What's wrong with this picture?

I had to skip the questions because the war department called down and said it was dinner time.Point well taken on the delay of the body to determine what is happening to itself. I don't know much about the use of EPT's as you correctly state, just what I've seen on the TV adds and what my wife has said which isn't worthy of incorporating here.

1) Who are you, superman? With the exception of scientists matching sperm to egg under a microscope I don't think anyone has ever known the exact moment of fertilization. If you can somehow know this, you might want to start farming yourself out as a living EPT test.2) What you are undoubtedly referring to is the effects of IMPLANTATION on the female system. I suppose if you shifted your assessment of when life begins from conception to implantation you'd be making a little more sense (a greater number of those entities survive).3) You just shot your own theory to hell. Remember your argument that babies were totally separate entities from the mother? Now you acknowledge they have a very real connection to the mother and on her bodily resources. This points up one of the vast differences between abortion and euthanasia. Find me an elderly person effecting another person's vital functions just by their very existence.------------------
holmes

The answer to you third question is since the women are going to abort anyway, sure lets make it as safe and pleasant as posible. The best face we can display as decent humans is to show these women more concern for them then they have for their unborn. (Boy that's going to get a firestorm response from a certain poster in this thread)The answer to your second question is impossible for me to answer because if the DNA is really a blueprint for designing something that is as highly functioning as the human brain, capable of self awareness, then you are implying that DNA is and instruction language, and all languages must be based on a context. To have context you need an infussion of intelligence and that implies a grand design. I know that you are not a creationist so I don't think you can highlight the humanity issue here fairly and tie it in to morality without first addressing the issue of how we got from the proverbial pool of slime to self awareness and humanity by accident.I'm laughing as I type because I just did to you what my Dad always does to me by answering my question with a question. I don't mean to do this to you and if you get mad at me it's cool. I very much understand.

No, I'm not Superman. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.You are really trying way too hard to make me look stupid. I think I can do the job well enough on my own thank you. But I did not say that I personally have the ability to know the exact moment when a womon concieves. If I could pull that off, I'd be posting in a medical forum this evening instead.

quote:

---

The answer to you third question is since the women are going to abort anyway, sure lets make it as safe and pleasant as posible. The best face we can display as decent humans is to show these women more concern for them then they have for their unborn. (Boy that's going to get a firestorm response from a certain poster in this thread)

---

Assuming that wasn't sarcasm (was it? It's always hard to tell over the internet), we're in agreement. I hope you weren't being sarcastic about the sort of situation that someone I was close to went through. I seriously hope that. If you were, I want you to stop and try and picture, as a 13 year old, being raped, finding out that you're pregnant, and then *starving yourself* to avoid having your parents find out.And yet, even people who aren't raped often feel the same extreme sense. I've talked with a person online whose friend killed herself after she got pregnant. This is not something to joke about.

quote:

---

The answer to your second question is impossible for me to answer because if the DNA is really a blueprint for designing something that is as highly functioning as the human brain, capable of self awareness, then you are implying that DNA is and instruction language, and all languages must be based on a context. To have context you need an infussion of intelligence and that implies a grand design. I know that you are not a creationist so I don't think you can highlight the humanity issue here fairly and tie it in to morality without first addressing the issue of how we got from the proverbial pool of slime to self awareness and humanity by accident.

---

How does this address #2? I'll repost #2, and boldface the question components:''1) Do you have any problem with killing human cells? I.e., if you had your spleen removed because of a car accident, would that be some sort of moral wrong?------------------
2) Do you have any problem with killing unique combinations of DNA that don't have complex thought processes? I.e., if you crushed a dandelion or a spider, would you see that as a moral wrong?If your answer to both of these is "No", how do you combine them to reach a great moral wrong? "Humanity" doesn't lie in DNA - it lies in human minds. Something without nerve cells has no mind, let alone a functioning human mind. DNA is a blueprint, no more than a skyscraper blueprint is not the skyscraper itself. DNA contains no memories, no thoughts, no dreams, no hopes, no fears, no desires - just a self-replicating chemical reaction that lays out how to develop such a mind that can eventually gain these things. It is *not* the mind itself. Just like if you destroy a blueprint you need only to print out or draw another copy, DNA is easily created.''
------------------I can tell that you don't want to have to address this, and would much rather go back to a standard creation/evolution information debate, but I'm not going to let you hehe

quote:

---

I'm laughing as I type because I just did to you what my Dad always does to me by answering my question with a question. I don't mean to do this to you and if you get mad at me it's cool. I very much understand.

---

That wasn't a question. Even if it was, it wouldn't be a problem - that's known as the Socratic Method, famously popularized by Socrates, and it's a perfectly reasonable way to debate.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

The female body isn't even necessarily that advanced to know when it is pregnant. < anecdotal story>I was "pregnant" for almost 3 months, all the changes, body said yes, tests said yes, doctor said yes. I miscarried at almost 3 months and guess what? No baby, no fetal cells..just a Hydatidiform mole. < / anecdotal story>------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

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

---

Maybe I'm being ignorant on the subject, (marriage) I mean if you say I know nothing about it your right. I'm only 15 and sorry for saying that, but my opinion stays the same on abortion.------------------
"I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." -JesusJohn 3:3

I am not the type of person that would make light of anyone's circumstance nor do I condem anyone for having an abortion for any reason as I've stated before. I'm not in their shoes so I am not in a position to pass judgement, nor is that my job or place to do so anyway. I know that there are thousands upon thousands of horror stories out there concerning abuse, rape and flat out bad luck and stupidity. My wife and I played it stupid ourselves and didn't wait till we were married. We never got pregnant though but that was pure fate and no result of either of us doing anything responsible about it. I liked what I saw and selfishly put my pleasures above displaying responsibility and respect towards her but that's subject matter for a different audience.So would we have aborted if we had gotton pregnant before we were married. No, but that has to do with the way both of us were raised. If we had been raised with a more contempory set of values and had become pregnant prematurely, well then we probably would have employed those contempory values and had an abortion for convienence. So Mr Hambre is more correct than he even knows about my hypocracy and he doesn't know the half of it.As far as your second question, I don't think it's wrong to remove a damaged spleen after an accident and if that is equivilent to aborting a fetus, then you've got me on logic and you win. I'm looking at my driver's licience and it says that I'm an organ doner so "Holy Crap Batman!", I guess I'm just dyin' to have a male equivelent abortion and I didn't even know it!! Time for me to face some demons tonight.Dandelions on the other hand - hands off those Lions. You pluck one of them out from your yard and the next day, 60 bazillion thousand million of his friends show up in your lawn for the funeral. Honestly, plant life doesn't play in the same moral ring in my world as unborn babies.Well, Playmakers is on ESPN now and I missed last weeks episode due to the ffact that I was at a conference in Texas all last week so I'll check this post manyana. Have a good evening all.Before you judge a man you should walk a mile in his shoes. This way you are a mile from him, and you have his shoes.

quote:

---

I am not the type of person that would make light of anyone's circumstance nor do I condem anyone for having an abortion for any reason as I've stated before. I'm not in their shoes so I am not in a position to pass judgement, nor is that my job or place to do so anyway. I know that there are thousands upon thousands of horror stories out there concerning abuse, rape and flat out bad luck and stupidity. My wife and I played it stupid ourselves and didn't wait till we were married. We never got pregnant though but that was pure fate and no result of either of us doing anything responsible about it. I liked what I saw and selfishly put my pleasures above displaying responsibility and respect towards her but that's subject matter for a different audience.

---

So you do agree that abortion should be legal to prevent undue suffering - the goal should just be to discourage people from choosing that route. Because they can choose it anyway, but in much more brutal methods to their own bodies (or lives)?I think you will find that even most pro-choice people support having *some* regulation on the practice. In fact, I bet if you did a survey of pro choice people, you'd find that 90% of them would be perfectly fine with a system in which there are no regulations on birth control (apart from health and safety issues), minimal or no regulation on "morning after" products, a small level of councelling for a pregnancy in its first few weeks, a moderate level for late first trimester, heavy councelling requirements for end of first to early second, and no abortion after that, except for the cases where the mother and/or infant's health and safety are concerned.

quote:

---

As far as your second question, I don't think it's wrong to remove a damaged spleen after an accident and if that is equivilent to aborting a fetus, then you've got me on logic and you win. I'm looking at my driver's licience and it says that I'm an organ doner so "Holy Crap Batman!", I guess I'm just dyin' to have a male equivelent abortion and I didn't even know it!! Time for me to face some demons tonight.

​

Dandelions on the other hand - hands off those Lions. You pluck one of them out from your yard and the next day, 60 bazillion thousand million of his friends show up in your lawn for the funeral. Honestly, plant life doesn't play in the same moral ring in my world as unborn babies.

---

Ignoring your attempt to insert humor into it, you acknowledge that there is nothing inherently wrong with killing human cells. You also acknowledge that there is nothing inherently wrong with destroying a unique combination of DNA. So, how do you combine these two things to get something that you view as so utterly immoral? Because what you're talking about is a cluster of cells, with a unique combination of human DNA. No thought, no consciousness (no nerves, even). No self, no sense of self, no identity. No hopes, no dreams, no ideas, no goals, no fears, no joys, no anything. Just like you can't live in a blueprint for a building, a "blueprint" for a possible human is not the same thing as an actualized human.Cogito, ergo sum.

quote:

---

Before you judge a man you should walk a mile in his shoes. This way you are a mile from him, and you have his shoes.

---

I'll have to remember that one, I like it ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

So, what are you saying?

​

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

quote:

---

Nope.

---

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?quoteo you believe that IUD's should be banned, so that women will be more likely to have unwanted pregnancies?

quote:

---

There is a fine line between stopping a pregnancy then destroying one.

---

Exactly.That's why you cannot simplistically say, "Life begins at conception and anything that prevents that life from developing is murder!"If you really thought this, then you would want to collect all menstrual fluid and search it for fertilized eggs.

quote:

---

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

---

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?quote:Tell me, how many unwanted children have you adopted?

quote:

---

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

---

How many do you plan to adopt later in life, then?quoteo you support forcing girls and women to carry all pregnancies to term regardless of their desire or ability to do so?

quote:

---

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.

---

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?quote: Do you support the death penalty? Additionally, do you support the death penalty 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").

quote:

---

I do not support the death penalty, I feel that everyone deserves forgiveness. Just as God willingly forgives those who sin...

---

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")?quote: Do you support a massive social program whereby all of these unwanted children will be fed, housed, given medical treatment, and educated? This will raise your taxes significantly, seeing as we don't do that for the people who are here already.

quote:

---

Yes.

---

Since you have no idea what it's like to work for a living and pay taxes, you wouldn't know that to pay for all of the children which would be on the public assistance roles would require huge tax incereases which would probably cripple the economy.quote: Do you support spending tax dollars providing thorough and early sex education to all children and free, easily-available contraceptives to all people who ask for them in order to greatly reduce the need for abortions?

quote:

---

Do I support spending tax dollars to provide sex education? Yes.

---

Excellent.

quote:

---

Would I rather support money going to teaching God's view on sex? Yes.

---

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

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?

quote:

---

Now since I took the time to answer these questions, can you answer them, I would love to see you view on this matter.

---

I now know you are only 15, but I do think you have a frighteningly naieve and simplistic view of these matters.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-11-2003]

quote:

---

To the first part of the question I'll stand on what I said that once the egg has been fertilized by male sperm then it's technically a human being at that point. It's not a grown-up, teen ager, adolecent, toddler or infant, just a newly developing human being.

---

So, do you advocate collection of all menstrual fluid in order to search for fertilized eggs that didn't implant?Do you advocate the banning of IUD's because they prevent implantation of fertilized eggs?

quote:

---

In fact, I bet if you did a survey of pro choice people, you'd find that 90% of them would be perfectly fine with a system in which there are no regulations on birth control (apart from health and safety issues), minimal or no regulation on "morning after" products, a small level of councelling for a pregnancy in its first few weeks, a moderate level for late first trimester, heavy councelling requirements for end of first to early second, and no abortion after that, except for the cases where the mother and/or infant's health and safety are concerned.

---

I am 100% happy with this scenario, except to add that early and comprehensive sex education is critical for the reduction in abortions.

Here's the irony of it Rei,The 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. Is that nessessarily a bad thing? 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. 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.So I don't care if 90% of pro choicers think it would be better to not have to have the abortion, that's an easy way to look good on both sides of the issue. But where the rubber meets the road, it's wishy washy gobbly gook. Brings me back to where I started in this thread, call it like it is. Pro Choice = Pro Abortion = ending a human life. Good, bad or indifferent from the touchy feely stuff makes no difference and I'm not saying it's any of those. The act ends a human life and if it wasn't going to be a human life there would be no need for the procedure. Everyone would just sit back and see what that funky mass of cells turns in to and deal with it later.Removing a damaged splene does not end a human life and removing a Dandelion definitly does not end the damn thing's life - this I can vehemetly attest to. A splene will never grow into it's own human entity, it's a part of the human organ lineup, but the cells making up the fetus are definitly going to become it's own human entity.How are you getting the message icons to appear in the body of your text? I'd like to put some smiles at some of the parts cause as I proof read this stuff I get the sense that I'm sounding like a crazy zealot.

Reply to this message, and when you are at the reply window, look to the left. You will see three helpful links, HTML is ON, UBB Code is ON, and Smilies Legend. Smilies Legend is the link you are asking about.------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Crazy Zealot?Nope, I don't think so. I think we all understand your position and it is one that I can see one getting to.You do not seem to be able to understand our position though. Most of us are NOT pro-abortion. It is way down the list of options we would like to see utilized. Our differences with you probably stem from one small little tiny detail . That is we don't think there is a soul, nothing magic happens when the ovum is fertilzed. That is simply one step on a whole chain of steps that have to unfold properly before there is something we would define as a human being is there. Those differences (no soul, no special significance to the fertilization) are what makes it harder for us to pick a hard and fast line. We may not like abortion as a solution to these problems but we see it as a lessor evil even is still "evil" in that it is physically, financially and most of all can be emotionally expensive.To summarize, I don't see a "soul" being suddenly deposited in a body. Whatever we would call a "soul" (and we probably differ on that) it isn't turned on all of a sudden. It developes just as the body does.