What's wrong with this picture?

Not woth my time[This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 11-12-2003]

Heyyyyyyy... Why did you compliment Ned regarding souls and NEVER addressed my post (#47) which raised several questions to proLifers on that subject?As it is it also dealt with the religious aspects of the proLife cause: This is why I argued that proLife is proStateReligion. When every single proponent I have ever heard, has the idea that fetuses have souls, and souls are a purely religious construct, how do you avoid saying proLife is NOT enforcing a religious definition? Whew, you mean those guys in the picture have not lost all respect for the human life of pregnant women, sacrificing them at the alter of the unborn "holy fetus"? How about creating the Patriot Act to spy on people that like naked women and drugs, and sending troops into Iraq (a secular state by the way) so that they may die to spread "holy democracy" (never mind killing 3x as many innocents as we lost on 9-11)? How about restricting science research into medicine because it offends their God? Or how about altering education so that modern scientific theories are replaced with creationist claptrap?The only difference between the guys in that picture, and Islamic Fundies is the nature of extremism they want to have in this country. Please explain what that difference is, when you are telling women they must risk their own lives in childbirth--- or give birth to a child under conditions they would not want their offspring born into--- just because their unborn fetus has a "soul" given by God and that means the State has a right to override her individual rights? First of all you are assuming the child will make it through to childbirth. When over 60% of conceptions do not, this is not such an easy assumption. And to make matters worse, this assumes the mother will not be injured or killed in this process (and thus the child will die).This is the whole point of terminating the pregnancy early on. It decreases the risk to the mother for a child which may in fact never be born alive.Second of all you are actually imposing the ridiculous proLife "what if the baby is Jesus" argument, onto evolution and proChoice (to which I might add evolution is not why people would be proChoice). If a baby is going to be born with mental retardation, please explain how we will get Einstein or Hawking? How about drastic physical defects which will prevent it from living a healthy enough life to learn or be productive? How about a child being born into poverty so that there is little chance that it will get a good education, or an environment conducive to learning?Third you have just moved into the very State controlled horror scenario I described. You are saying that the State should be able to force living people to risk their lives in order to serve mankind by possibly producing an Einstein. I will only add to this that your very argument (though not referring to Einstein and Hawking) was used by Hitler and the Nazis.State control of individual choice is the only path to extermism as it IS extremism. Preserving ndividual choice (which is always diverse) is the antidote. Then there is no ducking sidelined's argument. If the ball of unwanted children is in the proLife court, you better come up with a reasonable scenario for growing those Einstein's you promised.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

The spirit aspect is also fairly easy to detect, especially when now the EEG and EKG show activity @ 40 days into the development.

---

They also show activity on an tarantula. Does an ant have a spirit? Do abortions before day 40 have no moral issues about them?

quote:

---

Then why would evolution start the creative process of building a human from initial cells without intending to finish the task and make it a human? Evolution wouldn't, every ovum that starts out is intended by nature to become a human once fertilized.

---

Nope. Most of them abort before the woman even knows she would otherwise be pregnant. Also, if you want a "nature" argument, many species are far more brutal when it comes to the unborn (or the just-born), be it the mother denying a sickly baby milk, to shark offspring killing their less fit relatives inside the mother's body.

quote:

---

What I don't understand is when man intervenes in evolution and willfully terminates the pregnancy, why all of a sudden is it taboo to call what has just been killed, a human.

---

It's not taboo, it's just not true. "A human" has a functioning central nervous system, capable of things such as "thought" and "perception", unlike an early-term embryo. Do you deny this?

quote:

---

"Well, it needs to be born to be a human or it needs to show brain activity" when everyone knows what's being stitched together by evoultionary forces in the womb.

---

1) "Being born" is an arbitrary cutoff. "Showing brain activity" is not the whole case; insects show brain activity. Showing conscious thought is the key. We're talking about complex cerebellar function, not basic cerebral/brain stem activity.2) If you destroy half of a foundation of an apartment complex that is going up, are you driving dozens of families out of their homes? You're losing track of temporal reality, Lizard. You need to argue that was is being destroyed *is* fully human (not "will be if the woman who is pregnant doesn't starve or kill herself to end the pregnancy because you've supported banning safe abortion..."), and is of the same or close moral value as the woman who is pregnant.

quote:

---

Pro Abortion = Pro Compassion
Pro Life = Pro Oppression

---

That's a bit long for a label, don't you think?

quote:

---

Then let the best face of the human race shine forth and be Pro Abortion because the more abortions that can be performed, the more compassion is manifest to an all to often victimized sect of our civilization - women.

---

Utterly untrue. Forcing an abortion on a woman who doesn't want one is one of the worst things that one can possibly do. "The more abortions that can be performed, the more compassion" would be tyrrany and misery for women. Why do you not grasp this? For the last time, I will state it: please, NEVER repeat the strawman again:Abortion Is Never To Be Forced or Pressured On Anyone, And No One Is Advocating That.Your deliberate misrepresentation gets annoying fast.Finally, I will repeat what you have skipped addressing, for the third time. I'm not going to let you dodge it:-------------
Pick something other than a dandelion - an ant, then. You keep dodging, and I'm not going to let you skip out on this. 1) You see nothing wrong with killing human cells and destroying human DNA, correct? 2) You see nothing wrong with killing a unique combination of DNA, correct? 3) Why do you combine (1) and (2) to get something that you have a huge problem with? I am not asking you to equate either (1) or (2) individually to an abortion. However, what we are discussing is the combination of (1) and (2): Destroying something that is a unique combination DNA in a group of human cells.Furthermore, I would like to see my blueprint analogy addressed, and why you either A) feel that it is not representative of the situation, or B) feel that there is a tragedy in destroying a blueprint that is equal or nearly equal to the tragedy of destroying a building based off of it.
-------------------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-12-2003]

Rei, i don't see how answering no to both those questions is logically inconsistent with being against abortions. It's possible a fertilized cell is greater than the sum of its parts.a store owner is probably ok with people picking up merchandise in her store, and is also probably ok with people walking out of her store, but is not ok with someone combining those two actions unless the person pays for the merchandise.The implication being that there are more parts to the whole than you suggest. One of those parts could be the existence of a soul... but on a more original note: The abortion of a fertilized cell is the destruction of a few human cells with a unique DNA signature, however that destruction destroys ALL of that unique DNA. It is not just a part of a whole; all of that unique human DNA is lost forever.

quote:

---

The implication being that there are more parts to the whole than you suggest. One of those parts could be the existence of a soul...

---

That is exactly what I would like to see Lizard Breath admit. That he is arguing for about as large of a violation of individual civil liberties as you can get (the ability to take action to prevent your life from being irrevocably altered - and if you're not ready, for the worse) because of his particular belief in a spiritual concept without a physical component. As this country is not a theocracy, that is an illegitimate line of argument for a legal ban.

quote:

---

but on a more original note: The abortion of a fertilized cell is the destruction of a few human cells with a unique DNA signature, however that destruction destroys ALL of that unique DNA. It is not just a part of a whole; all of that unique human DNA is lost forever.

---

You just restated the two points that I covered: The destruction of human DNA, and the destruction of all of a particular unique combination of DNA of a non-human species. To find a moral wrong, you have to believe that the combination is greater than the sum of its parts - that there is some sort of new magical element being added into the mix - a soul.Also, this doesn't address the "blueprint" example - but, again, that too fails in Lizard Breath's mind because of his "soul" concept - in his world, people already live in the blueprint itself .------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-12-2003]

not necessarily something "magic". The new element (not really new, just not mentioned) is that the abortion of a fertilized cell would cause the destruction of a unique set of human DNA. The moral rule could be that human DNA is sacred, and (once fully formed) should be preserved as much as possible. Actively destroying that unique set is morally wrong, and the only acceptable way for an entire set of human DNA to be destroyed is by natural causes (death, miscarriage, etc).Now all we have to do is find someone who actually holds this moral value, and they would be justifiably pro-life.p.s. actually the above reasoning sounds like a religious viewpoint (just not one that belongs to any modern religions) so instead murder would have to re-defined to something along the lines of actively destroying all the cells that contain a unique set of DNA.

quote:

---

The moral rule could be that human DNA is sacred, and (once fully formed) should be preserved as much as possible

---

And on what grounds would one establish this? Arbitrary ones? A gross violation of civil liberties for someone's arbitrary decision? Or is there something other than religious beliefs that could lead one to this particular moral rule? Seing as the body destroys such unique combinations more often than it keeps them on its own, doesn't that weaken such a definition significantly?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

is it any more arbitrary than the law now? or 10 years ago? in the past you had to be outside the womb to be human, and consequently, for your killer to be held accountable for his or her actions. but what is the difference between a baby inside and outside the womb? The hard wiring to the mother is just a matter of convince. C-sections, and premature births show that the only difference between babies (of identical ages) in a womb, and babies outside of a womb is simply that. One is inside, the other is outside.As technology advances, and our knowledge of the human body increased we learn that the actual defining (important) moment is when the sperm fertilizes the egg... or when the egg implants... or when the brain/spinal cord start to develop... or when the heart starts beating...The point being: Defining someone as human just because they are outside a woman's uterus is (as probably everyone will agree) a largely arbitrary and outdated definition. So where does the line get drawn? When does a clump of human cells become human, and consequently subject to the protection of the constitution? That is the subject of this debate. Is it such an outrageous idea? No other human cell contains the pattern of human DNA contained in a fertilized egg. That unique nature of the cell (and the fact that it belongs to our species we have a habit of favoring our species when it comes to basic rights) is what makes it unlawful for another human to take away its [the unique set of DNA] right to life. This isn’t quite clear to me are you saying that the importance of these fertilized eggs are less important since nature doesn’t preserve every single one of them? If that’s what you mean well are adult lives any less valuable when hurricanes, earthquakes, stampedes, or tornadoes end them? Since nature is fine with randomly killing people, we shouldn’t be concerned when war or cereal killers help nature out.If you’re not saying that, please elaborate.

quote:

---

is it any more arbitrary than the law now? or 10 years ago? in the past you had to be outside the womb to be human, and consequently, for your killer to be held accountable for his or her actions. but what is the difference between a baby inside and outside the womb? The hard wiring to the mother is just a matter of convince. C-sections, and premature births show that the only difference between babies (of identical ages) in a womb, and babies outside of a womb is simply that. One is inside, the other is outside.

---

Yes, and yet, the difference between a single cell and a full-term baby is staggering. You're arguing on such a dramatic "slippery slope" argument that one could take to argue that, because tobacco is bad, we should destroy all leafy plants. Of course all lines are arbitrary, but you're arguing that we should erase the line altogether.Is there a magical age when a person becomes responsible enough to drive a car? No, but does that mean that we should let 8 year olds get driver's licenses?

quote:

---

As technology advances, and our knowledge of the human body increased we learn that the actual defining (important) moment is when the sperm fertilizes the egg... or when the egg implants... or when the brain/spinal cord start to develop... or when the heart starts beating...

---

Ah. And what led us to "learn" this? Was it written somewhere inside the DNA, a message in English that says "Life Begins Here"?

quote:

---

The point being: Defining someone as human just because they are outside a woman's uterus is (as probably everyone will agree) a largely arbitrary and outdated definition.

---

Of course.

quote:

---

So where does the line get drawn? When does a clump of human cells become human, and consequently subject to the protection of the constitution? That is the subject of this debate. Is it such an outrageous idea? No other human cell contains the pattern of human DNA contained in a fertilized egg.

---

I've already posted on where I, and actually most pro-choice people would agree, lines should be drawn. It's a steadily progression of increasing councelling requirements until mid/late 2nd trimester and onward it is only ever allowable for health reasons. You can make a line "softer" by splitting it into multiple lines.And? DNA is just a blueprint, not a person. As I've stated several times, a person has things such as a "mind", or even "nerve cells"

quote:

---

That unique nature of the cell (and the fact that it belongs to our species we have a habit of favoring our species when it comes to basic rights) is what makes it unlawful for another human to take away its [the unique set of DNA] right to life.

---

Cancer is unique - it has a unique combination of DNA, and unique properties. Should we let it live?Once again: DNA is just a blueprint. It is just a design for how to create something. It is not that "something", unless you feel that time is just an illusion - a topic for an entirely different thread

quote:

---

quote:

---

Seing as the body destroys such unique combinations more often than it keeps them on its own, doesn't that weaken such a definition significantly?

---

​

This isnt quite clear to me are you saying that the importance of these fertilized eggs are less important since nature doesnt preserve every single one of them? If thats what you mean well are adult lives any less valuable when hurricanes, earthquakes, stampedes, or tornadoes end them? Since nature is fine with randomly killing people, we shouldnt be concerned when war or cereal killers help nature out.

---

Percentage of people who die before age 45 (using some rough stats I found about New Jersey online and some quick math): about 3%
Percentage of people who die before age 15 (using some rough stats I found for Texas online, and some quick math): About 1%
Percentage of embroys which abort before the woman realizes that she'd otherwise be pregnant: about 60%.It's not even close. If nature or God has some sort of inherent value on human life, it's certainly putting a lot less on fertilized eggs.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Why is that? Isn't birth (to you) the "natural" indication that a fetus has become a baby?And ironically enough, since you say people must not do anything "unnatural" to the unborn, you are then against C-sections, right? After all, at that point nature is going to kill the mother, the child, or both.Or does this proscription only count when taking the life of the unborn? Why should helping a fetus develop when it is going to die be considered "natural" and ending the development of a fetus that is still growing "unnatural"?Personally, I loathe "natural"/"unnatural" arguments because they are basically arbitrary definitions used for ad hoc moralizing. Every single interaction humans have with the objects and processes around them are either ALL natural or ALL unnatural... take a pick! Then set out a reason why natural or unnatural, mean right or wrong.I do agree that a baby at the same level of development as another is not really different if it is inside and the other is outside. As it stands, babies continue to develop for a short period of time after birth, so the argument is less proper to consider the one inside a human, then the one outside not fully human yet.And still, the best your argument can get is not terminating a pregnancy once an unborn child reaches the point of viability outside the mother. It could be considered "finished" at that point. That idea is patently outrageous.Identical twins (or more) share the same DNA, does this mean killing all but one would be okay with you, because at least the DNA would be preserved?There are many unique DNA "patterns" which will not survive till birth, and many more may be strong enough to get to birth yet not be able to live a functional life at all. Preserving ANY and ALL DNA combinations is worthy of protection by law?Does this mean all fertilized eggs in fertility clinics must be saved until they can be brought to term? You are equivocating. From the point of fertilization, till when the child can sustain itself that human life is in the state of development. Since we are unsure what to consider these developing life forms as compared to fully-developed human life, and nature routinely (more than 60%) ends their development. It seems less important to have to consider them the equivalent of fully-developed self-sustaining human beings.Nature eradicates 100% of all fully-developed human beings, but that does nothing to answer how we are to treat developing human beings which are by definition, something OTHER than a fully-developed human being.Abortion is the termination of a gestational process. Murder is the ending of an autonomous human life. They are different.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-12-2003]

quoteThe more available and easier you make it for anyone to have an abortion for any reason, the less people are going to concern themselves with the responsibility of enguaging in intercourse and the more unwanted babies are going to be created and destroyed.[/quote]So, assuming proper sex education, and given the choice of using contraception to prevent preganncy and of having to go to the doctor and have have an outpatient procedure involving anesthesia, antibiotics, time off from work, etc., you really do believe that women will choose that abortion every time?You have very little respect for the intelligence of women.

quote:

---

Is that nessessarily a bad thing?

---

Yes, It is a bad thing to have more abortions and les preventive measures.

quote:

---

I don't know but it seems that a lot of people in this forum don't want to be called Pro Abortion like it's some kind of Taboo.

---

It's not a taboo.It's just not accurate.I would, however be willing to call myself Pro Legalized Abortion.How about we call the Pro-Lifers Anti-Woman, or Anti-Choice, or Pro-Government-Interference-In-Private-Medical-Matters?

quote:

---

I thought the availability of low cost safe abortions was a kind and humane gift to desperate women to save them from the back alley shiesters. So if anything, I would think that being called Pro Abortion would be a desirable affiliation because it conveys something positive - compassion.

---

No, the term "Pro-Legalized-Safe-Abortion" conveys compassion.The term "Pro-Abortion implies that we think it's a great and wonderful thing to have an abortion, which is not what any Pro-Choice person I have ever met or read thinks.

quote:

---

Pro Choice = Pro Abortion = ending a human life.

---

Is a fertilized egg which does not implant and is flushed out of the woman's body with menstrual fluid a "human life"?If so, do you advocate collecting all menstrual fluid to search it for these "human lives"?

right, there is no magicl line... but we have drawn one anyway. I'm saying it's not an outrageous concept to draw that line between 2 separate sex cells, and a fertilized egg. It is a long way from an just born baby, but it's a moment of major change, and therefore arguably a place to draw a line. interesting. So you've drawn the arbitrary line between moments before the second trimester and the second trimester. for what reasons?also, the counseling requirements seem to only address the mother/parent's reaction to the loss of the fetus... i think the more pertinent discussion is weather the fetus is human or not... and not so much what to do about the parents (granted it's important, just something that should be addressed after the decision had been made weather they’ve just removed some cells, or killed a person) ppft, speak for yourself. ok, bad analogy. can i try another? people who grow old and [if left to] care for themselves would die, are taken care of by their family or the general population. That life may fail, but they are not simply left to die because they can no longer care for themselvesI'm arguing that the percentage of fertilized eggs nature keeps to babyhood does not have (and should not have) any impact on what our rules an laws are. Humans defy nature all the time (assuming humans and human inventions are not natural).edited for clarity[This message has been edited by TheoMorphic, 11-12-2003]

quote:

---

Do you think that all of the menstrual fluid of every women should be collected and searched to find all the unimplantes fertilized eggs?

---

Nope.

quote:

---

Why not? Didn't you just say that any cell or group of cells was just as important as a human that is already here if it had the potential to become a human life?

---

Rephrase the question, more specifically what does unimplantes mean?
Sorry for the unknowledgeable reply

quote:

---

And By the way, I think if they were banned, women would be more careful and unwanted pregnancies would decrease.

---

quote:

---

How naieve.
I am sorry, but can you please just think about what you just wrote for a second?
When you reduce the number of available contraceptive options, what on earth makes you think that the number of unwanted pregnancies is going to decrease?
By your logic, places where there is no contraception at all would have the lowest birth rates.
what do you think is the liklihood of this being true is?

---

Yes, I agree not very likely, but you must admit, women in general would be more careful.

quote:

---

Tell me, how many unwanted children have you adopted?

---

Actually I think that is illegal considering I am turning 15 on the 28th.

quote:

---

How many do you plan to adopt later in life, then?

---

No idea, I don’t know where I’ll be at that time but honestly I don’t see it happening. I know it’s pretty bad, considering me being against abortion, more for the baby’s birth and adoption, but I seriously don’t know.

quote:

---

do you support forcing girls and women to carry all pregnancies to term regardless of their desire or ability to do so?

---

I think women should think about this before it happens. And if it is out of their control, (or some complication happens threatening their lives, or the babies) I think that it is in God's hands, and when her life is threatened it comes down to who she would rather let live the baby or herself.

quote:

---

So, tell me why it is that the group of cells/zygote is considered 100% more valuable than the fully-formed woman which is incubating the cells?
Why is her life worthless to you beyond as an incubator to the fertilized egg?
Is that all you see pregnant women as? Fetus incubators with no inherent value of their own?

---

DID I SAY THAT? DID I SAY THAT A HUMAN BEING, THE WOMAN IS WORTHLESS? I SAID IT IS BEYOND MY JUDGEMENT, IT IS HER OWN DECISION! BESIDES, I WAS TALKING WHEN THE BABY IS AT LEAST PARTIALLY FORMED, IF NOT FULLY. PLEASE STOP STUFFING THOSE HATEFUL WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!! Wow Sorry for the caps but this is horrid.

quote:

---

It is good you are consistent.
However, let me rephrase.
Would you support life in prison for women who "murder" by having abortions, or for the doctors who perform them, and the nurses and other workers who assist (they are acessories to "murder")?

---

I would say life in prison is pretty harsh for any crime, but really I don’t know what to say But yes It is murder, people have been killed In our legal system for murder. Not to say that murder is the choice, but it seems many people agree that murder deserves deeath, I don’t agree.

quote:

---

God's view on sex?
Which god's view on sex?

---

Mine.

quote:

---

Although contreceptives are are good in the sense of reducing abortions, they shouldn't be needed for the most part if only sex occurred after marriage.

​

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I went on the pill because I was getting married!
What makes you think all married people want to have seventeen kids?
quote:

​

When the two married would be bonded so closely that a child would probably be great.

​

A single child, or even several kids, might be great, for some couples, at the right time.
Again, how do you think married people manage to have only one or two kids, spaced conveniently at two year intervals?

---

I have already stated my regret for saying the above comment, it was ignorant, I know nothing of marriage.Now since I took the time to answer these questions, can you answer them, I would love to see you view on this matter.

quote:

---

I now know you are only 15, but I do think you have a frighteningly naieve and simplistic view of these matters.

---

Hmm, ok But can you answer the question?------------------
"I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." -JesusJohn 3:3

quote:

---

Then you should be totally pro-birth control, right? After all, it's better to prevent a baby than to abort one after the fact, don't you think?

​

What I can't abide or understand are the people who oppose both BC and abortion. That just doesn't make any sense.

---

It is the better choice, in my opinion then having an abortion.------------------
"I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." -JesusJohn 3:3

er... i'm pretty sure i was clear about this. it might seem to be the "natural" line, but a more informed person wouldn't drawn the line at such an arbitrary and insignificant moment. (in the baby/organism's development that is) comeon, i'm pretty sure i haven't been advocating a stance of "nature is all knowing, and can do no wrong, we shouldn't meddle with her affairs". human intervention to prolong life is generally ok by me, and human intervention to end life is generally not ok by me.Could you use quotes to show what you are responding to? I re-read my post, and I’m pretty sure I never implied that natural = good, and unnatural = bad. are you responding to my post? i thought i was arguing that the significant moment could be when the 2 sex cells join. how did you get to the above "best your argument can get"?(on a side note, this is actually very close to the stance i actually hold. i believe the arbitrary line should be between a fetus that is dependent on the mother, and a fetus that is not dependent on the mother. One is an extention of the mother, the other is a potentially independent organism (not dependent on one specific person).) My reason for mentioning this definition of human was that a fertilized egg could be seen as more than the sum of its parts, and the additional part of the fertilized egg doesn’t necessarily have to be a soul.To answer your three questions above: Preserving all humans is important (rather: not murdering them is important), and so implementation of that rule depends on our definition of human (and murder). I’m sure there are people now who have problems with fertility clinics keeping fertilized eggs, so why do you make it sound so outrageous? And finally, yes twins (triplets, quintuplets, etc) are scum of the earth, and
n-tuplets are n-1 too many of the same DNA sequence. i said this in my very last post, but it seems you and Rei hold similar opinions about nature’s influence on our actions, so i'll say it again. I don't think nature's opinion matters all that much when dealing with human law and actions. Either we’re a part of nature, and so our actions/opinions are just as viable as what would happen if we didn’t interfere, or humans (and human interference) are unnatural, in which case we should decide our own fate anyway.