Abortion and Morality

[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.

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.
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? 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.

Can you prove that a human can live without a soul? Can you prove when the "spark" enters the fetus? You can't prove anymore than I can. The issue for me isn't proof since I pretty much agree with you. My problem is your misogynist, God-complex attitude that you have the right to dictate to others on the basis of your beliefs/logic/science/religion/whatever.

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.

There is nothing PERFECT, not your logic nor your beliefs. You cannot demonstrate the beginnings and ends of life scientifically since "dead" people sometimes come back, since people's consciousness can leave their bodies without bodily death. Are viruses alive? Are prions?

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.

Okay, prove it. You have used this narrow definition of "life" because it suits your purpose. If everything is made of the same material: energy, then how can one thing be alive and not another? A "spark" of life? A soul perhaps? You can't prove your position, all you can do is make a hypothesis. You stated, "Just because you can't grasp a thing doesn't mean that no one else can," and I wish to state the same back to you, because you can't or don't wish to grasp something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You come across as being absolutely certain (again a very religious attitude and one commonly found in Catholics) of the accuracy and COMPLETENESS of our--and especially YOUR--scientific knowledge, but it's false confidence to cover the painful fact that what we don't know is considerably more complete than what we do know.

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.

No, I'm not, but you can't grasp the concept that there is more involved than "convenience" murder taking place. You are so totally emotionally involved that you cannot hear anything else--so you call me a liar. It would be funnier if it wasn't so sad.

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.

Gay bashing from a self-identified "scientist", woo, woo! I won't try to argue this with you because in your Catholicism you are probably still against interracial marriage, just as you shown that you object to equality for women too.

So, would you agree to abort gay babies if it is shown to be a genetic condition?

I wonder if I could use your posts as proof of abuse by Catholics (since you certainly have been abusing me) and get a fat monetary settlement like their other victims?

 

[palerider]

Teehee, Pale, your semantic gynastics would put a contortionist to shame.
You disagree with me so you say it's all lies. Is it possible that you are a Catholic phrenologist?

I disagree with your opinions. I point out lies that you have told. Sorry you don't grasp the difference but that is your failing, not mine.

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 only need bring back specific quotes from you mare to determine whether you have engaged in good natured ribbing or dispicable and vile name calling?

And if the catholics agree with me so much, perhaps they should be called scientists. I was under the impression that they burned incence and said prayers. Show me some of that in my arguments.

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.

More lies mare. You never tried to pin me down on what sort of torture I would rule out. You suggested torturing family members, not me. That sort of thing is beyond the pale for me.

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.

Is it? Did I say that? I always say what I mean mare. Show me where I said that.

I don't dislike you personally and I don't recall ever saying I did,

No?

"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."

"Are you really a sick and twisted, miserable soul living in a damp, dank basement with rats scuttling around, vampiring your internet wirelessly off the people in the nice apartments upstairs, typing away in a frenzy of rage and impotence because of your low-station in life? "

"I think Mr. Pale is an abusive, despicable misogynist and a man with a secret agenda. Be that as it may, sometimes one has to wade through sh*t despite the foul smell."

All just "good natured" ribbing, right mare? Want to see more?

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.

I advocate that unborns are human beings and human beings have a basic right to live. Exactly which part of that do you 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.

It is clear that you wouldn't recognize the difference between religion, philosophy, and science if they bit you on the ass. You simply find yourself to effectively argue against my position so you call names and lash out and attempt to label the argument so as to not have to argue against it.

And I only point out lies when you have actually told lies mare.

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.

Logic always comes up with the same answers mare. It is a methodical, step by step process of examining facts and reaching conclusions and accepting them whether you like the outcome or not. That is why this thread was started mare. The armchair general could not deny the logic of my position so he started this thread to get away from logic and reason and into philosophy where all sorts of answers are possible.

but you wish to tell us how we should behave and that's a very religious and very, very Catholic attitude. [/quote]

When the law tells you that you may not kill your neighbor or steal his lawn mower is that a catholic attitude?

 

[Coyote]

Logic isn't everything. I prefer to argue using logic and logic makes sense to me in an argument. But I must admit I don't make my decisions based on logic. I run them through my mind, and my decision is made by how they feel to me - right or wrong, and logic doesn't enter in to it at that point. I do not think this is an inferior means of making decisions, just a different one.

That being said, I can not argue the logic of Palerider's points. When I run it through my mind, I come up with nothing - it feels neither right nor wrong, only confused.

I concede the argument, for now, to Palerider though that will not stop me from making comments.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I disagree with your opinions. I point out lies that you have told. Sorry you don't grasp the difference but that is your failing, not mine.

I disagree with yours too, but I don't call you a liar.

I only need bring back specific quotes from you mare to determine whether you have engaged in good natured ribbing or dispicable and vile name calling?

Start bringing, Pale. I do try to sprinkle my "despicable and vile name calling" with some good natured ribbing, it's called comic relief and it makes my posts much more fun to read. You do the same thing I've noticed, some of the stuff you post is hilarious.

And if the catholics agree with me so much, perhaps they should be called scientists. I was under the impression that they burned incence and said prayers. Show me some of that in my arguments.

Since you have all the important dogma down pat and, on this site, you are arguing for their religious beliefs, I suppose they will cut you some slack on the praying and incense (though please note that you have not yet denied praying or burning incense, all you have done is say that you have not mentioned it in your posts).

More lies mare. You never tried to pin me down on what sort of torture I would rule out. You suggested torturing family members, not me. That sort of thing is beyond the pale for me.

Actually I did try to pin you down on what you would be willing to do, but you declined to expound on the subject, so I gave some examples and asked if they would be okay with you. Again you declined, but did say that you would not torture family members or kill the subject's unborn child--which I thought was fairly inconsiderate of you since the example you used for justifying the torture originally was that there were Millions of lives at stake due to nuclear weapon terrorism. That's one of the reasons that I think your emotions run over your intellect on the issue of babies, if you wouldn't kill a baby or two to save millions of lives, what kind of useless, hypocritical torturer would you be?

Is it? Did I say that? I always say what I mean mare. Show me where I said that.

I asked you about it and you declined to answer. You have never said that you wouldn't do it, all you said was that you wouldn't torture family members--so I gather that everything else is still on the table. Answer the question: how far would you go to torture someone to save millions of lives?

No?

"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."

"Are you really a sick and twisted, miserable soul living in a damp, dank basement with rats scuttling around, vampiring your internet wirelessly off the people in the nice apartments upstairs, typing away in a frenzy of rage and impotence because of your low-station in life? "

"I think Mr. Pale is an abusive, despicable misogynist and a man with a secret agenda. Be that as it may, sometimes one has to wade through sh*t despite the foul smell."

All just "good natured" ribbing, right mare? Want to see more?

In example #1, no place in that do I say that I don't like you personally, I said I had a problem with you and that's true: YOUR abusive attitude, you personally I don't know, all I get from your posts is your ghastly attitude.
In quote #2, I was postulating that you may be lying to us and I was questioning if you were perhaps more as I was suggesting you might be, than the way you had presented yourself. It was questioning you, not accusing. I don't know who you are personally because all I see is your ghastly attitude reflected in your posts.
In example #3, perhaps you will note that I am referring to your attitudes and agenda, just like the Christians I love you as a child of God, but not your sins.

I think it would be useful to note that you did not quote this passage from one of my posts: "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... You know, Pale, lying by omission is still lying.

I advocate that unborns are human beings and human beings have a basic right to live. Exactly which part of that do you despise?

As I have noted in great detail numerous times I despise all the parts you always leave out of your simplistic assessment of the problem. You know the stuff, it's the stuff that made vyo pull back from your position and realize that what you were saying was only part of the truth, that you were spinning the facts to make an emotional point.

It is clear that you wouldn't recognize the difference between religion, philosophy, and science if they bit you on the ass. You simply find yourself to effectively argue against my position so you call names and lash out and attempt to label the argument so as to not have to argue against it.

You are the one quoting Catholic dogma, not me.

And I only point out lies when you have actually told lies mare.

I have yet to see one, try again. A lie is deliberately saying something that you know isn't true. There are different kinds of lies, when you tell your wife that her new dress does NOT make her look fat, then you may be lying, but it can also be called an investment in your marriage. When you are confronted by a very large, angry man with a tire iron who is demanding to know why you flipped him off, you may very well lie and say you didn't, but that could probably be considered a case of enlightened self-interest. I don't know what kinds of lies you are accusing me of telling because you just bleat like one of the sheeple: mare lies, mare lies. C'mon Pale, you're a scientist, you can do better than that.

Logic always comes up with the same answers mare. It is a methodical, step by step process of examining facts and reaching conclusions and accepting them whether you like the outcome or not. That is why this thread was started mare. The armchair general could not deny the logic of my position so he started this thread to get away from logic and reason and into philosophy where all sorts of answers are possible.

I'm not Armchair, and I don't agree with you "logic" since you throw out at least half the equation to come up with your answer. What do you call a scientist who throws out the data so that he gets the answer that he wants?

but you wish to tell us how we should behave and that's a very religious and very, very Catholic attitude.

When the law tells you that you may not kill your neighbor or steal his lawn mower is that a catholic attitude?

Of course, read your Bible a little more, Pale, Thou shalt not kill and Thou shalt not steal are right there in the 10 Commandments.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Logic isn't everything. I prefer to argue using logic and logic makes sense to me in an argument. But I must admit I don't make my decisions based on logic. I run them through my mind, and my decision is made by how they feel to me - right or wrong, and logic doesn't enter in to it at that point. I do not think this is an inferior means of making decisions, just a different one.

That being said, I can not argue the logic of Palerider's points. When I run it through my mind, I come up with nothing - it feels neither right nor wrong, only confused.

I concede the argument, for now, to Palerider though that will not stop me from making comments.

Women have rights too, fetuses should not be the only ones to be considered. Nor should a fetus' rights be considered over the rights of children that a woman already has. Women should not be saddled with all the negative consequences of an unwanted pregnancy (even one involving rape as Pale would have it) and men be allowed to get away free. Nor should the fetus' right to life triumph over the rights of the society that will have to care and pay for the unwanted child. Pale's whole approach is to deny women even the right to the birth control that is now available, criminalize their only resources, penalize them and society, and ultimately subject millions of unwanted babies to lives of neglect and abuse rather than killing them as clumps of cells. I agree that killing fetuses is not a good thing to do, but banning abortion without addressing the underlying systemic problems is short-sighted to the point of idiocy, as demonstrated by Ceausescu's regime in Romania.

Pale demonstrates very well that if you are willing to throw out enough of the data that you can make a case for anything. This too is a very religious and Catholic attitude--even without the prayer--but he has the incense because I am incensed at his misogynistic attitude.