you're seriously like two or three posts away from being forced to defend sharia law.


just a friendly heads up.

2/16/2012 6:29:34 PM

Quote :

"depends on how the death occurs. is it direct harmful action on an unwilling victim? then, no. In CS, you have inaction which leads to death, which makes a difference."

I'm a little confused here. Death through deliberate action is bad, but death through deliberate inaction is OK...? Can children even be willing 'victims' of the Christian Scientists views on medical care?

2/16/2012 6:33:17 PM

if the child speaks up and says "I don't want to die," then they most certainly can be an unwilling victim. CS is clearly a religious issue, and I am not gonna tell a parent how to practice their religion. The only reason it comes up as an issue is because children are under the "control" of their parents. I respect the parent's religious wishes, and unless malicious intent can be shown, I'm not gonna propose we shit on religious freedoms.

I realize that inaction is not a nice slope, as one could say that not feeding a child is "inaction." But I see a major difference between denying sustenance and denying medical care, especially when an opposition to medical care is a primary tenant of the belief system. I've yet to see any religions that advocate death by starvation of children as a central tenant. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I certainly have yet to see it.


Moreover, you're trying to push me into a hole of saying that a certain outcome is always bad, and I don't believe that. The death of a child could occur in many ways, but not all are murder, and certainly not all are acceptable. You try to mitigate that by adding some pre-conditions, but even those aren't failsafe, as not all situations can be perfectly described. The illustration of CS is easy to talk about, because it's a specific situation, where the information surrounding possible deaths is well known. Then you are trying to generalize back to "any possible religion to any possible death of child," which I am not willing to do, as that loses important information and, dare I say, nuance.

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2012 6:47:09 PM

it's fascinating watching you reason

2/16/2012 6:51:46 PM

^^

It is your apparent belief that children are fully capable of realizing the implications of their (parents' ?) religious beliefs. How old must the child be? What if the child is too young (say, a few months) to articulate their desire to be willing?

I'm just trying to find out where you draw the line. You've clearly stated your belief that fetuses have rights and abortion trespasses those rights. Yet you also seem to be OK with children dying unnecessarily based on the religious beliefs of their parents. Why is one situation a violation of the fetus' rights and the other isn't a violation of the child's rights? Why does one have stronger rights than the other?

2/16/2012 7:07:50 PM

Quote :

"Would abortion be OK if my religion frowns on bastard children?"

Depends...is your religion Christianity? If so, god says abortions is all good (if that whore cheated on you)

Reference: Numbers 5:26-31

2/16/2012 7:14:23 PM

Quote :

"Which goes back to your "it's no important" idea. I don't work that way, and I find that idea to be completely disgusting."

What "it's no important" idea are you talking about?

Quote :

"Then what is it? it's clearly human, it's clearly alive. what is it."

It's a human embryo/fetus. Not a person, not a "life." Just as a seed is not a tree even though it most certainly is the same species as the tree and is also alive. Is a seed a tree?

Quote :

"No. you said that Congress said it was OK, therefor it must be reasonable. i reject that argument outright."

I never said that. Are you trying to build an army of strawmen?

What I said was that we were fortunate that our government isn't as caveman-esque as you. No where was I saying that the reasoning for why I don't believe abortion is murder has anything to do with our government. They just happen to share my reasoning at least to a degree.

Quote :

"at which point it was your job to show the relevance. YOU FUCKING DIDN'T and I'M NOT GONNA DO YOUR GOD DAMNED RESEARCH. you wanna talk about it, explain the relevance. someone FINALLY explained it, and I responded."

I'm not sure why I'm doing this, but you do realize that several fertilized ovum are discarded during In Vitro Fertilization, right? By your definition these doctors or mothers (it's not clear to me where you're laying the blame for this insanity) are serial killers. Seems highly relevant to me.

Quote :

"But, if you can find me a bona fide religion which practices ritual abortions, then we'll deal with that when it occurs."

First, are you seriously ok with Christians not taking their dying children to a hospital? Without your usual obfuscation, do you think that a Christian that allows their child to die instead of giving them medical treatment should be charged with a crime, if their reasoning for said reaction is "religious"? Yes or no?

Secondly, LOL! Bona fide religion? Who decides whether a religion is bona fide? How do you vet something which is not based on fact at all? And since multiple religions all claim truth EXCLUSIVELY how could more than one of those be bona fide? (and of course it's more likely that none of them are, but I digress)

Quote :

"it's fascinating watching you reason"

An extremely loose definition of the word reason there.

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2012 8:00:39 PM

Quote :

"I'd be curious as to what makes you think it isn't... it's the killing of a human life without any sort of due process, based solely on the fact that the life is inconvenient to you. Go into any other circumstance where someone is killed because he is simply inconvenient and explain to me how it's not murder."

I mean why does it matter if you "kill" something that has never come into conscious existence? Do you think you're taking away their chance at life? If that's the case, how do you feel about the morning after pill? What about condoms?

2/16/2012 8:22:56 PM

^^ For the record, this is aaronburro's post on the last page, before it was ghost-edited:

Quote :

"Does your religion specifically require the killing of bastard children? I mean, technically, Catholicism frowns on bastard children (except cute lil baby jeebus), but it also doesn't say to murder the bastard children. Thankfully, there are no religions that call for abortions, so I'm good for now But, if you can find me a bona fide religion which practices ritual abortions, then I'm not gonna stop it."

2/16/2012 9:03:15 PM

Quote :

"It is your apparent belief that children are fully capable of realizing the implications of their (parents' ?) religious beliefs."

No, but it is my belief that a child can say whether or not he wants to live at most any age. And at ages where he can't, it is no different from the situation where you say it is OK to kill the unborn, so what's your point? Why is the demarcation of the vaginal entrance special to you?

Quote :

"You've clearly stated your belief that fetuses have rights and abortion trespasses those rights. Yet you also seem to be OK with children dying unnecessarily based on the religious beliefs of their parents."

Because one is a matter of religious freedom, the other is a matter of killing for convenience. There is a massive difference, and I don't see why you can't comprehend that.

Quote :

"What "it's no important" idea are you talking about?"

I meant to say "it's not important," as in, the child is not an important life, so it can be discarded.

Quote :

"It's a human embryo/fetus. Not a person, not a "life.""

So, it's alive, it's human, and it's the entirety of a human, but it's not a life. makes zero sense.

Quote :

"What I said was that we were fortunate that our government isn't as caveman-esque as you. "

No, what you said was that if our gov't makes a decision and congress votes on it, that that means it was reasonable. Care to show that you didn't say that?

Quote :

"No where was I saying that the reasoning for why I don't believe abortion is murder has anything to do with our government."

False: "I think the fact that our democratically elected legislatures have deemed abortion not murder is not a proof of it not being murder, but evidence that other reasonable people think the same way. " That SURELY suggests that the democratically elected people voting one way suggests something is a belief held by "reasonable people". Care to divorce that from our government, now? Even then, it's not even like "our elected government" even voted on it. Quite the contrary. SEVEN people said so, and it became law.

Quote :

"I think the fact that our democratically elected legislatures have deemed abortion not murder is not a proof of it not being murder, but evidence that other reasonable people think the same way. "

I know, and I've already addressed that before. I was just responding to HockeyRoman bringing up old shit that's already been discussed. Thank you.

Quote :

"First, are you seriously ok with Christians not taking their dying children to a hospital?"

If their belief is that they shouldn't take their child to a hospital, then I'm not going to trample on their religion. I think it's nuts, and I don't like it, but that's the Constitution. Piss on it at your own peril.

Quote :

"I mean why does it matter if you "kill" something that has never come into conscious existence?"

More of the "it's sub-human" argument, similar to what Hitler used to kill millions of Jews. Forgive me for calling that logic disgusting. I say a human life is human life, and I'll argue for protecting it.

2/16/2012 9:03:41 PM

Sooo you're not interested in exploring the reasoning behind your beliefs. Guess I'm done here.

2/16/2012 9:07:56 PM

I'm more than happy to explore the reasons. what would you like to know? condoms? do you really want to go into the "what could possibly have ever happened" rabbit hole? Does that mean that we should tell women they have to have sex and can't use the "headache" excuse, because "a life might be formed?" I'm worried about where a life actually has been formed. Frankly, the morning after pill is as far as I am willing to take it, and even that makes me uneasy, as it certainly would be able to effectively induce the death of the unborn. However, I draw the line there as it's not even certain that the egg would have been fertilized, much less that it would have implanted. You are dealing with an unknown, and I'll let the unknown win. Meanwhile, we look at the real case, where you are plucking a life that you know to exist from the womb and destroying it. I see those two as different, and I think you should be able to do so, too.

2/16/2012 9:13:12 PM

Quote :

"No, but it is my belief that a child can say whether or not he wants to live at most any age. And at ages where he can't, it is no different from the situation where you say it is OK to kill the unborn, so what's your point? Why is the demarcation of the vaginal entrance special to you?"

Just so we're all clear: when the child of Christian Scientist parents says 'I don't want medical attention, Jesus will save me' it is your belief that child fully understands what he is saying?

2/16/2012 9:20:49 PM

^^
Fertilization can occur as soon as 30 minute after copulation. So basically you've chosen an arbitrary point at which human life begins, but anyone who believes differently is a murderer.

2/16/2012 10:04:10 PM

Quote :

"I meant to say "it's not important," as in, the child is not an important life, so it can be discarded."

You continue to beg the question by calling an embryo/fetus a child.

Quote :

"So, it's alive, it's human, and it's the entirety of a human, but it's not a life. makes zero sense. "

IS AN ACORN A TREE? IS AN ACORN A TREE? IS AN ACORN A TREE? IS AN ACORN A TREE?

An acorn is alive and the exact same species as the tree it will one day grow into. Is it a tree?

Quote :

"False: "I think the fact that our democratically elected legislatures have deemed abortion not murder is not a proof of it not being murder, but evidence that other reasonable people think the same way. " That SURELY suggests that the democratically elected people voting one way suggests something is a belief held by "reasonable people". Care to divorce that from our government, now? Even then, it's not even like "our elected government" even voted on it. Quite the contrary. SEVEN people said so, and it became law. "

Again, saying that I'm glad that they're reasonable, not "this is a good argument because the government says so."

Quote :

"If their belief is that they shouldn't take their child to a hospital, then I'm not going to trample on their religion. I think it's nuts, and I don't like it, but that's the Constitution. Piss on it at your own peril. "

I'm not sure I can continue talking to a monster. If you honestly hold these beliefs I don't know how you're informing your beliefs at all. A clump of non-sentient human cells deserves to exist more than an actual child....

2/16/2012 10:13:48 PM

transvaginal ultrasoud?

so, if a woman wants an abortion, the state is going to be required to stick a camera up up her cunt and make her look at the picture?

jesus, virginia. get your shit together.

2/16/2012 10:20:37 PM

Abortion is murder.

But we as a society don't have a problem murdering, we do it all the time.

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 10:32 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2012 10:32:25 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOI7fokqkFc

aspirin as a contraceptive?

2/16/2012 10:53:38 PM

msnbc

pphhhhh

2/17/2012 12:49:22 AM

Quote :

"Just so we're all clear: when the child of Christian Scientist parents says 'I don't want medical attention, Jesus will save me' it is your belief that child fully understands what he is saying?"

nope. but if he says the opposite, I'll take that to mean something. Otherwise, I'll just hope that Darwinism does its thing.

Quote :

"Fertilization can occur as soon as 30 minute after copulation."

Your point? I'm well aware of when it can happen.

Quote :

"You continue to beg the question by calling an embryo/fetus a child."

and you continue to act like that makes a difference. it doesn't. You say it's an unimportant life. I say such a claim is disgusting.

Quote :

"Again, saying that I'm glad that they're reasonable, not "this is a good argument because the government says so.""

So you're moving the goalposts. good.

Quote :

"I'm not sure I can continue talking to a monster. If you honestly hold these beliefs I don't know how you're informing your beliefs at all. A clump of non-sentient human cells deserves to exist more than an actual child...."

When you look at it in the vacuum away from the situation, you can make anything look absurd.

Quote :

"IS AN ACORN A TREE? IS AN ACORN A TREE? IS AN ACORN A TREE? IS AN ACORN A TREE?"

keep talking about plants while I am talking about humans. it really looks smart. is a sapling a tree? an acorn is an entirety of what will be a tree. a fertilized egg is the entirety of a human at that point. it is not a full-grown human.

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 12:57 AM. Reason : ]

2/17/2012 12:54:38 AM

Quote :

"and you continue to act like that makes a difference. it doesn't. You say it's an unimportant life. I say such a claim is disgusting."

Still begging the question by calling it a life.

Quote :

"So you're moving the goalposts. good."

How can I move the goalposts on a point I NEVER MADE???? Holy fucking strawman batman.

Quote :

"When you look at it in the vacuum away from the situation, you can make anything look absurd. "

Or maybe it's just patently absurd already.

Quote :

"keep talking about plants while I am talking about humans. it really looks smart. "

Well, when you won't respond to direct questioning, I thought 2nd grade analogies would bear fruit. You could just answer the question because acorn:tree, embryo:human being is a pretty apt analogy in my opinion. Except the answer isn't convenient for your position so IRRELEVANT, IRRELEVANT it is. I'm not the only one seeing through this bullshit though so that's nice.

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 1:00 AM. Reason : copy paste fail]

2/17/2012 1:00:02 AM

Quote :

"Still begging the question by calling it a life."

well, AGAIN, what the hell is it? it's clearly alive. it's clearly human. it's clearly all there is of a specific human. it's clearly a human life. we have better terms to describe what is more important. I'm sorry the english language doesn't have a perfect way to describe the organism that is an acorn to encompass the entire life of a tree-like organism. But we DO have a way to describe human life: human life.

Quote :

"How can I move the goalposts on a point I NEVER MADE???? Holy fucking strawman batman."

well, first because you made it. then because you backed away from it.

Quote :

"Or maybe it's just patently absurd already."

or maybe it's because you took away the actual context.

Quote :

"Well, when you won't respond to direct questioning, I thought 2nd grade analogies would bear fruit."

too bad your analogy is bogus

2/17/2012 1:02:54 AM

Quote :

"well, AGAIN, what the hell is it? it's clearly alive. it's clearly human. it's clearly all there is of a specific human. it's clearly a human life. we have better terms to describe what is more important. I'm sorry the english language doesn't have a perfect way to describe the organism that is an acorn to encompass the entire life of a tree-like organism. But we DO have a way to describe human life: human life."

A human life requires a human personhood. A human personhood is entirely contained within the physiology of a brain. A human life requires a human brain.

A clump of human cells that are alive is not a human life. A tumor is not a human life. An embryo is not a human life until it that which makes it a person: a mind and identity facilitated by the human brain.

This is why you don't become a non person when you lose an arm. Your arm cells don't make you you. I'm not sure how much more explicit I can be about this point.

Quote :

"well, first because you made it. then because you backed away from it."

whatever. You can feel like you won on this trivial point if you wish. I've clarified my position umpteen times but you're too interested in saying "GOTCHA" than having an actual conversation. Jesus fuck I must be a masochist to continue this garbage.

Quote :

"or maybe it's because you took away the actual context."

What's the context again? People believing mystical bullshit from scrolls written thousands of years ago have a good enough excuse to let a child die instead of receiving the medical attention they deserve? In a sane world you would be the one divorcing yourself from this context.

Quote :

"too bad your analogy is bogus"

I disagree. A human embryo is a not-yet person like an acorn is a not-yet tree. An acorn is both alive and is precisely the same species as the tree it will one day grow into. A human embryo is both alive and is human but is not a 'human life' or a 'person' and therefore cannot be 'murdered' by any reasonable definition of the word.

And this is the point you keep glossing over: even if you proved it was a person you would still have to prove that it was murder because killing a person is not in and of itself enough to call a killing murder. We kill people all the time without calling it murder.

2/17/2012 1:13:16 AM

Quote :

"nope. but if he says the opposite, I'll take that to mean something. Otherwise, I'll just hope that Darwinism does its thing."

Woman aborts unborn fetus, it's murder.

Christian Scientist lets born child die from lack of medical attention, it's either religious freedom or Darwinism.

2/17/2012 1:44:38 AM

he still never answered the issue about discarded fertilized eggs during the IVF process and whether or not those doctors are serial killers

:shrug:



[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 7:53 AM. Reason : meh not worth it]

2/17/2012 7:52:57 AM

This was probably hashed out earlier, but when does the average pro-choicer consider life to begin? The moment the baby takes it's first breathe? When brain activity begins? Third trimester?

In other words, I understand the argument about a zygote not being conscious and not a living human. But at what point does the transition from zygote/fetus take place?

I am pro-choice and I also think research in to stem cell technology is important. However, I think most pro-choicers are rationalizing away what abortion is. It is ending a life. There is no way around it. You are ending what will be grow in to a person. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body, but people need to be aware of what exactly they are doing. Abortion should be a legal option, but it absolutely should not be something taken nonchalantly.

It's easy to be blissfully ignorant of what our actions really do. When you have an abortion it is ending a living being.

2/17/2012 8:40:36 AM

It's like when doctors used to bleed people to solve sicknesses. Just complete hokum based on nonsense.

2/17/2012 8:52:43 AM

I don't think that abortion is something that most women come to lightly

2/17/2012 8:59:21 AM

Quote :

"In other words, I understand the argument about a zygote not being conscious and not a living human. But at what point does the transition from zygote/fetus take place?"

I don't claim to know this, and I'm not going to call anyone a murderer or zealot for believing differently. I'd say it's a lot closer to birth than most people would agree.

Quote :

"I think most pro-choicers are rationalizing away what abortion is. It is ending a life. There is no way around it. You are ending what will be grow in to a person."

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. I'm definitely not. I'm saying it doesn't matter because that life hasn't entered consciousness yet. It is not aware that it will never exist. This is getting into spiritual belief territory.

Also agree with disco_stu below

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM. Reason : .]

2/17/2012 9:06:04 AM

Quote :

"This was probably hashed out earlier, but when does the average pro-choicer consider life to begin? The moment the baby takes it's first breathe? When brain activity begins? Third trimester? In other words, I understand the argument about a zygote not being conscious and not a living human. But at what point does the transition from zygote/fetus take place? I am pro-choice and I also think research in to stem cell technology is important. However, I think most pro-choicers are rationalizing away what abortion is. It is ending a life. There is no way around it. You are ending what will be grow in to a person. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body, but people need to be aware of what exactly they are doing. Abortion should be a legal option, but it absolutely should not be something taken nonchalantly. It's easy to be blissfully ignorant of what our actions really do. When you have an abortion it is ending a living being. "

Disclaimer: I don't speak for the entire pro-choice movement or for women.

Personally, I consider "life" as in personhood to begin with sentience. I'm not saying this means that killing a fetus that's past this point is murder. Yes, it's ending a life. To me, it's necessary to preserve the bodily rights of the woman carrying it.

Before sentience, an embryo is no more special than any given clump of cells in my body today. Yes, it will one day grow into a person, maybe. But so will each of my sperm, right? It's this line of reasoning that crazy people use to say masturbation is genocide.

That being said, agree 100% with LunaK. I highly doubt any woman that even considers abortion does so lightly. I mean, at the very least it can be an invasive procedure.

Quote :

"he still never answered the issue about discarded fertilized eggs during the IVF process and whether or not those doctors are serial killers :shrug: "

It's destructive to his absolutist position so IRRELEVANT IRRELEVANT it is.

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM. Reason : ...]

2/17/2012 9:10:46 AM

For the record, just because there is a zygote does NOT mean it will develop into a person. Over 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, and we can't forget things like molar pregnancies, fetal demise, etc etc.

It seriously upsets me when people treat the zygote as a person. There is so much that can go wrong and does go wrong (more than many people think) that to say it is on the same level as a newborn child is ludicrous.

As far as when you make that transition from fetus to person, I think it's clear to say there is no black and white answer.

2/17/2012 9:13:49 AM

Quote :

"As far as when you make that transition from fetus to person, I think it's clear to say there is no black and white answer."

I think that may be clear to say currently, but I think that it's simply a technological limitation that will be addressed in the not too distant future. I think this is important to note because it could easily be used as ammunition to ignore the woman carrying the fetus and declare abortion after this point illegal. The pro-life side will use anything to ignore the already person who definitely has rights right now.

2/17/2012 9:27:42 AM

Technology can only overcome the human body so much - there is a point where before that time embryologically it is devastating for a fetus to be born. And even if everything has reached a normal time period embryologically, a viable pregnancy does not a "person" make.

2/17/2012 9:35:07 AM

so should the cutoff time be when the child could live outside the mother?

2/17/2012 11:07:44 AM

For me, the cut off time is when it IS physically removed from the mother. The moment that it's no longer medically contingent on the mother, that's it. Not when it would be if it magically was teleported out of the womb.

2/17/2012 11:11:28 AM

well i mean, it isnt exactly magical to remove it from the womb (alive).

2/17/2012 11:17:08 AM

Quote :

"A human life requires a human personhood."

false. it requires life and a human. you've got that here.

Quote :

"What's the context again?"

Simple. One thing is actually protected by the 1st Amendment, namely people's right to be stupid and follow a religion to their own doom, while the other is not.

Quote :

"I disagree. A human embryo is a not-yet person like an acorn is a not-yet tree."

No, the reason the analogy is bogus is because there is no similar nation of a "human life" for a tree. There are no words in the English language to describe it. There is no "tree life", we just don't have the concept. The analogy is intentionally set up to exploit this. Thus, it's a bogus one.

Quote :

"And this is the point you keep glossing over: even if you proved it was a person you would still have to prove that it was murder because killing a person is not in and of itself enough to call a killing murder. We kill people all the time without calling it murder."

You are very correct. But, I'd say that killing a person simply because he is inconvenient would very much be murder, which is what 90% of abortions are, probably more.

Quote :

"he still never answered the issue about discarded fertilized eggs during the IVF process and whether or not those doctors are serial killers"

I did before. go look it up.

Quote :

"I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. I'm definitely not. I'm saying it doesn't matter because that life hasn't entered consciousness yet."

So, you are just saying it's sub-human, so fuck it. Thanks, Adolf.

2/17/2012 11:30:11 AM

Quote :

"So, you are just saying it's sub-human, so fuck it. Thanks, Adolf."

hahaha

2/17/2012 11:35:34 AM

You cannot rationally argue somebody out of a position that they did not reach rationally in the first place.

2/17/2012 11:37:00 AM

Quote :

"So, you are just saying it's sub-human, so fuck it."

Essentially your stance toward women, aaronburro

2/17/2012 11:37:46 AM

oh, puttin down the race card to pick up the gender card. even better!

2/17/2012 11:40:08 AM

As frustrated as some of you have been it seems like the past two pages have been pretty good reasoning at pin pointing some of the issues.

The general problem with the whole debate is it depends greatly on sound medical, biological, and philosophical knowledge and it's usually vehemently argued by people who lack knowledge of all three. You've got people arguing with conflicting ethical systems to prove a single point and conflicting views of what a person a is. You can argue those points separately for hundreds of years without ever complicating it with anything as silly as abortion

2/17/2012 12:31:47 PM

Quote :

"false. it requires life and a human. you've got that here."

"a life" is loaded and you know it. A brain-dead individual is alive and is a human. But he is no longer a human life by any reasonable sense of the term. Your individuality is not in any of your cells except your brain. When the brain is gone, you're gone. Before your brain is here, you're not here. If we were to somehow preserve your head in a jar a la Futurama, would you not be a person even though the rest of your body is long gone? If we preserve any other part of your body besides your brain, is that you? If I chop your arm off, is that you?

Quote :

"Simple. One thing is actually protected by the 1st Amendment, namely people's right to be stupid and follow a religion to their own doom, while the other is not."

If you think the intention of the Framers was to allow people to kill their children in the name of religion, then you are fucked up beyond belief. Even if that were the case, we would be morally obligated to either change it, or just ignore it. That you would elevate a document over the life of an innocent child is idolatry to the extreme.

Quote :

"No, the reason the analogy is bogus is because there is no similar nation of a "human life" for a tree. There are no words in the English language to describe it. There is no "tree life", we just don't have the concept. The analogy is intentionally set up to exploit this. Thus, it's a bogus one."

So what you're saying is that it takes more than to simply be alive (like a tree clearly is) to be counted as "a life". I agree.

Quote :

"You are very correct. But, I'd say that killing a person simply because he is inconvenient would very much be murder, which is what 90% of abortions are, probably more. "

Begging the question by calling a embryo/fetus a person. Still.

Quote :

"The general problem with the whole debate is it depends greatly on sound medical, biological, and philosophical knowledge and it's usually vehemently argued by people who lack knowledge of all three. You've got people arguing with conflicting ethical systems to prove a single point and conflicting views of what a person a is. You can argue those points separately for hundreds of years without ever complicating it with anything as silly as abortion "

I don't think so. I think aaronburro is unwilling to admit that a person is entirely defined by the mind (and therefore contingent on the brain) because it's inconvenient to his absolutist viewpoint. It's a simple, succinct explanation for personhood supported by modern medicine and science.

2/17/2012 1:45:29 PM

just think all 15 of these basterds could have been prevented:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E


nope. those damn pro-lifers had to spoil her party.

2/17/2012 1:50:20 PM

Quote :

"But, I'd say that killing a person simply because he is inconvenient would very much be murder, which is what 90% of abortions are, probably more."

that is such an overreaching statement.... your assumption that almost all abortions are simply done because it's easier is so unbelievably untrue.

2/17/2012 1:50:26 PM

Quote :

""a life" is loaded and you know it. A brain-dead individual is alive and is a human. But he is no longer a human life by any reasonable sense of the term."

and we disagree on this. I think it would still be a human life. That doesn't mean that that scenario is treated 100% the same as the scenario of the unborn. I'm not inflexible in that regard, though you surely want me to be.

Quote :

"If you think the intention of the Framers was to allow people to kill their children in the name of religion, then you are fucked up beyond belief."

And if you think the intention of the Framers was to allow the federal gov't to tell people which religious beliefs were OK, then you are also fucked up beyond belief.

Quote :

"That you would elevate a document over the life of an innocent child is idolatry to the extreme."

I follow the document. If we decide that religion shouldn't be protected, then we should amend it to remove the protection. Having that set of rules is what, theoretically, is supposed to prevent the gov't from running roughshod over our rights. The Constitution isn't multiple choice, and ignoring it is what gives us shit like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

Quote :

"So what you're saying is that it takes more than to simply be alive (like a tree clearly is) to be counted as "a life". I agree."

No, I'm saying your analogy relies on a failure of the English language to have any terms to properly describe your analogy with regard to the original subject matter.

Quote :

"Begging the question by calling a embryo/fetus a person. Still."

ignoring the point. still.

Quote :

"your assumption that almost all abortions are simply done because it's easier is so unbelievably untrue."

Do you have any stats to back it up? Because the ones I've seen say that 90% or greater are elective. And, at the end of the day, elective is done for convenience, to not deal with the consequences of your actions, and I find the destroying of human life for mere convenience to be disgusting.

2/17/2012 1:58:37 PM

Quote :

"and we disagree on this. I think it would still be a human life. That doesn't mean that that scenario is treated 100% the same as the scenario of the unborn. I'm not inflexible in that regard, though you surely want me to be."

Honestly? If I chop your head off and keep the rest of your body going medicinally you're still a human life? You have to be lying here.

Quote :

"And if you think the intention of the Framers was to allow the federal gov't to tell people which religious beliefs were OK, then you are also fucked up beyond belief."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether we should let parents kill their children. Once again I'm glad society, the government, and all rational people are on my side of this.

Quote :

"I follow the document. If we decide that religion shouldn't be protected, then we should amend it to remove the protection. Having that set of rules is what, theoretically, is supposed to prevent the gov't from running roughshod over our rights. The Constitution isn't multiple choice, and ignoring it is what gives us shit like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. "

I think a law that says "don't kill your children" doesn't overstep the First Amendment protection to religion. This is the way normal people think.

Quote :

"No, I'm saying your analogy relies on a failure of the English language to have any terms to properly describe your analogy with regard to the original subject matter. "

Of course you're saying that. The analogy is inconvenient to your absolutist position so it's either irrelevant or a failure of English language. Since analogies trip you up, let's talk specifics. So tell me what is it exactly, physiologically speaking, that makes a human zygote a person?

Quote :

"ignoring the point. still."

The point is that you are a priori claiming a zygote is a person without proving it when the entire body of medical literature and modern science disagrees with you.

Quote :

"Do you have any stats to back it up? Because the ones I've seen say that 90% or greater are elective. And, at the end of the day, elective is done for convenience, to not deal with the consequences of your actions, and I find the destroying of human life for mere convenience to be disgusting. "

Begging the question as above.

It's really easy to make up this "convenience" metric and say that just because they were elective procedures it was for "convenience" but you're not convincing me or anyone else.

Is execution murder? Would it not be less convenient just to deal with the convicted? Isn't execution just a matter of convenience? Aren't war casualities just convenience really? It sure would be harder to try to work out differences amiably and without war, wouldn't it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, you didn't address any of this:

"Your individuality is not in any of your cells except your brain. When the brain is gone, you're gone. Before your brain is here, you're not here. If we were to somehow preserve your head in a jar a la Futurama, would you not be a person even though the rest of your body is long gone? If we preserve any other part of your body besides your brain, is that you? If I chop your arm off, is that you?
"

Which I know is terribly inconvenient to your position.

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2012 2:14:19 PM

yup, you're right i'm completely wrong. all abortions are done because women don't want to be inconvenienced with it. there are never any other reasons at all that would factor into whether or not a woman would have an abortion.

i'm done with this stupidity.

2/17/2012 2:15:57 PM

^ you could simply point to some statistics, instead of misrepresenting my claims.

Quote :

"I think a law that says "don't kill your children" doesn't overstep the First Amendment protection to religion. "

if only it were that black and white, sure. Now you have to get into what, specifically, counts as "killing your children." Simple "inaction" is a slippery slope you don't want to get on. And, given that this "inaction" is still followed with other action that they believe will help, shouldn't count against them. Yeah, you and I think it's hogwash, but it's their belief, and they *are* trying something, it's just not what you would have them do. Sorry, I'm not gonna mandate that you go against your religious beliefs, and that's just how it is.

Quote :

"The point is that you are a priori claiming a zygote is a person without proving it when the entire body of medical literature and modern science disagrees with you."

Actually, show me where any medical literature says what a person is. I think you'll find that they don't do that whatsoever. Instead, they come up with some information that you then use to declare what makes a person. We are both, in effect, doing the same thing, and neither one of us is supported in any way by medical literature.

Quote :

"Begging the question as above."

and ignoring the point, again.

Quote :

"It's really easy to make up this "convenience" metric and say that just because they were elective procedures it was for "convenience" but you're not convincing me or anyone else."

Well, what would you call it? ignore the question of personhood, what would you call it when someone doesn't want to have a child because she would have to change her life? What would you call it when someone doesn't want to actually face the consequences of their actions and would rather take the road that allows them not to face those consequences? Keep in mind, I'm talking about the general case of abortion, not the exception of medical problems and/or rape. Keep in mind "I don't think I can do this" is identical to "I don't want to do this" at the point where you put it into action.

Quote :

"Is execution murder? Would it not be less convenient just to deal with the convicted? Isn't execution just a matter of convenience?"

No, execution arrived at through due process is not murder, specifically because there was due process.

Quote :

"Aren't war casualities just convenience really? It sure would be harder to try to work out differences amiably and without war, wouldn't it?"

Now you're just being absurd.

Quote :

"Also, you didn't address any of this:"

that's because you are pushing into the limits of the idea of a soul, things that we can't even begin to describe right now. I think it's horrible to snuff out something that can/will grow into something that has whatever the hell you want to call it, especially when you want to do so because you didn't think your actions through beforehand. You'll find that my particular hangup is with going in, when you know there is a pregnancy, know the potential is actually there and growing, and just destroying it because you don't want a child because you didn't think about it before hand. I'll leave the case of birth control and the like up to higher beings, if they exist, and let them decide. Meanwhile, we can talk about shit that we know does exist and admit that destroying life simply for convenience and to avoid the consequences of our actions is unacceptable.


I mean, IIRC, you said that the mother should be able to terminate the pregnancy any time up until the child is physically separated from her. is that right? if so, should she be able to give birth and bash the child's skull in with a shovel, so long as the umbilical is still attached? the fact is, there is a line there somewhere, and you are fine with being on the right side of it, I'd rather err on the left. But if we could find that line, we'd probably both be in perfect agreement. Neither of us knows what that line is, so we define some metrics to try and get as close to our gut feelings about it. Yours is consciousness, mine is life. agree to disagree. but I'd say that bashing a child's skull in with a shovel simply because it's still attached to the mother is absurd

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2012 2:32:32 PM

Quote :

"you could simply point to some statistics, instead of misrepresenting my claims."

or i could speak from experience. but whatever. i'm obviously wrong on this subject no matter what i say.

2/17/2012 2:35:17 PM