Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   anti-abortion folks still get abortions
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 301 (300678)
04-03-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by riVeRraT
04-03-2006 4:37 PM


Re: By request, I want out.
I am not a doctor, so it is not required of me to know the difference between a human fetus, and a rat.
But it is, apparently, down to you to decide when life begins, at what point a quasi-living blob of cells becomes human, and whether or not a medical procedure should be made available to women.
Why should someone who doesn't have the medical knowledge to identify a human fetus be making medical decisions?
The PETA joining, tree hugger, green peace liberal who is for abortion are hypocrites.
The Iraq-invading, death-penalty-supporting, NRA conservatives who are against abortion are hypocrites.
See how easy these statements are when you assume there is no difference in context between different positions?

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 4:37 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 5:16 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 301 (300693)
04-03-2006 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by riVeRraT
04-03-2006 5:16 PM


Re: By request, I want out.
I wasn't even looking that close, I can see the tail now.
No you can't. It hasn't developed yet. That nubbin on the end is there on a human fetus as well.
I understand his point, but I countered it to show that it means nothing that the 2 look alike.
The above picture is a four-week-old human fetus. (No tricks this time; that's what it is.) And the two look nothing alike. The rat one looks way more human.
You're contnuing to show a lack of medical knowledge. My same point stands; should someone without medical knowledge be making medical decisions?
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-03-2006 05:27 PM

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 5:16 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 5:43 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 301 (300703)
04-03-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by riVeRraT
04-03-2006 5:43 PM


Re: By request, I want out.
The point I am using has nothing to do with what a fetus looks like, so arguing about what one looks like, or comparing one to a rat's is irrelevent.
Good thing we're not making the same point, then. The point I'm making is that you don't know enough about biology or medicine to speak with authority on the subject.
Knowing that life is precious from the moment it starts in the womb, is not a medical decision, it's an obvious one.
The state of life, as it relates to biology, is not a medical decision? Weird.
At least we've narrowed it down to "the womb", though. Where in that nine-month span would you place it?
Is not a million to one sperm finding it's way into an egg after the beautiful act of making love, and starting a chain of events that will lead up to someone like you not one of the most beautiful things ever observed in the universe?
There's another beautiful procedure in which billions of single cells interact with the introduction of an outside substance into an orifice, and end with the creation of something that is expelled from the body. It's called taking a dump.
Regardless, the creation of a child can indeed be beautiful... if it actually takes place. Birth control and abortion cut it off before it happens. So what's your point?
If it's such a beautiful procedure that we should make sure every possible child is born every single time, then shouldn't we be forcibly inseminating women once a month, starting a month or so before their first period?

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 5:43 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 7:13 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 301 (300731)
04-03-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by riVeRraT
04-03-2006 7:13 PM


Re: By request, I want out.
Since nothing is proven in science, so I guess no-one is.
What an enormous cop-out. You're now saying that because nothing is proven in science, you have as much medical expertise as a doctor?
TO me, it's when that sperm makes it into the egg.
And that is based on...?
Birth control cuts it off before it happens, abortion just cuts it off after it happens. Isn't this what it all comes down to?
That's what you say; there's a difference. And again, you're speaking from the stance of a man without enough medical knowledge to tell a rat from a human.
Whether we got here from God, or from alien beings, or chance, we owe our very existance to the process which is ferterlization, sex, intercourse, whatever you want to call it. To interfere with it, to me is just wrong.
So again, should we be forcibly inseminating women? Every time that uterine lining collapses, we're interfering with possible fertilization!

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2006 7:13 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by kjsimons, posted 04-03-2006 8:45 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 04-04-2006 7:59 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 301 (300826)
04-04-2006 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by riVeRraT
04-04-2006 7:59 AM


Re: By request, I want out.
I am sick and tired of people taking things out of context in this forum
Fair deal. Here's the context:
Dan writes:
The point I'm making is that you don't know enough about biology or medicine to speak with authority on the subject.
riVeRraT writes:
Since nothing is proven in science, so I guess no-one is.
Dan writes:
You're now saying that because nothing is proven in science, you have as much medical expertise as a doctor?
riVeRraT writes:
Way to twist some words, typical.
You say that because nothing is proven in science, no one knows enough to speak with authority on the subject, thus putting yourself on equal footing with a doctor when it comes to biology and medicine.
If that's not what you meant, then you're gonna have to walk me through your real meaning, here. Because seriously, I'm having trouble seeing how it can be read any other way.
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-04-2006 09:49 AM

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 04-04-2006 7:59 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by riVeRraT, posted 04-04-2006 10:01 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 301 (300832)
04-04-2006 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by riVeRraT
04-04-2006 10:01 AM


Re: By request, I want out.
Those are your words, not mine.
Then walk me through what you really meant. Because as it stands, there's no other way to read it.
Medicine is always correct, right?
Nope. But someone who knows a thing or two about a subject is capable of making a much more informed decision than someone who doesn't.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by riVeRraT, posted 04-04-2006 10:01 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by riVeRraT, posted 04-04-2006 10:36 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 301 (300842)
04-04-2006 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by riVeRraT
04-04-2006 10:36 AM


Re: By request, I want out.
I notice you've dropped the whole equal-footing-with-a-doctor thing.
You accused me of twisting your words and taking things out of context, as well as displaying irrational thought, illogical thinking, and poor taste.
Show me how your post can be read another way, or apologize.
As for the rest...
Just what exactly are the odds?
Of...?
I am pretty sure you do not believe in the concept of the soul.
Sure I do. I think body, mind, and soul are increasingly abstract ways of describing the same thing. Accordingly, I think every living being has a soul.
Whether it's a soul worth mourning is an entirely different story. Every time I wash my hands, I slaughter billions of innocent souls, and I don't exactly weep buckets over it.
Just what exactly are the criteria for something to be human?
There's the relevant question. And for what feels like the millionth time, why on Earth would someone who can't tell the difference between a rat and a human be qualified to say what makes something human?

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by riVeRraT, posted 04-04-2006 10:36 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by riVeRraT, posted 04-05-2006 9:19 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 301 (301079)
04-05-2006 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by riVeRraT
04-05-2006 9:19 AM


Re: By request, I want out.
Maybe you shouldn't be reading my post any other way, than the way it was written.
The way it was written is laid out, in full context, above. All you've done is repeat yourself, without the context.
If a doctor does have more expertise than you, then his opinion carries more weight. If it doesn't carry more weight, that puts you on equal footing.
So which is it?
Medicines opinion of when life begins has nothing to do with why I believe in what I belive in. So it is irrelevant to my thinking.
Got it. The facts of biology have nothing to do with your thoughts on the study of life.
Couple that with what are the odds that medicine can be wrong, and is only our best attempt, then amount of influence medicine should have on the whole subject is almost null.
Tell me again how you're not saying that the fact that nothing is proven in science puts you on equal footing with a doctor. It'll be funny.
After that, it would also be funny if, the next time you get an infection of some kind, you told the doctor that because medicine can be wrong, and is only our best attempt, you would prefer to not be given any antibiotics.
It is a fact that a zygote is a living thing with human DNA. That is about the only thing I will accept from medicine about it.
Got it. You won't accept anything medicine tells you that disagrees with what you've already decided.
If left alone will those "souls" grow into your child?
Nope. Neither will a zygote, for that matter. It requires constant nourishment and care from the mother.
Left alone, it would be nothing but a really gross pile of goo within seconds.
Again you take the concept of a human soul out of context, twist the words around using "souls" of bacteria which tatally have nothing to do with a human soul, and make some kind of abstract comparison.
So when it comes to the facts of biology, you want to speak solely about your personal beliefs. But when it comes to the what the concept of a "soul" means, you think my personal beliefs are irrelevant?
Call me irrational again. It'll be funny.
Who says I can't?
You did. In post 250.
I was tricked.
Really? Then how come, even after you knew the truth, you continued to make mistakes about them?
I would have probably answered no.
Yep. If Crash had told you the answer ahead of time, you probably would have gotten the question right.
He's such a meanie.
It is clear that the respect for human life, and the process that keeps it going is being made a mock of.
I'm not mocking anything. In fact, I'm exercising great self-control by not mocking your atrocious grammar.
You know the only real difference between a zygote and a 2 year old child?
There are a vast number of differences. Heck, looking at that picture I posted earlier, a few big ones come to mind.
But feel free to arbitrarily decide on the only real difference.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by riVeRraT, posted 04-05-2006 9:19 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by riVeRraT, posted 04-05-2006 11:17 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 301 (301108)
04-05-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by riVeRraT
04-05-2006 11:17 AM


Re: By request, I want out.
Neither.
Right, I'm calling official dishonesty shenanigans now.
Is a doctor more qualified to speak on the subject than you, or are you equally qualified? A straightfoward answer would be appreciated.
The question of when life begins is not solely a medical one.
Fantastic. Please tell us what else informs your opinion on this matter.
Yes, I will. I will remind the doctor that my son is allergic to amoxicillin, and it is in his records, and he almost killed my son with it.
I don't see how your son's allergies are relevant to whether or not you take antibiotics. But either way, ignore those records. They're medical, and medicine is just a best attempt! Pump your son full of amoxicillin; maybe this time it'll work.
I also hope you didn't let the doctor do anything to help your son when he had his allergic reaction. Medicine is just a best attempt, after all.
I am sticking to the facts. Not opinions.
This would carry more weight if you hadn't just said that you would ignore whatever medicine told you, if it disagreed with your preconceived notions.
So does an infant. So it's ok to kill an infant. That is what your saying. So now explain yourself. I cannot draw any other conclusion based on what you said.
Love to. An infant and a zygote are at entirely different stages of development. One is a human life, one is not. Therefore, it is okay to terminate a pregnancy, in the same way it's okay to menstruate, or flush semen down the toilet, and not okay to kill an infant.
See how easy that was? Your turn.
Oh I see, so now time matters?
Of course time matters. Time is what turns kittens into cats. Or in this case, a piece of a woman into an independent being.
Before it's an independent being, it's a part of the mother, making it her choice whether she wants it or not.
Regardless, I think you're mixing up posters. I don't believe you and I have discussed time until now.
I was not incorrect in saying what I said about the 2 pictures.
I explained myself very clearly on the fundamental similarities I saw in the 2 pictures.
Yes, and what you saw was incorrect.
Unless a human is, in fact, a rat.
If I show you a bolt from a connecting rod on a 350 Chevy, how would you know which motor it came from?
I wouldn't be able to know. I don't have the expertise or knowledge.
I also would not presume to give people advice on car maintenance.
A doctor might not be able to tell the difference either if he was tricked.
Yes, yes, you were tricked. It was a mean ol' prank.
Immediately after you gave your answer, Jar pleaded with you to put a little research into the matter before answering. You accused him of taking your answer out of context, and stuck by it.
Once Crash sprang the correct response on you, you continued to make mistakes about them.
But you were tricked! TRICKED, I SAY!
I do apologize for it. But please, don’t ever let me catch you making a spelling error, or grammar error, as I don’t want to have to point out that you’re a hypocrite.
Christ, take a joke, guy.
Like I said, it is irrelevant to my position. But just for kicks, lets look at them side by side.
How come you asked me the difference between "a zygote and a 2 year old child," and then posted pictures of a rat fetus and a human fetus?
Were you tricked again?
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-05-2006 11:47 AM

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by riVeRraT, posted 04-05-2006 11:17 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by riVeRraT, posted 04-05-2006 2:56 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 301 (301216)
04-05-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by riVeRraT
04-05-2006 2:56 PM


Re: By request, I want out.
The last thing in the world I am is dishonest, so if you continue to call me that, we are done.
...
Dude, don't you get it. I never said that he is or isn't.
Your righteous indignation would carry more weight if you had the ability to answer an incredibly straightforward question honestly.
Life is a phulasphical issue, as well as a moral one, and a religious one.
Weird. Earlier in the thread, you said, "In this whole thread, have I used God as a reason to be against abortion? I am not forcing my religious views on anyone here, I felt this way before I believed in God."
So... it in fact boils back to philosophy and religion. Sigh. You could have saved us all some time and said that in the first place. But fine, stock response: your personal philosophy and religion are not something you can push on others.
What part of he almost killed my son didn't you understand?
Your son has an allergy. That sucks. (Honest.)
Where it's skipping a beat is where you jump from this to dismissing medicine. An allergy is unforseeable before a reaction. One fetus is not going to surprise you by having more claim to human life than another of the same age.
There are medical arguements for both positions, as I have stated to you several times.
Yeah, you keep saying that. But these medical arguments for life beginning when sperm hits egg are?
If you'd like some medical arguments against, we have the fact that a just-fertilized egg has no central nervous system, no brain, no heart... in fact, nothing to qualify it as even remotely human.
Totally irrelevant points. Has nothing to do with when a sperm makes it into an egg, from the act of intercourse.
You asked for the difference between killing a zygote, and killing a human. I gave it to you. You're shifting topics in your response.
See the earlier point about your righteous indignation.
Why?
For the same reason it would be her choice if she wanted to cut off her hand.
A sperm is not human life.
It's a potential human life. That's what you're on about here, isn't it?
Pop quiz, what exactly did I say was the fundemental similarity?
You pointed to reliance on their mother as a similarity.
You also said, "there is no fundamental difference between the 2." You stressed it pretty fiercely, in fact. Bold and italics.
But you would know it was a bolt.
Yep. Someone would ask, "What kind of motor was this from?" And I would blink a couple times, and respond, "Um... it's a bolt?"
So am I the guy you want telling you what to do with your car? Hells no. I suck at it.
The way the question was presented was made so that I would think it was a human fetus.
Sigh... see above. Jar warned you, you handwaved away the idea that you should do some research, you kept messing it up afterwards, blah blah blah. Been through it all before.
Why would I stop to think about it?
Because thinking is good, especially when stating absolutes. It results in better arguments.
IF he wanted to make a relevant comparison, and try to express that human life at that stage in the game is not life, because it resembles a rat fetus
Feel free to take Crash's arguments up with Crash. This is not a point I've ever made.
That to me makes them hypocrites. They stick up for life no matter how insignificant, yet will rip babies from wombs, because it is not life.
How is that hypocrisy? They stand up for what they consider life, but not for what they don't consider life.
"Hypocrite" is not a synonym for "disagrees with riVeRraT."
A rat's fetus is just as precious to a rat, as a human fetus is to a mother.
To some mothers, sure. But it should be fairly obvious that a woman does not consider her fetus especially precious if she's trying to abort it.
I considered that, and my fundemental similarity that I stated, has nothing to do with whether it is human or rat, so it makes no difference, are you getting that?
It has no relevance to the point you are trying to make. I am aware of that. But as I said... damn, 32 posts ago... you and I are not making the same point.
This is why it's called a debate, you see.
No, I posted the 2 pictures, because that is the way I would have done it.
A quick glance at our exchange shows this to be, if not total bunk, at least very poor communication on your part:
riVeRraT writes:
You know the only real difference between a zygote and a 2 year old child?
Dan writes:
There are a vast number of differences.
riVeRraT writes:
Like I said, it is irrelevant to my position. But just for kicks, lets look at them side by side.
At this point, you posted the two pictures.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by riVeRraT, posted 04-05-2006 2:56 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by riVeRraT, posted 04-05-2006 4:33 PM Dan Carroll 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