Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Limits on Abortion
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 196 of 230 (388132)
03-04-2007 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Hyroglyphx
03-04-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Proactive solution...
quote:
Everybody knows, including young children, how babies are made. We all know what contraceptives are. We all know about venereal diseases.
That is incredibly NOT true.
Here is a list of common myths regarding contraception and sex and STD's:
Birth Control and Contraception Myths
Here's more:
http://www.teengrowth.com/index.cfm?action=info_article&I...
...and more:
http://www.ppae.ab.ca/index.php?m=3&s=1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 3:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 197 of 230 (388142)
03-04-2007 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Straggler
03-04-2007 4:36 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Straggler writes:
We both agree that a liver transplant is a good thing if it alleviates suffering.
I believe that an abortion is equally justified for the same reasons.
Hm... false dilemma, I think. A liver transplant, whish I am sort of opposed to anyway as part of this 'messing' does not alleviate suffering as a primary goal. It saves lives. Abortion destroys lives.
All the evidence suggests that you will be fighting a losing battle against human nature and it's most ingrained needs and desires. Is there any evidence at all for any such society ever existing anywhere ever?
Nope, as there is no evidence for a society where any evil doesn't exit. Doesn't mean we should give up, does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2007 4:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2007 4:56 AM anastasia has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 230 (388155)
03-04-2007 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Rahvin
03-03-2007 4:39 AM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
... which totally ignores the possibility of rape
Rape and incest combined accounts for less than 1% of all abortions. And since conception does not occur instantaneously, there is enough time to take the morning-after-pill which will do nothing if the fertilization process has already begun or it will stop that implantation of a fertilized egg.
Let's play a little game, shall we, NJ? Let's pretend you're a woman. In fact, let's pretend you're an innocent 14-year old girl.
I read your whole scenario. I would place that child up for adoption.
I don't know about you, but I find anyone who would force that on a rape victim to be a monster almost as bad as the rapist.
The mother gets a life sentence no matter what, Rahvin. Nothing is going to unrape her. So instead of making sure she gets a life sentence and the baby a death sentence, why not make tougher laws on the actual offenders instead of having these liberal judges who historically coddle these offenders. Why don't we try that?
Why, exactly, do you have the right to force someone under the knife over your personal beliefs, beliefs that are completely unsubstantiated by any form of evidence whatsoever?
What do you think abortion entails? Its surgery. She has to "go under the knife" for certain if she opts for an abortion.
If you believe it's wrong...fine. If your wife agrees, she can feel free to not have an abortion. That does not give you the right to force others to fall in line with your unsupported beliefs.
Well, you know, after a lot of thought, I've decided that all forms of murder really isn't that bad. And it pisses me off that I'm not allowed to kill people that get in my way, hindering my progress, and obstructing my life. I really wish people who don't like murder would just worry about themselves, you know? Who are they to push their morals on us? I mean, if they don't want to commit murders, fine. But I do. Shouldn't I have that right to slash whomever I want?
Stop me when you pick up on the sarcasm.
This is what Crash has been berating you over "slut-bashing" for. Pregnancy and childbirth SHOULD be celebrated, revered events. This is the case when pregnancy is actually desired. When it is not, and a person is forced to go through with a highly disruptive, painful, and often psychologically and physically harmful process just becasue they had sex and had some bad luck, or were raped
sometimes people get pregnant when they don't intend to. Some people are financially or mentally stable to handle young children, especially young girls themselves. Fine. I got that. You aren't consigned to take care of this baby for the rest of their life. Give the baby up for adoption so EVERYONE gets to make out like bandits. Make sense? I suspect its been leaving everyone in an indefensible position which is why no one has responded to it.
Regarding the shoving of sharp implements into cervixes...you mean to tell me you have no sympathy for all of the women and girls who died because of these crazy procedures?
Do you care about the girls who have died because an abortionist botched it and he ends up killing the girl because her infection at his hands turns into septic shock? Or do only care when somebody try's to do it themselves? As for me, of course I care. Here's my solution: Don't do it! Problem solved.
You honestly think that by making abortion illegal again, forcing women desperate to abort to turn to butchers and coat hangers, is a good idea?
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, least of all jamming coat hangers inside their body. Buyt since every one is quite fond of making up erroneous things about me, I'm just going to go ahead and say that all the men responding to this negatively has an ulterior motive. Yeah, I don't think you give a whit for the women invilved. I think you want to keep abortion legal because that way you don't have to ever wear condoms, but you won't have to worry about paying child support.
Is that fair for me to assume? No, it isn't. So at anytime all the people slandering me can stop making up nonsense about how my dislike of abortion is because I'm really just a sexist who wants to shame sluts.
Even if we assume you give the rape-child up for adoption and don't have your life compeltely taken over by the unwanted child, even if we erase the rape part and just make this a normal, unwanted teen pregnancy, the process of pregnancy and childbirth can be extremely traumatic and invasive. You don't just squirt out the kid and hand it off.
Oh, I see... Pregnancy is invasive and traumatic, but abortion is skipping through a meadow of sunflowers.
And what about severe disabilities, NJ? Lets say that early in the pregnancy it is discovered that the baby has a severe genetic disorder. The child will never be capable of normal brain function.
For the record. Are you advocating the execution of the retarded? Give Hitler my regards.
It can survice, but it will essentially be a vegetable for its entire life. In this case, forcing the pregnancy is a life sentence for the parents, and the child. The child has to "live" a miserable half-existance, and the parents are forced to devote their entire lives to caring for something that is incabable of loving them back. Caring for a disabled child can be very rewarding, if the choice is made voluntarily, but forcing such a thing is monstrous to all parties involved.
If the disease was so debilitating so to make life for that child absolute agony, I think legislation would consider that. But if we're talking about mental retardation, life is far from misery. In fact, the mentally retarded are, without a doubt, the happiest people on the planet. I feel zero remorse for them. In fact, all of humanity could learn alot from them. Its their parents that I feel bad for. But if they can't handle it, there are places they can go with people who will dutifully love and care for them.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Rahvin, posted 03-03-2007 4:39 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 9:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 200 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-04-2007 11:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 202 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2007 5:05 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 204 by nator, posted 03-05-2007 8:43 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2007 1:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 199 of 230 (388162)
03-04-2007 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Hyroglyphx
03-04-2007 9:14 PM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
And since conception does not occur instantaneously, there is enough time to take the morning-after-pill which will do nothing if the fertilization process has already begun or it will stop that implantation of a fertilized egg.
Man, you're just a hundred different kinds of wrong, aren't you? Emergency contraception is known not to have the effect of preventing implanation (according to the most recent scientific research.)
It's amazing to me how you regularly style yourself as more informed that your opponents, who you are convinced are arguing from ignorance; yet, almost every post of yours contains factually inaccurate statements such as this one.
So instead of making sure she gets a life sentence and the baby a death sentence, why not make tougher laws on the actual offenders instead of having these liberal judges who historically coddle these offenders.
It's actually the conservative judges who coddle rapists, I suspect - because they're unwilling to send a man to jail on the testimony of a woman they consider "loose" or "immoral."
She has to "go under the knife" for certain if she opts for an abortion.
It's called RU486. Maybe you've heard of it? MVA and EVA are not surgical, either.
I think you want to keep abortion legal because that way you don't have to ever wear condoms, but you won't have to worry about paying child support.
How does that make any sense?
Oh, wait, I forgot. See, from your perspective, it makes perfect sense that a man would be making the decision to have an abortion for a woman - because in your world, men always make decisions for women.
It's amazing to me how you can't remember to conceal your sexism for even a single post, NJ.
If the disease was so debilitating so to make life for that child absolute agony, I think legislation would consider that.
Interesting. When has that ever been true?
In fact, the mentally retarded are, without a doubt, the happiest people on the planet.
LOL! You truly have no idea what you're talking about most of the time, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 9:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 230 (388176)
03-04-2007 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Hyroglyphx
03-04-2007 9:14 PM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
What do you think abortion entails? Its surgery.
No it isn't. What on earth are you talking about?
There are two forms of abortion. One is medication abortion, which involves taking a pill that induces a miscarriage. The other is vacuum aspiration, in which the cervix is stretched open, and suction from a hand-held device is used to terminate the pregnancy. While this method is certainly more invasive, neither option involves surgery.
Seriously, do you even know what you're objecting to?
Do you care about the girls who have died because an abortionist botched it and he ends up killing the girl because her infection at his hands turns into septic shock?
Did you even read it when I pointed out that the risk of serious complication is 10 times higher for pregnancy than for abortion?

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 9:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dr Jack, posted 03-05-2007 5:13 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 201 of 230 (388185)
03-05-2007 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by anastasia
03-04-2007 7:58 PM


Less Obvious Examples
Hm... false dilemma, I think. A liver transplant, whish I am sort of opposed to anyway as part of this 'messing' does not alleviate suffering as a primary goal.
Intriguing. So would removing cancerous growths, providing medication for pain relief and treatments to hold off the onset of AIDS also constitute 'messing' and would you be opposed to all of those too? What medical pratices are not 'mesing'?? Are you opposed to medicine on principle?
Abortion destroys lives.
Well we are back to our arbitrary definition of the start of human life again. I could claim that male masturbation destroys lives too.
Nope, as there is no evidence for a society where any evil doesn't exit. Doesn't mean we should give up, does it?
Not at all. But defining as evil things that are deeply ingrained in human nature will almost inevitably lead to conflict, hypocrisy and a failure to eradicate that behaviour. If you are going to take that path you sould have very good reasons for doing so. I am not convinced your reasons for enforcing the sexual morality you outline are good enough to be either workable or desirable given that you are opposing the most basic elements of human nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 7:58 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by anastasia, posted 03-05-2007 12:26 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 202 of 230 (388188)
03-05-2007 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Hyroglyphx
03-04-2007 9:14 PM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
Rape and incest combined accounts for less than 1% of all abortions. And since conception does not occur instantaneously, there is enough time to take the morning-after-pill which will do nothing if the fertilization process has already begun or it will stop that implantation of a fertilized egg.
Well, at least you don't oppose the morning-after pill. Many of your contemporaries beleive it's exactly the same as abortion. Good for you. But the statistical rarity of incest/rape cases is irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. First, there is no requirement that a woman give a reason when she terminates a pregnancy, so the statistical data is incomplete at best. Second, you can't dismiss a scenario by simply saying "it doesn't happen often." That response certainly doesn't help the individuals it has happened to.
I read your whole scenario. I would place that child up for adoption.
And if I were a woman, that would likely be high on my list of options. But the point is that society has no right to force that victim to go through any further trauma. Every day of the pregnancy, even assuming the child is given up for adoption, simply prolongs the event for her with cosntant reminders. I wouldn't force that situation on anyone.
The mother gets a life sentence no matter what, Rahvin. Nothing is going to unrape her. So instead of making sure she gets a life sentence and the baby a death sentence, why not make tougher laws on the actual offenders instead of having these liberal judges who historically coddle these offenders. Why don't we try that?
We can't take away the rape, certainly, but we can allow her to decide for herself wheterh she wants to go through the emotional ringer of carrying the child to term. And please, don't change the subject. We are not discussing rape penalties. The rapist is obviously a monster, but changing his punishment will also not erase the event.
What do you think abortion entails? Its surgery. She has to "go under the knife" for certain if she opts for an abortion.
As Dan has already stated, abortion is not surgery. Drugs can terminate pregnancy, and if that's not possible, the more invasive forms still do not entail actual surgery. Unless you outlaw abortion - the butchers willing to "help" the desperate tend to have somewhat lesser medical skills, if you catch my meaning.
Well, you know, after a lot of thought, I've decided that all forms of murder really isn't that bad. And it pisses me off that I'm not allowed to kill people that get in my way, hindering my progress, and obstructing my life. I really wish people who don't like murder would just worry about themselves, you know? Who are they to push their morals on us? I mean, if they don't want to commit murders, fine. But I do. Shouldn't I have that right to slash whomever I want?
Stop me when you pick up on the sarcasm.
Come now. As I said, you have no evidence to back your assertion that abortion is murder. You have nothing that shows when the parasitic clump of cells becomes a human being. You have told us what you believe, but it is entirely predicated on your religious belief in a soul, and that this soul is implanted at contraception. There is no evidence for this. The embryo doesn't even have a brain for a significant amount of time.
sometimes people get pregnant when they don't intend to. Some people are financially or mentally stable to handle young children, especially young girls themselves. Fine. I got that. You aren't consigned to take care of this baby for the rest of their life. Give the baby up for adoption so EVERYONE gets to make out like bandits. Make sense? I suspect its been leaving everyone in an indefensible position which is why no one has responded to it.
Well, first off, you DO realize that many, many of the children currently up for adoption will never be adopted, don't you? Feeding more kids into the system will not help that situation.
But, since you can't demonstrate why terminating a pregnancy is murder, what gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body?
Do you care about the girls who have died because an abortionist botched it and he ends up killing the girl because her infection at his hands turns into septic shock? Or do only care when somebody try's to do it themselves? As for me, of course I care. Here's my solution: Don't do it! Problem solved.
Wow. So now, only abortionists experience complications during medical procedures? As has already been shown, a woman is drastically less likely to die as a result of an abortion than she is during childbirth. This has been stated more than once during this thread. How can you possibly use such an idiotic "rationale?" I agree that "no medical procedure" is best, all thigns being equal. Unfortuantely, childbirth itself is also a medical procedure. One that kills statistically a far greater number of women than abortion.
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, least of all jamming coat hangers inside their body. Buyt since every one is quite fond of making up erroneous things about me, I'm just going to go ahead and say that all the men responding to this negatively has an ulterior motive. Yeah, I don't think you give a whit for the women invilved. I think you want to keep abortion legal because that way you don't have to ever wear condoms, but you won't have to worry about paying child support.
Is that fair for me to assume? No, it isn't. So at anytime all the people slandering me can stop making up nonsense about how my dislike of abortion is because I'm really just a sexist who wants to shame sluts.
Well, you certainly don't seem to be aiming at saving lives. See, you haven't offered up any ways to reduce abortions aside from simply putting rape victims and others who want abortions in jail. Instead, you've given us a bunch of horseshit about "taking responsibility" and "selfish lifestyle choices." This obviously implies that you are stating "if you want to sleep around like a filthy whore, then you get to pay the price! The Lord God said He would greatly increase your pain at childbirth, slut!" Granted, I'm exaggerating, but the message is the same. You aren't making any statements relating to the saving of lives. You ignore evidence that legal abortions save lives, even the lives of babies if combined wuith a robust sexual education/free healthcare/free contraception policy. All you say is "you did the crime, you do the time." You equate pregnancy with soem sort of punishment, and it's disgusting.
And remember - abortions will be sought, legally or otherwise. If you make them illegal, all that remains are the illegal butchers. Women who would otherwise receive safe abortions from licensed doctors will isntead be performed by greedy idiots with steak knives and coat hangers. This is a large part of the reason abortion was made legal in the US and other countries. Criminalized abortion does result in more death.
Oh, I see... Pregnancy is invasive and traumatic, but abortion is skipping through a meadow of sunflowers.
As it is currently performed, abotion is less invasive, less painful, doesn't last nine months, has fewer side effects, fewer life effects, and a drastically lower chance of dying. Comparitively, yes, it's a walk in the fucking park.
For the record. Are you advocating the execution of the retarded? Give Hitler my regards.
No. I'm saying that the termination of a pregnancy where the "child" will possess no brain function before it is born should be left up to the parents, who will be forced to care for it. I am not supporting social Darwinism or eugenics. I am simply stating the state has no right to force the child to be carried to term. Just as the Nazis had no right to force sterilizations.
If the disease was so debilitating so to make life for that child absolute agony, I think legislation would consider that. But if we're talking about mental retardation, life is far from misery. In fact, the mentally retarded are, without a doubt, the happiest people on the planet. I feel zero remorse for them. In fact, all of humanity could learn alot from them. Its their parents that I feel bad for. But if they can't handle it, there are places they can go with people who will dutifully love and care for them.
Again, please read what I actually wrote. Mental retardation does not equate a persistant vegitative state. However, if a fetus were diagnosed with a genetic disorder that would, in fact, result in mental retardation, I still believe the choice should be left up to the parents, particularly the mother. Just like with any abortion.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 9:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by nator, posted 03-05-2007 9:53 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 203 of 230 (388189)
03-05-2007 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Dan Carroll
03-04-2007 11:51 PM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
There are two forms of abortion. One is medication abortion, which involves taking a pill that induces a miscarriage. The other is vacuum aspiration, in which the cervix is stretched open, and suction from a hand-held device is used to terminate the pregnancy. While this method is certainly more invasive, neither option involves surgery.
I have to disagree; vacuum aspiration is surgery. It involves using tools and cutting instruments to alter the state of her body; that makes it surgery - not particularly invasive or serious surgery but surgery none-the-less. Hence the fact that it is usually referred to as surgical abortion (q.v. Wikipedia).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-04-2007 11:51 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-05-2007 9:48 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 204 of 230 (388206)
03-05-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Hyroglyphx
03-04-2007 9:14 PM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
quote:
And since conception does not occur instantaneously, there is enough time to take the morning-after-pill which will do nothing if the fertilization process has already begun or it will stop that implantation of a fertilized egg.
Huh?
But I thought that you believed that life begins when the egg is fertilized? Most of the time, this occurs sometime during the egg's trip along the fallopian tubes, before it gets into the uterus.
If you are purposely preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg, you are preventing the implantation of a human being, aren't you?
If I have misunderstood your position, please correct me.
When, exactly, do you believe a human being exists?
As a post script, I'd also like to know if and when you are going to address any of my later posts in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 9:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 230 (388223)
03-05-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dr Jack
03-05-2007 5:13 AM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
I have to disagree; vacuum aspiration is surgery. It involves using tools and cutting instruments to alter the state of her body; that makes it surgery - not particularly invasive or serious surgery but surgery none-the-less.
The method you're referring to, according to the article in question, is one used only when simple vacuum aspiration is unavailable, and accounts for only 2.4% of abortions.
This, of course, leaves aside that under this definition, (using tools and cutting instruments to alter the state of the body) getting your ears pierced is surgery.
Either way, NJ's allegation that "abortion is surgery" and involves "going under the knife" is demonstrable crap.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dr Jack, posted 03-05-2007 5:13 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dr Jack, posted 03-05-2007 9:53 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 206 of 230 (388225)
03-05-2007 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Rahvin
03-05-2007 5:05 AM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
Really good post, Rahvin.
Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2007 5:05 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 207 of 230 (388227)
03-05-2007 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Dan Carroll
03-05-2007 9:48 AM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
No, it lists vacuum aspiration under Surgical Abortion. It's vacuum aspiration I'm referring to. I've seen video of vacuum aspiration performed; I'd describe it as surgery.
This, of course, leaves aside that under this definition, (using tools and cutting instruments to alter the state of the body) getting your ears pierced is surgery.
Ok. Fair point. Getting your ears pierced doesn't involve anaesthetics, though, does it?
Edited by Mr Jack, : Additional response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-05-2007 9:48 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-05-2007 10:12 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 230 (388232)
03-05-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Dr Jack
03-05-2007 9:53 AM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
No, it lists vacuum aspiration under Surgical Abortion.
Yes, but it doesn't actually refer to anything getting cut until the article has moved on from vacuum aspiration and onto dilation and curettage. (Which, as stated above, is used only 2.4% of the time.)
Meanwhile, inducing labor with prostaglandin is listed in the same section, which doesn't involve anything resembling surgery. It's a fairly poorly-written article.
Ok. Fair point. Getting your ears pierced doesn't involve anaesthetics, though, does it?
Not every use of vacuum aspiration calls for anaesthetics. Meanwhile, getting a filling in your tooth requires novocaine every single time, and hardly qualifies as surgery.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Dr Jack, posted 03-05-2007 9:53 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 209 of 230 (388256)
03-05-2007 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Straggler
03-05-2007 4:56 AM


Re: Less Obvious Examples
Straggler writes:
Intriguing. So would removing cancerous growths, providing medication for pain relief and treatments to hold off the onset of AIDS also constitute 'messing' and would you be opposed to all of those too? What medical pratices are not 'mesing'?? Are you opposed to medicine on principle?
Oh, no, not at all. I am only a bit weird about transplants, since they involve the same type of arbitrary 'when is life no longer life?' problems.
Well we are back to our arbitrary definition of the start of human life again. I could claim that male masturbation destroys lives too.
And is another no-no in the RCC.
Not at all. But defining as evil things that are deeply ingrained in human nature will almost inevitably lead to conflict, hypocrisy and a failure to eradicate that behaviour.
There absolutely is a conflict, although I am not sure what is ingrained in human nature in the case of abortion?
If you are going to take that path you sould have very good reasons for doing so. I am not convinced your reasons for enforcing the sexual morality you outline are good enough to be either workable or desirable given that you are opposing the most basic elements of human nature.
Some people do think that resepcting all life without slicing and dicing around the arbitrary details is a very good goal. Whether something is ideally desirable, and whether it is enforcable in a not-so-ideal world, is a tough question. Is it possible? Yes, and no. It is not so ideal that none can live a life that is based on these committments to children if and when they are desired, or that none can control themselves until children are desired, but at the same time, life is just not easy. I have been down so many roads myself, and enough that I truly believe in my ideals, but not everyone is in the same place as I am. Like I said, I am not committed to enforcing my ideals in any way which prevents people from having a choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2007 4:56 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2007 1:17 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 230 (388257)
03-05-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Straggler
03-03-2007 4:59 PM


Re: Answering the detractors
quote:
when does a non-human achieve the much coveted title, rank, and rights of a human being?
Crash says at birth.
Okay, so then he agrees with President Bush in making partial birth abortions illegal. That's a start, I guess.
For the record at what point would you say humanity arises in terms of foetal development and what is the basis for this definition??
You either are a human or you are not. There is no in-between. DNA/RNA has all of the genetic markers that make them human, or pig, or whale, or toad, or crocodile.
To my mind a zygote evidently is not a person, human being, sentient lifeform etc. Whilst a new born baby evidently is. I personally would say that a baby capable of independent existence is a person too. However that is an arbitary definition that I happen to be comfortable with.
How "independent" is an infant? How about a one year old? A two year old? A three year old? A four year old? A five year old? Can these little people feed themselves? Fend for themselves? No, they can't. All humans are dependent on other humans in many ways. We only progressively become more autonomous as we age, until we are so geriatric that we can no longer independently care for ourselves. Therefore, "independence" is not a clear qualifier for who "gets" to be human and who doesn't.
The problem is that there is no fixed point at which something evidently non-human becomes something human. It is a gradual process. Attempting to define any such definite point is doomed to failure.
There is a fixed point... Its at conception. The nano-second a sperm fertilizes an egg is the precise point in time where a brand new person generates. Call it God or call it nature, but it is more than evident that this is the case.
Any definition is arbitary to some extent. Even a fertilised egg (if that is your definition) is an arbitary definition of what is human and what is not. Why is each individual egg or sperm not worth saving as a potential life?
Should we be diverting mass medical resources to save all those zygotes that naturally never make it to developing any further? If not why not?
No more attention than we would give anyone else dying. We do whatever we can, make medical advances, make concerted efforts to save life, and learn more about all medical conditions and genetic predispositions to mitigate needlessly lost lives of all ages.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 4:59 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by nator, posted 03-05-2007 1:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 217 by ringo, posted 03-05-2007 1:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024