The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

[Bonestorm]

Hey, when you guys finally resolve the abortion debate, can you resolve some other issues for me? For starters, why do bad things happen to good people?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Hey, when you guys finally resolve the abortion debate, can you resolve some other issues for me? For starters, why do bad things happen to good people?

Well it's because Jesus loves them.....but God doesn't.

 

[Canceled2]

I love that you call her a mother then pretend she's just a pallet, doing nothing. Is this going to be another stupid angel counting argument where you tell me what mother means and then complain that I am splitting hairs? She is a mother because she is providing that function to the fertilized egg, and will throughout the pregnancy.

A woman does not just go through her normal routine during pregnancy. That is stupid. Her body changes in significant ways and it takes a toll.

Again, it is "left alone" in the sense that the mother provides everything for the support of that life in ways more intensive than can be imagined in medical fields, but you don't have to do anything.

I am going to show up at your house tomorrow, and if just "left alone" I should have every right to stay there. I'll eat from your plate, poop and piss in your mouth and sleep a lot. If just "left alone" i will continue my progress in this life. I am sure you will not mind.

Yeah, you give examples of the court understanding the nuance while respecting the rights of the mother. Thanks, for digging that up for me.

It's not a straw man, dumbfuck. I did not say that you were arguing for having funerals for the "spontaneously" aborted.

I was pointing out that the fact we do not mourn them demonstrates that we do not see it as a baby. A baby could "spontaneously" die and we would certainly mourn it. It would not even have to be ours. We could here about in on the news, not even knowing the child, and we might be moved.

No one ever cried over any "children" that "spontaneously" aborted as fertilized eggs. Not even the ones that were theirs. But for this highly valuable life that no one mourns, you would enslave a woman to nine months of hard labor not to mention the support after birth. That is illogical. It is not based on science. It can only be based on myth.

Because, you deny the importance of the mother and her will in the matter.

And you argue that I lack intellectual honesty? I did not say that a woman that miscarries only feels selfish loss you fucking retard and I made it quite clear by giving a specific case. You ignore it because it is another moral problem your stupid beliefs can not handle.

A woman, that is having trouble achieving the implantation of a fertilized egg, may try several times and fail. If she feels loss, I doubt she is mourning the death of a baby. She feels pain for not being able to sustain the fertilized egg. If she mourned the death of a baby, she would not keep trying. Would we allow it? Would doctors encourage her to try again?

First off you dishonest hack. I have pretended nothing. The mother, as I said in the last post, provides the enviroment. She does nothing more than she would do to care for herself and the babies developement is all self generated. The human body dorkpuss, through all its maturing stages continues this self generated growth...again, science. The womans body changing was not in question...it was whether or not the baby self generates its growth...you said it did not...now we are going to discuss the changes a womans body goes through while pregnant? No one ever said it did not! This is what I mean by your constant hair splitting BS.

Again redundancy! Yes dorkpuss, the mothers body provides nurture. The mother of an infant provides even more nurture. Neither is an excuse for killing a baby.

If you show up be sure to act like a pallet of wood and lay in my backyard. Now if you are going to show up as zygote within whom will you be living?

I give examples of the court protecting abortion while admitting that the unborn deserves the rights of protection...more of your intellectual dishonesty.

Spontaneous abortions happen to women, many of whom do mourn...try a google on the topic dumbfucker Your thinking that mourning is neccesary to claim babies as opposed to non babies are being killed by abortion is specious; unscientific; and clearly void of any empirical evidence to support it...some women may mourn others may not...

Again, you intellectually dishonest dorkpuss, a woman's grief or lack thereof is not a matter of empirical science as to what is being killed. Pick a sqaure and land on it stringy...are we debating your emotional attitudes and predjudices about abortion or are we discussing the biological evidence of what the unborn are?

 

[Canceled2]

Without the capacity for rights. It's a human life in the same way that a brain dead person is a human life.

LOL...and yet numerous states give the unborn rights...I guess they didn't check with you regarding capacity.

 

[apple0154]

Something that can grow into fully developed human being is definitely an organsim. But thanks for new material with which to ridicule you in upcoming posts.

Organisms can be dependant. Like parasites and worms. We might say this stage of life, the human being parasitizes the mother. It's still an organism. Just like if the mother had ticks and fleas and worms, they would all still be organisms.

The fetus does not have an independent system. For example, it requires someone to breathe for it. Why can't you understand that?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Hey, when you guys finally resolve the abortion debate, can you resolve some other issues for me? For starters, why do bad things happen to good people?

That's really the fundamental flaw in it all. Isn't it? Organized Religion has no answer for this, because maintaining the power of the status quo alpha abusers is the purpose of religion.

 

[Timshel]

I understand that; on the pro-choice side, the person I actually always think of is a former co-worker who used to yell out "Abortion on demand at any time!"

I'm a practical person, and always see this as an issue of competing rights. The idea of forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term, to me, is Draconian and not the kind of country I want to live in; conversely, there is no question that an aspect of "human-ness" comes into play at some point during the development of the fetus, that makes the morality of abortion murkier & murkier as a pregancy develops.

I see Roe as an outstanding compromise. Yes, it's an arbitrary point, but there is no other point - barring the intervention of God if you believe in him/her - that could work. Roe gives women a window to opt out, and takes into consideration factors such as viability & sentience, which I think are extremely important when weighing competing interests & rights.

Well, I think we agree. I cannot justify ending the life of, whatever, that has developed for eight months unless there is some extreme risk to the mothers life/health. Once it has sentience or a functioning brain it has a right to life, in my opinion. At that point, the mother had ample time to end the pregnancy in order to avoid the normal demands of pregnancy (which are not trivial, are far greater than the support a pallet gives to lumber and has significant effects on the mother).

The definition of functioning is somewhat arbitrary and has a range from generating electrical currents, to Ditzy/nAHZi functioning on the level of a mental defect and, at the higher end, adults who don't take mental shortcuts.

It is not black and white, which is why we need a legal process. That's what the courts are there for, to handle the shit that aint all that simple. But we probably have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere, much like we are forced to with child-adult. The courts cannot handle every single case.

Those cases that might be exceptional need a legal framework that is VERY responsive and speedy, because of the medical issues involved. Plus any delay only gives more time within which the questions become more troubling. There, probably, can be no appeals.

Abortion on demand at any time! No. Abortion on demand, before a certain point in the pregnancy, with a highly agile and conclusive legal process in case there are complications beyond that point, yes.

Science has given us the ability to create the speedy process. A doctor could find a potentially serious problem, discuss it with the patient and video-conference in a legal-medical expert (maybe a panel... here comes the death panel bs) to weigh-in in a very short period of time.

Could it be abused, would it lead to errors, of course. The religious reich and social conservatives do not seem to mind those drawbacks/pitfalls when we execute those accused of crimes, though. They want a simple answer and since it does not affect them, they don't mind forcing the woman to bear all the hardships resulting from it.

 

[apple0154]

look, you're a delusional fuckup who thinks we should prevent abuse by killing.....please stay away from the threads where the healthy people post.....

No, I think we should not force children into the world when we know they will not be looked after. Why do you have such a sadistic approach?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The fetus does not have an independent system. For example, it requires someone to breathe for it. Why can't you understand that?

I do understand that. But organisms can be dependant and still be organisms. doy. Is liberalism all about going retarded? Seems like it.

 

[apple0154]

I keep waiting for all you biological authoritarians to jump on the Sharon Angle bandwagon and start telling victims of rape and incest that when they get pregnant it was all part of "god's plan". It is the only consistent view in the pro-forced pregnancy camp. A baby conceived of rape or incest is just as innocent as a baby conceived from a one night stand or a marriage. So come on prolifers jump on the Nevada senate candidates bandwagon. Lets pass a law FORCING rape victims and incest victims to have that baby! Goooooooo Zygotes!

And don't forget when it comes down to serious injury to the mother the so-called "right to life" automatically condone the murder of what they claim is a healthy human being, the fetus.

Their "right to life" is nothing more than their belief in the right to interfere in the sex lives of others.

 

[Timshel]

LOL...and yet numerous states give the unborn rights...I guess they didn't check with you regarding capacity.

No, they considered the mother's will, which you continue to ignore. If she wants to keep it, whatever it is, no-FUCKING-body has any business taking it away from her. It's her body. It does not belong to God, the state, her husband and certainly not some asshole criminal. Got it!

 

[apple0154]

Thank you. Why is it so hard for them to get that? The important part is STABLE and LOVING. They instead focus on "one mommy and one daddy" which is not key at all.

Even though it will probably draw more personal attacks, another anecdote... I only had mom. She was loving. She provided a stable home, largely because she was not going to bring anymore men into the house and put us through the potential turmoils of finding a working relationship. We did fine. Better than many of our peers who had had the traditional home only to watch it disintegrate in front of them with bickering and, sometimes, violence.

The households with marriages that did work had a leg up on us. Why? Financial reasons including the resource of time. It is not easy for one person to raise kid(s). Also, they may have had happier parents. My mom suffered loneliness and it did effect me, but not that badly and that was certainly easier to take than watching two adults fight.

One mom , one dad is not necessary. It never was. Two parents are better than one. It's probably preferable that both have a biological connection to the child, but not necessary. All you really need is love. And some cash, cash is good. But, first love.

As I've always maintained some here have difficulty comprehending posts.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Stringfield. Male and Female is key if you're talking about unassisted reproduction.

Why do you believe in a "dark ages" notion of blurring how babies are made?

 

[apple0154]

I do understand that. But organisms can be dependant and still be organisms. doy. Is liberalism all about going retarded? Seems like it.

Obviously you never read or understand the definition or "organism". Dependent, yes, but able to carry on the processes of life independently.

Human beings are individual entities. They do not live inside other human beings.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Obviously you never read or understand the definition or "organism". Dependent, yes, but able to carry on the processes of life independently.

Human beings are individual entities. They do not live inside other human beings.

Intestinal worms are organism. they cannot exist independently. Now you're just making up stuff. New faux distinctions. Congratulations, you have no credibility.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I keep waiting for all you biological authoritarians to jump on the Sharon Angle bandwagon and start telling victims of rape and incest that when they get pregnant it was all part of "god's plan". It is the only consistent view in the pro-forced pregnancy camp. A baby conceived of rape or incest is just as innocent as a baby conceived from a one night stand or a marriage. So come on prolifers jump on the Nevada senate candidates bandwagon. Lets pass a law FORCING rape victims and incest victims to have that baby! Goooooooo Zygotes!

/yawn....as if it mattered to the other 94% of aborted unborn children....why are you afraid to address the problem head on and instead pretend as if the 6% justifies the 100%?........

 

[Timshel]

First off you dishonest hack. I have pretended nothing. The mother, as I said in the last post, provides the enviroment. She does nothing more than she would do to care for herself and the babies developement is all self generated. The human body dorkpuss, through all its maturing stages continues this self generated growth...again, science. The womans body changing was not in question...it was whether or not the baby self generates its growth...you said it did not...now we are going to discuss the changes a womans body goes through while pregnant? No one ever said it did not! This is what I mean by your constant hair splitting BS.

The emphasized sentence is BS. Not science. BS.

It is not all self generated. If it were it would be able to happen outside the mother. Throughout the process the developing life responds to stimulus of the mother's body. Without it, it does not know how to survive and WILL not grow. At that point it will die, to whatever extent it was alive.

A baby is not nearly the same. It does not rely on the body of a SPECIFIC other to be forced against it's will to provide. It does rely on someone but it could be anyone. At birth (probably somewhere before birth, but not at fertilization) the mother has acted in a way that indicates her willingness to accept the responsibilities. If she cannot or does not wish to she has a legal process to transfer the rights and responsibilities of parenting to another who will. If she fails to without taking the legal steps, the state may strip her of her rights and transfer them to another where the child's interests are safeguarded. They also may punish her for failing to live up to the implied contract.

You pretend these things have not been addressed by our legal process or that the reasoning behind it was chosen on a whim or in counsel with God or something.

If you show up be sure to act like a pallet of wood and lay in my backyard. Now if you are going to show up as zygote within whom will you be living?

Huh? I don't have the right to continue my self supporting functions, e.g., taking food from your plate and relieving myself in your mouth?

Spontaneous abortions happen to women, many of whom do mourn...try a google on the topic dumbfucker Your thinking that mourning is neccesary to claim babies as opposed to non babies are being killed by abortion is specious; unscientific; and clearly void of any empirical evidence to support it...some women may mourn others may not...

And nothing I said indicated they do not.

Again, you intellectually dishonest dorkpuss, a woman's grief or lack thereof is not a matter of empirical science as to what is being killed. Pick a sqaure and land on it stringy...are we debating your emotional attitudes and predjudices about abortion or are we discussing the biological evidence of what the unborn are?

Of course, it is not. Science can't answer ethical questions.

We are discussing an ethical question, retard. Science helps, but cannot answer it alone. Emotions do play into ethics. We cannot always assume they are right, but they are compelling indicators of right and wrong. "Spontaneously" aborted fertilized eggs do not get the same ethical considerations as a baby that dies "spontaneously." Flush the fertilized egg down the toilet or put it in the waste basket, nobody cares. Do that with a baby and we would all be rightfully shocked.

They are not the same. You don't treat them the same. No one treats them the same. But you demand that the mother should, without regard for her will. It provides you with a comforting answer that does not affect you, and so you refer to it as "left alone."

But that is not an accurate description of it anymore than "baby" accurately describes both the fertilized egg and a born child. What word you want to use, I don't care. The word is irrelevant. The actual concrete that we apply it to is what we are talking about, and your word is only an attempt to paint over the very real distinctions.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Oh okay, then I will just do that to a friend that "let's me in." He deserves it.

so, you enter the house that your friend let you into.....and you want to give him the authority to kill you over it?......

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The emphasized sentence is BS. Not science. BS.

It is not all self generated. If it were it would be able to happen outside the mother. Throughout the process the developing life responds to stimulus of the mother's body. Without it, it does not know how to survive and WILL not grow. At that point it will die, to whatever extent it was alive.

A baby is not nearly the same. It does not rely on the body of a SPECIFIC other to be forced against it's will to provide. It does rely on someone but it could be anyone. At birth (probably somewhere before birth, but not at fertilization) the mother has acted in a way that indicates her willingness to accept the responsibilities. If she cannot or does not wish to she has a legal process to transfer the rights and responsibilities of parenting to another who will. If she fails to without taking the legal steps, the state may strip her of her rights and transfer them to another where the child's interests are safeguarded. They also may punish her for failing to live up to the implied contract.

You pretend these things have not been addressed by our legal process or that the reasoning behind it was chosen on a whim or in counsel with God or something.




Huh? I don't have the right to continue my self supporting functions, e.g., taking food from your plate and relieving myself in your mouth?




And nothing I said indicated they do not.



Of course, it is not. Science can't answer ethical questions.

We are discussing an ethical question, retard. Science helps, but cannot answer it alone. Emotions do play into ethics. We cannot always assume they are right, but they are compelling indicators of right and wrong. A "spontaneously" aborted fertilized eggs do not get the same ethical considerations as a baby that dies "spontaneously." Flush the fertilized egg down the toilet or put it in the waste basket, nobody cares. Do that with a baby and we would all be rightfully shocked.

They are not the same. You don't treat them the same. No one treats them the same. But you demand that the mother should, without regard for her will. It provides you with a comforting answer that does not affect you, and so you refer to it as "left alone."

But that is not an accurate description of it anymore than "baby" accurately describes both the fertilized egg and a born child. What word you want to use, I don't care. The word is irrelevant. The actual concrete that we apply it to is what we are talking about, and your word is only an attempt to paint over the very real distinctions.

She provides nutrients and oxygens through the blood. But she does not DIRECT the process of growth, as a builder would with a stack of lumber.

Why do you keep putting your entire reputation on these bad analogies and shite-minded metaphors, stupid dick?

 

[Timshel]

Intestinal worms are organism. they cannot exist independently. Now you're just making up stuff. New faux distinctions. Congratulations, you have no credibility.

A fertilized egg cannot exist independent of its mother. Put it on the pallet and observe. What happened?