"We keep marrying other species and ethnics " - Fox News Host

[Damocles]

Whenever people talk about the fetus, it's in terms of potential; it is not in terms of fully realized.

It's interesting you bring up emotionalism. To me, this is one area where emotional appeals lie almost strictly with one side, with claims of liberals wanting to murder babies, and kill those on life support, and just kill, kill, kill....

I understand what you are saying, but IMO it is equally emotional once you start talking about when "humanness" happens, or when "soul infusion" begins and other off the wall conjecture. It's okay because it is a "clump of cells", so are you BTW, all human life from fully developed adult on his way to dementia, to the pre-birth baby minutes before delivery are just a "clump of cells".

The emotion runs strong in the debate because both sides are unwilling to take a different look, to go in a totally new direction that sees both the rights of the mother and understands that life is a bit more precious than trash at the same time. It doesn't have to be "fully human" at that moment, there is no emotion involved, just a recognition that this is more than just a "parasite" as I've heard it described. Seriously, both sides use emotive language and have in this thread and both sides attempt to use religion to justify their stance, magic-men and their dead representatives (Saints) have been mentioned in this particular thread to promote the "pro-abortion" position.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

How do we define human-ness? At what point does the fetus go from being a clump of cells to something is distinctly human?

exactly....and what is the amusing result?.....the rationalists refuse to look at it scientifically and instead choose an emotional answer....like apple's "it wouldn't be fair".....or "it is what we call it and nothing more" as many of you rely on.....while I, who many of you will discount as a neocon evangelical science hater, is proposing that since science provides us a ready handle, we should use it.....

if it is living and it has human DNA and it is identifiable as an individual unique from the father and the mother, why SHOULDN'T it be entitled to "human-ness".....why should it have to meet some additional criteria, like having a certain number of brain waves (chosen at random) or be a certain number of days beyond conception (chosen at random) before you are willing to deign it human?.........

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Whenever people talk about the fetus, it's in terms of potential; it is not in terms of fully realized.

the potential being discussed isn't potential to be "human"....there are many potentials......potential to be an adult, to be an infant, to be a school child, to be a musician, to be a mathematician, to be the first intelligent American president......but "human" is one thing that can be identified scientifically through DNA.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It's interesting you bring up emotionalism. To me, this is one area where emotional appeals lie almost strictly with one side, with claims of liberals wanting to murder babies, and kill those on life support, and just kill, kill, kill....

it's time to stop pussy footing around the issue and get you folks to realize there is more at stake here than simply making a 47million unit high stack of body tissue.....

 

[Topspin]

just as chasing around 18yr old alter boys is pointless so is arguing against abortion.
It's legal and it's not changing in your lifetime.

 

[Onceler]

I understand what you are saying, but IMO it is equally emotional once you start talking about when "humanness" happens, or when "soul infusion" begins and other off the wall conjecture. It's okay because it is a "clump of cells", so are you BTW, all human life from fully developed adult on his way to dementia, to the pre-birth baby minutes before delivery are just a "clump of cells".

The emotion runs strong in the debate because both sides are unwilling to take a different look, to go in a totally new direction that sees both the rights of the mother and understands that life is a bit more precious than trash at the same time. It doesn't have to be "fully human" at that moment, there is no emotion involved, just a recognition that this is more than just a "parasite" as I've heard it described. Seriously, both sides use emotive language and have in this thread and both sides attempt to use religion to justify their stance, magic-men and their dead representatives (Saints) have been mentioned in this particular thread to promote the "pro-abortion" position.

I would never use the word parasite or defend the use of it. I agree that it is emotional and inaccurate.

Every analogy in this issue is imperfect, but here is one that I would like to throw out there. It contains one hypothetical after another, and can easily be shot down without seeing the intent, with such counter-arguments as "the woman is responsible as soon as she has sex." If anyone is up for it, please try to address only the scenario as presented.

You wake up one morning, and there is an egg attached to you. It was not there the night before. This egg has to stay attached to you for 9 months, at which time, it will become a fully realized human being, and will not need your body anymore. However, for 9 months, it needs your body, and you have to carry it everywhere, and it is a part of your life.

Because that egg will inevitably become a fully realized human if nothing is done in the interim, do you have a legal obligation to now carry that egg, attached to your body with all that it entails, for the full 9 months?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

just as chasing around 18yr old alter boys is pointless so is arguing against abortion.
It's legal and it's not changing in your lifetime.

there's just no satisfying you....you want to kill babies AND you want to chase alter boys?......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Because that egg will inevitably become a fully realized human if nothing is done in the interim, do you have a legal obligation to now carry that egg, attached to your body with all that it entails, for the full 9 months?

and the answer you give will obviously depend on the value you place on something LESS THAN a "fully realized human".......if you think something less than a fully realized human is of less value than 9 months of carrying it, then you will be willing to kill it......if of more value, you won't be willing.....

but, in answering that question you must ask yourself....WHY do I/don't I think the "something less" than the value of 9 months.....is there a logical reason for considering it "something less"?.....have I properly valued in in contrast to the 9 months....AND, as you mentioned, you still have to deal with the other factors which will affect the decision, such as whether the person volunteered to carry the egg for 9 months......

 

[Onceler]

exactly....and what is the amusing result?.....the rationalists refuse to look at it scientifically and instead choose an emotional answer....like apple's "it wouldn't be fair".....or "it is what we call it and nothing more" as many of you rely on.....while I, who many of you will discount as a neocon evangelical science hater, is proposing that since science provides us a ready handle, we should use it.....

if it is living and it has human DNA and it is identifiable as an individual unique from the father and the mother, why SHOULDN'T it be entitled to "human-ness".....why should it have to meet some additional criteria, like having a certain number of brain waves (chosen at random) or be a certain number of days beyond conception (chosen at random) before you are willing to deign it human?.........

Because the fetus is not the only consideration.

Once again, you are failing to consider the life & independence of the mother. I agree that any line we draw will be arbitrary; the 1st trimester certainly is, but I believe it to be a good compromise. I don't think conception is anything more than the sperm merging with an egg and beginning development, and I believe that a woman should have a window in which to decide if having a baby, with all of its ramifications, is the smart thing to do for her life; obviously, in extreme cases like rape, it's more of a no brainer.

I don't see how anyone can dismiss that consideration.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I believe that a woman should have a window in which to decide if having a baby, with all of its ramifications, is the smart thing to do for her life;

I don't see how anyone can dismiss that consideration.

we both want windows.....you want it to open when she discovers she is pregnant and remain open as long as possible.....I want it to open when she decides she wants to engage in sex and close as soon as there is a third party involved.....

 

[Onceler]

For "decides to engage in sex," you may as well put "decides to eat." What about the man...does he bear responsibility as soon as he decides to engage in sex?

What about rape? I don't know what the % is, but I think less than have of reported rapes actually make it to trial, and that's not even counting a large % that are never reported. Then, it follows that it is very difficult to actually prove rape. Beyond that, there is date rape, which is almost impossible to prove and prosecute.

Then, there are those who are exceedingly careful and use birth control as instructed, but the birth control fails.

It's just not good enough; I don't think you are considering all that bringing a child into the world entails. It is not something to be endeavored lightly, and without real conscious consideration; moving forward with something like that without thinking it through is not good for anyone, including the potential child.

Again, it's why I think the 1st trimester is a good compromise. To me, something doesn't become a 3rd party at the point where the sperm merges with the egg. There are many other considerations involved.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nah; the only people who see it as black & white are on the extremes of the issue.

How do we define human-ness? At what point does the fetus go from being a clump of cells to something is distinctly human? Many arguments are made about inevitability, but that doesn't address what a fetus actually is at any given stage. Brain development is just one small example; can something that has not developed a functioning brain YET (spare me the strawmen about comatose women & encephalitis) be considered a fully functional human with full rights?

It's gray; it isn't black & white. The more people claim certainty, the weaker their position actually is.

Onzies, I would say you are a perfect example of of something who's brain has not fully developed. Are you human? Have you reached "human-ness" yet? Maybe you reached it, then did a bunch of drugs and lost it? Or perhaps you are just like every other mammal on the planet, and your brain continues to develop until your death?

Your problem is, you are a fucking nitwit. A fetus ACTUALLY becomes a human being at the point of conception. Fetus is just a stage of growth, not different than adolescence or geriatric. There is no question of this, it's not gray, it's not debatable, it is not something that science can't answer, it is not left to our speculative opinion, it is a fact of life.

You can call me an extremist, but I am not the one who is refusing to accept science and biology, I am not the one creating terms like "personhood" to define a human being. No, I think YOU are the extremist here! It's pretty fucking extreme to deny biology and rely on made up parameters which don't have a thing to do with biological facts.

To put it simply, none of you have made your case. We can 'debate' this from now on, and you still can't make your case. The facts are not on your side in this. A human fetus became human life at point of conception, and you just can't make that fact go away. All the made up words and false criteria will not change the facts. Pointing out that abortion is legal, will not change the facts. Repeating your same inane and invalid points over and over, will never change facts.

As I have said before, and this is NOT an extremist view, we can't begin to have the debate over when abortion is ethical, until we ALL understand what abortion is and what we are doing. As long as certain people remain in denial of the facts, and insist on making all kinds of erroneous distinctions to camouflage the facts, then we can't move forward with the debate.

 

[Damocles]

I would never use the word parasite or defend the use of it. I agree that it is emotional and inaccurate.

Every analogy in this issue is imperfect, but here is one that I would like to throw out there. It contains one hypothetical after another, and can easily be shot down without seeing the intent, with such counter-arguments as "the woman is responsible as soon as she has sex." If anyone is up for it, please try to address only the scenario as presented.

You wake up one morning, and there is an egg attached to you. It was not there the night before. This egg has to stay attached to you for 9 months, at which time, it will become a fully realized human being, and will not need your body anymore. However, for 9 months, it needs your body, and you have to carry it everywhere, and it is a part of your life.

Because that egg will inevitably become a fully realized human if nothing is done in the interim, do you have a legal obligation to now carry that egg, attached to your body with all that it entails, for the full 9 months?

Not under my proposed solution you wouldn't. But in this scenario, yes I would have that responsibility.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

For "decides to engage in sex," you may as well put "decides to eat." What about the man...does he bear responsibility as soon as he decides to engage in sex?

What about rape? I don't know what the % is, but I think less than have of reported rapes actually make it to trial, and that's not even counting a large % that are never reported. Then, it follows that it is very difficult to actually prove rape. Beyond that, there is date rape, which is almost impossible to prove and prosecute.

Then, there are those who are exceedingly careful and use birth control as instructed, but the birth control fails.

It's just not good enough; I don't think you are considering all that bringing a child into the world entails. It is not something to be endeavored lightly, and without real conscious consideration; moving forward with something like that without thinking it through is not good for anyone, including the potential child.

Again, it's why I think the 1st trimester is a good compromise. To me, something doesn't become a 3rd party at the point where the sperm merges with the egg. There are many other considerations involved.

Before anyone can have a reasoned debate over when abortion is acceptable, we have to ALL understand what abortion is. Otherwise, such debates are meaningless. None of the 'considerations' you just listed, have a damn thing to do with what a fetus is, and when human life begins.

I agree that it shouldn't be endeavored lightly, to bring a human into the world. But this endeavor often begins with having casual sex, and most people realize this can cause pregnancy. We don't seem to be willing to stop having casual sex, even if it means we have to justify abortion by calling a human being something other than what it is. In fact, I bet most pro-abortionists aren't really so much in favor of killing human beings as much as they are in favor of having casual sex without consequence. That's what this is really all about, immoral decadent people who want to fuck whenever and whoever they want, without taking responsibility for the consequence. In order to facilitate this personal sexual gratification, they support the intentional killing of innocent human life, and form the most irrational of arguments to support what they are doing.

 

[Onceler]

Dixie - plugging up your ears and speaking as loud as you can does not equate to making a good counterpoint...

 

[Onceler]

Before anyone can have a reasoned debate over when abortion is acceptable, we have to ALL understand what abortion is. Otherwise, such debates are meaningless. None of the 'considerations' you just listed, have a damn thing to do with what a fetus is, and when human life begins.

I agree that it shouldn't be endeavored lightly, to bring a human into the world. But this endeavor often begins with having casual sex, and most people realize this can cause pregnancy. We don't seem to be willing to stop having casual sex, even if it means we have to justify abortion by calling a human being something other than what it is. In fact, I bet most pro-abortionists aren't really so much in favor of killing human beings as much as they are in favor of having casual sex without consequence. That's what this is really all about, immoral decadent people who want to fuck whenever and whoever they want, without taking responsibility for the consequence. In order to facilitate this personal sexual gratification, they support the intentional killing of innocent human life, and form the most irrational of arguments to support what they are doing.

That's twisted; you are a twisted human being.

Unwanted pregnancies are not just the result of immoral, decadent people having sex whenever they want, without protection.

You're a lunatic. It doesn't surprise me that you feel the way you do about abortion if this is your worldview.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie - plugging up your ears and speaking as loud as you can does not equate to making a good counterpoint...

I've not plugged up my ears, if that was the case, I couldn't hear the absurd and ridiculous ways you pinheads have found to avoid admitting a fetus is a human life. I am not required to make a counterpoint, until a valid point has been made, and that hasn't happened by you.

That's twisted; you are a twisted human being.

Unwanted pregnancies are not just the result of immoral, decadent people having sex whenever they want, without protection.

You're a lunatic. It doesn't surprise me that you feel the way you do about abortion if this is your worldview.

Oh, I know, there are all kinds of reasons. However, I have never known of a single unwanted pregnancy which wasn't the result of having sex. Do you? I feel the way I do about abortion because it is the intentional killing of the most innocent of human life. I haven't bought in to the canard that a fetus is something other than human life, or that "human-ness" is somehow bestowed by moving through a birth canal. I'm not the lunatic here, I am not making absurd statements that can't be supported by science, and refusing to accept the facts. That would be YOUR lunatic side.

 

[Topspin]

dixie is a future murderer gone postal. decadant wtf are you a fundamentalist or just mental.

 

[Cancel5]

I've not plugged up my ears, if that was the case, I couldn't hear the absurd and ridiculous ways you pinheads have found to avoid admitting a fetus is a human life. I am not required to make a counterpoint, until a valid point has been made, and that hasn't happened by you.



Oh, I know, there are all kinds of reasons. However, I have never known of a single unwanted pregnancy which wasn't the result of having sex. Do you? I feel the way I do about abortion because it is the intentional killing of the most innocent of human life. I haven't bought in to the canard that a fetus is something other than human life, or that "human-ness" is somehow bestowed by moving through a birth canal. I'm not the lunatic here, I am not making absurd statements that can't be supported by science, and refusing to accept the facts. That would be YOUR lunatic side.

Do you hate war even more than abortion? Did you back President Bush's invasion of Iraq? You are a hypocrit if you did. Living, viable human life was destroyed in Iraq and you backed it. Sit down and shut the hell up about abortion if you support war! People like you are such blow hards when it comes to life. You don't respect it, you just want control over it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

dixie is a future murderer gone postal. decadant wtf are you a fundamentalist or just mental.

It's pretty decadent when you support casual sex without consequence over the value of a human life. And let's face it, that is what this is all about. You can sugar coat it, you can claim there are other extenuating factors, but bottom line, abortion allows you to engage in casual sex without the fear of consequence. Personal sexual gratification trumps human life, that's pretty decadent if you ask me.

Do you hate war even more than abortion? Did you back President Bush's invasion of Iraq? You are a hypocrit if you did. Living, viable human life was destroyed in Iraq and you backed it. Sit down and shut the hell up about abortion if you support war! People like you are such blow hards when it comes to life. You don't respect it, you just want control over it.

So you admit abortion is the killing of innocent human life? Good! That makes at least one pinhead who realizes and understands what is going on. Now if we could enlighten the rest of you, we may be able to move to a philosophical debate over the ethics of killing innocent human life.