Abortion and Morality

[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.