Abortion and Morality

[ArmChair General]

one thing about palerider, that you must give him credit for, is that he has thought his position all the way through.

For someone to be against abortion, but be for birth control pills, is completely contradictory, he realizes this.

I personally think this argument if just left to law, is a stalemate. Especially in a Democracy, where the will of the people reigns. We have to find something more to base this argument on.

In order to reach the complete conclusion of this thought, we have to deal with the reasoning behind why laws are created. Which touches on morality and ethics.

So, is it ok to kill a human being? Yes there are instances where killing a human being is not wrong.

So why is it wrong to kill an unborn. I can't get past this Palerider. I personally view most human beings as vermin infecting the Earth,. So to me, the killing of an unborn human being is not necessarily a bad thing.

Eventually, and I see no other option, as the human population continues to grow, and resources become more scarce, we as human beings will be forced to limit our population. IN order for the population that does live, to live in relative comfort. Over population is a serious problem.

I can't find myself viewing an unborn human being as anything other than another parasite. And if its parents don't want it, then why bring it into a world where it will probably experience nothing but pain anyways.

So, if Palerider, you would be so Kind to explain why Abortion is wrong, without resorting to law.

I really would like to discuss this. Thanks.

By the way, I didn't post this in the religion forum, because I don't beileve that morality and ethics come from religion or God. They come from human beings. As recent research has noted, things like Altruism are actually hard wired into the brain and pleasurable to human beings. And it really isn't the answer that one comes up with in regards to questions of morality, its more of the process that our brains take to get to that answer.

[Coyote]

One of the dichotomies I tend to run into is that if life is sacred, what life? All life? Some life? And why? I can't help but think if some life is, all should be.

[Mare Tranquillity]

One of the dichotomies I tend to run into is that if life is sacred, what life? All life? Some life? And why? I can't help but think if some life is, all should be.

All life is sacred, but we all take other lives every day, we cannot live without it. To prevent one group of people from taking one kind of life that is parasitic inside their body is hypocrisy. The taking of life in the final analysis is between the person and God, I may disapprove of a woman aborting the fetus inside her, but I cannot tell her that she may not do so anymore than I can tell you that you cannot kill an animal and eat it or kill a tapeworm in your intestines.

Pale's hypocrisy in this is extreme in that he is advocating a very Catholic outlook: fetal life is sacred but torture of people is acceptable. He ends up putting fetal life in a class by itself which puts the onus on women and requires them to bear all the weight of his "compassion". It's a lie, if Pale goes to Belize and a bot fly lays an egg in his scalp, will he allow that fetal fly to live their for a few weeks and feed off of his body till it reaches viability and can live outside of his scalp? I'll bet not. This isn't even a case of rape, if he willingly takes his head to Belize, then he is a willing participant and therefore he is responsible for the sacred fetal fly life.

Pale wants to legislate other people's morality because it costs HIM nothing, it's a power trip over women, nothing more.

[vyo476]

Perhaps someone should have titled this thread "Bashing Palerider" instead of "Abortion and Morality."

Here's my take: Every single human being ought to have the right to live.

Note: this is not resorting to law as I don't believe our inherent rights come from the law. Inherent rights means that we all have them. White, black, hispanic, American, Iraqi, whatever. We have rights much in the way we have fingers.

No one should be able to arbitrarily take your fingers away; the same is true of your rights, especially your right to live.

Why we apply this to the unborn child: The unborn child has done nothing wrong. It has a life unto itself and has done nothing to deserve death - indeed, I believe that even the worst criminals should not be put to death, so why should we allow the killing of unborn children that haven't had a chance to do anything in the world?

The other reason: Precedent. What precedent are we setting for allowing abortion? That it is okay to kill human beings in situations that are not life-threatening.

We allow killing in self-defense and we would even allow abortion if it is to save the mother, but those are both life-threatening situations in which the legalized use of deadly force is the only way of preventing the defender from losing his/her life.

However, accidental pregnancy as a result of recreational sexual activity is hardly a life-threatening situation in and of itself (it can become one easily but that's another discussion). Here, the idea is that the unborn child is being killed for a reason that isn't as good as the health of the mother. Here, the precedent becomes that killing human beings is okay even in situations that lack life-threatening peril.

The justifications used, that a fetus or blastocyst, while undeniably a human being (as established through rigorous debate between Palerider and Coyote), are inferior to babies, children, and adults because they are less physiologically mature, also sets a bad precedent. The physically and mentally handicapped are similarly different when it comes to physical and mental development; using the precedent set by fully legalized abortion, why would it be wrong to just arbitrarily kill a disabled person who is in your legal care?

[vyo476]

One of the dichotomies I tend to run into is that if life is sacred, what life? All life? Some life? And why? I can't help but think if some life is, all should be.

I agree.

Except in cases of life-threatening peril, the right to life of all others should be respected. This is why I would support abortion for mothers who would otherwise die from attempting to carry the baby to term and why I don't support the death penalty.

I also believe that self-defense should extend to matters of a militaristic nature, as well. To those of the "best defense is a good offense" ilk...remember that we defend to protect who and what we are, and in my view preemptive assault and aggressive foreign policy sacrifice what's right to protect what's right.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Perhaps someone should have titled this thread "Bashing Palerider" instead of "Abortion and Morality."

Here's my take: Every single human being ought to have the right to live.

Note: this is not resorting to law as I don't believe our inherent rights come from the law. Inherent rights means that we all have them. White, black, hispanic, American, Iraqi, whatever. We have rights much in the way we have fingers.

No one should be able to arbitrarily take your fingers away; the same is true of your rights, especially your right to live.

Why we apply this to the unborn child: The unborn child has done nothing wrong. It has a life unto itself and has done nothing to deserve death - indeed, I believe that even the worst criminals should not be put to death, so why should we allow the killing of unborn children that haven't had a chance to do anything in the world?

The other reason: Precedent. What precedent are we setting for allowing abortion? That it is okay to kill human beings in situations that are not life-threatening.

We allow killing in self-defense and we would even allow abortion if it is to save the mother, but those are both life-threatening situations in which the legalized use of deadly force is the only way of preventing the defender from losing his/her life.

However, accidental pregnancy as a result of recreational sexual activity is hardly a life-threatening situation in and of itself (it can become one easily but that's another discussion). Here, the idea is that the unborn child is being killed for a reason that isn't as good as the health of the mother. Here, the precedent becomes that killing human beings is okay even in situations that lack life-threatening peril.

The justifications used, that a fetus or blastocyst, while undeniably a human being (as established through rigorous debate between Palerider and Coyote), are inferior to babies, children, and adults because they are less physiologically mature, also sets a bad precedent. The physically and mentally handicapped are similarly different when it comes to physical and mental development; using the precedent set by fully legalized abortion, why would it be wrong to just arbitrarily kill a disabled person who is in your legal care?
A cogent statement, thank you. Why are you drawing a line of demarcation between human life and the rest of life? If one is sacred, why is not the other also?

As far as bashing Pale, he's earned it in his discussions with me, he gives and receives no quarter, his choice.

[vyo476]

All life is sacred, but we all take other lives every day, we cannot live without it.

To the best of my knowledge I didn't kill anyone today. In fact, I never have. Perhaps you don't mean that we all directly kill other people, in which case I'd like to know what, exactly, you mean, and why you think we couldn't live without it.

To prevent one group of people from taking one kind of life that is parasitic inside their body is hypocrisy.

Dependent? Yes. Parasitic? Not exactly. Scientifically, there ought to be a way to remove a maturing fetus from the mother and preserve it, then mature it technologically or implant it into another person. I don't see why that isn't possible; we just haven't figured out how to do it yet. Or maybe we have and I just don't know about it. Your thoughts?

The taking of life in the final analysis is between the person and God, I may disapprove of a woman aborting the fetus inside her, but I cannot tell her that she may not do so anymore than I can tell you that you cannot kill an animal and eat it or kill a tapeworm in your intestines.

I'm not sure what your point is. You can't tell us not to kill tapeworms or eat meat because it would be illegal for you do so (well, you could say it, but attempting to enforce it would be illegal). The very question we're debating is whether or not abortion should be a readily available choice.

Pale's hypocrisy in this is extreme in that he is advocating a very Catholic outlook: fetal life is sacred but torture of people is acceptable.
He ends up putting fetal life in a class by itself which puts the onus on women and requires them to bear all the weight of his "compassion". It's a lie, if Pale goes to Belize and a bot fly lays an egg in his scalp, will he allow that fetal fly to live their for a few weeks and feed off of his body till it reaches viability and can live outside of his scalp? I'll bet not. This isn't even a case of rape, if he willingly takes his head to Belize, then he is a willing participant and therefore he is responsible for the sacred fetal fly life.

Pale wants to legislate other people's morality because it costs HIM nothing, it's a power trip over women, nothing more.

Uh, Mare? Pale hasn't even weighed in on this thread yet and the personal attacks are already starting. In the interest of not starting another senseless row, why don't we just draw the line here? You too, Pale.

And by the way, your hypothetical fly situation would still be "rape," unless, reapplying it to human rape, you believe that a woman is not being raped if she goes into an area known to contain rapists and is forced to participate in sexual activities against her will. Obviously that is rape, so...just pointing that out.

[vyo476]

A cogent statement, thank you. Why are you drawing a line of demarcation between human life and the rest of life? If one is sacred, why is not the other also?

There are a number of ways I could answer this. The bottom line would be that I do draw a line between humans and other animals. While I don't think that cruelty or unnecessary slaughter are okay for animals, I do value human life more than I value, say, chipmunk life (even though they're so darn cute). I'll swerve to avoid hitting a chipmunk, but if swerving to avoid that chipmunk means I'm going to hit a six-year-old girl playing hopscotch on the side of the road...then it's bye-bye Mr. Chipmunk. The event would still bother me to no end but I wouldn't regret the decision I'd made.

As far as bashing Pale, he's earned it in his discussions with me, he gives and receives no quarter, his choice.

If you continue perpetuating it, so will he. That annoys anyone who is just trying to have a legit discussion of the topic of the thread, because all that name calling and character assassination is background noise that gets in our way of seeing what your real points are.

If the two of you can't call a truce then I guess I'll just keep picking through the minefields.

[Mare Tranquillity]

There are a number of ways I could answer this. The bottom line would be that I do draw a line between humans and other animals. While I don't think that cruelty or unnecessary slaughter are okay for animals, I do value human life more than I value, say, chipmunk life (even though they're so darn cute). I'll swerve to avoid hitting a chipmunk, but if swerving to avoid that chipmunk means I'm going to hit a six-year-old girl playing hopscotch on the side of the road...then it's bye-bye Mr. Chipmunk. The event would still bother me to no end but I wouldn't regret the decision I'd made.
The WHY is what I'm interested in. If you make fetal life sacred, why not all life? I would be far more easily persuaded by someone who wasn't drawing arbitrary lines of demarcation according to their assessement of the utilitarian value of the life in question. In an emergency situation most people would run over a chipmunk to save a 6 year old, but how about your dinner? The animal that you eat valued its life as much as you value your own, didn't it? Why the angst over killing a handful of cells that might develop into a human, while ignoring the slaughter of 10 Billion animals in this country every year?


If you continue perpetuating it, so will he. That annoys anyone who is just trying to have a legit discussion of the topic of the thread, because all that name calling and character assassination is background noise that gets in our way of seeing what your real points are.

If the two of you can't call a truce then I guess I'll just keep picking through the minefields.
This thread was based on Pale's arguments. He doesn't come on this thread and give me grief I won't do it to him, but his ideas are anathema to me and I will argue against them (but will try not to mention him by name). I hope this will help.

[Mare Tranquillity]

To the best of my knowledge I didn't kill anyone today. In fact, I never have. Perhaps you don't mean that we all directly kill other people, in which case I'd like to know what, exactly, you mean, and why you think we couldn't live without it.
You took life today, probably in your meals. You have drawn a very solid line between human life and all other life, a line I do not draw because I can find no ethical justification for it.

Dependent? Yes. Parasitic? Not exactly. Scientifically, there ought to be a way to remove a maturing fetus from the mother and preserve it, then mature it technologically or implant it into another person. I don't see why that isn't possible; we just haven't figured out how to do it yet. Or maybe we have and I just don't know about it. Your thoughts?
If there is something growing inside you, living off of your body, not providing any benefits to you, and you don't want it there, that is pretty much the dictionary definition of a parasite. My biggest arguement with the person who shall remain nameless is that even life from rape is sacred, despite that fact that this requires a vast punishment to be visited on the victim and brings into the world an unwanted child.

I'm not sure what your point is. You can't tell us not to kill tapeworms or eat meat because it would be illegal for you do so (well, you could say it, but attempting to enforce it would be illegal). The very question we're debating is whether or not abortion should be a readily available choice.
My point is: How far can we go to tell other people how they have to treat other lives? We are discussing legislating that women cannot kill cells in their own body, can we tell all people that they cannot kill tapeworms inside their bodies or that they cannot kill animals? Can we deny a person the right to kill a cancer in their body because they smoked and thus invited that cancer to grow? The cancer is innocent, it has done nothing wrong.

Uh, Mare? Pale hasn't even weighed in on this thread yet and the personal attacks are already starting. In the interest of not starting another senseless row, why don't we just draw the line here? You too, Pale.

And by the way, your hypothetical fly situation would still be "rape," unless, reapplying it to human rape, you believe that a woman is not being raped if she goes into an area known to contain rapists and is forced to participate in sexual activities against her will. Obviously that is rape, so...just pointing that out.
It's difficult to find any analogy that truly applies, that's part of the problem with men making this choice for women: You know not whereof you speak. Men tend to downplay the damage that rape, date-rape, and marriage-rape does to women's lives.

[palerider]

Gemeral.

I didn't see that you had started this thread until I saw it mentioned in the other thread. I had already devoted about as much time as I can today to answering in the other thread. Today is my anniversary so I will be in big trouble if I spend too much time here.

Let me toss out one nugget to think about though. While I don't agree with you with regard to overpopulation and scarcity of resources (face it, resources have never been more plentiful and cheaper), how about we consider sterilization (possibly by lottery so as to be impartial in addition to voluntary) as an answer to the imagined problem of overpopulation rather than depriving living human beings of thier inalienable right to live.

I will get back to this later (maybe as late as monday) so don't feel like I am deliberately ignoring the thread.

[9sublime]

Anyone who cares so much about an unborn child should be totally against any form of war.

[ArmChair General]

One of the dichotomies I tend to run into is that if life is sacred, what life? All life? Some life? And why? I can't help but think if some life is, all should be.

Thats because its illogical to say otherwise. Here, I am going to engage in a reduction ad absurdum argument, I am going to reduce the belief that 'rights' are a matter of social agreement or laws to an absurdity. Because, if human rights are a matter of social agreement, then the institutions and practices where human rights are used are a game of ‘make believe’ or ‘let’s pretend’.

Let’s pretend that people have a right to life. The way we play this game is that we say that everybody has this ‘right to life,’ which means that anybody who takes the life of another (in a certain way) deserves to die, so the rest of us get together and kill him. Killing him doesn’t violate his right to life because we are going to pretend that this ‘right to life’ disappears – it evaporates, sort of – whenever a person kills another in a particular way. But is there really a right to life?

Well, no. Don’t be silly. There’s not really a right to life. Everybody knows that. We’re just pretending.

But, if you are just pretending that there is a right to life, then are you just pretending to kill people who violate that right?

We have the power of changing the definitions of words simply by agreeing to a new definition (as astronomers did with the word ‘planet’). But changing our definitions has zero effect on things in the real world. Pluto did not change, simply because we changed our definition of ‘planet’.

Yet, those who hold that human rights like the right to life are simply a matter of agreement between people, are basically saying that we can change things in the real world simply by changing the way we talk about them. Call something a right and it acquires new properties – new powers – that it did not have when we did not call it a right.

The only things that we can change simply by agreeing to change them are things in the realm of ‘make believe’ or ‘let’s pretend’. If we all decide to agree that Santa has a ninth reindeer named Rudolph, then Santa has a ninth reindeer named Rudolph.

[palerider]

The only things that we can change simply by agreeing to change them are things in the realm of ‘make believe’ or ‘let’s pretend’. If we all decide to agree that Santa has a ninth reindeer named Rudolph, then Santa has a ninth reindeer named Rudolph.

If we are just pretending, and playing a game, then we must agree on the rules that the game is played by and the rules must apply the same to everyone unless we all agree upon a rule that excludes someone or some group from the rules. Since we write the rules down for our game, if we are all going to agree that this one or that group is to be excluded, then we must write that down as well and since we must all agree to the rules for our game, the people who we duely elect to make the rules for our game must vote for us. Not a few referees whose job it is to make sure that the things we do and the disputes we have while playing our game are hashed out according to the rules as they are written.

[palerider]

Anyone who cares so much about an unborn child should be totally against any form of war.

After all this time and so many explanations by me to you specifically 9sublime you still don't understand my position. I don't know what to say. I am not going to explain it to you again. No offense, but 2 or 3 repeats of the same explanation should be enough for any thinking person.

I can only think that you have some dishonest motive for repeatedly mischaracterizing my positon on this issue.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't particularly want to get into another pissing match with Pale, but I disagree with what he has posted here. I would respond anonymously to it, but I don't think that's legal here, so...

If we are just pretending, and playing a game, then we must agree on the rules that the game is played by and the rules must apply the same to everyone unless we all agree upon a rule that excludes someone or some group from the rules.
This is a nice thought but it has nothing to do with the reality of the game. Our Constitution says that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, but that didn't keep us from having slaves or denying women and homosexual people full legal rights.

Since we write the rules down for our game, if we are all going to agree that this one or that group is to be excluded, then we must write that down as well and since we must all agree to the rules for our game,
No, that's not true either, we don't all agree on the rules, many times the majority makes the rules or the people with the guns or money make the rules and we have to abide by them. Many rules for our game are not written down, Might is Right is one of the unwritten but widely practiced rules.

...the people who we duely elect to make the rules for our game must vote for us. Not a few referees whose job it is to make sure that the things we do and the disputes we have while playing our game are hashed out according to the rules as they are written.
Our duly elected officials don't vote for us, they usually vote for the Might is Right contingent. I agree with Pale in that it should be more like the way he has it laid out, but it just isn't, the idea is utopian and, however desirable, is not reflective of human reality.

[palerider]

This is a nice thought but it has nothing to do with the reality of the game. Our Constitution says that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, but that didn't keep us from having slaves or denying women and homosexual people full legal rights.

We were dead wrong with regard to blacks which illustrates my point. As to homosexuals, they have full legal rights. If you are talking about the marriage issue, you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference over and above full legal rights.

No, that's not true either, we don't all agree on the rules, many times the majority makes the rules or the people with the guns or money make the rules and we have to abide by them. Many rules for our game are not written down, Might is Right is one of the unwritten but widely practiced rules.

Our game is played by the rules of a a representative republic. We vote for representatives to make up the rules for us. The rest is just hysterical exageration.

Our duly elected officials don't vote for us, they usually vote for the Might is Right contingent. I agree with Pale in that it should be more like the way he has it laid out, but it just isn't, the idea is utopian and, however desirable, is not reflective of human reality.

More hysterics. Your whole might is right senario is a figment of your imagination as much as your belief that I am a catholic. You have demonstrated over and over that your intellect takes a back seat to your imagination.

[vyo476]

Huh.

You have a point, Mare, a very definite point. The ironic thing is that we're mirror inverses on these two points: I believe the killing of unborns is unethical but the killing of animals justifiable, and you believe the killing of unbors is justifiable and the killing of animals is unethical. Our beliefs both form a paradox. I find that I cannot justify the idea that unborns are more deserving of life than animals. Can you justify the opposite?

Something else just occurred to me. I've been "on the fence" (got to start using a new phrase, that one's getting old) on this issue for about six years now. I thought pale had finally convinced me fully one way but you've pointed out a serious logical fallacy in the position I formed out of that conviction, which leads me back to that "on the fence" position I was in before. I can just push back from the table and say, "Okay, honestly I don't know what to do about it - the rest of you are all viable citizens, argue away and I'll stick my nose somewhere that it belongs."

Of all the issues I've ever tried to tackle this one has given me the most grief. No matter what I just absolutely cannot shake the idea that killing unborn babies is wrong. At the same time, I recognize that as a man, I can't ever fully understand the physical and emotional complexities of pregnancy. While I see and understand the societal problems that can be fixed by making abortion more readily available, I also understand that all manner of unethical practices benefit someone - if this is truly unethical, the only difference is that it benefits everyone.

Maybe I need to just accept that I'll never really be abe to solve this problem.

[Mare Tranquillity]

You have a point, Mare, a very definite point. The ironic thing is that we're mirror inverses on these two points: I believe the killing of unborns is unethical but the killing of animals justifiable, and you believe the killing of unbors is justifiable and the killing of animals is unethical. Our beliefs both form a paradox. I find that I cannot justify the idea that unborns are more deserving of life than animals. Can you justify the opposite?
Let's not misrepresent my position please. I have stated that I think that killing is wrong--life is life, and all of it comes from a source to which we do not have access. People tend to draw a line between human life and all other life, that's a line for which I cannot find an ethical basis. But let's stick with the issue of abortion for the moment. I think it's wrong, but the problem I have is with simplistic answers to what is a large, complex, and intransigent problem. Just banning abortions and leaving women to face the problems caused by that decision won't work. We as a people on this planet are going to have to work together to find an answer for this problem, it's an issue almost everywhere. Millions of abortions are performed each year, milllions(!), that should tell you that this is a huge problem without an easy solution.

Something else just occurred to me. I've been "on the fence" (got to start using a new phrase, that one's getting old) on this issue for about six years now. I thought pale had finally convinced me fully one way but you've pointed out a serious logical fallacy in the position I formed out of that conviction, which leads me back to that "on the fence" position I was in before. I can just push back from the table and say, "Okay, honestly I don't know what to do about it - the rest of you are all viable citizens, argue away and I'll stick my nose somewhere that it belongs."
This has given all of us a huge amount of grief and I wish that Pale's simplistic solution would work, but I've studied the problem in enough detail to realize that it won't. Couple that with the fact that as a woman I have seen the other side of the issue and experienced the heartache for women in a way that you, as a man, cannot begin to appreciate. But don't give up, vyo, if you are on the fence then at least you can get a glimpse of both sides and that's what it's going to take.

Of all the issues I've ever tried to tackle this one has given me the most grief. No matter what I just absolutely cannot shake the idea that killing unborn babies is wrong. At the same time, I recognize that as a man, I can't ever fully understand the physical and emotional complexities of pregnancy. While I see and understand the societal problems that can be fixed by making abortion more readily available, I also understand that all manner of unethical practices benefit someone - if this is truly unethical, the only difference is that it benefits everyone.
That is a profound statement, vyo, and one that few people are willing to acknowledge, all of us benefit from the abortions that are performed. Without them we would have to have higher taxes, we would have more crime, more babies dumped, more children abused and abandoned, a growing population of unwanted children living on the street, more crowding in schools and hospitals, more welfare... the list just goes on and on. But are we--as a nation--willing to do what's necessary to stop the killing? Will we pony up the money? Will we change the laws to protect women and children so that they can have a real chance at life? I don't know. What do you think?

Maybe I need to just accept that I'll never really be abe to solve this problem.
I will never accept that the problem CANNOT be solved, but I know full well that the solution will have to systemic and involve men and women, changing the laws, and changing the way our culture views women and the value of the work they do raising children. I don't really know where to start except by talking to people who are willing to discuss the complex issues and not demand quick fixes that stigmatize women and strip them of control over their lives.

Somehow in this whole discussion we need to find a way to begin seeing LIFE in a different way, right now animal lives, plant lives, and human lives are bought and sold, traded and disposed of like any other commodity--life is not sacred in our modern mechanized culture, millions in this country are homeless, tens of thousands starve everyday worldwide, and billions live in wrenching poverty while a few have more money than God.

[Mare Tranquillity]

We were dead wrong with regard to blacks which illustrates my point. As to homosexuals, they have full legal rights. If you are talking about the marriage issue, you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference over and above full legal rights.
Our game is played by the rules of a a representative republic. We vote for representatives to make up the rules for us. The rest is just hysterical exageration.
More hysterics. Your whole might is right senario is a figment of your imagination as much as your belief that I am a catholic. You have demonstrated over and over that your intellect takes a back seat to your imagination.

Thanks for the clarification, Pale, now I know that nothing will work with you except a pissing match--and I'm not interested. If you write stuff that needs a response I will respond to it, but not to this meaningless drivel.

[ArmChair General]

If we are just pretending, and playing a game, then we must agree on the rules that the game is played by and the rules must apply the same to everyone unless we all agree upon a rule that excludes someone or some group from the rules. Since we write the rules down for our game, if we are all going to agree that this one or that group is to be excluded, then we must write that down as well and since we must all agree to the rules for our game, the people who we duely elect to make the rules for our game must vote for us. Not a few referees whose job it is to make sure that the things we do and the disputes we have while playing our game are hashed out according to the rules as they are written.


First of all I think talking about the process of defining rules or rights is a waste of time. Our definition of what rules or rights we assign is as unimportant to the study of the reasons that exist for and against an aversion to killing, as our definition of ‘planet’ is to our study of Pluto.

I am talking about relationships between desires and states of affairs – between the different things that can exist and the reasons-for-action that exist for preserving or bringing about those states. In this, all objectively true statements fall within the realm of what ‘is’, and all else false within the realm of ‘is not’ – with some wiggle room created by fuzzy logic and similar concepts that still apply equally to all sciences.

I think that there are objectively true and false relationships between desires and states of affairs.

I also believe that saying that everyone has a right to life, is meaningless, because it does not reflect reality.

But the point- and what Im trying to get to, is why is it wrong to kill an unborn?

[palerider]

But the point- and what Im trying to get to, is why is it wrong to kill an unborn?

Personally, I happen to believe in the principles laid out in our founding documents. That we do come into being with certain rights.

If, as you say, it is a game, and all our rights to live and be free are merely figments, I woud prefer to play the game than to live the alternative; the jungle. I have been there and don't care to go back. Today, right now, every unborn lives in the jungle. He or she can be killed anytime, without cause and without legal consequence.

I believe that there is something different in us, some spark if you will, that makes us different from every other species on the face of the earth and that spark, whatever you care to call it (if you care to name it at all) is why we can see that we have options. Eeither play the game as we do, or drop the game and join the animals.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I believe that there is something different in us, some spark if you will, that makes us different from every other species on the face of the earth and that spark, whatever you care to call it (if you care to name it at all) is why we can see that we have options.

Another piece of Catholic religious dogma: the idea that humans have souls (you tried ducking the issue by using the word "spark") or "something" that makes us different (what you really mean is "special") so that our lives are sacred and all other life is profane--which protects your desire to continue exploiting all other lifeforms for food, fur, fun, and profit. What you are pushing is the idea that our lives have intrinsic value and all other lives have only utilitarian value. Very Catholic--even if you don't go to the church.

Eeither play the game as we do, or drop the game and join the animals.
It isn't an either/or situation, we could rewrite the rules so that we played the game as if ALL life had intrinsic value since it all comes from the same source. There is nothing to support the idea that animals love their lives any less that we love ours, they hunger, love, grieve, suffer, and die. Singling out one lifeform and elevating it above all others is unsupportable from a scientific standpoint as well, and can only be done with religion.

[Coyote]

Personally, I happen to believe in the principles laid out in our founding documents. That we do come into being with certain rights.

If, as you say, it is a game, and all our rights to live and be free are merely figments, I woud prefer to play the game than to live the alternative; the jungle. I have been there and don't care to go back. Today, right now, every unborn lives in the jungle. He or she can be killed anytime, without cause and without legal consequence.

I believe that there is something different in us, some spark if you will, that makes us different from every other species on the face of the earth and that spark, whatever you care to call it (if you care to name it at all) is why we can see that we have options. Eeither play the game as we do, or drop the game and join the animals.


Interesting...

[Coyote]

Another piece of Catholic religious dogma: the idea that humans have souls (you tried ducking the issue by using the word "spark") or "something" that makes us different (what you really mean is "special") so that our lives are sacred and all other life is profane--which protects your desire to continue exploiting all other lifeforms for food, fur, fun, and profit. What you are pushing is the idea that our lives have intrinsic value and all other lives have only utilitarian value. Very Catholic--even if you don't go to the church.


Not necessarily Catholic or even Christian or even religious. There is something different about humans than about almost every other animal. I say "almost" because we really don't know enough about how other animals think - particularly other higher animals.

But human's have the ability to understand the consequences of their actions and how they affect other living creatures - and the ability to care about it. I think all life is sacred to a degree, but only human's seem to have the ability to see that, and to create for themselves a role of stewardship or destroyer.

[palerider]

Another piece of Catholic religious dogma: the idea that humans have souls (you tried ducking the issue by using the word "spark") or "something" that makes us different (what you really mean is "special") so that our lives are sacred and all other life is profane--which protects your desire to continue exploiting all other lifeforms for food, fur, fun, and profit. What you are pushing is the idea that our lives have intrinsic value and all other lives have only utilitarian value. Very Catholic--even if you don't go to the church.

I have been trying very hard not to call you a stupid woman, but you are rapidly reaching the point that nothing else would accurately characterize you.

I know that you hate men, and you hate me and apparently you hate catholics as well. Unfourtunately, I am not catholic, know nothing of catholic doctrine and have no interest in it.

If I had ment to talk about souls, I would have said souls. Unlike you, I think very carefully about what I am going to say before I say it. My emotions do not rule my intellect. I made no suggestion that our lives are sacred and that other life is profane. More of your imagination.

It isn't an either/or situation, we could rewrite the rules so that we played the game as if ALL life had intrinsic value since it all comes from the same source. There is nothing to support the idea that animals love their lives any less that we love ours, they hunger, love, grieve, suffer, and die. Singling out one lifeform and elevating it above all others is unsupportable from a scientific standpoint as well, and can only be done with religion.

Actually mare, the food chain separates us from the other animals. We happen to be at the top. Nothing religious there. Your fixation on catholics and your obvious hatred for men has rendered you unable to effectively participate in a conversation.

[9sublime]

Palerider, I don't have any dishonest motives for this whole topic. I just find it funny that you think that an unborn childs life should be protected at all costs, even if it ruins the lives of other people that are already alive, but at the same time you are not preaching pacifism, because people who are already alive with friends and family get blown to bits in war all the time and that effects far more people and ruins a far more 'ignited spark'.

At the moment, I am not sure wether I am pro or anti abortion, but I find it funny that you are.

[palerider]

Palerider, I don't have any dishonest motives for this whole topic. I just find it funny that you think that an unborn childs life should be protected at all costs, even if it ruins the lives of other people that are already alive,

I don't know how else to explain it to you 9sublime. I have laid out my position with crystal clarity and for some reason you either can't or won't see what I am saying.

My position is that anyone's life should be preserved if they worst they are going to do is cramp your style. No one has the right to kill you unless you are threatening their life or long term health. I don't care if you ruin someone else's life, they simply don't have the right to kill you for it. It isn't that I think your life is sacred, in this country, it is just the law.

but at the same time you are not preaching pacifism, because people who are already alive with friends and family get blown to bits in war all the time and that effects far more people and ruins a far more 'ignited spark'.

No doubt, terrible things happen in war. That is the nature of war. Abortion, however, is one human being deliberately having another human being killed for reasons that amount to no more than convenience 97% of the time.

At the moment, I am not sure wether I am pro or anti abortion, but I find it funny that you are.

Elaborate.

[top gun]

This is just in general and not to Palerider. There are so many underlying issues here that warrant recognition. For women who choose not to have a child after mistakenly becoming pregnant it is both a very thought out and a very emotional decision. I guess it's easy to broad brush all the many different reasons as "convenience" but walk in those shoes and you'd see that it's really not that at all. It goes much deeper than convenience.

When you look back at what women had to go through before Roe v. Wade you see terrible cases of exploitation by men over their pregnant girlfriends and wives. You'd see "coat hanger" self abortions and unqualified doctors doing just unspeakably bad & dangerous procedures off the books for big money. A totally unregulated and unstoppable underground practice that preyed on women in a very venerable position.

You'd even see rampant examples where churches talked emotionally venerable women out of abortions and into church run birth & adoption services where the church actually SOLD many newborns to totally unscreened people... just because they had the money.

As you look at countries like China that allowed their population get so out of control that now they have to enforce a one child limit on families and have even went to the extremes of forced serialization of those who break this rule... it's apparent the effect overpopulation can have.

One can even go someplace as close as the many, many huge orphanages in Mexico (a place I and my wife's family visit often and donate time & money) you see the reality of thousands and thousands of unwanted and abandoned children in the poorest of conditions.

It's not a perfect world and hopefully some day birth control will reach a point where there's 100% birth control protection that does not leave a woman incapable of conceiving should she want children sometime later on.

I've never seen anyone jumping up and down saying abortion is great. It's just not like that at all. I'd say one should try to avoid that situation at all cost. But at the end of the day it all goes back to the woman and what decision she chooses to make and we owe a debt of thanks to the Supreme Court Justices that made the difficult but right decision in the long standing Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Not necessarily Catholic or even Christian or even religious. There is something different about humans than about almost every other animal. I say "almost" because we really don't know enough about how other animals think - particularly other higher animals.

But human's have the ability to understand the consequences of their actions and how they affect other living creatures - and the ability to care about it. I think all life is sacred to a degree, but only human's seem to have the ability to see that, and to create for themselves a role of stewardship or destroyer.

People and animals may be different, we don't know much about the inner lives of the other creatures with brains as large and complex as our own--cetaceans. What I object to is the automatic assumption of our superiority and thus our right to use all other creatures as we see fit. That is exactly what Pale is arguing against when it comes to clumps of cells that have NO BRAIN at all yet, so how can we lay claim to some kind of superior value to them or ourselves? I don't buy it. I was just reading a piece about rats and they have discovered that rats can understand consequences and plan things out in advance to accomplish complex goals. No one ever suspected that they were that smart just like no one realized that chimps made and used tools.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have been trying very hard not to call you a stupid woman, but you are rapidly reaching the point that nothing else would accurately characterize you.
Don't hold back, Pale, I hate to see a man who is constipated.

I know that you hate men, and you hate me and apparently you hate catholics as well. Unfourtunately, I am not catholic, know nothing of catholic doctrine and have no interest in it.
I don't hate men, I don't even hate you. I do think you are a short-sighted misogynist though who lets his emotional feelings about "innocent babies" run over the top of his intellect. I once read a book about Catholic martyrs, I was really impressed with the sacrifices that they made and I always thought it was too bad that more Catholics didn't behave that way.

If I had ment to talk about souls, I would have said souls. Unlike you, I think very carefully about what I am going to say before I say it. My emotions do not rule my intellect. I made no suggestion that our lives are sacred and that other life is profane. More of your imagination.
Horse puckey! You've been very careful to make sure that we all knew you were a laboratory kind of guy with no religious leanings, but despite that you are talking Catholic dogma--like it or not. Sacred and profane are not being used in the religious sense here, you made us sacred with your special "spark" denotation, profane simply means not having that "spark". You reinforce that definition by granting intrinsic value to human life (probably not mine, but most others except the ones you wish to torture) while granting only utilitarian value to all other lives. Very Christian, very human, very Catholic, and very common.

Actually mare, the food chain separates us from the other animals. We happen to be at the top. Nothing religious there. Your fixation on catholics and your obvious hatred for men has rendered you unable to effectively participate in a conversation.
We are at the top of the food chain because of the belief in the philosophy of Might is Right, we are at the top of the food chain because we CAN be. We are also the only animal (as far as we know) who can choose to be at the top and prey on all others or deliberately eat lower on the food chain in order to minimize our impact on the environment and to reduce the suffering of others. You probably don't agree with that either, which is also in line with the Christian religion and especially the Catholics.

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is just in general and not to Palerider. There are so many underlying issues here that warrant recognition. For women who choose not to have a child after mistakenly becoming pregnant it is both a very thought out and a very emotional decision. I guess it's easy to broad brush all the many different reasons as "convenience" but walk in those shoes and you'd see that it's really not that at all. It goes much deeper than convenience.

When you look back at what women had to go through before Roe v. Wade you see terrible cases of exploitation by men over their pregnant girlfriends and wives. You'd see "coat hanger" self abortions and unqualified doctors doing just unspeakably bad & dangerous procedures off the books for big money. A totally unregulated and unstoppable underground practice that preyed on women in a very venerable position.

You'd even see rampant examples where churches talked emotionally venerable women out of abortions and into church run birth & adoption services where the church actually SOLD many newborns to totally unscreened people... just because they had the money.

As you look at countries like China that allowed their population get so out of control that now they have to enforce a one child limit on families and have even went to the extremes of forced serialization of those who break this rule... it's apparent the effect overpopulation can have.

One can even go someplace as close as the many, many huge orphanages in Mexico (a place I and my wife's family visit often and donate time & money) you see the reality of thousands and thousands of unwanted and abandoned children in the poorest of conditions.

It's not a perfect world and hopefully some day birth control will reach a point where there's 100% birth control protection that does not leave a woman incapable of conceiving should she want children sometime later on.

I've never seen anyone jumping up and down saying abortion is great. It's just not like that at all. I'd say one should try to avoid that situation at all cost. But at the end of the day it all goes back to the woman and what decision she chooses to make and we owe a debt of thanks to the Supreme Court Justices that made the difficult but right decision in the long standing Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade.

A thoughtful and considered piece of writing. I agree with you, Topgun, the issue cannot and should not be reduced to a chant of "convenience, convenience" with the blame laid on women. Both you and vyo have shown a willingness to look at the broader and more painful truth of the systemic nature of this problem. Thank you.

[palerider]

This is just in general and not to Palerider. There are so many underlying issues here that warrant recognition. For women who choose not to have a child after mistakenly becoming pregnant it is both a very thought out and a very emotional decision. I guess it's easy to broad brush all the many different reasons as "convenience" but walk in those shoes and you'd see that it's really not that at all. It goes much deeper than convenience.

The problem with public boards is that anyone can answer. Convenience means what convenience means. I have challenged you to list some reasons for aborting a child other than a risk to the mother's life or long term health that don't amount to convenience. So far, you haven't listed any.

Why women have abortions has been a topic of serious study for decades now. Unsurprisingly, the reasons, or the percentages of women who list said reasons don't change much from year to year. Here is a typical set of findings for why women kill their unborn children.

timing is wrong - 21% (convenience)

can't afford a baby now - 27% (convenience)

other people depending on me - 8% (convenience)

don't want to be a single mother - 6% (convenience)

don't feel mature enough - 7% (convenience)

child would interfere with education or career plans - 29% (convenience)

About 2% list genuine health problems

less than .1% list rape or incest

Face it. Women kill their children because the are not convenient.

[palerider]

That is exactly what Pale is arguing against when it comes to clumps of cells that have NO BRAIN at all yet, so how can we lay claim to some kind of superior value to them or ourselves?

More dishonesty. They are human beings. Not "clumps of cells" If your position is so distasteful to you that you can't even speak of it in honest terms, you really should re examine it.

[palerider]

I don't hate men, I don't even hate you. I do think you are a short-sighted misogynist though who lets his emotional feelings about "innocent babies" run over the top of his intellect. I once read a book about Catholic martyrs, I was really impressed with the sacrifices that they made and I always thought it was too bad that more Catholics didn't behave that way.

Of course you do. It is evident in every word you write. Go back through our posts mare and tell me who is emotional. I am so unemotional that I have been called "cold" and you yourself acused me of being emotionless. Now you claim that my emotions run over my intellect. You are one of the most basicly dishonest people I have come across mare. You simply fabricate whatever you need at a particular moment to make a point.

Horse puckey! You've been very careful to make sure that we all knew you were a laboratory kind of guy with no religious leanings, but despite that you are talking Catholic dogma--like it or not. Sacred and profane are not being used in the religious sense here, you made us sacred with your special "spark" denotation, profane simply means not having that "spark". You reinforce that definition by granting intrinsic value to human life (probably not mine, but most others except the ones you wish to torture) while granting only utilitarian value to all other lives. Very Christian, very human, very Catholic, and very common.


More lies mare. While I am a laboratory kind of guy (science is how I make my living) I have never said that I don't have religious leanings. I simply keep my religious beliefs out of the discussion when logic and fact will do the job better. If my position sounds like catholic dogma to you, then you might consider that the catholics sound like scientists.

We are at the top of the food chain because of the belief in the philosophy of Might is Right, we are at the top of the food chain because we CAN be.

There is nothing philosophical about the food chain mare. We are at the top of the food chain because we are the most highly developed predator on the face of the earth. One can philosophize about the fact that we know it and understand the consequences of our actions, but there is nothing philosophical about our position on the food chain. We are at the top of the food chain not because we can be but because we ARE. If we ate nothing but vegetables, we would remain at the top of the food chain because we would still be the top predator on the planet, we would have just chosen to eat vegetables.

We are also the only animal (as far as we know) who can choose to be at the top and prey on all others or deliberately eat lower on the food chain in order to minimize our impact on the environment and to reduce the suffering of others. You probably don't agree with that either, which is also in line with the Christian religion and especially the Catholics.

No. We don't choose to be at the top. That is just where we are. And if you think that sounds religious, I would suggest that for some very strange reason, you are unable to differentiate between science and religion. I don't think I have ever encountered anyone else who couldn't tell science from religion.

[top gun]

The problem with public boards is that anyone can answer.

I will take your lack of understanding of the English language "not to Palerider" along with your total misunderstanding of women's issues and add that to the Internet bully impression I think many already have.

Rape is not convenience. Incest is not convenience. Life or health of the mother is not convenience. Knowing a child's life would be hell with the current situation is not convenience. And forcing a women or a doctor to lie to the test to get a medical procedure done that's been legal now for decades even if it were for convenience solves no problem at all.

[top gun]

Quote:
Originally Posted by palerider
I have been trying very hard not to call you a stupid woman, but you are rapidly reaching the point that nothing else would accurately characterize you.

Mare Tranquillity;18373]Don't hold back, Pale, I hate to see a man who is constipated.

Mare how dare you! You must be a "stupid woman". How could a woman possibly relate to women's issues in any way? Has it not long ago been documented that women actually enjoy being abused , dominated and controlled by men and are much healthier when men tell them what is best for them? I mean come on now... you know things went straight downhill as soon as we gave you the right to vote. Then you wanted control over the interworkings of your body. It's all been just a mess! Having a voice is not your place.

If you would please shut up and just put your burka back on I think we would all be a lot happier.

Well maybe not all of us.

Well maybe one of us.

But not me... you go girl!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

[Coyote]

People and animals may be different, we don't know much about the inner lives of the other creatures with brains as large and complex as our own--cetaceans. What I object to is the automatic assumption of our superiority and thus our right to use all other creatures as we see fit.


Yes...and there I agree with you. We - the human race - have been given or achieved - a rare gift of insight and power. Because of this we have the ability to affect the happiness and wellbeing of other living creatures (not my words, but someone else's). This is a tremendous responsibility. We also live within a complex chain of life - not outside of it, as some might wish to believe. We are predators - we are designed by nature or God, to be efficient omnivores and to deny that is to deny our biology. But to deny our responsibility towards other life is to deny our humanity and what seperates us from any other animal.


That is exactly what Pale is arguing against when it comes to clumps of cells that have NO BRAIN at all yet, so how can we lay claim to some kind of superior value to them or ourselves? I don't buy it. I was just reading a piece about rats and they have discovered that rats can understand consequences and plan things out in advance to accomplish complex goals. No one ever suspected that they were that smart just like no one realized that chimps made and used tools.

I understand and respect Pale's view -his logic is sound - he is always consistent because every single argument comes down to the right to life as legally defined in this country, comes first. I don't totally agree because I have trouble seeing a clump of cells with no brain or neurons as a person more worthy of preserving then a dolphin....it is not an easy issue and I'll admit, this debate has forced me to rethink some things and has caused me consertation with both consistency and the clash of what I feel is the my right to make decisions over my own body.

What is also interesting in what you say is that the more we learn about other species, the more we have to change the definition of what it is to be human!

It's a wonderful world - we should treat it with respect and not destruction.

[palerider]

Rape is not convenience. Incest is not convenience.

OK. That covers about 0.1% of abortions and the health of the mother might cover about 2% more. The other 97.9% of abortions are for reasons that amount to convenience.

Life or health of the mother is not convenience. Knowing a child's life would be hell with the current situation is not convenience. And forcing a women or a doctor to lie to the test to get a medical procedure done that's been legal now for decades even if it were for convenience solves no problem at all.

Not wanting to care for a handicapped child is a matter of convenience for its mother. Oddly enough, the suicide rate among the handicapped is lower than among the general population indicating that life with a handicap is not "hell" as you would like to believe.

People who lie in order to kill others are criminals and should be dealt with very harshly.

[palerider]

What is also interesting in what you say is that the more we learn about other species, the more we have to change the definition of what it is to be human!

Magical thinking. When we learn something new about another species, the definition of what it means to be a member of that species changes, not the definition of what it means to be a human. We are what we are regardless of what we learn about other species.

[Coyote]

Magical thinking. When we learn something new about another species, the definition of what it means to be a member of that species changes, not the definition of what it means to be a human. We are what we are regardless of what we learn about other species.

Nope, not magical. Perhaps I should reword it: The more we learn about other species, the more we have to redefine what it means to be human.

We have historically defined our species by what it is or does that no other species does.

What seperates us from other species is more then just genetics.

[palerider]

Nope, not magical. Perhaps I should reword it: The more we learn about other species, the more we have to redefine what it means to be human.

We have historically defined our species by what it is or does that no other species does.

What seperates us from other species is more then just genetics.

If we learned that on saturday nights chimps go deep into the forest to smoke cigars, play calypso music and play poker we might have to redefine what it means to be a chimp, but what humans are would remain the same.

[top gun]

palerider;18424]OK. That covers about 0.1% of abortions and the health of the mother might cover about 2% more. The other 97.9% of abortions are for reasons that amount to convenience.

Not so. First you can only guess the numbers by going by "reported" cases of rape & incest. And you've already said you make NO allowance for either of those circumstances in any case. Furthermore forcing someone to lie that they were raped by a stranger solves nothing.

Not wanting to care for a handicapped child is a matter of convenience for its mother. Oddly enough, the suicide rate among the handicapped is lower than among the general population indicating that life with a handicap is not "hell" as you would like to believe.

How can you possibly say that? You're no kind of a mind reader? Perhaps they know they can't properly take care of an infants needs for some legitimate reason. Perhaps they fear for the condition of or the suffering of the infant. This is just... I know better than the woman in the situation BS and you know it. Totally subjective.

And as far as not wanting to bear a handicapped child that without doubt should be left up to the mother and the family involved. Once again your attempt to promote that the state would somehow be the arbiter of this and not the woman, her family and her doctor is dictatorial and shows a great disrespect for women.

When we talk about quality of life there are reams of statistics on children and young adults in prison, alcohol and drug addicted children, and children living in almost third world conditions due to severe poverty due to unintended pregnancies and single parent homes. Those are the suicide rates and other statistics that apply. The same children that anti-choice advocates scream so loftily about are the very same children no one wants to pay for. So in that way it's "society" that doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

People who lie in order to kill others are criminals and should be dealt with very harshly.

Well of course we don't agree on the "personhood" issue. I'm with the United States Supreme Court interpretation and decades of precedent. But besides that setting up a system that would encourage women to lie about being raped by an unknown assailant only makes a bad situation much worse. Arresting and jailing millions of women in a futile attempt to legislate morality just won't ever fly in the United States of America.

[palerider]

Not so. First you can only guess the numbers by going by "reported" cases of rape & incest. And you've already said you make NO allowance for either of those circumstances in any case. Furthermore forcing someone to lie that they were raped by a stranger solves nothing.

So you are saying that you base your position on "unreported" cases? You have just made up whatever number you need to justify your position?

How can you possibly say that? You're no kind of a mind reader? Perhaps they know they can't properly take care of an infants needs for some legitimate reason. Perhaps they fear for the condition of or the suffering of the infant. This is just... I know better than the woman in the situation BS and you know it. Totally subjective.

How can you possibly say otherwise. You are no kind of mind reader either. Face it, killing a child because it isn't "perfect" is not only for the mother's convenience but monstrous as well.

And as far as not wanting to bear a handicapped child that without doubt should be left up to the mother and the family involved. Once again your attempt to promote that the state would somehow be the arbiter of this and not the woman, her family and her doctor is dictatorial and shows a great disrespect for women.

You have made yourself clear. Kill them if they aren't perfect. Well, actually, your position is kill them for whatever reason you care to make up and you will support them.

Tell me, how are you with killing them because they are the wrong sex? If we find a genetic component for homosexuality, will you be ok with screening homosexuals from the population before they are ever born?

When we talk about quality of life there are reams of statistics on children and young adults in prison, alcohol and drug addicted children, and children living in almost third world conditions due to severe poverty due to unintended pregnancies and single parent homes.

That is a personal responsibility issue and in no way justifies killing innocent human beings.

Well of course we don't agree on the "personhood" issue. I'm with the United States Supreme Court interpretation and decades of precedent. But besides that setting up a system that would encourage women to lie about being raped by an unknown assailant only makes a bad situation much worse. Arresting and jailing millions of women in a futile attempt to legislate morality just won't ever fly in the United States of America.

The court said that if personhood were ever established, the framework of roe would fail. There is an ever growing precedent for the personhood of the unborn. And your assumption that "most" women would break the law and have an abortion anyway is specious at best. When an activity is illegal, the vast majority obey the law. It was true before roe and it is still true today.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Of course you do.:D It is evident in every word you write.:D Go back through our posts mare and tell me who is emotional. I am so unemotional that I have been called "cold" and you yourself acused me of being emotionless. Now you claim that my emotions run over my intellect. You are one of the most basicly dishonest people I have come across mare. You simply fabricate whatever you need at a particular moment to make a point.
I have to admit that at first I took you seriously, but you calling me a liar all the time and misquoting me has become such a farce that I often laugh out loud while reading your posts. You ARE an interesting dichotomy of soulless coldness as you advocate chopping people limb from limb to tear the secrets--that you believe they have--out of them. You present yourself as being almost sharklike--a compassionless torturing machine. On the other hand you are sooooooooooo! wrapped up in your emotional involvement with fetuses that you are practically bleeding through the eyes. It's an interesting combination. Around abortion your emotions run over your intellect like a bus over a ground squirrel. Don't feel bad though, no one is really consistent all the time--women are often accused of being fickle so I guess we can cut you a little slack for being so too.

More lies mare.:D While I am a laboratory kind of guy (science is how I make my living) I have never said that I don't have religious leanings. I simply keep my religious beliefs out of the discussion when logic and fact will do the job better. If my position sounds like catholic dogma to you, then you might consider that the catholics sound like scientists.
For many scientists, science is a religion with just as much dogma as any church. Your religious beliefs come out in what you advocate despite your attempts to "keep" them out of the discussion. Your adherence to the "spark" that makes us different from animals is without scientific proof. Coyote is right, as we discover things about animals we have to define ourselves differently. At one time we were the only tool-using animal, but when we discovered that chimps made tools and used them we had to find another way to define our superiority. We were the only animal with language, then we were the only animal that laughed, and the list went on and on. Each time we discover that animals are more like us than we used to think, we come up with a new definition to make ourselves special. Do you sacrifice animals in your laboratory?

There is nothing philosophical about the food chain mare. We are at the top of the food chain because we are the most highly developed predator on the face of the earth. One can philosophize about the fact that we know it and understand the consequences of our actions, but there is nothing philosophical about our position on the food chain. We are at the top of the food chain not because we can be but because we ARE. If we ate nothing but vegetables, we would remain at the top of the food chain because we would still be the top predator on the planet, we would have just chosen to eat vegetables.
There is nothing philosophical about anything to those who can't recognize philosophy. There are none so blind as those who will not see. We could choose to be the most developed predator on Earth or we could choose not to, fear drives most of us to be as powerful as we can be. Our choices make us what we are.

No. We don't choose to be at the top. That is just where we are. And if you think that sounds religious, I would suggest that for some very strange reason, you are unable to differentiate between science and religion. I don't think I have ever encountered anyone else who couldn't tell science from religion.
Well, you don't seem to be doing too good a job of it. Special Spark Pale sounds pretty Catholic in his pronouncements and attitudes. It tickles me to think that you may very well be concealing your Catholicism because you don't want to admit where your combination of compassion and violence comes from.

But I'm just a woman, what could I know--shoot, the Catholic church used to maintain that we didn't even have souls. I don't hate you, Pale, you're too much fun to hate. For me, you have become an interesting specimen. There is a wonderful "smiley" action figure that illustrates how I feel about you, it's a little yellow person using a stick to tentatively poke at a nondescript lump on the ground. No hate, Pale, disgust with your blind misogyny, yes, disappointment at your shortsightedness, yes, but no hate. Thanks for writing, it's good to see that you aren't constipated.

[Coyote]

If we learned that on saturday nights chimps go deep into the forest to smoke cigars, play calypso music and play poker we might have to redefine what it means to be a chimp, but what humans are would remain the same.

If we defined humans as the only species which used tools, and discovered that chimps used tools that would change the definition of human.

[Mare Tranquillity]

One of the problems with legislating the abortion issue is that we don't know when "life" begins in the sense that we don't know when the soul inhabits the developing body. People who want to ban abortion argue that the soul is in the body from the moment of conception, others say that it doesn't enter finally till just before birth. I don't know which is correct.

What I do know is that every person after birth (with very few exceptions) has a soul (or "spark" for those of us who are unhappy with "soul") and I have to grant them their right to own themselves even if I am not happy with their choices. Soldiers let themselves be used as weapons of war, without soldiers there would be no war. The worst tyrant in the world would be just another impotent and frustrated person if it were not for the people who let themselves be used as weapons.

I don't think Pale's argument is logical, but it is consistent. Of course a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind (according to Einstein, but what did he know?). No one can prove scientifically at what point "life" begins or ends, people declared dead sometimes come back, sometimes people in comas come back but other times they lie there for years or decades before the body quits working--are they alive? What's "alive"? I don't know and neither does anyone else.

Some people's convictions make them want to put restrictions on others without any proof of the correctness of those convictions. Pale's attack on gay people is another example of someone's convictions making them want to restrict others. It's also another tenet of the Catholic Church. Do you know that when the Pope visited Canada that the government banned the selling of Pope Soap on a Rope? True!

[palerider]

I have to admit that at first I took you seriously, but you calling me a liar all the time and misquoting me has become such a farce that I often laugh out loud while reading your posts. You ARE an interesting dichotomy of soulless coldness as you advocate chopping people limb from limb to tear the secrets--that you believe they have--out of them. You present yourself as being almost sharklike--a compassionless torturing machine. On the other hand you are sooooooooooo! wrapped up in your emotional involvement with fetuses that you are practically bleeding through the eyes. It's an interesting combination. Around abortion your emotions run over your intellect like a bus over a ground squirrel. Don't feel bad though, no one is really consistent all the time--women are often accused of being fickle so I guess we can cut you a little slack for being so too.

What is wrong with you? First, I have pointed out that you lie but have not called you a liar and I have not misquoted you on a single thing. You, however, misquote me and misrepresent what I say regularly.

Here is a fine example. I have never advocated chopping people limb from limb to get their secrets. Clearly, you have misrepresented what I said for your own purposes. Then you follow up with another example. I have clearly stated what my objections to abortion are and there is nothing emotional about them but you continue to characterize my objections as emotional.

Thanks for providing ready examples of your dishonesty. It saved me the trouble of bringing forward other examples. I note that you have not brought forward any examples of me saying the things you claim I say.

For many scientists, science is a religion with just as much dogma as any church. Your religious beliefs come out in what you advocate despite your attempts to "keep" them out of the discussion. Your adherence to the "spark" that makes us different from animals is without scientific proof. Coyote is right, as we discover things about animals we have to define ourselves differently. At one time we were the only tool-using animal, but when we discovered that chimps made tools and used them we had to find another way to define our superiority. We were the only animal with language, then we were the only animal that laughed, and the list went on and on. Each time we discover that animals are more like us than we used to think, we come up with a new definition to make ourselves special. Do you sacrifice animals in your laboratory?

Figments of your imagination mare. You fabricate whatever you need to make your point. Science is my job. I have religious beliefs but they are not voiced in my objection to abortion. I have challenged you to bring forward examples of religion in my argument and you can't do it because they don't exist and you continue to simply fabricate.

Your whole animal "thing" is as rediculous as coyote's animal "thing". The definition of what it means to be human didn't change when we learned that chimps use tools. The definition of what it means to be a chimp changed.

And no, no animals are killed in my laboratory and I have never worked in one where they were. There is a very limited range of work that I would be willing to do that involved animal testing of any sort.

There is nothing philosophical about anything to those who can't recognize philosophy. There are none so blind as those who will not see. We could choose to be the most developed predator on Earth or we could choose not to, fear drives most of us to be as powerful as we can be. Our choices make us what we are.

I submit that you don't know the first thing about philosophy. You are clearly unable to separate philosophy from science from religion. You are right about the blindness. WHY WONT YOU OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!

Mare, there is no way we can choose or not choose our position in the food chain. We are what we are. We can chose what to do with that position, but as for chosing not to be the top predator, we can't because we are. It is an idiotic proposition.

Well, you don't seem to be doing too good a job of it. Special Spark Pale sounds pretty Catholic in his pronouncements and attitudes. It tickles me to think that you may very well be concealing your Catholicism because you don't want to admit where your combination of compassion and violence comes from.

The spark comment sounds like you want it to sound. There was nothing religious in the comment. And again with the catholic. What mare, were you raped by a catholic priest? Is that why you hate catholics and men so much? You seem to be obsessed. I am sorry you have had such tragic events in your life that you would become what you are, but tragic events are not an adequate excuse to be stupid.

[palerider]

If we defined humans as the only species which used tools, and discovered that chimps used tools that would change the definition of human.

Human beings have always been defined as tool users, but never as the "only" tool user. That may be your personal definition, but isn't included in scientific literature.

[palerider]

One of the problems with legislating the abortion issue is that we don't know when "life" begins in the sense that we don't know when the soul inhabits the developing body. People who want to ban abortion argue that the soul is in the body from the moment of conception, others say that it doesn't enter finally till just before birth. I don't know which is correct.

We know exactly when life begins. What would be stupid would be to legislate abortion without knowing when life begins. That would be analogous to shooting a gun at a body lying on the ground without knowing whether the person was alive or not.

And pro choicers are the only ones talking about souls. You lose the argument on legal, scientific, and moral grounds so you feel that you must direct the discussion to religion. Your position, my dear, is based in faith. Not mine. Faith is defined as a belief not based on proof. Unlike you, I can prove my position.

This thread is the direct result of my being able to prove my position and the armchair general made no bones about it.

What I do know is that every person after birth (with very few exceptions) has a soul (or "spark" for those of us who are unhappy with "soul") and I have to grant them their right to own themselves even if I am not happy with their choices. Soldiers let themselves be used as weapons of war, without soldiers there would be no war. The worst tyrant in the world would be just another impotent and frustrated person if it were not for the people who let themselves be used as weapons.

Can you prove that you even have a soul? Much less that you didn't get it until you made that magical 7 inch trip down your mother's birth canal? Was it waiting for you somewhere along that route? What if you were a C-section baby, did you bypass getting a soul? Again, you are completely unable to prove your position so you just ramble.

I don't think Pale's argument is logical, but it is consistent. Of course a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind (according to Einstein, but what did he know?). No one can prove scientifically at what point "life" begins or ends, people declared dead sometimes come back, sometimes people in comas come back but other times they lie there for years or decades before the body quits working--are they alive? What's "alive"? I don't know and neither does anyone else.

My argument is perfectly logical which is why the general started this thread. The fact that you don't believe that we can prove when the life of an individual begins and ends is evidence of your small mind. There is a difference in what we can know and what you can get your mind wrapped around. Just because you can't grasp a thing doesn't mean that no one else can.

What is life? That is easy mare. Life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Unborns 1 second after fertilization is complete meet this criteria and they continue to meet it until they either die of a natural death or are killed.

I Some people's convictions make them want to put restrictions on others without any proof of the correctness of those convictions. Pale's attack on gay people is another example of someone's convictions making them want to restrict others. It's also another tenet of the Catholic Church. Do you know that when the Pope visited Canada that the government banned the selling of Pope Soap on a Rope? True!

Yes they do. You believe so strongly that women have the right to "control their bodies" that you are willing to completely eliminate a whole group of human being's very right to live and in the process deny the very real and credible scientific evidence that they are indeed living human beings.

And still more lies from you. I never attacked gay people. I correctly pointed out that gays are being denied any rights. Your wish for them to be able to marry is a wish for special rights that no one else has at this time and you want to hand out this special right based on sexual preference. And I am so tired of you incessant bloviating about catholic this and catholic that. Any rational person can see that my argument is not religious in nature. I am sorry you were assaulted and abused by a catholic, but it has nothing to do with me.

[top gun]

palerider;18485]So you are saying that you base your position on "unreported" cases? You have just made up whatever number you need to justify your position?

I meant just what I said. Your numbers can only be reported cases. They are guesstimates. I'm not presenting a number. I'm saying yours are low.

How can you possibly say otherwise. You are no kind of mind reader either. Face it, killing a child because it isn't "perfect" is not only for the mother's convenience but monstrous as well.

Well that's a ridiculous statement from a man that can never be in that position. Maybe women should support castration in all domestic violence, domestic intimidation, sexual harassment cases. That would possibly stop some forced pregnancies. What's "monstrous" to one may not be monstrous at all to the "ACTUAL" person in that situation or visa versa. That's why we have courts to decide. The United States Supreme Court, the court of last resort, decided on this issue decades ago. Pro-choice.


You have made yourself clear. Kill them if they aren't perfect. Well, actually, your position is kill them for whatever reason you care to make up and you will support them.

I'm making up the same position I always do. It's called United States Supreme Court position.

Tell me, how are you with killing them because they are the wrong sex? If we find a genetic component for homosexuality, will you be ok with screening homosexuals from the population before they are ever born?

You certainly have short term memory loss. I've already spoke on this several times. The woman is the one to choose whether to carry a fetus to term or not on that basis alone and of course the basis of the health of both the woman and the fetus. No one is saying we should be screening for traits.

That is a personal responsibility issue and in no way justifies killing innocent human beings.

KILL KILL KILL... already addressesed that too. No personhood. It is live human cells. It is not a fully established person.

The court said that if personhood were ever established, the framework of roe would fail. There is an ever growing precedent for the personhood of the unborn.

65% of the American people DO NOT want Roe overturned. If there was a serious threat to that actually happening trust me there would be public outcry that would make the recent immigration issue look like a weather report.

The partial birth abortion ban is no earth shattering precedent in regard to Roe. I think it reasonable that once viable "able to live outside the womb on its own" a case can be made for personhood. My position is a very reasonable one. Birth control including the Pill GREAT! Early term abortions necessary and a woman's prerogative.


And your assumption that "most" women would break the law and have an abortion anyway is specious at best. When an activity is illegal, the vast majority obey the law. It was true before roe and it is still true today.

And to that question absolutely! Women would definitely break that law in huge numbers. And in addition we would see those of means just traveling out of country to have a safe procedure. Those less fortunate would be forced to less safe practices and some back to the coat hanger. What we'd have is a situation very similar to marijuana laws. It would be illegal but the vast majority of women that wanted abortion would see this as personally invasive, unjustly criminalized and unfair and they would continue to find ways to abort. The country would spend billions of dollars chasing women down trying to enforce and only a very, very small percentage would get caught.

The old saying... The tighter you squeeze the sand in your hand... the more that slips through your fingers.

[9sublime]

Some things just don't get solved by being made illegal, unless you give them the death penatly as a punishment. Prohibition of alcohol and marijuana and abortion are amoungst them. If we did it like Saudi Arabi and cut someones hand off for smoking marijuana or drinking alcohol, then maybe, but I don't think anyone here thinks we should kill a woman for having an abortion.

[Coyote]

Human beings have always been defined as tool users, but never as the "only" tool user. That may be your personal definition, but isn't included in scientific literature.

It is neither my personal definition, nor is it a scientific one. It is one that is commonly used to deferentiate humans from other species and mark them as unique. We seem to have an inate desire to find something - anything - that seperates us from other species in a definitive way.

Your scientific definition isn't the only acceptable definitions. Things can be defined by what they are, what they aren't, what they are composed of, how they are constructed, who made them or what they do.

[palerider]

I meant just what I said. Your numbers can only be reported cases. They are guesstimates. I'm not presenting a number. I'm saying yours are low.

If you are going to question my numbers, you must have something with which to question them and by your own admission, anything you might provide will be your own fabrication.

Well that's a ridiculous statement from a man that can never be in that position. Maybe women should support castration in all domestic violence, domestic intimidation, sexual harassment cases. That would possibly stop some forced pregnancies. What's "monstrous" to one may not be monstrous at all to the "ACTUAL" person in that situation or visa versa. That's why we have courts to decide. The United States Supreme Court, the court of last resort, decided on this issue decades ago. Pro-choice.

I would rather see abusive men castrated than to see innocent children die? Would you rather see otherwise?

Unborns are actual human beings and according to the law, one need only be a human being in order to be a person. The court decided based on the argument that unborns were not human beings. That judgement is now rightfully questioned. They were simply wrong and as a result, roe will be overturned. You may not have noticed that the court is not quite so "activist" these days.

I'm making up the same position I always do. It's called the United States Supreme Court position.

What is the Supreme Court's position these days top gun? They recently upheld a ban on certain abortions. Chances are that they will not be so friendly to abortion on demand when the next challenge to roe comes around.

You certainly have short term memory loss. I've already spoke on this several times. The woman is the one to choose whether to carry a fetus to term or not on that basis alone and of course the basis of the health of both the woman and the fetus. No one is saying we should be screening for traits.

So you are fine with aborting female children, for example, because mom or dad wants a boy? And genetic screening is coming. We can know a great deal about how a child will grow. And you are fine with killing them because they simply aren't the 'sort' of child that the parents want?


KILL KILL KILL... already addressesed that too. No personhood. It is live human cells. It is not a fully established person.

I have provided credible peer reviewed science that states otherwise. Infants certainly aren't "fully established persons" and yet, they enjoy the protection of the law.

65% of the American people DO NOT want Roe overturned. If there was a serious threat to that actually happening trust me there would be public outcry that would make the recent immigration issue look like a weather report.

False numbers. The great majority want to see abortion restricted to a much greater degree than it is now. What the majority do or dont want however, is irrelavent to what the law presently says. If the great majority feel a particular way, then it is for their elected representatives to legislate laws, not hid behind a court decision which is certainly not law.

The partial birth abortion ban is no earth shattering precedent in regard to Roe. I think it reasonable that once viable "able to live outside the womb on its own" a case can be made for personhood. My position is a very reasonable one. Birth control including the Pill GREAT! Early term abortions necessary and a woman's prerogative.

It is something that pro choicers said in their smugness would not happen. Here it is. First one chip at the block; then another, and another, and another.

And to that question absolutely![/B] Women would definitely break that law in huge numbers. And in addition we would see those of means just traveling out of country to have a safe procedure. Those less fortunate would be forced to less safe practices and some back to the coat hanger. What we'd have is a situation very similar to marijuana laws. It would be illegal but the vast majority of women that wanted abortion would see this as personally invasive, unjustly criminalized and unfair and they would continue to find ways to abort. The country would spend billions of dollars chasing women down trying to enforce and only a very, very small percentage would get caught.

They didn't before, by what logic do you state that they absolutely will now? Fabricated percentages?

The old saying... The tighter you squeeze the sand in your hand... the more that slips through your fingers.

Did you ever squeeze sand in your hand? If you do, you will find that that saying, like a large number of old sayings is completely wrong.

[palerider]

It is neither my personal definition, nor is it a scientific one. It is one that is commonly used to deferentiate humans from other species and mark them as unique. We seem to have an inate desire to find something - anything - that seperates us from other species in a definitive way.

Your scientific definition isn't the only acceptable definitions. Things can be defined by what they are, what they aren't, what they are composed of, how they are constructed, who made them or what they do.[/QUOTE]

If you need a personal definition to separate yourself from the other animals, then have it. And if that stabalizes your little corner of the world for you and makes life bearable, then by all means, accomodate yourself. But it is specious to believe that you must keep changing the definition of what you are every time you learn something new about another species.

[Coyote]

If you need a personal definition to separate yourself from the other animals, then have it. And if that stabalizes your little corner of the world for you and makes life bearable, then by all means, accomodate yourself. But it is specious to believe that you must keep changing the definition of what you are every time you learn something new about another species.


I don't need personal definition nor is it important to me to place humanity on a pedestal. But isn't it rather close-minded to believe that definitions can't change the more we learn about something?

[palerider]

I don't need personal definition nor is it important to me to place humanity on a pedestal. But isn't it rather close-minded to believe that definitions can't change the more we learn about something?


No. If we learn that we have the ability to manipulate matter with thought alone, or that we can spontaneously regenerate lost limbs etc., then we would need to redefine what it means to be a human being. What other things are has no effect on what we are. Granted, new knowledge may cause us to reconsider how we relate to other creatures, but new knowledge about other creatures doesn't change what we are.

[Coyote]

Don't you think there is a difference between what you are

and

what it means to be something?

[palerider]

Don't you think there is a difference between what you are

and

what it means to be something?

Nope. What it "means" to be something will vary depending on which necromancer or gypsy you are talking to. I prefer the real.

[Coyote]

Nope. What it "means" to be something will vary depending on which necromancer or gypsy you are talking to. I prefer the real.

What we are then is nothing more then a construct of carbon, water, proteins and chromosomes.

I don't put philosophy in the same realm as necromancy or astrology, but whatever.

[Coyote]

Come to think of us, if that is all we are then there is nothing that makes us special enough to be granted consideration above any other thing except for the law of the jungle yet you decry the law of the jungle.

[palerider]

What we are then is nothing more then a construct of carbon, water, proteins and chromosomes.

I don't put philosophy in the same realm as necromancy or astrology, but whatever.

That would depend upon what you are trying to do with the philosophy.

Come to think of us, if that is all we are then there is nothing that makes us special enough to be granted consideration above any other thing except for the law of the jungle yet you decry the law of the jungle.

Like I said, our ability to recognize that we will either live by the law of the jungle or not is what makes us different. I will agree in principle with the armchair general in that society and law, and morals, and ethics is just a game that we play in lieu of the alternative which is the natural world. If we are to play the game however, there must be rules and the rules must apply to everyone.

I am not quite sure how this line of reasoning is suppose to legitimize killing innocents for reasons that amount to no more than convenience. Can you explain? It is clear that the rule of the jungle applies to unborns with their own mothers being their top predators but none of the rest of us particularly wants to give up the game and live under the same rule we impose on them.

[top gun]

palerider;18543]If you are going to question my numbers, you must have something with which to question them and by your own admission, anything you might provide will be your own fabrication.

I have to do no such thing. The reality is many cases like this go unreported. I would be as bad as you if I put a number on it. It's unknown... but somewhere higher than the reported cases for sure.

I would rather see abusive men castrated than to see innocent children die? Would you rather see otherwise?

Castration for the crimes cited would of course be excessive. Not a child.

Unborns are actual human beings and according to the law, one need only be a human being in order to be a person. The court decided based on the argument that unborns were not human beings. That judgement is now rightfully questioned. They were simply wrong and as a result, roe will be overturned. You may not have noticed that the court is not quite so "activist" these days.

Another peeing in the wind conclusion but I can't stop you from having it. I think I've said about 10 times now that I await a change... but for now and the last few decades all across America pro-choice stands.

What is the Supreme Court's position these days top gun? They recently upheld a ban on certain abortions. Chances are that they will not be so friendly to abortion on demand when the next challenge to roe comes around.

Let's make it 11 times now... I await a change but you're just peeing on yourself thinking it's going to happen.

So you are fine with aborting female children, for example, because mom or dad wants a boy? And genetic screening is coming. We can know a great deal about how a child will grow. And you are fine with killing them because they simply aren't the 'sort' of child that the parents want?

Never said that in any way. In fact I specifically said there should be no screening for traits. Where do you get this stuff out of the air. Print what I said.

I have provided credible peer reviewed science that states otherwise. Infants certainly aren't "fully established persons" and yet, they enjoy the protection of the law.

But yet they have no personhood standing in the abortion scenario. And the whole partial birth restriction is all about being viable and would be able to live on their own outside the mothers womb. That's just the plain truth... and I do not disagree with that judgment because even it allows for life of the mother. I think the woman does have a responsibility to make a decision in the earlier stages. Once the fetus reaches a point that it could live on it's own... that's a reasonable marker.

False numbers. The great majority want to see abortion restricted to a much greater degree than it is now. What the majority do or dont want however, is irrelavent to what the law presently says. If the great majority feel a particular way, then it is for their elected representatives to legislate laws, not hid behind a court decision which is certainly not law.

It is what it is my friend. It's documented, and I've posted it, that a large majority do not want Roe overturned. The court of last resort made a ruling on the Constitutionality decades ago. And I hope that the legislators do further set Roe in stone by making and passing laws protecting a woman's right to choose. I would say after the 08 election it would be a great time to start moving forward with this.

Did you ever squeeze sand in your hand? If you do, you will find that that saying, like a large number of old sayings is completely wrong.

You have to be one of the silliest guys I've ever talked to. Go get some nice fine white dry sand (sandbox sand) and squeeze it as hard as you can... see what happens. :)

[palerider]

I have to do no such thing. The reality is many cases like this go unreported. I would be as bad as you if I put a number on it. It's unknown... but somewhere higher than the reported cases for sure.

Of course you do. If they go unreported, by definition you can know nothing about them and any claim you make is a fabrication on your part.

Castration for the crimes cited would of course be excessive. Not a child.

More excessive than killing a child? Explain that logic.

Another peeing in the wind conclusion but I can't stop you from having it. I think I've said about 10 times now that I await a change... but for now and the last few decades all across America pro-choice stands.

Of course, you can't offer up a shred of credible evidence to oppose it.

Are you under the impression that I am arguing that abortion is illegal now? You keep talking like you are somehow trying to convince me that it is legal. The point of this discussion is that it should not be legal. You make a great case for saying that it is legal, but can offer no defense for its legality than to say that it is.

Let's make it 11 times now... I await a change but you're just peeing on yourself thinking it's going to happen.

See above. If the best you can do is say it is legal now, then why are you here? If you are unable to defend its legality in any rational way, you really have nothting to say do you?

Never said that in any way. In fact I specifically said there should be no screening for traits. Where do you get this stuff out of the air. Print what I said.

"you said: "I've already spoke on this several times. The woman is the one to choose whether to carry a fetus to term or not on that basis alone and of course the basis of the health of both the woman and the fetus. No one is saying we should be screening for traits."

If you leave the decision to the woman, then she can decide to kill the child because it is the wrong sex or for any other reason when screening becomes more advanced; which it surely will.

It is what it is my friend. It's documented, and I've posted it, that a large majority do not want Roe overturned. The court of last resort made a ruling on the Constitutionality decades ago. And I hope that the legislators do further set Roe in stone by making and passing laws protecting a woman's right to choose. I would say after the 08 election it would be a great time to start moving forward with this./quote]

You keep saying that but at the same time, the great majority want access to abortion restricted. The idiot polls you keep referencing offer an all or nothing choice to the polees and do not offer options for the mother's health. They are dishonest polls for dishonest people.

[QUOTE=top gun;18594]You have to be one of the silliest guys I've ever talked to. Go get some nice fine white dry sand (sandbox sand) and squeeze it as hard as you can... see what happens.

Already have. Your saying is wrong.

[Coyote]

That would depend upon what you are trying to do with the philosophy.



Like I said, our ability to recognize that we will either live by the law of the jungle or not is what makes us different. I will agree in principle with the armchair general in that society and law, and morals, and ethics is just a game that we play in lieu of the alternative which is the natural world. If we are to play the game however, there must be rules and the rules must apply to everyone.

I am not quite sure how this line of reasoning is suppose to legitimize killing innocents for reasons that amount to no more than convenience. Can you explain? It is clear that the rule of the jungle applies to unborns with their own mothers being their top predators but none of the rest of us particularly wants to give up the game and live under the same rule we impose on them.


Actually no, because I've digressed off the original intent of this thread.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have to work for a living so I can't really respond to Pale adequately just now, but one of the things that makes me laugh at his posts is that he continually says I'm lying and and simultaneously says he's not calling me a liar. That kind of clear scientific thinking lead to phrenology and Lysenkoism.

You are a pretty funny guy, Pale, but I'm glad to hear that you don't grind up animals in your lab--good for you.:)

I also chuckle when I read the parts about my hating men and Catholics. It's not men and Catholics that I have a problem with Pale--it's YOU, personally, up-close, down and dirty, the misogynist Pale. Most men and most Catholics are nearly the stentorian extremist that you appear to be.

[palerider]

I have to work for a living so I can't really respond to Pale adequately just now, but one of the things that makes me laugh at his posts is that he continually says I'm lying and and simultaneously says he's not calling me a liar. That kind of clear scientific thinking lead to phrenology and Lysenkoism.

Perhaps you can't recognize the difference between pointing out specific lies that you have told and calling you a liar which in general means that nothing you say can be trusted.

I also chuckle when I read the parts about my hating men and Catholics. It's not men and Catholics that I have a problem with Pale--it's YOU, personally, up-close, down and dirty, the misogynist Pale. Most men and most Catholics are nearly the stentorian extremist that you appear to be.

Untrue mare. I have looked at your posts not only here but in other places. It is not just me. Perhaps I have gotten a bit too close to the source of your "issues" so to deflect, you claim a dislike for me personally.

[Coyote]

Like I said, our ability to recognize that we will either live by the law of the jungle or not is what makes us different.

Is that distinction any different than necromancy and gypsies?

[palerider]

Is that distinction any different than necromancy and gypsies?

It is nothing more than an observation. I did not attempt to justify anything with it.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Perhaps you can't recognize the difference between pointing out specific lies that you have told and calling you a liar which in general means that nothing you say can be trusted.
Teehee, Pale, your semantic gynastics would put a contortionist to shame.:D
You disagree with me so you say it's all lies. Is it possible that you are a Catholic phrenologist?

Untrue mare. I have looked at your posts not only here but in other places. It is not just me. Perhaps I have gotten a bit too close to the source of your "issues" so to deflect, you claim a dislike for me personally.
Poor Pale, you've been made an honorary Catholic because you espouse their dogma and you try to paint me as hating men and Catholics because you can't think of anything else to say. I'm sure that you are a wonderful caring human being who loves his wife, and babies in general, but who is willing to torture people if you think you stand to gain therefrom. No, it's true that you never "actually" specified tearing people apart, but when I tried to pin you down to see if any kind of torture was verboten to a person such as yourself, you only ruled out making the people watch as their families were tortured and killed. Tearing people limb from limb is still very much on the table where you are concerned. You still have not said that you wouldn't be willing to do it.

I don't dislike you personally and I don't recall ever saying I did, I do have a problem with your religio/philosophical outlook. I've never met you so I can't really dislike you personally, it's the stuff you advocate that I despise. More of the same patriarchal religious nonsense put out by the desert religions--even if you deny it--please note that I do not call you a liar, you may genuinely see things differently. I can let you do that, you cannot let me do that without calling me a liar and trying to pass laws to force me and all the other women to OBEY your personal viewpoint.

You are big on the logic of your position, but logic isn't the be-all and end-all of thinking. Not everyone's logic comes up with the same answers. No two people have exactly the same information and experiences to start with--initial conditions, if you will--and so they cannot come to the same conclusions. YOU are not God, YOUR logic is not God, you are as fallible as all the rest of us, but you wish to tell us how we should behave and that's a very religious and very, very Catholic attitude. Early on in our discussions on torture you repeatedly called me "self-righteous", but your stance on women's issues is as self-righteous as any person with whom it has ever been my misfortune to speak.

I thought about you today while I was working on a project with a Catholic Church, I've been spending time in their office discussing the details and appreciating their air-conditioning.:)

[Mare Tranquillity]

We know exactly when life begins. What would be stupid would be to legislate abortion without knowing when life begins. That would be analogous to shooting a gun at a body lying on the ground without knowing whether the person was alive or not.
YOU claim to know when life starts, many people don't agree with you (I personally do agree with you, but I'm not trying to play God and tell every other woman what she can do with her body and its contents).

And pro choicers are the only ones talking about souls. You lose the argument on legal, scientific, and moral grounds so you feel that you must direct the discussion to religion. Your position, my dear, is based in faith. Not mine. Faith is defined as a belief not based on proof. Unlike you, I can prove my position.
Legally, it's legal to have an abortion. Scientifically, well I don't know what you are using science to prove (can you "scientifically PROVE that a woman doesn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy?). And moral grounds are a rubber yardstick, morals differ and they are all based on personal feelings not on science or logic.

Can you prove that you even have a soul?