisted:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 15, 2009, 12:19:33 AM
I'm a liberal and I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. There's a difference.

There's also a difference between a clump of cells and a viable human.

I guess I don't understand the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice?  :confused: This isn't sarcasm.... I really don't know the difference.  :confused: If a child is aborted it was the woman's choice to do so,right?  :confused: If a woman exercises that right than it's being pro-abortion?  :confused:

willful ignorance.

what shall we start telling the women who miscarry if conservatives get their way?  that they are guilty of manslaughter, or that their babies committed suicide?

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 17, 2009, 01:09:00 PM
I guess I don't understand the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice?  :confused: This isn't sarcasm.... I really don't know the difference.  :confused: If a child is aborted it was the woman's choice to do so,right?  :confused: If a woman exercises that right than it's being pro-abortion?  :confused:

I'm a pro woman's right to choose. Would I have an abortion? No. Would I advise someone to have one? No. For me personally, I'm against abortion. However, I would never assume to make that decision for someone else.

As for "An eye for an eye", in the bible, Jesus was against capitol punishment. :yes:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 17, 2009, 07:55:36 PM
I'm a pro woman's right to choose. Would I have an abortion? No. Would I advise someone to have one? No. For me personally, I'm against abortion. However, I would never assume to make that decision for someone else.

As for "An eye for an eye", in the bible, Jesus was against capitol punishment. :yes:

The really funny thing about the use of "an eye for an eye" is the hypocrisy.  The phrase comes from one of god's own commandments about abortion where if two men fight and cause a woman to abort, then the husband who lost the "fetus" gets paid a fine on the other guy.  There is nothing about not aborting a child, or that it is a murder under these circumstances.  Now, if the woman dies in the accidental abortion, then there is revenge on the perpetrator.  So, how is it the religious say abortion is murder when even the bible doesn't state that.  And DEXTER, wouldn't this be going back to the "way they did it in the old days"?  Better go back to the ways in the bible, huh.



    "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

    "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

Quote from: awol on January 17, 2009, 02:44:41 PM
what shall we start telling the women who miscarry if conservatives get their way?  that they are guilty of manslaughter, or that their babies committed suicide?

Ummmm.... a miscarriage is involuntary. In most cases nobody wants to miscarry their child. When I lost my child it wasn't anybodies fault. It was just a horrible tragedy.

Quote from: dan foster on January 18, 2009, 04:21:16 PM
The really funny thing about the use of "an eye for an eye" is the hypocrisy.  The phrase comes from one of god's own commandments about abortion where if two men fight and cause a woman to abort, then the husband who lost the "fetus" gets paid a fine on the other guy.  There is nothing about not aborting a child, or that it is a murder under these circumstances.  Now, if the woman dies in the accidental abortion, then there is revenge on the perpetrator.  So, how is it the religious say abortion is murder when even the bible doesn't state that.  And DEXTER, wouldn't this be going back to the "way they did it in the old days"?  Better go back to the ways in the bible, huh.



    "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

    "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

Once again the religion comes up.  :no: Why is it that it does matter what the subject is it always gets spun into religious debate. Now, I have repeated this ad nausem that I don't go to church or study the Bible. When I give an opinion on here it is MY OPINION!!! God has NOTHING to do with my OPINION!!!

1.) Killing an innocent baby because some dumb c*nt can't keep her legs closed is MURDER!!!! My OPINION!!!

2.) Putting individuals who have killed innocent people (violent crime) to death is a good solution!!! My OPINION!!!

Do you see God anywhere in what you have just read? NOPE!!! Unless, you've twisted it your mind. Not every opinion has to do with religious belief. I realize that some people can't see past there utter hatred and obsession with religion but seriously.... GIVE IT A REST!!!

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 18, 2009, 05:10:41 PM
Once again the religion comes up.  :no: Why is it that it does matter what the subject is it always gets spun into religious debate. Now, I have repeated this ad nausem that I don't go to church or study the Bible. When I give an opinion on here it is MY OPINION!!! God has NOTHING to do with my OPINION!!!

1.) Killing an innocent baby because some dumb c*nt can't keep her legs closed is MURDER!!!! My OPINION!!!

2.) Putting individuals who have killed innocent people (violent crime) to death is a good solution!!! My OPINION!!!

Do you see God anywhere in what you have just read? NOPE!!! Unless, you've twisted it your mind. Not every opinion has to do with religious belief. I realize that some people can't see past there utter hatred and obsession with religion but seriously.... GIVE IT A REST!!!

Sorry, you can blame the religious right for MY OPINIONS on abortion as it relates to morality; they are hypocrites.

Just a couple of questions on all the killing you would do for violent crimes;

- is it OK that a single innocent person die in a mistake as long as we are killing all those "bad people"?

- is it OK that 100,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians died as a mistake in order to kill the one really bad guy, saddam hussein?

Just curious.
 

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 18, 2009, 05:10:41 PM
1.) Killing an innocent baby because some dumb c*nt can't keep her legs closed is MURDER!!!! My OPINION!!!

Just a couple more questions;

- should poor people that can't afford birth control be denied sex, or, should catholics that follow the teachings of their pope, and reject birth control, not engage in sex, at all?

- Are you convinced that abortions are done as a birth control, or the lack thereof? 

Also, just out of curiosity; since "the dumb cunt" is the responsible party and probably turning to an abortion as the fix for a mistake, are you advocating the abolition of abortion, all together?  Maybe I missed that somewhere, but it doesn't jive with your overwhelming concern for the innocent victims of violent crimes.

Just to add my .02...Dex, I brought up religion. You mentioned "eye for an eye" and although you probably didn't mean it in the religious sense, you'll find that often the right wing religious Conservatives quote the "eye for an eye" scripture as "proof" that capitol punishment is "authorized" by the bible. What I was trying to point out is that the New Testament contradicts that thinking.

Just musing out loud to no one in particular......

"Accidental" pregnancies are accidental in the same sense that "killed by a drunk driver" is accidental.

"Should people who cannot afford birth control (it is dispensed freely in EVERY city of even modest size in the US, btw) be denied having sex?"...I think people who have a middle-class income shouldn't buy yachts they cannot afford the upkeep on. Don't risk having children you do not want or cannot afford, and if that means not having sex, then don't have sex. This isn't rocket surgery, for crying out side!

One cannot make an argument from a moral standpoint on any issue if one does not believe there exists something greater than ourselves. At least, I've never heard/read an argument for such that didn't, at some point, require a priori* knowledge, and you can't get THAT from any Big Bang.


*A priori means "knowledge beforehand; prior to". Example: most creatures are adverse to killing members of their own species from the day they are born. They are not taught this, it is instinctive. Therefore they must have some prior-to-birth knowledge of at least two things: how to recognize other creatures as one of their own species (or not), and, that killing a member of their own species is a bad idea.


Ok, back to your regularly scheduled abortion debate!

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 20, 2009, 03:50:43 PM
Just musing out loud to no one in particular......

"Accidental" pregnancies are accidental in the same sense that "killed by a drunk driver" is accidental.

"Should people who cannot afford birth control (it is dispensed freely in EVERY city of even modest size in the US, btw) be denied having sex?"...I think people who have a middle-class income shouldn't buy yachts they cannot afford the upkeep on. Don't risk having children you do not want or cannot afford, and if that means not having sex, then don't have sex. This isn't rocket surgery, for crying out side!

One cannot make an argument from a moral standpoint on any issue if one does not believe there exists something greater than ourselves. At least, I've never heard/read an argument for such that didn't, at some point, require a priori* knowledge, and you can't get THAT from any Big Bang.


*A priori means "knowledge beforehand; prior to". Example: most creatures are adverse to killing members of their own species from the day they are born. They are not taught this, it is instinctive. Therefore they must have some prior-to-birth knowledge of at least two things: how to recognize other creatures as one of their own species (or not), and, that killing a member of their own species is a bad idea.


Ok, back to your regularly scheduled abortion debate!

So wrong on so many levels. 

First, higher power and morality are mutually exclusive.  If you need a higher power to keep you straight, then you are at the lowest form of moral development.  You cannot equate religion (you brought it up) with morality.  In fact, most religions are incredibly immoral.

Second, chimps murder each other, dolphins kill harbor seals for sport and ants kill everything without reason.  Which built in moral code do animals work from?  I would suggest a genetic.

IMO the majority of liberals don't want us to defend ourselves no matter what. They actually believe wars would cease to be if we just began being nice to those who hate and want to kill us.

As for abortion  there have been aproximately 50 million legal abortions performed licensed practitioners that's 50 million dead babies. You know dang well if murdering the unborn is again outlawed, as it should be, the murder rate of unborn babies will drop dramatically. Very few women have the courage to get involved with back-alley abortions. But, you already knew that. 

Quote from: Doc on January 20, 2009, 11:52:39 PM
IMO the majority of liberals don't want us to defend ourselves no matter what. They actually believe wars would cease to be if we just began being nice to those who hate and want to kill us.

IMO, the majority of warmongering conservatives are a bunch of little candy-assed pansies who aren't capable of defending themselves.  All of their braggadocio is nothing more than an attempt to mask their obvious inadequacies as men...that's why so many of them have convenient excuses for never having enlisted to serve in the military.

Quote from: dan foster on January 20, 2009, 08:18:10 PM
So wrong on so many levels. 

First, higher power and morality are mutually exclusive.  If you need a higher power to keep you straight, then you are at the lowest form of moral development.  You cannot equate religion (your brought it up) with morality.  In fact, most religious are incredibly immoral.

Second, chimps murder each other, dolphins kill harbor seals for sport and ants kill everything without reason.  Which built in moral code do animals work from?  I would suggest a genetic.

I disagree. The concept of "survival of the fittest" would indicate that individual creatures of the same species should eliminate even the others of the same species who vie for available resources in order to survive. Yet by and large they do not. (hmmm...I wonder if harbor seals and dolphins have any dietary convergences?)
From which arises another question: Where does the desire to survive even come from? Genes are a blueprint for how to construct a creature or plant, not how to motivate it to act in a certain manner. That requires a priori knowledge, imo. Which means that knowledge had to be given or implanted by "something" smart enough to know it was needed and powerful enough to impart the knowledge. The same goes for morality. If there are acts that are truly immoral, then from whence does the knowledge of this come from, and how do we know how to recognize immorality when it manifests itself? To say it is genetic is as vague as to say it's from some higher power.

Quote from: Doc on January 20, 2009, 11:52:39 PM
IMO the majority of liberals don't want us to defend ourselves no matter what. They actually believe wars would cease to be if we just began being nice to those who hate and want to kill us.

As for abortion  there have been aproximately 50 million legal abortions performed licensed practitioners that's 50 million dead babies. You know dang well if murdering the unborn is again outlawed, as it should be, the murder rate of unborn babies will drop dramatically. Very few women have the courage to get involved with back-alley abortions. But, you already knew that. 

More of the same.  Anti-abortion = pro crime.  A majority of those 50 million aborted fetuses would have grown up to be liberal coke heads who would have robbed you at gun point in your trailer.

just a thought, but how about instead of the posturing and empty assertions, we discuss this logically, and present arguments?  it is a meritous debate, and one that has been going on among the greatest minds on both sides throughout history.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 21, 2009, 11:46:23 AM
Genes are a blueprint for how to construct a creature or plant, not how to motivate it to act in a certain manner.

Absolutely wrong again.  No basis in the scientific evidence and a clear indication you know nothing on the subjects of zoology, biology or animal husbandry.  Where did you get such a foolish idea?

Next time you are having sex, ask yourself what motivated me to act in this manner.  Hell, your genes even selected your mate for you (if you have one).  How's that for acting in a certain manner?  And you thought that shiite was your idea, all along, a priori, or not.  Get a clue.

Quote from: dan foster on January 21, 2009, 11:31:13 PM
Absolutely wrong again.  No basis in the scientific evidence and a clear indication you know nothing on the subjects of zoology, biology or animal husbandry.  Where did you get such a foolish idea?

WHAT?!? To say that there is no basis in science that the human genome is a "blueprint" for building a human is PREPOSTEROUS! Jeezul Pete!
We learn that in the 4th or 5th grade, for crying out side!
Did you decide before the 5th grade that you were too smart for school, or did that come later? [/sarc]

Quote
Next time you are having sex, ask yourself what motivated me to act in this manner. 

Let's just say it was "a desire to pleasurably shed some DNA" and leave it at that, lol!

Quote
Hell, your genes even selected your mate for you (if you have one).  How's that for acting in a certain manner? 

Not at all! I selected HER; and it wasn't her "genes" that drew my eye, it was her "jeans".  ;)

Quote
And you thought that shiite was your idea, all along, a priori, or not.  Get a clue.

I have clues and lots of them, too. I try to follow them where they logically lead.
You on the other hand don't seem to even aware that there is a MYSTERY! (Lol! Just kidding! *sigh* I love that joke...)

Well, perhaps if I restate the question in a simpler form you might actually answer it rather than prattling on (and proving me right about "ridicule" meaning one is out of ammunition in a debate, btw):
What compels us to NOT murder everyone around us who vies for limited resources? Or accepting Darwin, what counters the compulsion to murder those who vie with us for limited resources? Once you've answered that, answer this: From WHENCE did that compulsion (or the countering force) come?

I say it is a priori knowledge of a defined, absolute morality. And that infers (implies?) something of higher power and intellect.
I am quite interested in your opinion on the issue. I don't give a rat's patootie of your opinion of me, though. Try to keep that in mind and not waste bandwidth lobbing epithets, mmm-kay?.

Quote from: dan foster on January 21, 2009, 08:43:47 PM
More of the same.  Anti-abortion = pro crime.  A majority of those 50 million aborted fetuses would have grown up to be liberal coke heads who would have robbed you at gun point in your trailer.

Interesting sidebar: The author of the book "Freekonomics" posits that abortions have led to a net decrease in crime. Pretty much what you said.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 22, 2009, 02:27:56 PM
...that infers (implies?).

it implies, you infer from that.

Thanks, I was too busy to look it up.

Quote from: dan foster on January 21, 2009, 08:43:47 PM
More of the same.  Anti-abortion = pro crime.  A majority of those 50 million aborted fetuses would have grown up to be liberal coke heads who would have robbed you at gun point in your trailer.

Actually, there is no way to prove or disprove the contention that abortion lowers crime. There re many factors involved in crime, the most important being economic. You cannot know if any baby brought to term or fetus that was aborted would act later on.

I find it very interesting that the men have seemed to take over this thread/fight.  I guess that is why policies are drawn up the way they are.  Woman seem to have a different approach I guess, but the squeaky wheel seems to be heard. 

How about we just let a woman decide what she does with her body.  If she aborts, well then maybe she will have to answer to that at a later time.  If she keeps the baby and is a horrible parent, again she will probably have to answer to that too.  It is not my place one way or the other to tell someone what to do with themselves, just as I would not want anyone to tell me what I can and cannot do.  Doesn't mean I would have one today, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have had one at a young age. 

Quote from: kimmi on January 23, 2009, 07:37:01 AM
How about we just let a woman decide what she does with her body.

Hear, hear.

I agree, the entire issue can be summed up with that one sentence.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 23, 2009, 11:22:19 AM
I agree, the entire issue can be summed up with that one sentence.

Agreed.

Good job Kim!  :yes: :yes: :yes:

Thanks guys.  I mean it is such a pointless arguement since there truly is no right or wrong answer. 

You might as well be taking the Pepsi Challenge and arguing over Coke or Pepsi. 

Then let's all just agree to execute some people, just because justice demands it.  As an added bonus, they then won't kill anybody else.

---------------

How many killers set free, to kill again, is it worth to guarantee an innocent person will never be executed? 

Or how many people killed by released (or still imprisoned) killers is it worth to guarantee an innocent person will never be executed? 

Which number would be greater?

And, do people actually have a right to self defense?  Or to prevent your killing of a person, must you let them kill you?

These are much more interesting questions.

Quote from: Monroe on January 23, 2009, 01:51:00 PM
Then let's all just agree to execute some people, just because justice demands it.  As an added bonus, they then won't kill anybody else. . .

Very different subject and not germane to the current topic.

Killing people because (in your opinion or any one else's) justice demands it, is indicative of an act or actions perpetrated by said persons that goes directly against the laws of humankind. In order for that to have transpired said person would have to have lived to an age of majority in the eyes of the law and be recognized as such.

Very different. But I would agree worth discussing. Why not start a thread on this?

Quote from: Palehorse on January 23, 2009, 02:52:04 PM
Very different subject and not germane to the current topic.

Killing people because (in your opinion or any one else's) justice demands it, is indicative of an act or actions perpetrated by said persons that goes directly against the laws of humankind. In order for that to have transpired said person would have to have lived to an age of majority in the eyes of the law and be recognized as such.

Very different. But I would agree worth discussing. Why not start a thread on this?

Quite the windbag, aren't you Horsey.  And you missed the point.

Quote from: Monroe on January 23, 2009, 06:46:55 PM
Quite the windbag, aren't you Horsey.  And you missed the point.

Right back at 'char there pinhead.  :rolleyes:

I make a courteous suggestion and you reply with tripe and bullshit. Nice. . . :rolleyes:

Just so you are clear on my perspective contained within the previous post, to which you responded inappropriately, I'll expand.

"life" as it pertains to the gestation period for human beings is a very subjective term. Proponents for various arguments abound and large amount of support can be found for just about each side of the disagreement.

Some feel human "life" begins at the point of conception.

Still others believe it does not begin until the third trimester, and then there are those, (This writer included), that do not believe that human life begins until the moment that the first breath is taken; that act marking the union of the spirit and the physical being and thus creating human life and its starting point.

Concerning capital punishment and "executing some people because justice demands it" it is an entirely different case altogether. If you are sucking air you are alive. If your brain is ticking you are alive and capable of making cognizant choices for which legal ramifications may be imposed upon you. Pretty straight forward and universally accepted I would think. And when it comes to imposing capital punishment it is also pretty clear that society is choosing to purposely end a human life. Period. The argument about whether it is right or wrong in this case is a pretty clear cut decision to make I would think, at least a lot clearer than in the case of abortion; wherein the determination of when human "life" begins must first be definitively and universally answered before one can expect to make an informed decision upon which side of the argument they land.

These are two very different situations, each requiring a unique approach in order to be able to navigate to an informed decision. In one of them there is no clear answer to the basic question that must be answered before the original question can be satisfied. For the other that question is not an issue.

To believe that one should consistently choose in both cases is unreasonable and, to be quite frank, stupid IMHO.

And just to make things as clear as possible surrounding where I stand on capital punishment; the bottom line is I do not support it simply because our justice system is so skewed as to in fact allow an innocent person to be subjected to it. That is unacceptable to me as a human being and clearly falls short of the moral standards I hold myself and everyone else to.

That does not mean I don't believe there are cases wherein the perpetrator should be taken out and summarily shot, for surely this may very well be the case in some situations. But to offhandedly suggest, even in jest, that human beings should be subjected to such treatment is irresponsible.

When genetic evidence is clearing individuals that have been wrongly convicted of crimes every month, and some of them having spent years on death row before being cleared, it is very obvious to anyone caring to take a moment to think about it that our justice system is broken and innocent lives are being destroyed and ended due to nothing more than a human being's desire to increase their stats or obtain revenge.

Yes, one innocent life is too much and not an acceptable risk.

However, in cases wherein there is indisputable proof backed by scientific evidence it may very well be acceptable to just juice the sob and let them rot. But we are not there yet and the legal standards are not established (clearly) to allow this to take place. 

Some of what I've just posted here may very well be the same things you are saying. But to tell you the truth, given your acidic and sarcastic disposition I am not inclined to go back through this thread and find out.

And if you think this is long, don't get me started. . . Which is exactly why I suggested a separate topic in the first place.

Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb, like the sun; it shines everywhere.

— William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night

To those that would say that a "child is innocent" I would reply; innocence cannot be achieved absent the ability to make a cognizant choice between right or wrong as it relates to the laws of humankind.

Quote from: Monroe on January 23, 2009, 07:59:18 PM
Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb, like the sun; it shines everywhere.

— William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night

It also reflects in the mirror.

Amen!  Can we please move on to other subjects now?  This one is as played out as the 80's!  :rolleyes:

Quote from: dan foster on January 19, 2009, 10:27:46 PM
Sorry, you can blame the religious right for MY OPINIONS on abortion as it relates to morality; they are hypocrites.

Just a couple of questions on all the killing you would do for violent crimes;

- is it OK that a single innocent person die in a mistake as long as we are killing all those "bad people"?

- is it OK that 100,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians died as a mistake in order to kill the one really bad guy, saddam hussein?

Just curious.
 

I realize you have a problem with the "religious right". Obviously, you think that anybody that doesn't agree with what you believe in are the "religious right." Therefore, you attack people blindly because of your extreme hang up with the "religious right." When you ask about people not deserving to have sex because they're poor is completely ludicrous, and you obviously don't comprehend what you're reading in my posts. Here it is..... having sex is a normal function... but.... loose morals are the reason for a lot of abortions. People are abandoning their morals with this.... lets make a bunch of babies so we can live off welfare..or.... it's OK to have sex... if I get pregnant I can always get an abortion, or morning after pill. Moral fiber is what I am referring to. If a woman's life is in danger termination of the pregnancy is OK in my opinion. People need to be more responsible in their decision making. If you're going to have sex use protection of some sort. There are many birth control methods out there, and a majority of them are free at family planning. There's always the option of adoption too. It doesn't have to end in murder.

Regarding capitol punishment.... I stand firm on my belief in the death penalty. If you kill someone you should pay with your life. Now... before your panties get in a bunch here.... I do not think women who have abortions should be put to death. What goes around comes around, and they will be caught up with in the end.

Regarding the Iraqis... do they have the right to come on American soil and attack us? You defend them but, in reality most of them would rather see us Americans dead. Every country in the world pretty much hates America. They hated Bush and they will grow to hate Obama as well. They hate everything we stand for here in America.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 20, 2009, 01:54:27 PM
Just to add my .02...Dex, I brought up religion. You mentioned "eye for an eye" and although you probably didn't mean it in the religious sense, you'll find that often the right wing religious Conservatives quote the "eye for an eye" scripture as "proof" that capitol punishment is "authorized" by the bible. What I was trying to point out is that the New Testament contradicts that thinking.

I don't know anything about the old or New Testament. I've never done any study of any sort on any religion. I believe in my God,and keep God in my own way. I don't condemn believers or non believers. Religion is pretty much a non issue with me, unless somebody throws it in my face one way... or the other.

Quote from: Doc on January 20, 2009, 11:52:39 PM
IMO the majority of liberals don't want us to defend ourselves no matter what. They actually believe wars would cease to be if we just began being nice to those who hate and want to kill us.

As for abortion  there have been aproximately 50 million legal abortions performed licensed practitioners that's 50 million dead babies. You know dang well if murdering the unborn is again outlawed, as it should be, the murder rate of unborn babies will drop dramatically. Very few women have the courage to get involved with back-alley abortions. But, you already knew that. 

This is interesting... the part about being nice to everybody, and they'll like us. Here's a funny story....

Today, when I got to work a co worker came to me and said "Did you know the war on terror is over?" I said  "What makes you think that?" He says "Obama closed down Guantanamo". I almost fell over.  :spooked: I told him just because Obama closed that place didn't mean there is world peace LMAO!!! Then I went on to mention that there's a real good chance, there will be another attack on America at some point. At least, we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I don't feel nearly as safe now though.  :no:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 24, 2009, 12:10:22 AM
having sex is a normal function... but.... loose morals are the reason for a lot of abortions. People are abandoning their morals with this.... lets make a bunch of babies so we can live off welfare..or.... it's OK to have sex... if I get pregnant I can always get an abortion, or morning after pill. Moral fiber is what I am referring to.

Well, less sex dex, you need to back that claim up with some kind of evidence.  You only have limpball's and oreally's talking points for that one.

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 24, 2009, 12:10:22 AM

Regarding the Iraqis... do they have the right to come on American soil and attack us? You defend them but, in reality most of them would rather see us Americans dead. Every country in the world pretty much hates America. They hated Bush and they will grow to hate Obama as well. They hate everything we stand for here in America.

More from Rush Dex.  I did not defend the iraqis, so wtf?  The Iraqis only want to see the soldiers, kicking down their doors, dead.  The rest of the world hates us because of bush and most of that hate was about bush.  So, will they hate obama?  No.  The world doesn't hate us for what we stand for, they hated bush for what he stood for and they need to know that bush was a traitor to the US, its people and the Constitution.  If you don't realize that, then you need to move to traitor's row in TX with the SOB.

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 24, 2009, 12:26:12 AM
This is interesting... the part about being nice to everybody, and they'll like us. Here's a funny story....

Today, when I got to work a co worker came to me and said "Did you know the war on terror is over?" I said  "What makes you think that?" He says "Obama closed down Guantanamo". I almost fell over.  :spooked: I told him just because Obama closed that place didn't mean there is world peace LMAO!!! Then I went on to mention that there's a real good chance, there will be another attack on America at some point. At least, we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I don't feel nearly as safe now though.  :no:

The obama admin has not claimed the war on terror "was over".  Only morons that listen to Fox Noise would even think that.  Just more of the same stupidity that thinks bush kept us safe for the last 7 years, never acknowledging that his stay in iraq has bred 10,000 more bin ladens and guarantee's the war on terror will go on for the next century.  He, and his supporters, were mindless, clueless (especially about history), armchair generals who wouldn't know a war on terror even if they were in seat 2A on the first plane that hit the WTC.

You know, I think I will work this thread with the same stupid generalities you block heads keep throwing around about "the left". 

Such statements, like this one from Dex:

"I don't feel nearly as safe now though."

Should be met with:

The right wingers like Dex hate black people; always have and always will.  So, no matter what obama does, it won't be the right thing and "a lousy N*(&)R can never do the job required to keep us safe".  He can't be as smart as bush because he is black, but the funniest thing about that is that bush was actually retarded (I realize that is an insult to mentally handicapped people), but right wingers thought even his farts were "nectar from god".

So, you neocons go ahead and put back on your "hidden robes and hoods" and drive your favored party right into the dirt from where you all came. 

Dan,Dan, Dan.... what I've said here has really gotten your panties in a bunch.  :icon_twisted: You attack me because I don't agree with your views. I've always thought that you were reasonably intelligent but, the name calling and constant bashing has proven otherwise. It's senseless to argue with radicals such as yourself. You simply don't comprehend what you read. For some reason you twist stuff around, to make yourself look like a victim in every discussion. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you, doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. Then again..... you seem to think you're a genius of some sort, and everybody else is beneath you in intelligence. With your line of thinking I have to ask... why you didn't run for president, Dan? What held you back from running? Now, because I didn't agree with what you've said... you label me a racist. How do you know I'm not black? Has that thought ever occurred to you. Dan? I don't believe that was a question when I signed on here at The Zone.

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 25, 2009, 09:08:08 PM
Dan,Dan, Dan.... what I've said here has really gotten your panties in a bunch.  :icon_twisted: You attack me because I don't agree with your views. I've always thought that you were reasonably intelligent but, the name calling and constant bashing has proven otherwise. It's senseless to argue with radicals such as yourself. You simply don't comprehend what you read. For some reason you twist stuff around, to make yourself look like a victim in every discussion. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you, doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. Then again..... you seem to think you're a genius of some sort, and everybody else is beneath you in intelligence. With your line of thinking I have to ask... why you didn't run for president, Dan? What held you back from running? Now, because I didn't agree with what you've said... you label me a racist. How do you know I'm not black? Has that thought ever occurred to you. Dan? I don't believe that was a question when I signed on here at The Zone.

Its easy, even neocons like Cosby don't like black folks, and he is one.

So now you you're sayin' I'm a black person that doesn't like black people?  :spooked: Give it up Dan.  :no:

Quote from: dan foster on January 24, 2009, 11:52:02 AM
You know, I think I will work this thread with the same stupid generalities you block heads keep throwing around about "the left". 

And that would be different from your usual manner of debate exactly how?
For example:

QuoteSo, you neocons go ahead and put back on your "hidden robes and hoods" and drive your favored party right into the dirt from where you all came. 

That sure reads like  a "stupid generalization" to me, as well as stereotyping, PLUS you don't know the definition of the word, "neocon". You use it out of context very frequently, making yourself look, to be specific, stupid.

Hey! I looked up "projection":
Here's what I found:
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions to others. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else...
See "dan foster" at The Unknown Zone for examples of this type of defense mechanism at work

You keep trying to bully your way through thread after thread and we keep proving you the fool that you are. Don't you ever get enough?
You are most entertaining, though, I must say. Some of the best laughs I get are reading your latest, "I hate religion, and if you don't hate it too then you are a neocon" diatribe. You come across as a caricature of a Socialist/Communist Archie Bunker, lol!.

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 25, 2009, 09:23:26 PM
So now you you're sayin' I'm a black person that doesn't like black people?  :spooked: Give it up Dan.  :no:

Your self-loathing is soooo obvious, Dex, lol!  :rolleyes:

You know it occurred to me that the Left is so excited about Obama being the "first black President" when he is no such thing in my book.
He is biracial, not black. Unless you subscribe to the racist notion that "even one drop of ni**er blood makes you a ni**er". Apparently the Left does just that. They probably also feel superior telling everyone "I voted for Obama! Some of my best friends are black people!".  :kissit:

Quote from: dan foster on January 25, 2009, 09:14:43 PM
Its easy, even neocons like Cosby don't like black folks, and he is one.

i am now convinced that you may be slightly ---retarded---- :yes:

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 26, 2009, 11:02:26 AM
. . . You come across as a caricature of a Socialist/Communist Archie Bunker, lol!.

I just spit Coke all over my desk!  :rotfl:

Quote from: Palehorse on January 26, 2009, 12:00:02 PM
I just spit Coke all over my desk!  :rotfl:

That was a pretty good one... :biggrin:

Quote from: kimmi on January 23, 2009, 07:37:01 AM
How about we just let a woman decide what she does with her body.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 23, 2009, 11:22:19 AM
I agree, the entire issue can be summed up with that one sentence.

Quote from: Palehorse on January 23, 2009, 11:38:26 AM
Agreed.

Good job Kim!  :yes: :yes: :yes:

Not so fast, there, Quicksdraw! There's more THINNING to be done around here, lol! (<---- obscure cultural reference)

Okay, thinking caps on? Minds open to "crunching" logical thoughts? Ok, Let's go!

Assuming that the premise is true (a person owns their own body), then how do we define what it is that one truly owns?
What defines a person's body?

Let's try to reason that out, shall we?
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that a busload of people are involved in a crash. Many are hurt, some even losing limbs.
The "first-responders" do an excellent job of triage; they throw the severed limbs into a big container of ice and speed to the hospital, arms, legs, and injured in tow.
Now, some of the limbs can be reattached, but unfortunately some cannot. The cells were deprived of oxygen/blood for too long and have "died".
So, how do the doctors determine which limb or limbs belong to which injured person? Some are going to get their limbs reattached but some are going to be making major lifestyle changes, unfortunately. Now the doctors have to match the limbs with the patient. Which body-part does a particular injured person own is their dilemma.

There's only one way currently available to be REALLY sure and that's a DNA test. We can all agree, I think, that when we say that a person "owns" their body, we mean they own that which is genetically identical. None of the injured bus crash victims can lay claim to someone else's limb. They have no "right" to another's body part. You cannot "own" your body and then claim MY arm as part of your body, because I can prove that it is not using DNA tests. My DNA is not identical to yours, therefore you cannot claim MY body or any part of MY genetic body as part of YOUR genetic body. Any"body" here disagree with this definition of a person's "body" as being that which is genetically identical?

And you certainly have no RIGHT to kill me by claiming I am part of your body and I am an inconvenience; an "accident"; a "mistake" for which you are "just not ready" to take responsibility, now do you? My genetic body belongs to me and yours to you.
Please keep your evil intentions off of my body (unless I give you permission. It is MY body, after all), lol!

One more thing I think we can agree upon: skin cells, blood cells, etc. are living, are they not? In our severed limbs example above, the limbs that could no longer be useful were rendered that way because of "cell death". And , of course, the DNA in any one person's cells is identical; they own their cells (but no one else's, we agreed).

So, we have our agreed-on premise:
"Let a woman person decide what to do with her their body."

And we have our agreed-upon definition of a person's body:
"genetically different from another person's body".

And we agree that human body cells are alive and the cells one can claim as part of their body are genetically identical.

Okay, that's a lot of thinking to do and I am proud of those who stuck with it. Here's the pay-off:
When the sperm cell that one person owns meets an egg cell that another person owns, the DNA of each combine to form a cell that has it's own distinct DNA. It's DNA is identical to neither the sperm cell nor the egg cell. Thus it is a living cell with it's own unique DNA. It quickly begins to divide, and left to mature will produce a genetically unique person.

So, a woman has a "right" to do with her body what she wants, as long as no "body" else is harmed.
The fetus, from the moment of conception, is a separate, living, entity. It is not, genetically, part of a woman's body.
You do not have to be a "religious neocon" (poke!) to reason that if a woman has a "right" to kill a fetus for whatever justification she chooses, then every"body" has a "right" to kill any"body" else with different DNA at any age and for any reason.

Class dismissed.


Oh, wait! Homework assignment: "What about "identical" twins? Aren't they genetically identical"?

GOJ- I like the path you are going down here but I believe you make an assumption I disagree with; that life begins at conception. I disagree. Human Life begins with the first breath.

Cells are alive in the respect that they grow, in some cases replicate, and evolve. They are incapable of cognizant thought, as defined within human terms.

The question (or definition if you will) that must be answered first is what is human "life" and when does it begin?

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 26, 2009, 12:29:03 PM
Not so fast, there, Quicksdraw! There's more THINNING to be done around here, lol! (<---- obscure cultural reference)

Okay, thinking caps on? Minds open to "crunching" logical thoughts? Ok, Let's go!

Assuming that the premise is true (a person owns their own body), then how do we define what it is that one truly owns?
What defines a person's body?

Let's try to reason that out, shall we?
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that a busload of people are involved in a crash. Many are hurt, some even losing limbs.
The "first-responders" do an excellent job of triage; they throw the severed limbs into a big container of ice and speed to the hospital, arms, legs, and injured in tow.
Now, some of the limbs can be reattached, but unfortunately some cannot. The cells were deprived of oxygen/blood for too long and have "died".
So, how do the doctors determine which limb or limbs belong to which injured person? Some are going to get their limbs reattached but some are going to be making major lifestyle changes, unfortunately. Now the doctors have to match the limbs with the patient. Which body-part does a particular injured person own is their dilemma.

There's only one way currently available to be REALLY sure and that's a DNA test. We can all agree, I think, that when we say that a person "owns" their body, we mean they own that which is genetically identical. None of the injured bus crash victims can lay claim to someone else's limb. They have no "right" to another's body part. You cannot "own" your body and then claim MY arm as part of your body, because I can prove that it is not using DNA tests. My DNA is not identical to yours, therefore you cannot claim MY body or any part of MY genetic body as part of YOUR genetic body. Any"body" here disagree with this definition of a person's "body" as being that which is genetically identical?

And you certainly have no RIGHT to kill me by claiming I am part of your body and I am an inconvenience; an "accident"; a "mistake" for which you are "just not ready" to take responsibility, now do you? My genetic body belongs to me and yours to you.
Please keep your evil intentions off of my body (unless I give you permission. It is MY body, after all), lol!

One more thing I think we can agree upon: skin cells, blood cells, etc. are living, are they not? In our severed limbs example above, the limbs that could no longer be useful were rendered that way because of "cell death". And , of course, the DNA in any one person's cells is identical; they own their cells (but no one else's, we agreed).

So, we have our agreed-on premise:
"Let a woman person decide what to do with her their body."

And we have our agreed-upon definition of a person's body:
"genetically different from another person's body".

And we agree that human body cells are alive and the cells one can claim as part of their body are genetically identical.

Okay, that's a lot of thinking to do and I am proud of those who stuck with it. Here's the pay-off:
When the sperm cell that one person owns meets an egg cell that another person owns, the DNA of each combine to form a cell that has it's own distinct DNA. It's DNA is identical to neither the sperm cell nor the egg cell. Thus it is a living cell with it's own unique DNA. It quickly begins to divide, and left to mature will produce a genetically unique person.

So, a woman has a "right" to do with her body what she wants, as long as no "body" else is harmed.
The fetus, from the moment of conception, is a separate, living, entity. It is not, genetically, part of a woman's body.
You do not have to be a "religious neocon" (poke!) to reason that if a woman has a "right" to kill a fetus for whatever justification she chooses, then every"body" has a "right" to kill any"body" else with different DNA at any age and for any reason.

Class dismissed.


Oh, wait! Homework assignment: "What about "identical" twins? Aren't they genetically identical"?

You know they're gonna come up with something to counter this don't ya?  I can see it now...but...but...but...
Even though I understand both sides of the argument I still tend toward the no abortion thing.  I'm especially against that partial birth abortion or what ever its called.  That is definitely cruel beyond belief.

how 'bout conjoined twins, since we're getting ridiculous? :rolleyes:

what about people who are born having absorbed their fraternal twin?   do they have no right to have any remnants removed from their bodies?

Quote from: me on January 26, 2009, 12:46:03 PM
You know they're gonna come up with something to counter this don't ya?  I can see it now...but...but...but...
Even though I understand both sides of the argument I still tend toward the no abortion thing.  I'm especially against that partial birth abortion or what ever its called.  That is definitely cruel beyond belief.

Is that not what a discussion is? Point, counter point?

So, you're against abortion and you would tell another woman that she doesn't have a right to have an abortion based on YOUR beliefs?

Quote from: Palehorse on January 26, 2009, 12:44:28 PM
GOJ- I like the path you are going down here but I believe you make an assumption I disagree with; that life begins at conception. I disagree. Human Life begins with the first breath.

Cells are alive in the respect that they grow, in some cases replicate, and evolve. They are incapable of cognizant thought, as defined within human terms.

The question (or definition if you will) that must be answered first is what is human "life" and when does it begin?

I intentionally didn't make any assumptions as to when human life begins, PH.
My argument is to whether a person can claim that which is not genetically identical to themselves a their own and exercise dominion over it (them).  If one of your limbs were in the pile-on-ice and could be reattached, by what criteria could you prove that you owned it?
2) You must prove that it is genetically identical to the rest of your body, and,
1) You must agree that you have a right to your own body parts.

Ok, now take that to a cellular level. Your cells are:
3) living, human, cells
2) They are genetically identical to the rest of your body.
1) You agree that you have a right to your own body parts.

My conclusion is that a woman does NOT have a right to do with as she pleases with living, human cells that do not belong to her.
Or, if she does, then so does every"body" else. I don't address "when life begins" as it is not relevant to my argument.
But I like the way you are thinking, PH!

Quote from: me on January 26, 2009, 12:46:03 PM
You know they're gonna come up with something to counter this don't ya?  I can see it now...but...but...but...
Even though I understand both sides of the argument I still tend toward the no abortion thing.  I'm especially against that partial birth abortion or what ever its called.  That is definitely cruel beyond belief.

Of course, and that's a good thing. I made a reasoned, non-religious argument that if a woman has a right to kill cellular tissue that she does not own because it's "inconvenient", then I have a right to, say, kill Ex or dan because they are pompous asses.

Do I have a right to cut off your arm? No.
Why not? Because it's not mine, it's yours.
How do you prove that it's not mine? Because your arm is not genetically identical to my body.
What if I DO have a right to cut off your arm? The you have a right to cut off any"body" else's arm.

How about fingerprints (body parts). Easily identifiable and of course there are records of mine related to service, not crime.  :biggrin: These are commonly utilized in the identification of corpses when identification is not available.

But okay, the figerprints were chemically removed in the accident. . . I get it. . . :smile:

A woman has the right to decide if she wants her body to play host to a clump of nonviable cells whether they are genetically identical or not. It's her body which the required life giving sustance would be obtained from.

Quote from: awol on January 26, 2009, 12:53:19 PM
how 'bout conjoined twins, since we're getting ridiculous? :rolleyes:

what about people who are born having absorbed their fraternal twin?   do they have no right to have any remnants removed from their bodies?

Good questions, awol. I don't know the answers, I am just making an argument from biology.
However, if you plug them into my argument then conjoined twins would have the right to kill each other, but no one else.
Fraternal...is that the one's that are genetically identical? If so then the same would apply. Unless, of course, we agree that a woman has a right to hack off someone else's arm. Then it's OK for EVERYONE to kill ANYONE! Woo-hoo! Saddle up the horse and fetch me my broadsword! I got scores to settle!, lol!


Maybe these would be "corner cases". You know, like rape, incest, and "life of the mother' are often "corner cases" in abortion debates. What do you think?

And it's not ridiculous. I put together a cogent argument. You may argue against it, and by all means do so. But I think you are secretly impressed with my effort.  ;)

And although no two person's have identical DNA, the DNA of a fetus would be close enough to the "host" organism, (mother), as to identify it (mother) as its source to a statistically profound exclusion of all others.

In reality a fetus is nothing more than a parasite to the host (female) body; but for the genetic similarity between the host and the parasite the body's immune system would reject it with extreme prejudice.

So, since nature's identification system readily accepts this parasite as a part of the host, it should be easy to say that according to the laws of biology the parasite is in fact a part of the host; providing the host via proxy the legal ability to choose between excising the parasite or bringing it to full term. Or should we be so bold (foolish) as to assume that mankind's laws supercede those of nature?

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 26, 2009, 01:17:20 PM
A woman has the right to decide if she wants her body to play host to a clump of nonviable cells whether they are genetically identical or not. It's her body which the required life giving sustance would be obtained from.

You know, I didn't think of any of my kids as clumps of nonviable cells at any point during my pregnancy's. 

Quote from: Palehorse on January 26, 2009, 01:15:01 PM
How about fingerprints (body parts). Easily identifiable and of course there are records of mine related to service, not crime.  :biggrin: These are commonly utilized in the identification of corpses when identification is not available.

But okay, the figerprints were chemically removed in the accident. . . I get it. . . :smile:

It is an interesting argument, strictly from biology, no? No need to account for religious beliefs, or trying to figure out when life begins, etc.

It certainly opens up some new questions, such as awol put forth.

Darn phone interrupted my train of thought now the train has left and my thought with it.  >:(

Quote from: Palehorse on January 26, 2009, 01:25:11 PM
And although no two person's have identical DNA, the DNA of a fetus would be close enough to the "host" organism, (mother), as to identify it (mother) as its source to a statistically profound exclusion of all others.

In reality a fetus is nothing more than a parasite to the host (female) body; but for the genetic similarity between the host and the parasite the body's immune system would reject it with extreme prejudice.

So, since nature's identification system readily accepts this parasite as a part of the host, it should be easy to say that according to the laws of biology the parasite is in fact a part of the host; providing the host via proxy the legal ability to choose between excising the parasite or bringing it to full term. Or should we be so bold (foolish) as to assume that mankind's laws supercede those of nature?

Would not a choice to excise the parasite be a natural one to the host organism? Why not? It happens at the cellular level all the time; think still birth, or death in the womb.

It happens in the food chain too, when dominant male lions kill the offspring of subordinates or rival males. Certainly humankind's ability to reason places us above such instinctual behaviors, or is this in fact a restriction?

Quote from: me on January 26, 2009, 01:26:33 PM
You know, I didn't think of any of my kids as clumps of nonviable cells at any point during my pregnancy's. 

Neither did I, but that doesn't change the fact that medically that's what they are at the early stages of a pregnancy.

...and that doesn't change the fact that it's not our place to make that decision for someone else based on our thoughts/feelings.

I may be wrong for butting in, but it seems like we are getting off track, when we refer to a woman having an abortion, because she doesn't want her body to get fat and ugly..........as part of ANY natural process........

i understand the arguement of pushing ones "beliefs" into a law.........but, I will, until the day I die, defend the right to life, for those yet to be born.......because it IS my belief that it is wrong to kill a baby, simply because the mother does NOT want to be pregnant.

Quote from: Palehorse on January 26, 2009, 01:25:11 PM
And although no two person's have identical DNA, the DNA of a fetus would be close enough to the "host" organism, (mother), as to identify it (mother) as its source to a statistically profound exclusion of all others.

Except the sperm donor. He has the same equal statistical profound exclusion as the mother...er "host". Being NOT identical is my point.
If the egg donor can claim it as part of her bosy for that reason, then so can the sperm donor.

My brother and I are not genetically identical, but are statistically very close in DNA structure...should I be allowed to claim by brother's foot as my own and hack it off if it inconveniences me? Ha! That'll teach HIM to stick his foot out and trip me as I walk by the couch, lol!

Quote
In reality a fetus is nothing more than a parasite to the host (female) body; but for the genetic similarity between the host and the parasite the body's immune system would reject it with extreme prejudice.

Ummm...for the sake of your argument...ok (we have all kinds of DNA-foreign critters living in symbiosis within our bodies).

Quote
So, since nature's identification system readily accepts this parasite as a part of the host, it should be easy to say that according to the laws of biology the parasite is in fact a part of the host; providing the host via proxy the legal ability to choose between excising the parasite or bringing it to full term. Or should we be so bold (foolish) as to assume that mankind's laws supercede those of nature?

Hey! Did you just call me a parasite that's was allowed to come to full term? I am INSULTED, lol!
Kidding aside, that is an excellent argument, PH If we consider anything with 1/2 or MORE of our DNA, but is not IDENTICAL to us as a parasite. Of course, awol's poor conjoined twins and fraternal twins are still going to be fighting a battle for supremacy.

I guess it is only by fiat that zygotes are not legally described as "parasites".
The parasite argument is one that occurred to me also, and I've not come up with an argument against it, biologically (yet).
Should we allow that a parasite is, by definition, harmful to it's host, then we can make an argument for "health of the mother", at least.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 26, 2009, 01:17:20 PM
A woman has the right to decide if she wants her body to play host to a clump of nonviable cells whether they are genetically identical or not. It's her body which the required life giving sustance would be obtained from.

That's the "parasite" argument - and it's a good one.  See below...er above, by now.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 26, 2009, 01:01:47 PM
My argument is to whether a person can claim that which is not genetically identical to themselves a their own and exercise dominion over it (them).

Based on your logic, a person would have no right to remove a cancer.

Quote from: Palehorse on January 26, 2009, 01:36:57 PM
Certainly humankind's ability to reason places us above such instinctual behaviors, or is this in fact a restriction?

I would say some other (still, small) voice "reasons" us above such instinctual behavior.
But, that is my opinion, not based upon any biological argument.

Quote from: me on January 26, 2009, 01:26:33 PM
You know, I didn't think of any of my kids as clumps of nonviable cells at any point during my pregnancy's. 

You'll be glad to know that the rest of us have since.   :biggrin:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 26, 2009, 01:56:30 PM
Based on your logic, a person would have no right to remove a cancer.

I thought about that...but cancer cells are still the person's cells, just on growth-overdrive. At least, that's how I understand it, but I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, let alone am I a doctor.

So, by my logic, that may be the case. Like I said, the argument sure opens up a host of other questions.
Maybe cancer is another "corner case".
What do you think?

i think science can put a spin on anything..........and make good sence...............but the bottom line is..........this cluster or mass, or zygotes or dna material...........IS, life itself as we know it.        if a mothers life is NOT in danger.....then we are simply destroying a life to be.......and simply for selfish reasons...........that will always bother me.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 26, 2009, 02:06:39 PM
i think science can put a spin on anything..........and make good sence...............but the bottom line is..........this cluster or mass, or zygotes or dna material...........IS, life itself as we know it.        if a mothers life is NOT in danger.....then we are simply destroying a life to be.......and simply for selfish reasons...........that will always bother me.

Nope. These genetic materials have no free will or choice; their life or death riding simply upon the expected chemical reactions / interactions to further their development or progression. They have no ability to choose, tell right from wrong (human creation), or ability to follow a predetermined path. (Other than that which chemical interaction / reaction provides for it).

If "cells" or genetic materials are the determination of life then we are each guilty of multiple murder; since everything on the face of the earth is made of it. We are a race of murdering fools!  :spooked:

And a mother's life is in danger from the moment the parasite takes form; for it is leaching from her life support systems and draining her. The slightest imbalance of her circulatory, respiratory, nervous,  or digestive systems will pose a threat to her life, which is multiplied by the presence of the parasite.

In human beings, almost every cell in the body is diploid meaning it contains two sets of nearly identical copies of 23 chromosomes, a total of 46 being both female and male. The exception to this are gametes which are eggs or sperm.  They are called haploid for they only contain one copy of each of the 23 chromosomes, the egg being female and the sperm being male.

When the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm during sexual reproduction, the two separate haploid cells fuse together to become one cell called a diploid zygote, meaning it now has 46 chromosomes with 23 coming from each gamete, which develops into a new diploid individual. For example, when you were born you inherited 23 chromosomes from your mother, from the fertilized egg, and 23 chromosomes from your father, from the sperm that fertilized the egg.

A parasite lives in a close relationship with another organism, its host, and causes it harm.  The parasite is dependent on its host for its life functions.  (For example, viruses are common parasites).   The parasite has to be in its host to live, grow, and multiply. 

Once fertilization takes place the diploid zygote is now parasitic in nature for it is dependent upon the host for nutrients in order to continue its development.

the bottom line IS..........for abortion AND capital punishment...............it should be left to the States and the People as defined in the 10th Amendment....." The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Choice is leaving it to the people.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 26, 2009, 03:54:28 PM
Choice is leaving it to the people.

and if the people choose to enact a law to protect a fetus?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 26, 2009, 03:59:22 PM
and if the people choose to enact a law to protect a fetus?

What is there to protect? It is not self sustaining for the majority of its development,(with late third trimester an area worthy of discussion); incapable of thought or initiating a purposeful action, nor ability to choose. Until the point of first breath it is not a human life. . .

Quote from: Palehorse on January 26, 2009, 04:21:44 PM
What is there to protect? It is not self sustaining for the majority of its development,(with late third trimester an area worthy of discussion); incapable of thought or initiating a purposeful action, nor ability to choose. Until the point of first breath it is not a human life. . .

in your opinion....I say.....Life begins at gastrulation...the point at which a developing embryo forms distinct layers that grow into different organs.....Embryos are capabable of splitting into twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in separate individuals. Gastrulation commences when the zygote, now called an embryo, implants into the uterus....

there are people who are NOT "self sustaining" everyday........because of a number of reasons........but are capable of being self sustained, with the help of medical experts....this may be a stretch to make a point...........but, because a "woman" decides her BUTT is not going to look good.......you say it is her right to stop this process.....at any given point in time?......I know it is me, but.....I cannot comprehind anyone thinking this is an okay thing?

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 26, 2009, 11:02:26 AM
And that would be different from your usual manner of debate exactly how?
For example:That sure reads like  a "stupid generalization" to me, as well as stereotyping, PLUS you don't know the definition of the word, "neocon". You use it out of context very frequently, making yourself look, to be specific, stupid.

Hey! I looked up "projection":
Here's what I found:
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions to others. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else...
See "dan foster" at The Unknown Zone for examples of this type of defense mechanism at work

You keep trying to bully your way through thread after thread and we keep proving you the fool that you are. Don't you ever get enough?
You are most entertaining, though, I must say. Some of the best laughs I get are reading your latest, "I hate religion, and if you don't hate it too then you are a neocon" diatribe. You come across as a caricature of a Socialist/Communist Archie Bunker, lol!.

I think I love you!!!  :smitten: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 26, 2009, 11:52:01 AM
i am now convinced that you may be slightly ---retarded---- :yes:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Quote from: me on January 26, 2009, 01:26:33 PM
You know, I didn't think of any of my kids as clumps of nonviable cells at any point during my pregnancy's. 

I don't see a fetus as a clump of nonviable cells either.  :no:  I'm rather shocked by the term.  :spooked:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 26, 2009, 01:46:19 PM
I may be wrong for butting in, but it seems like we are getting off track, when we refer to a woman having an abortion, because she doesn't want her body to get fat and ugly..........as part of ANY natural process........

i understand the arguement of pushing ones "beliefs" into a law.........but, I will, until the day I die, defend the right to life, for those yet to be born.......because it IS my belief that it is wrong to kill a baby, simply because the mother does NOT want to be pregnant.

Exactly HH!!!  :thumbsup:  :yes:

I'm not exactly sure why but.... I'm sitting here with my chin on the ground from shock!!!  :spooked: Maybe, it's because I think children are a gift that not everybody can have ,and when I hear of them being referred to as inviable clumps of cells and parasites... I'm... just.... wow.... speechless.  :spooked:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 26, 2009, 09:31:21 PM
I'm not exactly sure why but.... I'm sitting here with my chin on the ground from shock!!!  :spooked: Maybe, it's because I think children are a gift that not everybody can have ,and when I hear of them being referred to as inviable clumps of cells and parasites... I'm... just.... wow.... speechless.  :spooked:

Nobody referred to children as nonviable clumps of cells. The key is understanding the difference.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 26, 2009, 11:09:54 PM
Nobody referred to children as nonviable clumps of cells. The key is understanding the difference.

Maybe that's why I have such a hard time with the abortion thing.  I think of the fetus as a child at the moment of conception because to me thats what it is, a growing child who needs my body to nurture it. 

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 26, 2009, 02:04:06 PM
I thought about that...but cancer cells are still the person's cells, just on growth-overdrive. At least, that's how I understand it, but I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, let alone am I a doctor.

So, by my logic, that may be the case. Like I said, the argument sure opens up a host of other questions.
Maybe cancer is another "corner case".
What do you think?

wow, given all the exceptions to your hard and fast rule that have popped up in just the last day or so, perhaps you need to revise your definition... :wink:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 26, 2009, 03:59:22 PM
and if the people choose to enact a law to protect a fetus?

How would you feel about a law that prevented people below a certain IQ from having children by forcing them to be sterilized before they are old enough to breed?  I mean, if it's the people's choice and what not...

Quote from: me on January 26, 2009, 11:58:06 PM
Maybe that's why I have such a hard time with the abortion thing.  I think of the fetus as a child at the moment of conception because to me thats what it is, a growing child who needs my body to nurture it. 

I'm sure cockroaches feel the same way about their eggs; would you not exterminate your home because you'd be destroying "God's little miracles"?

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 07:26:02 AM
How would you feel about a law that prevented people below a certain IQ from having children by forcing them to be sterilized before they are old enough to breed?  I mean, if it's the people's choice and what not...

Well, to me, that is the great thing about being an American........and the whole process that was developed here.......I believe that Americans, as a whole, are a great breed of human beings...and the society that has been created....USUALLY does the right things.....bibical values..ARE...the cornerstones of our moral living.....like it or believe it or not.........our forefathers believed in a Creator and place value upon good moral living........if a day did come where...people below a certain IQ from having children by forcing them to be sterilized...and THAT became an acceptable "NORM" for our society........I would probably be looking for a new country to move my family to..

I think the voice of the people should control what is right and what is wrong...and set the standards of living........THAT is what a democracy IS.....our representatives, is suppose to be an extention of the voice of the people........if the people of a particular state believes that abortions should or should not be legal....then, though I may not agree with the outcome....that is the way it should be.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2009, 08:28:19 AM
Well, to me, that is the great thing about being an American........and the whole process that was developed here.......I believe that Americans, as a whole, are a great breed of human beings...and the society that has been created....USUALLY does the right things.....bibical values..ARE...the cornerstones of our moral living...

No, moral values precede the bible; writing them down and calling it "God's word" is simply attributing something innate to superstition.

[/quote]...like it or believe it or not.........our forefathers believed in a Creator and place value upon good moral living....[/quote]

As has been illustrated to you over and over again, most of our forefathers were deists who generally rejected the notion that divine revelation is the source of truth or morality so while they did, in fact, place value on good, moral living, they did not base that on religion or the bible.

Quote....if a day did come where...people below a certain IQ from having children by forcing them to be sterilized...and THAT became an acceptable "NORM" for our society........I would probably be looking for a new country to move my family to...

Depending on when that day came and where the line was drawn, you might not have a family to move.

QuoteI think the voice of the people should control what is right and what is wrong...and set the standards of living........THAT is what a democracy IS.....our representatives, is suppose to be an extention of the voice of the people...

So if the people decide that dumb people shouldn't breed, you're down with it?

Quote....if the people of a particular state believes that abortions should or should not be legal....then, though I may not agree with the outcome....that is the way it should be.

On the abortion issue, that is the way it is; the majority of the people in this country believe that it should be the decision of the mother.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 07:28:00 AM
I'm sure cockroaches feel the same way about their eggs; would you not exterminate your home because you'd be destroying "God's little miracles"?

That is a ridiculous comparison.

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 09:22:42 AM
That is a ridiculous comparison.

How is a cockroach any lessor form of "life" than a 2 wek old fetus, when it can make choices, exercise "will", choose a path?

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 08:55:38 AM
As has been illustrated to you over and over again, most of our forefathers were deists who generally rejected the notion that divine revelation is the source of truth or morality so while they did, in fact, place value on good, moral living, they did not base that on religion or the bible.

this is a pissing match that could go on for ever........I have given PROOF and quotes that differs from your stance...

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 08:55:38 AM
So if the people decide that dumb people shouldn't breed, you're down with it?

No, it does not mean I'm "down" with it.........I will protest it and fight against it....(maybe..)...but that IS American...and I have more confidence that THAT will never happen........but if it does.....I will deal with it then.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 08:55:38 AM
On the abortion issue, that is the way it is; the majority of the people in this country believe that it should be the decision of the mother.

although that is arguable....71 percent of self-described pro-choice voters would significantly restrict abortion... (http://http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/news/releases/detail/548040.html/)...

Quote from: Palehorse on January 27, 2009, 09:27:23 AM
How is a cockroach any lessor form of "life" than a 2 wek old fetus, when it can make choices, exercise "will", choose a path?

Roach's are insects.  They lay eggs and do not nurture their young in any way shape or form nor do they become attached to them, they aren't even there for the birth. 

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 09:39:41 AM
Roach's are insects.  They lay eggs and do not nurture their young in any way shape or form nor do they become attached to them, they aren't even there for the birth. 

It is still cellular growth. . . and by the definition some seem to impart to it, "life".

Quote from: Palehorse on January 27, 2009, 09:48:04 AM
It is still cellular growth. . . and by the definition some seem to impart to it, "life".

Plants are made up of cellular growth and have young too but would you use them in comparison?  By definition you could you know.  IMO comparing either to humans is like apples to oranges.

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 09:57:44 AM
IMO comparing either to humans is like apples to oranges.

How very presumptuous of you to assume that you are able to understand your god's plan and decide for him which species are more important than the others.  Either you respect life...all life...or you don't.  If your ability to breed is beautiful and wondrous and a miracle, so is a cockroach's...if either is not then neither is.

One could argue that, if there is a god, he prefers cockroaches to humans; they have, after all, survived events on the planet that man could not.

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 09:39:41 AM
Roach's are insects.  They lay eggs and do not nurture their young in any way shape or form nor do they become attached to them, they aren't even there for the birth. 

Just because you don't understand their community structure, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2009, 09:27:56 AM
this is a pissing match that could go on for ever........I have given PROOF and quotes that differs from your stance...

If I had a dollar for every time I've seen you spanked on this specific topic, I could retire.

Quotealthough that is arguable....71 percent of self-described pro-choice voters would significantly restrict abortion... (http://http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/news/releases/detail/548040.html/)...

Uh, they're still "pro-choice".   :rolleyes:

are you seriously trying to make a comparison of human life to cockroach life?......... :confused:

maybe THAT is the problem we have here.............is that the science world does not/can not put a price on human life...it is JUST another cluster of cells.........I can give a rats ass about cockroaches.......but to KILL an INNOCENT BABY....for the sake of ego....is something that many millions of Americans find repulsive...and will NOT sit back and not give a voice to the unborn....that is the way I feel about this.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 10:06:53 AM
How very presumptuous of you to assume that you are able to understand your god's plan and decide for him which species are more important than the others.  Either you respect life...all life...or you don't.  If your ability to breed is beautiful and wondrous and a miracle, so is a cockroach's...if either is not then neither is.

One could argue that, if there is a god, he prefers cockroaches to humans; they have, after all, survived events on the planet that man could not.

IMO it would be far better, and cheaper, to provide those who don't want children with either sterilization or a form of birth control that works.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 10:10:07 AM
If I had a dollar for every time I've seen you spanked on this specific topic, I could retire.

you would be broke, pal.............you have never come close to spanking anyone on this topic.........there is quote, after quote, after quote, after quote.........with the VAST majority of our founding fathers that place God AND the Bible as cornerstones to our daily lives....PALeeze EX...........this is the wrong thread, but you are brainwashed into picking up a few quotes takin the wrong way...and spinning them into YOUR way of thinking........period.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 10:10:07 AM
Uh, they're still "pro-choice".   :rolleyes:

and even THEY are against MOST abortions.....and think there should be laws to enforce them.

it comes down to standing up and doing what is right NOT, what the mionrity thinks, so they won't offend someone.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2009, 10:24:01 AM
are you seriously trying to make a comparison of human life to cockroach life?......... :confused:

maybe THAT is the problem we have here.............is that the science world does not/can not put a price on human life...it is JUST another cluster of cells.........I can give a rats ass about cockroaches.......but to KILL an INNOCENT BABY....for the sake of ego....is something that many millions of Americans find repulsive...and will NOT sit back and not give a voice to the unborn....that is the way I feel about this.

Ego is exactly that which leads people to believe that theirs are the the only lives that are sacred in their "god's" grand plan above all other species.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2009, 10:34:52 AM
you would be broke, pal.............you have never come close to spanking anyone on this topic.........there is quote, after quote, after quote, after quote.........with the VAST majority of our founding fathers that place God AND the Bible as cornerstones to our daily lives....PALeeze EX...........this is the wrong thread, but you are brainwashed into picking up a few quotes takin the wrong way...and spinning them into YOUR way of thinking........period.

Bullshit!

Quote...and even THEY are against MOST abortions.....and think there should be laws to enforce them.

There are laws to enforce them.

Quoteit comes down to standing up and doing what is right NOT, what the mionrity thinks, so they won't offend someone.

Correct; what is right is for a woman to have that choice, not what the minority (pro-lifers) think so they won't be offended.

Quote from: me on January 26, 2009, 11:58:06 PM
Maybe that's why I have such a hard time with the abortion thing.  I think of the fetus as a child at the moment of conception because to me thats what it is, a growing child who needs my body to nurture it. 

Quite honestly, that's how I felt as well. We have to separate "feelings" from "science". Scientifically, that's inaccurate AND we can't expect everyone to "feel" the same way we do.

That's the point. You can feel that way. You can choose to keep an unwanted pregnancy, but you can't make that choice for someone else.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2009, 10:24:01 AM
are you seriously trying to make a comparison of human life to cockroach life?......... :confused:

maybe THAT is the problem we have here.............is that the science world does not/can not put a price on human life...it is JUST another cluster of cells.........I can give a rats ass about cockroaches.......but to KILL an INNOCENT BABY....for the sake of ego....is something that many millions of Americans find repulsive...and will NOT sit back and not give a voice to the unborn....that is the way I feel about this.

I am not; by the scientific definition of human life, neither is life from my perspective. And once science is able to establlish the real start of human life beyond a reasonable doubt, a lot of people wrongly convicted for the death of a human fetus during the commission of a crime will have their cases re-tried.

Innocence cannot be claimed minus the ability to exercise judgment and initiate choice; neither of which is a "fetus" capable of.

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 26, 2009, 09:19:51 PM
I don't see a fetus as a clump of nonviable cells either.  :no:  I'm rather shocked by the term.  :spooked:

To commit genocide you first have to depersonalize your intended victims so the general populace will stop finding the murder of such abhorrent. 
See: WWI, The Third Reich, Mein Kampf, the Holocaust, etc.

The German people allowed the Jewish Holocaust to occur because they had been conditioned by Hitler to view the Jews as something less than human.
Perhaps he called them "alive, but not really human beings".

Maybe he convinced the German people that the Jews were merely "non-viable clumps of cells", thereby making it quite easy to dispatch them with, well, dispatch.

Ugh. . . Now my brain hurts. (I know. . . it can't; but it does none the less!). . .

I'm off of this subject for awhile. . . :angel:

Quote from: awol on January 27, 2009, 06:32:06 AM
wow, given all the exceptions to your hard and fast rule that have popped up in just the last day or so, perhaps you need to revise your definition... :wink:

Haha! Hey, I intended only thoughtful debate, not absolute answers, lol!

Our current "model", if you will, has it's "corner cases" on both sides of the issue as well.

From a biological standpoint, how would you argue against my definitions? (I am really interested)

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 07:28:00 AM
I'm sure cockroaches feel the same way about their eggs; would you not exterminate your home because you'd be destroying "God's little miracles"?

I reject your premise that cockroaches "feel" emotions.
And please do not interject God into a non-religious discussion of abortion.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 27, 2009, 12:30:04 PM
To commit genocide you first have to depersonalize your intended victims so the general populace will stop finding the murder of such abhorrent. 
See: WWI, The Third Reich, Mein Kampf, the Holocaust, etc.

The German people allowed the Jewish Holocaust to occur because they had been conditioned by Hitler to view the Jews as something less than human.
Perhaps he called them "alive, but not really human beings".

Maybe he convinced the German people that the Jews were merely "non-viable clumps of cells", thereby making it quite easy to dispatch them with, well, dispatch.

Again, exactly the mindset that allows so-called pro-lifers to trivialize life as it relates to virtually every other species on the planet.  It is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 27, 2009, 12:45:05 PM
I reject your premise that cockroaches "feel" emotions.

Reject it all you'd like but neither of us can prove it one way or the other.

QuoteAnd please do not interject God into a non-religious discussion of abortion.

There is no such thing as a non-religious discussion of abortion.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 27, 2009, 12:41:43 PM
Haha! Hey, I intended only thoughtful debate, not absolute answers, lol!

Our current "model", if you will, has it's "corner cases" on both sides of the issue as well.

From a biological standpoint, how would you argue against my definitions? (I am really interested)

all you are trying to do is sidestep the whole "is it a living human being or not" debate, and define it as somebody else right from the bat.

how about measles and mumps?  geewhiz, nobody knows what they could become if properly gestated, maybe we should let them be.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 07:28:00 AM
I'm sure cockroaches feel the same way about their eggs; would you not exterminate your home because you'd be destroying "God's little miracles"?

I reject your premise that cockroaches "feel" emotions.
And please do not interject God into a non-religious discussion of abortion.

Quote from: Palehorse on January 27, 2009, 09:27:23 AM
How is a cockroach any lessor form of "life" than a 2 wek old fetus, when it can make choices, exercise "will", choose a path?

Very good. If you want to put non-human creatures on the same plane as humans, then let's plug that into my logical "proof" and see what we get...
Well, by my logic if a woman has the right to kill her baby then we all, besides having the right to kill each other for any reason (or for no reason at all) have the right to bash the crap out of the baby Harp seals for their fur (or for ANY reason). Or hunt any species to extinction, for that matter.
On the other hand, if a person does NOT have a right to life and death over another person, than the baby Harp seals should be safe.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 27, 2009, 12:57:40 PM
Very good. If you want to put non-human creatures on the same plane as humans, then let's plug that into my logical "proof" and see what we get...

Well, by my logic if a woman has the right to kill her baby then we all, besides having the right to kill each other for any reason (or for no reason at all) have the right to bash the crap out of the baby Harp seals for their fur (or for ANY reason).

...or to kill animals and eat them or wear their furs!

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 12:48:58 PM
Reject it all you'd like but neither of us can prove it one way or the other.

Then it's silly to use it as a premise for your argument, don't you think?

Quote
There is no such thing as a non-religious discussion of abortion.

Apparently you missed my original post. It is an essay that attempts to examine the abortion issue through a logical thought process focusing on what constitutes "ownership", and the "rights" of people over what they own and what they do not own from a biological and legal standpoint, religion not even being considered. Well, I did note as a summary point that one does not have to be a "religious neocon" to have a point of view against abortion. But that's as close as I came to bringing religion into it.

The essay is boring and tediously long, I admit; yet some of the more canny readers of this thread have found it interesting enough to read it through, and some are even compelled to participate in the lively (and so far FRIENDLY) discourse of it's relative merits.
Overall, it's (so far) been one of the most intelligent and respectful discourses on a very sensitive issue that I have ever seen on this whole board.
And I think the others participating would join me in asking that, should you continue to participate, that you do so only after having read my essay and that you keep your comments within the spirit and tone that we have already established.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 01:05:47 PM
...or to kill animals and eat them or wear their furs!

That is opening yet another can of worms. 

Quote from: awol on January 27, 2009, 12:57:13 PM
all you are trying to do is sidestep the whole "is it a living human being or not" debate, and define it as somebody else right from the bat.

how about measles and mumps?  geewhiz, nobody knows what they could become if properly gestated, maybe we should let them be.

Not side-stepping anything, good sir. I have narrowly focused the argument, that is true, but only to keep "religion" and other tenuous, subjective, things like "are living human cells really alive" and such out of the debate.

I've tried to answer the question: "If there is no God nor a distinct humanity are there still logical arguments for and against abortion rights, and what are the logical consequences?"
I think I made a cogent argument.
You have raised several points against my argument that may have merit; I am genuinely interested in hearing your supportive arguments for them.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 27, 2009, 01:23:49 PM
Then it's silly to use it as a premise for your argument, don't you think?

No more or less than it is presumptuous of you not to entertain the possibility.

QuoteApparently you missed my original post. It is an essay that attempts to examine the abortion issue through a logical thought process...

No, I didn't miss it but I didn't find it logical either.  You essentially began with a premise and backed into it.

QuoteThe essay is boring and tediously long, I admit; yet some of the more canny readers of this thread have found it interesting enough to read it through...

Something upon which we can agree!   :biggrin:  Actually, your ability to converse in complete sentences makes it significantly less tedious than it would have been otherwise.  <--compliment

Quote...and some are even compelled to participate in the lively (and so far FRIENDLY) discourse of it's relative merits.

As did I when I brought up the removal of a cancer.

QuoteOverall, it's (so far) been one of the most intelligent and respectful discourses on a very sensitive issue that I have ever seen on this whole board.

Easy, you're getting dangerously close to throwing your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back again.   :razz:

QuoteAnd I think the others participating would join me in asking that, should you continue to participate, that you do so only after having read my essay and that you keep your comments within the spirit and tone that we have already established.

You're not the boss of me.   :no:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 12:46:40 PM
Again, exactly the mindset that allows so-called pro-lifers to trivialize life as it relates to virtually every other species on the planet.  It is the epitome of hypocrisy.

What?!? Your reply to my post makes no sense. There is no "mind set"; I merely restated historical and psychological facts.
If you mean that Hitler's use of depersonalization of the Jews is perhaps similar to the pro-death movement's use of depersonalization of the unborn, then maybe we have a point on which we can agree.
But I would rather reserve that discussion for either later or for another thread of it's own.

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 01:28:43 PM
That is opening yet another can of worms. 

Nope...same can...life is either sacred or it isn't.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 01:05:47 PM
...or to kill animals and eat them or wear their furs!

Correct. In my argument if a woman has a right to abortion then I have a right to kill, eat, and wear the skin of any creature I choose. Even other humans. (Aren't you the one positing that there is no difference between humans and animals?)

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 27, 2009, 01:46:51 PM
Correct. In my argument if a woman has a right to abortion then I have a right to kill, eat, and wear the skin of any creature I choose.

Then in reverse, you can't claim some moral objection to a woman's right to abortion if you kill, eat or wear the skin of any animal.

QuoteEven other humans. (Aren't you the one positing that there is no difference between humans and animals?)

Taken to the extreme, yes.  Are you arguing that people meat is significantly different from the meat of any other mammal?  I don't relish the thought of eating rats either so what's your point?

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 01:42:17 PM
No more or less than it is presumptuous of you not to entertain the possibility.

Since it was useless to use in an argument either for or against I chose to disregard it.

Quote
No, I didn't miss it but I didn't find it logical either.  You essentially began with a premise and backed into it.

But I kept my head up my arse to help me see better as I was backing up, lol!
Seriously, this is a logical argument I have been going over in my head for years. It's not perfect, but neither is our current "model".

Quote
Something upon which we can agree!   :biggrin:  Actually, your ability to converse in complete sentences makes it significantly less tedious than it would have been otherwise.  <--compliment

I knew I was "pitching underhanded" to you with that line, so I got the "hit" I was expecting. Actually, I expected a lot worse *chuckle*.
And thanks for the compliment.

Quote
As did I when I brought up the removal of a cancer.

On which I did not disagree...I lack enough knowledge of the genetic makeup of cancer cells to "plug" them into my argument.
Case #1: Cancer cells are genetically identical to the other cells in a person's body.
Case #2 Cancer cells are NOT genetically identical to other cells in a person's body.
Hmmm...
Under my argument, one would have no "right" to harm cancer cells if Case #2 is true. However, it is generally accepted that a person has a right to defend themselves from destruction of their DNA (read: from death), so then a person would have a right to defend themselves against cancer, even at the expense of the cancer's DNA.

For Case #1...genetically identical cancer cells belong to the "owner";  they may do with them as they please.

Awol brought up some excellent points about twins that may "fit" if we agree that everyone has a "right" to defend their DNA (life).
Requires more thought.....

Quote
Easy, you're getting dangerously close to throwing your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back again.   :razz:

hahaha! I didn't mean my essay, I meant everyone's discussion of it has been friendly.
But I can see how I did not make that clear, so razz deserved.

Quote
You're not the boss of me.   :no:

But I said PLEASE!!

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 01:53:43 PM
Then in reverse, you can't claim some moral objection to a woman's right to abortion if you kill, eat or wear the skin of any animal.

Quote
That is quite correct, even without a reference to morality.
If we agree that a person has a "right" to do with as they please with the DNA of other creatures, then it logically includes abortion.

Quote
Taken to the extreme, yes.  Are you arguing that people meat is significantly different from the meat of any other mammal?  I don't relish the thought of eating rats either so what's your point?

I'm just being logically consistent with my argument, as unappetizing as it may sound. "Taste" is a subjective experience.
(and I hear Henry Hawk is quite tasty when roasted slowly over low coals and basted regularly. Tastes just like chicken, lol!)

SIDE BAR / COMMENT:

I don't know about the rest of you but I am eating this stuff up. This is developing into quite the discussion and I honestly find it very interesting. Let's keep exploring and challenging and maybe I can learn a little something along the way!  8)

(Once my brain stops hurting)

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 27, 2009, 12:30:04 PM
To commit genocide you first have to depersonalize your intended victims so the general populace will stop finding the murder of such abhorrent. 
See: WWI, The Third Reich, Mein Kampf, the Holocaust, etc.

The German people allowed the Jewish Holocaust to occur because they had been conditioned by Hitler to view the Jews as something less than human.
Perhaps he called them "alive, but not really human beings".

Maybe he convinced the German people that the Jews were merely "non-viable clumps of cells", thereby making it quite easy to dispatch them with, well, dispatch.

That's a great point Ghost. I think people try to justify abortion by saying it's just a clump of cells. That way there is no guilt on their part for killing an unborn child.  :no:

Here's something to ponder.... if the woman has the choice to abort, should the babie's father have any say in it?  Case in point.... a guy that I work with got his girlfriend pregnant with twins.... she went and had an abortion ,without even telling him she was going to. I think that is wrong on soooo many levels. Anybody got any thoughts on this?

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 27, 2009, 02:24:46 PM
(and I hear Henry Hawk is quite tasty when roasted slowly over low coals and basted regularly. Tastes just like chicken, lol!)

:o

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2009, 04:17:18 PM

:o

Don't worry HH!!!! I'll save you!!!!  :super:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 27, 2009, 03:49:54 PM
Here's something to ponder.... if the woman has the choice to abort, should the babie's father have any say in it?  Case in point.... a guy that I work with got his girlfriend pregnant with twins.... she went and had an abortion ,without even telling him she was going to. I think that is wrong on soooo many levels. Anybody got any thoughts on this?

When they find a way to successfully transplant the embryo into the biological father's body, then I'd say, "yes he should definitely have a say". Until then (and maybe even after that) I'd say that the decision to include the father in the decision to abort or keep the child is  dependant on the woman's preference.

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 27, 2009, 03:45:55 PM
That's a great point Ghost. I think people try to justify abortion by saying it's just a clump of cells. That way there is no guilt on their part for killing an unborn child.  :no:

Yes, pretty much the way bush/cheney dehumanized iraqis by their constant insistence that iraq had attacked us on 9/11.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2009, 12:46:40 PM
Again, exactly the mindset that allows so-called pro-lifers to trivialize life as it relates to virtually every other species on the planet.  It is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Then Exterminator is a Hindu or a hypocrit.

Quote from: dan foster on January 27, 2009, 06:15:17 PM
Yes, pretty much the way bush/cheney dehumanized iraqis by their constant insistence that iraq had attacked us on 9/11.

You really love replying to me. Here reply to this Dan. :finger01:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 27, 2009, 05:43:38 PM
When they find a way to successfully transplant the embryo into the biological father's body, then I'd say, "yes he should definitely have a say". Until then (and maybe even after that) I'd say that the decision to include the father in the decision to abort or keep the child is  dependant on the woman's preference.

I agree.

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 27, 2009, 09:21:35 PM
You really love replying to me. Here reply to this Dan. :finger01:

:eek:  (I second that) :biggrin:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 27, 2009, 05:43:38 PM
When they find a way to successfully transplant the embryo into the biological father's body, then I'd say, "yes he should definitely have a say". Until then (and maybe even after that) I'd say that the decision to include the father in the decision to abort or keep the child is  dependant on the woman's preference.

But that baby is part his too. Both parties know going into it that there is a possibility of the female becoming pregnant so if she isn't prepared to birth a baby she should take the necessary precautions or be ready to deal with the consequences of her actions which means bearing the child.

OMG are you kidding me?  SHE has to take precautions?  Well if SHE has to take precautions then SHE gets to make the decision!!

Quote from: kimmi on January 27, 2009, 09:39:04 PM
OMG are you kidding me?  SHE has to take precautions?  Well if SHE has to take precautions then SHE gets to make the decision!!

If she is the one that don't want to become pregnant, yes, she should make sure she is protected.  That is called being responsible for your own actions and not depending on someone else to protect you from yourself.

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 09:41:03 PM
If she is the one that don't want to become pregnant, yes, she should make sure she is protected.  That is called being responsible for your own actions and not depending on someone else to protect you from yourself.

Then SHE makes the decision!

Quote from: kimmi on January 27, 2009, 09:41:36 PM
Then SHE makes the decision!

If she has properly protected herself there is no decision to make.

Amazing but why does it fall back on her?  I mean the pill is not 100%.  What if?  So if that were the case then it would be ok for her to make the decision to terminate because she did protect herself.  But if she hadn't taken the pill then it should be a 50/50 decision.  Shouldn't birth control be a 50/50 responsibility?

Quote from: kimmi on January 27, 2009, 09:49:43 PM
Amazing but why does it fall back on her?  I mean the pill is not 100%.  What if?  So if that were the case then it would be ok for her to make the decision to terminate because she did protect herself.  But if she hadn't taken the pill then it should be a 50/50 decision.  Shouldn't birth control be a 50/50 responsibility?

Then it should be discussed beforehand so each knows the others feelings.  Not only that if the father doesn't want her to have the child and she choses to do so he should not be responsible for helping support the child since it was her decision to keep it.

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 09:35:33 PM
But that baby is part his too. Both parties know going into it that there is a possibility of the female becoming pregnant so if she isn't prepared to birth a baby she should take the necessary precautions or be ready to deal with the consequences of her actions which means bearing the child.

Shoulda woulda coulda - they both know the risks and are equally to blame.

That doesn't change the fact that, his contribution to the pregnancy process ended when the sperm met egg. It's her body that will will do the rest, so it's her decision.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 27, 2009, 10:20:26 PM
Shoulda woulda coulda - they both know the risks and are equally to blame.

That doesn't change the fact that, his contribution to the pregnancy process ended when the sperm met egg. It's her body that will will do the rest, so it's her decision.

So you're saying responsibility is not part of the equation.

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 09:32:12 PM
:eek:  (I second that) :biggrin:

:wink: :biggrin:

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 27, 2009, 12:30:04 PM
To commit genocide you first have to depersonalize your intended victims so the general populace will stop finding the murder of such abhorrent.  
See: WWI, The Third Reich, Mein Kampf, the Holocaust, etc.

The German people allowed the Jewish Holocaust to occur because they had been conditioned by Hitler to view the Jews as something less than human.
Perhaps he called them "alive, but not really human beings".

Maybe he convinced the German people that the Jews were merely "non-viable clumps of cells", thereby making it quite easy to dispatch them with, well, dispatch.

Now you've just crossed over into the land of ridiculous reasoning.

If he were able to convince anyone that the Jews were "nonviable clumps of cells", then those were people who were either stupid , w/out the use of a dictionary or both.

Since the Jews were all obviously living, growing, breathing, etc, they were obviously viable.

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 09:35:33 PM
But that baby is part his too. Both parties know going into it that there is a possibility of the female becoming pregnant so if she isn't prepared to birth a baby she should take the necessary precautions or be ready to deal with the consequences of her actions which means bearing the child.

Then let him carry it if he wants it. Otherwise, he has no opinion in the matter of HER body unless she CHOOSES to involve him.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 27, 2009, 10:27:25 PM
Then let him carry it if he wants it. Otherwise, he has no opinion in the matter of HER body unless she CHOOSES to involve him.

There is only one other obvious solution and that would be not to do the act in the first place or, well lets just say, chose different means of...uh...use your imagination..... :wink:

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 10:24:15 PM
So you're saying responsibility is not part of the equation.

If you're talking abortion then obviously protection is a moot point.

I personally feel that increased sex education and access to birth control is something that parents should ensure their children have. But we know they don't.

People have sex and they should use protection. Sometimes they do and it fails and sometimes they don't.

At the point that someone is pregnant, how it happened is no longer important.

There's a decision to make and it belongs to the woman.

How many of these women, especially the young ones, fully understand what could happen as a result of an abortion.  What about those teenagers who are given abortions without the parents knowing which happens all the time.  That is how these clinics operate.  Think about it.

Quote from: me on January 27, 2009, 10:43:42 PM
How many of these women, especially the young ones, fully understand what could happen as a result of an abortion.  What about those teenagers who are given abortions without the parents knowing which happens all the time.  That is how these clinics operate.  Think about it.

I don't need to, because I don't care.

I know what my choice would be and I'm perfectly okay with someone making their own choice regardless of whether or not it's different from mine and regardless of how it happened or what their reasons are.

How would you feel if your daughter left for school one day and you found out instead of going to school she had been taken to a clinic to have an abortion and you hadn't been told and complications set in because they had given her a medication she never thought to tell them she was allergic to.  How would you view those clinics then?

Well, it's difficult to imagine how I'd feel for a few reasons. One of them being that I'm hoping that the fact that I've been very proactive in educating her regarding the "birds and bees" and STDs that she will be wise enough to understand the importance of protection. I'm also hoping that she trusts me enough to talk to me, should she find herself with an unplanned pregnancy. 

That being said, if she didn't and she made a choice and went to a clinic to terminate her pregnancy and she received medication that she's allergic to, then at least she'd be in a professional medical facility where they'd be more likely prepared to treat her reaction.  As far as I know, she's not allergic to anything, so if she is and we just haven't discovered it yet, then the same thing could happen if she went to have a tooth pulled.

I'd much rather deal with the anxiety of treating allergic reaction than file a missing persons report to find out that she died having a back alley abortion.

The problem is they don't keep you to find out if anything is going to happen, like hemorrhaging for instance.  I know someone who went with a girl to have one and they just did it and turned her loose.  She went with this person not once but twice and wouldn't do it again.  She said they were ran through like an assembly line and it was very cold and uncaring. 

How odd, well hopefully if my daughter or anyone else is faced with that decision that they end up with a clinic similar to the one that I accompanied a friend to. They counseled her about her options, then made an appointment for a few days later to have the procedure. She opted to have the procedure and I went with her then also and she had to wait in recovery for quite a while after the procedure.

That doesn't change anything though. All I can do is give her the information and guidance and hope that she makes the right choices. If she makes a mistake or is raped and become pregnant because of it, then it's a little to late to talk about the ways to prevent it. At that point, she has a decision to make. It's her decision, whatever she decides. I hope to be included, but if I'm not then we'll have to deal with it when it happens. Eliminating a woman's right to choose, doesn't guarantee that she won't still make the same mistake or that decision, it'll just narrow her options and ensure that if she does make that choice that she won't be assisted by medical professionals at all.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 28, 2009, 08:28:47 AM
How odd, well hopefully if my daughter or anyone else is faced with that decision that they end up with a clinic similar to the one that I accompanied a friend to. They counseled her about her options, then made an appointment for a few days later to have the procedure. She opted to have the procedure and I went with her then also and she had to wait in recovery for quite a while after the procedure.

That doesn't change anything though. All I can do is give her the information and guidance and hope that she makes the right choices. If she makes a mistake or is raped and become pregnant because of it, then it's a little to late to talk about the ways to prevent it. At that point, she has a decision to make. It's her decision, whatever she decides. I hope to be included, but if I'm not then we'll have to deal with it when it happens. Eliminating a woman's right to choose, doesn't guarantee that she won't still make the same mistake or that decision, it'll just narrow her options and ensure that if she does make that choice that she won't be assisted by medical professionals at all.

I too hope you and your daughter are never faced with that situation and I am glad that all the clinics aren't the like the one my daughter experienced with her friend.  I still think the parents of an under aged child should be informed though. 

How long ago was that, me? Perhaps that's the reason for the difference in standards?

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 28, 2009, 10:37:43 AM
How long ago was that, me? Perhaps that's the reason for the difference in standards?

Thats a good point but it will remain in my mind regardless. 

Quote from: Monroe on January 27, 2009, 06:28:59 PM
Then Exterminator is a Hindu or a hypocrit.

That might have stung if it had come from someone who could even spell hypocrite.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 27, 2009, 03:49:54 PM
Here's something to ponder.... if the woman has the choice to abort, should the babie's father have any say in it?  Case in point.... a guy that I work with got his girlfriend pregnant with twins.... she went and had an abortion ,without even telling him she was going to. I think that is wrong on soooo many levels. Anybody got any thoughts on this?

Like your friend would have paid child support?  Maybe he should just keep his dick in his pants.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 28, 2009, 12:25:34 PM
Like your friend would have paid child support?  Maybe he should just keep his dick in his pants.

I agree with Ex, that he SHOULD have kept his pants zipped.......but, it is presumptuous to think he was not willing to take care of these kids.....he may be right, but not in all cases.....

I think, the CHOICE was made when they decided to "procreate".....and the woman AND the man...SHOULD live up to their responsibilities...and bring the child into this world.......if they have NO desire to raise a child, then they should give it up for adoption.....not kill it.

(this is getting old)..my mind is not changin any.. :no:  and I'm sure I'm not changin anybody elses.. :no:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 28, 2009, 12:39:10 PM
I agree with Ex, that he SHOULD have kept his pants zipped.......but, it is presumptuous to think he was not willing to take care of these kids.....he may be right, but not in all cases.....

Presumptuous, yes, but not without statistical precedence.

QuoteI think, the CHOICE was made when they decided to "procreate"...

They most likely didn't decide to procreate, they were just getting laid.

[quote...and I'm sure I'm not changin anybody elses.. :no: [/quote]

You've got that right...if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, plain and simple, but don't try to force the rest of the world to live up to your arguably warped "morals".

Quote from: Exterminator on January 28, 2009, 12:48:03 PM
You've got that right...if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, plain and simple, but don't try to force the rest of the world to live up to your arguably warped "morals".

as long as I have a say in our government, I will ALWAYS choose to protect the innocent, unborn child....if we went by the moral values that is taught by Jesus.........there would be no abortions, but a child that was born between consenting and responsible adults.......that is not really a warped concept.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 28, 2009, 12:56:20 PM
as long as I have a say in our government, I will ALWAYS choose to protect the innocent, unborn child....if we went by the moral values that is taught by Jesus.........there would be no abortions, but a child that was born between consenting and responsible adults.......that is not really a warped concept.

By definition, an aborted fetus was not born.  It is cute that you think you have a say in our government, though. 

Hummm. . . wait a minute now, let's back up for a second or two. . . The subject of child support seems to be something we should also explore here. . .

If a woman has (should have) the singular choice as to whether to rid herself of a parasite or not, then how can she then force the male to support that choice should it be to allow the parasite to achieve full-term and result in a human life? How is that fair? If the male's perspective is not brought into the process, then why does he hold any responsibility for the result?  :confused:

(Now I'll admit up front that I support the, " if you put your Johnson in the water then you have to pay" perspective at the moment, but the singular woman's choice argument does beg the question, no?)

Quote from: Palehorse on January 28, 2009, 01:20:14 PM
Hummm. . . wait a minute now, let's back up for a second or two. . . The subject of child support seems to be something we should also explore here. . .

If a woman has (should have) the singular choice as to whether to rid herself of a parasite or not, then how can she then force the male to support that choice should it be to allow the parasite to achieve full-term and result in a human life? How is that fair? If the male's perspective is not brought into the process, then why does he hold any responsibility for the result?  :confused:

(Now I'll admit up front that I support the, " if you put your Johnson in the water then you have to pay" perspective at the moment, but the singular woman's choice argument does beg the question, no?)

that is a great point PH..........

the bottom line is.........don't get yourself into that position........cuz there is NO good answer.... :no:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 28, 2009, 12:25:34 PM
Like your friend would have paid child support?  Maybe he should just keep his dick in his pants.

He's now engaged to her... what else ya got? <snicker snicker>  :icon_twisted:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 28, 2009, 01:08:29 PM
By definition, an aborted fetus was not born.  It is cute that you think you have a say in our government, though. 

And why exactly is your opinion better than anybody else's?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 28, 2009, 02:19:05 PM
He's now engaged to her... what else ya got? <snicker snicker>  :icon_twisted:

I guess that means he's pro-choice.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 27, 2009, 05:43:38 PM
When they find a way to successfully transplant the embryo into the biological father's body, then I'd say, "yes he should definitely have a say". Until then (and maybe even after that) I'd say that the decision to include the father in the decision to abort or keep the child is  dependant on the woman's preference.

What you have claimed is that, given that it were possible to transplant a embryo into the body of another, the second host would only have a partial say in what can happen. The original host retains the right to overrule the second host.
I would be most intrigued by your argument in support of that contention, I think.

Na... he's just not smart enough to see what's been lost.  :no: Someday, they'll probably have kids. The sad part is that even though she killed her twins, she'll probably have perfectly healthy children someday, that she doesn't deserve.  :no:

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 28, 2009, 03:22:02 PM
What you have claimed is that, given that it were possible to transplant a embryo into the body of another, the second host would only have a partial say in what can happen. The original host retains the right to overrule the second host.
I would be most intrigued by your argument in support of that contention, I think.

Uh, no.

The first party says that she doesn't want the embryo in her body. The second party says, I want to keep it. So, they do a transplant and both get what they want. I assume she'd transfer all rights and decision making w/the transplanted embryo. If that were a possibility.

Until that point, she retains the right to include him in the decision making process or not.

The fact that a man gets a woman pregnant doesn't give him any inclusive rights to make decisions regarding her body.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 28, 2009, 03:51:21 PM
Uh, no.

The first party says that she doesn't want the embryo in her body. The second party says, I want to keep it. So, they do a transplant and both get what they want. I assume she'd transfer all rights and decision making w/the transplanted embryo. If that were a possibility.

Until that point, she retains the right to include him in the decision making process or not.

The fact that a man gets a woman pregnant doesn't give him any inclusive rights to make decisions regarding her body.

Then that means she would pay child support, pay a portion of the medical bills, and provide 50% of college tuition as well. . . right?

Quote from: Palehorse on January 28, 2009, 01:20:14 PM
Hummm. . . wait a minute now, let's back up for a second or two. . . The subject of child support seems to be something we should also explore here. . .

If a woman has (should have) the singular choice as to whether to rid herself of a parasite or not, then how can she then force the male to support that choice should it be to allow the parasite to achieve full-term and result in a human life? How is that fair? If the male's perspective is not brought into the process, then why does he hold any responsibility for the result?  :confused:

(Now I'll admit up front that I support the, " if you put your Johnson in the water then you have to pay" perspective at the moment, but the singular woman's choice argument does beg the question, no?)

I support that, too, and also the "Once the water warm and wet, she invited him in for a swim" perspective, lol!

I have commented about a woman's choice thus: Once a woman's knickers have hit the floor, she has made her choice.

Quote from: Palehorse on January 28, 2009, 03:54:23 PM
Then that means she would pay child support, pay a portion of the medical bills, and provide 50% of college tuition as well. . . right?

Well, there's certainly nothing saying that he can't petition for child support and he'd be well within his rights.

I personally view child support as a form of legal extortion. You can't make someone be a parent.   

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 28, 2009, 05:42:09 PM
Well, there's certainly nothing saying that he can't petition for child support and he'd be well within his rights.

I personally view child support as a form of legal extortion. You can't make someone be a parent.   

While paying child support doesn't make one a parent in itself they do have a certain responsibility to see the child is taken care of as far as necessities.  The only time I would consider it a form of extortion is when the receiving parent uses it as a tool against the other parent which does happen.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 28, 2009, 03:51:21 PM
Uh, no.

The first party says that she doesn't want the embryo in her body. The second party says, I want to keep it. So, they do a transplant and both get what they want. I assume she'd transfer all rights and decision making w/the transplanted embryo. If that were a possibility.

Until that point, she retains the right to include him in the decision making process or not.

The fact that a man gets a woman pregnant doesn't give him any inclusive rights to make decisions regarding her body.

Correction noted.

Say! that begets a question or two:
What if a man and a woman use in vitro for conception and implant the embryo in a surrogate? Who, then, has "rights" to tear the little bugger into pieces and flush it out with the rest of the biological waste? And who's legally responsible for it if it's damn lucky to make it out alive?

What if the egg donor changes her mind, but the sperm donor and the surrogate do not?
What if it's only the sperm donor who changes his mind?
What if both donors change their minds but the surrogate does not?
What if only the surrogate changes her mind?
Do the answers change if the doctor made the implant without the donor's knowledge and consent?

(I'm starting to like my "everybody has a right to their own DNA argument" better and better, lol!)

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 28, 2009, 05:42:09 PM
Well, there's certainly nothing saying that he can't petition for child support and he'd be well within his rights.

I personally view child support as a form of legal extortion. You can't make someone be a parent.  

I get child support from my ex-wife. I just think of it as she doing her part to make the lives of her children better.

Couldn't she do that without a court order?

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 28, 2009, 06:25:21 PM
Couldn't she do that without a court order?

Was that question to me, Sandy?
If so, we do not have child support payments specified in our decree.
I have physical custody of our daughters (they live with me) and we share legal custody.
What she pays, she pays voluntarily. So far everything has been pretty amicable.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 28, 2009, 06:29:22 PM
Was that question to me, Sandy?
If so, we do not have child support payments specified in our decree.
I have physical custody of our daughters (they live with me) and we share legal custody.
What she pays, she pays voluntarily. So far everything has been pretty amicable.

It was and thanks.

I wasn't clear in my initial statement. I meant, "court ordered" child support. I certainly think that people, male or female, who make a decision to bring children into the world should provide for them and so much the better when they step up to the responsibility w/out being ordered to.

I've seen too many cases where court ordered child support turns into something that has nothing to do with the well being of the child(ren).

Kudos to you and your ex. :thumbsup:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 28, 2009, 06:45:05 PM
It was and thanks.

I wasn't clear in my initial statement. I meant, "court ordered" child support. I certainly think that people, male or female, who make a decision to bring children into the world should provide for them and so much the better when they step up to the responsibility w/out being ordered to.

I've seen too many cases where court ordered child support turns into something that has nothing to do with the well being of the child(ren).

Kudos to you and your ex. :thumbsup:

I don't disagree with that but the question is what about the cases where one doesn't want to bring the life into the world and the other does. Is the one who opposed obligated to support that decision financially, and what if they do not want to or cannot?

Quote from: Palehorse on January 28, 2009, 07:51:21 PM
I don't disagree with that but the question is what about the cases where one doesn't want to bring the life into the world and the other does. Is the one who opposed obligated to support that decision financially, and what if they do not want to or cannot?

More than likely, they'd have to pay if someone petitions the court. Which is exactly why I made my original comment.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 28, 2009, 06:11:13 PM
Correction noted.

Say! that begets a question or two:
What if a man and a woman use in vitro for conception and implant the embryo in a surrogate? Who, then, has "rights" to tear the little bugger into pieces and flush it out with the rest of the biological waste? And who's legally responsible for it if it's damn lucky to make it out alive?

What if the egg donor changes her mind, but the sperm donor and the surrogate do not?
What if it's only the sperm donor who changes his mind?
What if both donors change their minds but the surrogate does not?
What if only the surrogate changes her mind?
Do the answers change if the doctor made the implant without the donor's knowledge and consent?

(I'm starting to like my "everybody has a right to their own DNA argument" better and better, lol!)

All questions for the courts to decide unfortunately. Do donors have a choice of who gets their "donation". I thought that part was anonymous.

Okay can we just let a woman decide what to do with her body please?  I mean there are men in this world who I would love to make get the old "snip snip" but do not have the right to tell them that. 

Quote from: kimmi on January 29, 2009, 11:19:03 AM
Okay can we just let a woman decide what to do with her body please?  I mean there are men in this world who I would love to make get the old "snip snip" but do not have the right to tell them that. 

:spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked:

how rude!!....... :no: ;D

Quote from: Anne on January 29, 2009, 10:25:09 AM
All questions for the courts to decide unfortunately. Do donors have a choice of who gets their "donation". I thought that part was anonymous.

Sometimes the parents will pick a surrogate like a sister or good friend when they want a child.

Here's a true story that is extremely sad.... I used to have a friend that was forced by her parents to have an abortion as a teenager.

This friend was in a steady relationship, and a senior in high school. She was engaged to the father. When her parents found out she was pregnant, they physically dragged her kicking, and screaming to have an abortion. She wanted to keep her baby but, back in those days it was shameful for a teenaged girl to be pregnant, and unwed. So, instead of letting her get married, (she was weeks away from turning 18) they legally killed their grandchild. She was completely heartbroken for her lost child, and cried endlessly for months and months. Her and the babie's father wed two months after the murder of their unborn child. She became pregnant again, and misscarried the child. She felt she was being punished by God. She was a firm believer in God. She later got pregnant, and had 3 healthy children. The really sad part of this story is... she has never been able to come to grips with her child being murdered, and has been an alcoholic, and drug addict since the abortion. She is completely messed up, and her and her husband divorced after 15 years of marriage because, the abortion was always there eating at them. It was always in their face. The father died of a drug overdose about 3 years ago. Abortion does affect people who have a conscience. There's a site called Abortion TV.com it is extremely graphic and brutal but it gives an accurate account as to what an abortion really is. The section on partial birth abortion tells the actual brutality of the procedure step by step, and the images are extremely graphic. After seeing that site I had a better concept of what abortion is.  :no:.

Sure, blame it all on the abortion.  Sounds to me like they were both a couple of whacked losers but it's great that they got the chance to pass on those great genes!   :rolleyes:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 29, 2009, 04:07:10 PM
Sure, blame it all on the abortion.  Sounds to me like they were both a couple of whacked losers but it's great that they got the chance to pass on those great genes!   :rolleyes:

I believe that comment was totally uncalled for Ex.  You know nothing about that couple and for you to pass judgment like that is just plane rude.

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 29, 2009, 03:27:58 PM
Here's a true story that is extremely sad.... I used to have a friend that was forced by her parents to have an abortion as a teenager.

This friend was in a steady relationship, and a senior in high school. She was engaged to the father. When her parents found out she was pregnant, they physically dragged her kicking, and screaming to have an abortion. She wanted to keep her baby but, back in those days it was shameful for a teenaged girl to be pregnant, and unwed. So, instead of letting her get married, (she was weeks away from turning 18) they legally killed their grandchild. She was completely heartbroken for her lost child, and cried endlessly for months and months. Her and the babie's father wed two months after the murder of their unborn child. She became pregnant again, and misscarried the child. She felt she was being punished by God. She was a firm believer in God. She later got pregnant, and had 3 healthy children. The really sad part of this story is... she has never been able to come to grips with her child being murdered, and has been an alcoholic, and drug addict since the abortion. She is completely messed up, and her and her husband divorced after 15 years of marriage because, the abortion was always there eating at them. It was always in their face. The father died of a drug overdose about 3 years ago. Abortion does affect people who have a conscience. There's a site called Abortion TV.com it is extremely graphic and brutal but it gives an accurate account as to what an abortion really is. The section on partial birth abortion tells the actual brutality of the procedure step by step, and the images are extremely graphic. After seeing that site I had a better concept of what abortion is.  :no:.

This doesn't explain anything but that faith in god leads to total disappointment.  Sounds like they didn't cope, but with problems much larger and more prevalent than an abortion.  To tie their problems to the abortion is an extremely long, and targeted, stretch on your part.  If it was solely the abortion that was the source of all their problems, then I would have to blame the religion for their failures.  Either way, the story doesn't wash.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 29, 2009, 04:07:10 PM
Sure, blame it all on the abortion.  Sounds to me like they were both a couple of whacked losers but it's great that they got the chance to pass on those great genes!   :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Well, I guess a person such as yourself that is so cold hearted and without conscience, that it wouldn't affect you at all. Yeah... way ta be a toughy BIG MAN !!! :rolleyes: I guess if you're into murdering unborn children so be it.  Thank God not everybody thinks like you do.  :spooked:

Quote from: dan foster on January 29, 2009, 06:33:14 PM
This doesn't explain anything but that faith in god leads to total disappointment.  Sounds like they didn't cope, but with problems much larger and more prevalent than an abortion.  To tie their problems to the abortion is an extremely long, and targeted, stretch on your part.  If it was solely the abortion that was the source of all their problems, then I would have to blame the religion for their failures.  Either way, the story doesn't wash.

Okey Dokey... Race Card Dan.  :icon_twisted:

Satan is lauging while  mothers murder their own children in the name of "freedom of choice". What choice do them babies have?

Thou shalt not kill - Exodus

and this is why the no choice people don't get taken seriously.

Quote from: awol on January 30, 2009, 12:45:39 PM
and this is why the no choice people don't get taken seriously.

Did you ever stop to think it might have been your mother who might have chosen to have you aborted?  This is not a slam at your mother by any means it's just that you were given a chance why shouldn't other babies be given a chance? 

Quote from: me on January 30, 2009, 02:39:10 PM
Did you ever stop to think it might have been your mother who might have chosen to have you aborted?  This is not a slam at your mother by any means it's just that you were given a chance why shouldn't other babies be given a chance? 

His mother made a choice, you made a choice, so did I. Why can't other women be allowed to choose for themselves?

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 30, 2009, 02:39:59 PM
His mother made a choice, you made a choice, so did I. Why can't other women be allowed to choose for themselves?

Ah, but had abortions been readily available when he was conceived she might have made a different choice.

Quote from: me on January 30, 2009, 02:39:10 PM
Did you ever stop to think it might have been your mother who might have chosen to have you aborted?  This is not a slam at your mother by any means it's just that you were given a chance why shouldn't other babies be given a chance? 

um, i wouldn't be able to think about it if i had been aborted.  what's your excuse? :wink:

Quote from: me on January 30, 2009, 02:41:15 PM
Ah, but had abortions been readily available when he was conceived she might have made a different choice.

Abortions and choice have always been available, it's freedom of choice that hasn't and you didn't really answer my question.

Quote from: me on January 30, 2009, 02:39:10 PM
Did you ever stop to think it might have been your mother who might have chosen to have you aborted?  This is not a slam at your mother by any means it's just that you were given a chance why shouldn't other babies be given a chance? 

I can assure you that no fetus ever aborted cared that it had been.

Quote from: awol on January 30, 2009, 02:53:51 PM
um, i wouldn't be able to think about it if i had been aborted.  what's your excuse? :wink:

:razz:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 30, 2009, 03:18:21 PM
Abortions and choice have always been available, it's freedom of choice that hasn't and you didn't really answer my question.

Yes, I did.  Think about it.

Quote from: me on January 30, 2009, 04:05:44 PM
Yes, I did.  Think about it.

I'm sorry, but I think you evaded my question.

Choice works both ways.

Quote from: me on January 30, 2009, 02:39:10 PM
Did you ever stop to think it might have been your mother who might have chosen to have you aborted?  This is not a slam at your mother by any means it's just that you were given a chance why shouldn't other babies be given a chance? 

Ya know....I don't think people ever really think about that possibility.  :no: None of us would be here, if our Moms were all pro-choice ,at the time of our conception.  :spooked:

Quote from: awol on January 30, 2009, 02:53:51 PM
um, i wouldn't be able to think about it if i had been aborted.  what's your excuse? :wink:

Fuuuuuny  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 30, 2009, 09:13:37 PM
Ya know....I don't think people ever really think about that possibility.  :no: None of us would be here, if our Moms were all pro-choice ,at the time of our conception.  :spooked:

I'm pro-choice and have been all my life, wanna explain to my daughter how she isn't really here? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 30, 2009, 09:13:37 PM
Ya know....I don't think people ever really think about that possibility.  :no: None of us would be here, if our Moms were all pro-choice ,at the time of our conception.  :spooked:

Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, but you morons just keep railing against the machine.

Quote from: dan foster on January 30, 2009, 11:13:19 PM
Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, but you morons just keep railing against the machine.

Why does that make us morons Dan?   

Quote from: me on January 30, 2009, 11:25:49 PM
Why does that make us morons Dan?   

Because you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body and your attempt to equate pro-choice with pro-abortion is moronic in making your case for interference with the woman's right to choose.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 30, 2009, 09:55:51 PM
I'm pro-choice and have been all my life, wanna explain to my daughter how she isn't really here? :rolleyes:

This doesn't even make sense.  :confused: I assume when you became pregnant with your daughter it was a planned pregnancy, right? If it had been accidental you probably wouldn't have had her correct? You choose life for your daughter... did you not? Not all women who are pro choice have abortions. I never said they did. Pro abortion and pro choice are different but also one in the same. Most women who are pro choice and unexpectedly get pregnant, would terminate the pregnancy. Pro choice parallels pro abortion in a lot of ways.

Quote from: dan foster on January 30, 2009, 11:13:19 PM
Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, but you morons just keep railing against the machine.

Again with the name calling Dan... everytime you call people morons you make yourself look  like one.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: dan foster on January 31, 2009, 12:00:51 PM
Because you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body and your attempt to equate pro-choice with pro-abortion is moronic in making your case for interference with the woman's right to choose.

Dan... you're hopeless. You are so jaded and blind you can't help yourself from twisting everything somebody that doesn't agree with what you say.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 31, 2009, 12:50:56 PM
This doesn't even make sense.  :confused: I assume when you became pregnant with your daughter it was a planned pregnancy, right? If it had been accidental you probably wouldn't have had her correct? You choose life for your daughter... did you not? Not all women who are pro choice have abortions. I never said they did. Pro abortion and pro choice are different but also one in the same. Most women who are pro choice and unexpectedly get pregnant, would terminate the pregnancy. Pro choice parallels pro abortion in a lot of ways.

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but it's based on your comment:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 30, 2009, 09:13:37 PM
Ya know....I don't think people ever really think about that possibility.  :no: None of us would be here, if our Moms were all pro-choice ,at the time of our conception.  :spooked:

Which doesn't make sense. Just because a woman is willing to allow other women to make their own choice regarding allowing a pregnancy to continue or terminate it, doesn't mean she would chose to abort.

Did you read my previous post regarding my personal stance on abortion?

I think you are overstating. I don't believe that "most" women who are pro choice would have an abortion to end an unexpected pregnancy. I wouldn't be surprised if half the kids around were "unexpected" or unplanned.

Quote from: Anne on January 31, 2009, 02:49:55 PM
I think you are overstating. I don't believe that "mot" women who are pro choice would have an abortion to end an unexpected pregnancy. I wouldn't be surprised if half the kids around were "unexpected" or unplanned.

True that  :yes:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 31, 2009, 12:50:56 PM
This doesn't even make sense.  :confused: I assume when you became pregnant with your daughter it was a planned pregnancy, right? If it had been accidental you probably wouldn't have had her correct? You choose life for your daughter... did you not? Not all women who are pro choice have abortions. I never said they did. Pro abortion and pro choice are different but also one in the same. Most women who are pro choice and unexpectedly get pregnant, would terminate the pregnancy. Pro choice parallels pro abortion in a lot of ways.

This entire post is so stupid it doesn't even merit a response.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=404524 (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=404524)

Definitely has a message.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 02, 2009, 08:58:23 AM
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=404524 (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=404524)

Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 02, 2009, 08:58:23 AM
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=404524 (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=404524)

Oh no.  A catholic group won't get to run more propaganda.  For shame.

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 31, 2009, 12:57:10 PM
Dan... you're hopeless. You are so jaded and blind you can't help yourself from twisting everything somebody that doesn't agree with what you say.  :rolleyes:

Please explain what part of "you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body" is a twist of your stand?

Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2009, 07:55:51 AM
This entire post is so stupid it doesn't even merit a response.

What I say here is probably smarter than anything you've posted anywhere Ex. You're just too stupid to realize it. LMAO @ You  :icon_twisted:

Quote from: dan foster on February 02, 2009, 11:45:30 PM
Please explain what part of "you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body" is a twist of your stand?

My only concern is for the unborn children Dan. I guess maybe abortion is a good thing after all. Maybe, it would cut back on the number of idiots brought into the world. It's unfortunate that your Mama didn't exercise her right to choose. Then we wouldn't even be arguing about this ,huh?  :icon_twisted:

Drop in crime rates with a possible link to abortion is a good thing.

Quote from: dan foster on February 07, 2009, 06:13:19 PM
Drop in crime rates with a possible link to abortion is a good thing.

A drop in crime rates due to making people responsible for their own actions would be a good start. 

Quote from: me on February 07, 2009, 08:06:01 PM
A drop in crime rates due to making people responsible for their own actions would be a good start. 

How about a drop in crime rates due to the legalization of drugs and an end to just another failed prohibition that creates the black market that drives up almost ALL crime in the US.  Stupid.

Quote from: Anne on January 29, 2009, 10:25:09 AM
All questions for the courts to decide unfortunately. Do donors have a choice of who gets their "donation". I thought that part was anonymous.

Apparently you missed an entire season of "Friends", lol!

Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2009, 07:55:51 AM
This entire post is so stupid it doesn't even merit a response.

This entire post is so stupid it merits a response of contempt.

Quote from: Monroe on February 08, 2009, 07:57:48 PM
This entire post is so stupid it merits a response of contempt.

Contempt being such a good christian value and whatnot...   :rolleyes:

Are you a Christian or are you accusing me of being a hypocritical Christian?  Your arrogant assumptions prove your foolishness.  Over and over you earn contempt, and get it.

I don't believe in an invisible man living in the sky and the contempt of another mullet-head from Andertucky bothers me not in the least.

Quote from: Exterminator on February 23, 2009, 07:18:22 AM
I don't believe in an invisible man living in the sky and the contempt of another mullet-head from Andertucky bothers me not in the least.

:biggrin:

Quote from: Exterminator on February 23, 2009, 07:18:22 AM
I don't believe in an invisible man living in the sky and the contempt of another mullet-head from Andertucky bothers me not in the least.

More false assumptions prove your foolishness.  You have no idea where I am from, where I've been, what I'm done or where I am; but that does not keep you from thinking you know.  Oh, and you are a atheist.  Got it. 

Quote from: Monroe on March 06, 2009, 01:07:11 PM
More false assumptions prove your foolishness.  You have no idea where I am from, where I've been, what I'm done or where I am; but that does not keep you from thinking you know.  Oh, and you are a atheist.  Got it.

So, what am you done?   :razz:

Quote from: Exterminator on March 06, 2009, 01:24:43 PM
So, what am you done?   :razz:

:biggrin:

Quote from: Exterminator on March 06, 2009, 01:24:43 PM
So, what am you done?   :razz:

Adults will consider that a nonresponse; but the best you can do.

Ex: What have you done? You question people and put them on the spot but give nothing of yourself. hmmmmmmmmm

mcgonser for someone who is relatively new to our forum, you seem to want to engage an awful lot with ex.  If he bothers you that badly, then leave it alone.  If you continue, well then I guess you are wanting this type of interaction to continue while you are here. 

Quote from: kimmi on March 15, 2009, 08:16:39 PM
mcgonser for someone who is relatively new to our forum, you seem to want to engage an awful lot with ex.  If he bothers you that badly, then leave it alone.  If you continue, well then I guess you are wanting this type of interaction to continue while you are here.

But Kimmi Ex is so much fun I mean he invites it ya know.... :biggrin:

Kimmi: I didn't engage Ex until he bashed me a few times. If you can't take it you shouldn't dish it out. Who exactly are you to tell me to  back off???? Being new does not change my opinion.

Well clearly you are looking for interactions of this type!  Carry on!

Quote from: mcgonser on March 15, 2009, 07:36:58 PM
Ex: What have you done? You question people and put them on the spot but give nothing of yourself. hmmmmmmmmm

I'm guessing more than you.   :razz: