Abortion and Morality

[vyo476]

I don't think we have any right to stand in the way of a person choosing about end of life issues. If capable of reason and speaking for themselves, it is their choice.

There is an undeniable difference with abortion. We are talking here about the life of one who is incapable of speaking for itself, who is defenseless against those who feel the need to deny it's right to exist.

A person in a coma cannot speak for himself. The decision then falls 100% to a family member.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

A person in a coma cannot speak for himself. The decision then falls 100% to a family member.

Very true. But the situation we're addressing is the comparison of abortion to an adult end-of-life issue. As an adult, at least in the good old U.S.A., we've the resources to make our wishes known. The problems arise when those wishes have not been addressed or communicated in a verifiable manner.

Also, since physicians adhere to the concept of the Hippocratic oath to keep the good of the patient as the highest priority this acts as a baseline preventative of unscrupulous or irrational family members acting rashly in end-of-life decisions. When a family member wishes to terminate life support and the physician strongly disagrees, the courts may have to become involved.

Being pro-life where the unborn is concerned, but pro-choice where end-of-life is concerned doesn't necessarily negate my appreciation and valuation of human life. It simply means that I acknowledge that adults should have a say in what happens to them physically when and if they come to a point where they cannot speak for themselves.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Of course you would think so. It is all sensless emotionalism and slogans which can not be defended.

For a man chanting "convenience, convenience" over and over again you are hardly in a postion to knock slogans.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

How about we start with the first, and most blatant lie you told.

On the torture thread, I said:

"Face it mare, your hypocrital position has been exposed. You rail against torture but support a fabricated right of women to murder a million unborns per year precicely by tearing them limb from limb, without the benefit of anesthesia I might add, for reasons that amount to no more than convenience."

Then you repsonded:

"Nice try, Pale, but it won't work, I think abortion is murder. Just like I think that torture is murder. Keep trying though, we all appreciate your poorly-spelled but ghastly descriptions. "

That's it? That's the Big Lie you've been snivelling about all this time? I think a lot of things are murder and I don't do those things myself, but UNLIKE the catholic guys like you I am not trying to force other people to share my position. I think your statement is wrong, it is not a "fabricated" right to give women control over their bodies--even though the Catholic Church has been in the forefront of the subjugation of women for centuries now. I think the meat you eat is murder but I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you. I believe in freedom of choice for human beings in the contol over their bodies, but as I have pointed out numerous times I think that we can stem the tide of abortion without your cruel, dictatorial, and draconian measures that blame women and punish them.

You remind me of my older brother who likes things to black and white, no complex issues in his life and he does the same thing that you have done: throw out any information that doesn't fit your scheme and chant "convenience" over and over while ignoring all the other lives involved. Your sound-byte mentality around this issue is an indication of your emotional hysteria. Liar, liar! What a great argument. In your emotional desperation you are confusing motion with action and a lot of people will be hurt--including the babies--if your idiotic prohibitions are made into law.

From that point, you have told a series of lies. Stating that I have said a thing when I have said nothing of the sort and deliberate misrepresentations of my statements. I wouldn't have said you lied mare, if you had not, in fact lied.

Yeah, yeah, bleat like a sheep, but don't give us any examples. How scientific.

I have stated specifically that I am not a catholic. And I don't burn insense. At this point, how about you bring forward some "catholic dogma" and show me where I have said anything from their books. I have repeated over and over that my position is that unborns are human beings and human beings have a right to live. Which part of that is catholic dogma?

All of it, fetuses are sacred, women are evil and need to be controlled, women are here to incubate the holy seed of men--even in cases of rape, torture is okay, misogyny and hating queers is Godly, and your absolute intransigence, your belief in your own infallibility--that is the most Catholic thing of all.

If the limbs were torn from one who held information that you needed, you would lose that information as the shock of having a limb torn off would render your terrorist useless as a source of information.

You know not whereof you speak, read Daniel P. Mannix's THE HISTORY OF TORTURE.

You keep saying that. How about you prove it. Bring some "dogma" from the catholic church and lets compare it to my position? Or is that just another expedient lie that you tell?

Check my response to this above.

See above. That was a bald faced lie mare.

It wasn't really, you just can't seem to grasp the simple concept that YOU aren't God and YOU don't have the right to force others to bow to YOUR wishes. Your black and white thinking is directly out of Catholic doctrine too.

Since you wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on the ass, I am not going to worry much about it.

Yep, and you didn't answer the question either, that's another very Catholic thing to do: ignore the question and denigrate the person asking it. You better watch out they don't make you Pope.

That set of rules came from the Torah mare, long before the catholics were ever thought about.

Your point is null, most of Christianity was plagarized from earlier texts, but the parts I quoted ARE in the Catholic Holy Book, no matter where they came from originally.

I'm sure you are a wonderful person Pale, but here on the thread you come across as religious nut, a misogynist who hysterically blames women and desires to punish them for the murder of babies. Your attitude is so one-sided that you lack any credibilty at all. Sad for you, I'm glad that I won't ever have to actually meet you since my brother is an entirely adequate similacrum.

 

[palerider]

I deny it. A right to life is a right to life and it does not, nor should not, take into account the quality of said life.

Your right to live is a right to live out your natural days. The measures taken at the end of life are taken to extend your life beyond your natural days. Deny all you like, but there is a fundamental difference and end of life issues simply can not be rationally compared to beginning of life issues.

You're violating your own slippery slope: if we decide it is okay to allow the sick or comatose to die (for admittedly humanitarian reasons) it is not a long leap between there and allowing the indiscriminate killing of unborn children (for similarly humanitarian reasons), no matter how undeniable the difference between the situations is. Do not forget, there is an undeniable difference between the quality of life of an unborn child and the quality of life of a born person.

You have made a logical error and are trying to attribute it to me. I have no slippery slope because my position is not complicated. Let me repeat. Unborns are human beings. Human beings have the right to live. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

And what do you mean "allow" people to die? As if we can prevent death? When it is your time, it is your time and we may be able to extend your life at great expense to your family, or government systems, but that goes beyond your right to live. Your right to live means that no one has the right to kill you without legal consequence. It has nothing to do with letting you die when you are so injured or diseased that you will never recover. And when we "let" people die (as if we could stop it) we "let" them die. We stop taking extraordinary measures to keep them alive.

ANd I never get into the "quality" of life issue. First, because it is a genuine slippery slope and second, because it really is not analogous to the abortion issue. If you start suggesting that we have the right to deliberately kill people because the we "consider" that the quality of thier lives makes them not worth living, then we can rationalize killing most anyone.

 

[palerider]

For a man chanting "convenience, convenience" over and over again you are hardly in a postion to knock slogans.

Convenience has a definition and the definition fits 98% of all abortions. If you don't like to hear that 98% of abortions are for reasons that fit the definition of convenience, perhaps you should examine your position, not mine.

 

[palerider]

That's it? That's the Big Lie you've been snivelling about all this time? [/quote]

No mare, that is just the first. The rest have been you claiming that I have said a thing that I have not in order to create an argument.

I think a lot of things are murder and I don't do those things myself, but UNLIKE the catholic guys like you I am not trying to force other people to share my position.

Lets test the honesty of that statement. Would you be OK with striking the murder and manslaughter laws off the books? Are you OK with letting a man kill his wife for cheating without legal consequence because it doesn't matter that it is your position that he shouldn't do it? Are you OK with letting a person kill a store clerk during an armed robbery without legal consequence because he thinks that such behavior is perfectly OK and you wouldn't want to force him to share your position.

This can follow into other areas as well mare. Should I be allowed to drive through school zones at high speeds because I think it is OK and shouldn't be forced to share someone else's position that we should drive at a safe speed through school zones?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, then you are mad. If you answer no, then we have proved that you hold a false, and hypocritical position that you can not rationally defend.

I think your statement is wrong, it is not a "fabricated" right to give women control over their bodies--even though the Catholic Church has been in the forefront of the subjugation of women for centuries now. I think the meat you eat is murder but I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you.

Show me a "right" to privacy in the constitution and then explain the mental gymnastics required to make that invented right to privacy mean that a woman can kill her child. I have read the Roe decision quite a few times mare, and the right to privacy and the right to kill a child are fabricated. The mental gymnsastics by which they made the decision are so blatant that they would be hilarious if the result were not so tragic.

I believe in freedom of choice for human beings in the contol over their bodies, but as I have pointed out numerous times I think that we can stem the tide of abortion without your cruel, dictatorial, and draconian measures that blame women and punish them.

So do I. We aren't talking about tearing a woman's body to pieces though are we? The woman isn't making a decision to kill herself, she is making a decision to kill another human being. And you claim that you agree that it is murder but support her right to do it while railing at me for supporting torture in very limited circumstances as if I were a barbarian. When the number who have been tortured for vital information reaches 40 million in this country, you might be able to make your argument without being a complete hypocrite but not until.

You remind me of my older brother who likes things to black and white, no complex issues in his life and he does the same thing that you have done: throw out any information that doesn't fit your scheme and chant "convenience" over and over while ignoring all the other lives involved. Your sound-byte mentality around this issue is an indication of your emotional hysteria. Liar, liar! What a great argument. In your emotional desperation you are confusing motion with action and a lot of people will be hurt--including the babies--if your idiotic prohibitions are made into law.

Pointing out your lies has never been my argument mare. I point them out, then proceed with my argument.

To date, you have not argued a single point in my positon mare. You have called me names, and made referece to catholic dogma ad nauseum but have not yet brought a single bit here for comparison to my position. Let me repeat my position and ask you a few yes or no questions. Fair enough?

Human beings have a right to live. Do you agree with that? Unborns are human beings. Do you agree with that? Any right that I might claim is secondary to your right to live. Do you agree with that?

That is my position mare. Argue it.

Yeah, yeah, bleat like a sheep, but don't give us any examples. How scientific.

Before I get them let me ask directly. Are you making the claim that you have not misrepresented anything that I have said?

All of it, fetuses are sacred, women are evil and need to be controlled, women are here to incubate the holy seed of men--even in cases of rape, torture is okay, misogyny and hating queers is Godly, and your absolute intransigence, your belief in your own infallibility--that is the most Catholic thing of all.

Bring the catholic documents here mare. Your argument is weak.

Where have I said that all fetuses are sacred? I have said that human beings have a right to live. Are you arguing that human beings don't have a right to live or that fetuses aren't human beings.

And here is a very fine example of you misrepresenting my argument. I defy you to bring forward a single example of my suggesting that women are evil. Bring forward an example of my saying that the "seed" of men is holy. In fact, I have repeately said that sperm is of no more consequence than toenail clippings. Another example of you misrepresenting my argument.

With regard to rape, I have asked you what the child was guilty of that its life should be forfiet but you haven't answered. And your position on torture is already hanging in shreds. You admit that you believe abortion is murder but support it while railing at me over mine on torture. Funny mare, and sad.

And where have I ever said that hating "queers" is godly?

And where have I said that I am infallable?

Right here, we have 6 examples of you misrepresenting my argument mare. Whether they are deliberate lies on your part, or just your inability to separate your own seething rage at men from the words that I write doesn't matter, they are misrepresentations and therefore lies. I defy you to bring forward examples of my saying the things that you claim are my position.

You know not whereof you speak, read Daniel P. Mannix's THE HISTORY OF TORTURE.

No mare. I do know what I am talking about.

Check my response to this above.

Yeah, I did. All lies. One after another. Please bring forward examples of my saying any of those things or apologize for lying about me.

Once again my position is:

1. Human beings have a right to live.
2. Unborns are human beings.
3. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

Now exactly which part of that is catholic dogma? And bring the documents from the catholic church here and explain how my position is based on the catholic documents and not on the constitution which is CERTAINLY NOT a catholic document.

It wasn't really, you just can't seem to grasp the simple concept that YOU aren't God and YOU don't have the right to force others to bow to YOUR wishes. Your black and white thinking is directly out of Catholic doctrine too.

Do believe that we shold strike all laws off the books with regard to killing because they force some people to bow to the wishes of other people?

Do you think all laws should be stricken off the books because they all inevetably force some to bow to the wishes of others?

If you answer no to either of those questions mare, your argument fails.

By the way. Have you ever read the laws with regard to murder? If you kill another human being with intent, you are guilty of murder. Pretty black and white. Do you believe the pope wrote the laws regarding murder and should be stricken from the books?

Yep, and you didn't answer the question either, that's another very Catholic thing to do: ignore the question and denigrate the person asking it. You better watch out they don't make you Pope.

Yes mare. It was a bald faced lie. And which question are you claiming that I didn't answer? And are you suggesting that if one doesn't answer a question that one must be catholic? I am sorry that a catholic abused you mare, but you really do need to learn that everyone who disagrees with you is not a catholic.

Your point is null, most of Christianity was plagarized from earlier texts, but the parts I quoted ARE in the Catholic Holy Book, no matter where they came from originally.

You made the claim that "thou shall not kill" was catholic doctrine. Clearly you were wrong.

I'm sure you are a wonderful person Pale, but here on the thread you come across as religious nut, a misogynist who hysterically blames women and desires to punish them for the murder of babies. Your attitude is so one-sided that you lack any credibilty at all. Sad for you, I'm glad that I won't ever have to actually meet you since my brother is an entirely adequate similacrum.

There is a nut here mare. It isn't me. You clearly have been, at some point in your life, terribly abused by a catholic man and I am genuinely sorry that it happened to you. No woman should be abused by a man, catholic or otherwise. But you must, at some point, for your sanity's sake come to realize that everyone who doesn't agree with you is not a catholic and I challenge you to bring forward anything that I have said that would qualify as a religious argument.


One other thing mare. If a woman kills her child 2 days after it is born, do you believe she should be punished?

 

[invest07]

Abortion, death and brain waves

When is a person dead?

The most recent medical thinking is now the absence of brain waves. A flat EEG means no brain waves and that is enough to pronounce a person dead today.

So maybe we should define life for a fetus as the presence of brain waves. Brain waves can be detected in most fetuses at 40-43 days. Does this mean that the fetus is alive and is now a person and entitled to the right not to be aborted?

I think it does indeed.

 

[palerider]

When is a person dead?

The most recent medical thinking is now the absence of brain waves. A flat EEG means no brain waves and that is enough to pronounce a person dead today.

So maybe we should define life for a fetus as the presence of brain waves. Brain waves can be detected in most fetuses at 40-43 days. Does this mean that the fetus is alive and is now a person and entitled to the right not to be aborted?

I think it does indeed.

The absence of brainwaves in a human being that is mature enough to have brain waves is a clear indication of death. The absence of brain waves in a human being that isn't mature enough to have them, however, is about as relavent as the absence of 6 year molars in an infant. The fact that they aren't mature enough to have them doesn't mean that they aren't human beings.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Convenience has a definition and the definition fits 98% of all abortions. If you don't like to hear that 98% of abortions are for reasons that fit the definition of convenience, perhaps you should examine your position, not mine.

What a convenient slogan.

 

[ArmChair General]

There is no value without desire. A being or entity cannot benefit or be harmed in any morally relevant sense unless it has the capacity to want things, and the things it wants can be given or taken away.

A fetus cannot be harmed in any morally relevant sense unless it has desires. An aversion to pain is an example of a basic, fundamental desire that a fetus can acquire. However, having such an aversion (the capacity to feel pain) requires a functioning brain. Without this, a fetus cannot be harmed in a morally relevant way.

A woman has until the fetus acquires a brain, and thus acquires interests, to determine whether or not she will consent to the use of her body. If she wishes, she may have an abortion, and no wrong has been done.

However, if she waits until the fetus has a brain and thus has interests, then she has consented to a situation in which a being with interests is dependent on the use of her body to survive. Only dire circumstances -- such as the life of the mother -- would justify terminating that relationship.

'Rape' and 'incest' never have any moral weight as to whether an abortion is permissible. Before the unborn becomes a fetus with a brain and morally relevant interests, any fetus, however conceived, may be aborted. After this point, interests of the person conceived through rape or incest is no less than those conceived through willing sex.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Lets test the honesty of that statement. Would you be OK with striking the murder and manslaughter laws off the books? Are you OK with letting a man kill his wife for cheating without legal consequence because it doesn't matter that it is your position that he shouldn't do it? Are you OK with letting a person kill a store clerk during an armed robbery without legal consequence because he thinks that such behavior is perfectly OK and you wouldn't want to force him to share your position.
This can follow into other areas as well mare. Should I be allowed to drive through school zones at high speeds because I think it is OK and shouldn't be forced to share someone else's position that we should drive at a safe speed through school zones?
If you answer yes to any of these questions, then you are mad. If you answer no, then we have proved that you hold a false, and hypocritical position that you can not rationally defend.

Poor Pale, you're really in a snit about this. You are trying to frame the discussion by leaving out pertinent infomation and by equating things that are not not the same--in fact not even similar--so that you can make these self-righteous attacks. It won't work, sorry.

When something is living INSIDE your body, and cannot live outside your body, you have my permission to run over it with your car, get drunk and beat it to death, or shoot it during an armed robbery. You are trying to control women's bodies for YOUR religious purposes. None of the examples you gave are analagous.

Show me a "right" to privacy in the constitution and then explain the mental gymnastics required to make that invented right to privacy mean that a woman can kill her child. I have read the Roe decision quite a few times mare, and the right to privacy and the right to kill a child are fabricated. The mental gymnsastics by which they made the decision are so blatant that they would be hilarious if the result were not so tragic.

Irrelevant, there is a right to be secure in one's person, and having religious bigots in the bedrooms telling you what you can't do and passing laws about what a woman can do with the INSIDES of her own body is relevant. Of course abortions are tragic, but what is more tragic is letting religious people run the world and take away our freedoms--look at Iran.

So do I. We aren't talking about tearing a woman's body to pieces though are we? The woman isn't making a decision to kill herself, she is making a decision to kill another human being. And you claim that you agree that it is murder but support her right to do it while railing at me for supporting torture in very limited circumstances as if I were a barbarian. When the number who have been tortured for vital information reaches 40 million in this country, you might be able to make your argument without being a complete hypocrite but not until.

Torture is barbaric and there is no reason to ever do it. The crazy thing about abortion is that there is no corollary, the situation is unique. You wish to legislate and punish women for refusing to honor what YOU consider a "sacred thing" and you are positively browned-off that most people don't agree with you. What annoys you even more is that people like me who actually agree with you in principle can't stand your one-sided response to what is a tragic problem. You use your silly murder this and murder that arguments that don't really address the issue. There are two lives inter-twined in a way that you cannot conceive (quite literally) but yet you want to be god-like and legislate how half of the human race has to behave.

I would like to convince women that abortions aren't necessary, but unlike you I know that there is a lot preparation that will have to be done before we can honestly tell women that there is NO NEED for them to abort their babies. You deny all this, you want a sound-byte solution and the one you have chosen is the same one the Catholic Church has chosen: Blame women, punish women, control women. I won't buy your hysterical program. It's not only criminally religious, but it won't work either, it will cause more suffering than it will prevent.

Pointing out your lies has never been my argument mare. I point them out, then proceed with my argument.

To date, you have not argued a single point in my positon mare. You have called me names, and made referece to catholic dogma ad nauseum but have not yet brought a single bit here for comparison to my position. Let me repeat my position and ask you a few yes or no questions. Fair enough?

No, it not fair enough. I have posted what I think needs to be done to solve this problem, a multi-faceted approach that begins by dealing with the CAUSES of abortion first. But you always skip over that and get right into the murder this and murder that argument and move smartly into blaming women and trying to punish them. You don't like the comparison with Catholic dogma, but you keep on saying it--what am I supposed to think?

Human beings have a right to live. Do you agree with that? Unborns are human beings. Do you agree with that? Any right that I might claim is secondary to your right to live. Do you agree with that?
That is my position mare. Argue it.

Wrong questions, Pale. You are framing the argument in such a way as to prevent more than half of the problem from being discussed. As long as it is nothing more to you than evil women murdering babies for convenience, then there can be no discussion--you're using the George Bushism: "You're with us or you're against us." It's a stupid approach to a worldwide problem.

Before I get them let me ask directly. Are you making the claim that you have not misrepresented anything that I have said?

Your question is leading and deliberately ambiguous. Have I misrepresented anything you've said? Deliberately or because I truly didn't understand? What are you asking?

Bring the catholic documents here mare. Your argument is weak.

Catholic dogma is ubiquitous, there is no secret about how the Catholic Church views birth control and abortion. If you aren't aware of it, then you must be living under a rock. Review your posts, you have it down pat.

Where have I said that all fetuses are sacred? I have said that human beings have a right to live. Are you arguing that human beings don't have a right to live or that fetuses aren't human beings.

Wrong questions again, Pale. Does any life have the right to exist? You have stated that only HUMAN life has an inalienable right to exist. The Catholic Church agrees with you too.

Abuse to continue in subsequent post...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is part 2 of the gratuitous abuse of Pale that I began in my last post.

And here is a very fine example of you misrepresenting my argument. I defy you to bring forward a single example of my suggesting that women are evil. Bring forward an example of my saying that the "seed" of men is holy. In fact, I have repeately said that sperm is of no more consequence than toenail clippings. Another example of you misrepresenting my argument.

It's very clear from your tirades that anyone who would kill a child for convenience is evil (though you shy away from that word lest people suspect that you are a closet-Catholic). The same argument could be made for the "sacred seed" because a woman cannot even get the results of that seed removed from her body if it was put there violently by a rapist.

With regard to rape, I have asked you what the child was guilty of that its life should be forfiet but you haven't answered. And your position on torture is already hanging in shreds. You admit that you believe abortion is murder but support it while railing at me over mine on torture. Funny mare, and sad.

Wrong questions again, Pale. It isn't a question of what the fetus did, it rarely is, it's what's happening in the rest of the world that gets the decisions made--AND THAT'S WHERE I WOULD START TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM instead of doing the Catholic Church coercion-trip by blaming women and punishing them.

My position on torture stands. It's a barbaric anachroism that has no place in the world. If you see my position as "hanging in shreds" then I suspect it's the shreds of people being tortured that are haunting you.

And where have I ever said that hating "queers" is godly?

Not in so many words, you're way to clever for that, just like you avoid religious terms when you can. You wish to deny legal rights to gay people, that's the Catholic stance and it comes right out of the Bible.

And where have I said that I am infallable?

You brook no compromise, from your first post to this one you are screaming "murder, murder, and all for convenience". You haven't bothered to look at the woman's part in this except to comdemn and demand punishment. Your infallibility is nowhere more apparent than in your stance against a woman ridding herself of an unwanted pregnancy that was forced on her by a violent man.

Right here, we have 6 examples of you misrepresenting my argument mare. Whether they are deliberate lies on your part, or just your inability to separate your own seething rage at men from the words that I write doesn't matter, they are misrepresentations and therefore lies. I defy you to bring forward examples of my saying the things that you claim are my position.

You have an interesting definition of "lies". Well you're infallible so I guess if you say I have "seething rage" it must be a figment of your imagination. Lots of men are not the bigoted misogynists that your posts make you out to be.
My posts seem pretty calm, Pale, maybe the seething hatred is yours and you are just projecting it onto me rather than doing a little painful self-examination.

No mare. I do know what I am talking about.

I don't know, Pale, it sure doesn't seem like it.

Yeah, I did. All lies. One after another. Please bring forward examples of my saying any of those things or apologize for lying about me.

Just as soon as you demonstrate a deliberate lie on my part I will apologize to you. Don't hold your breath though unless you look good in blue.

Once again my position is:

1. Human beings have a right to live.
2. Unborns are human beings.
3. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

You're the scientist, you presented the hypothesis, now present your proofs. Especially #3, I think that living without suffering might trump the right to live in some cases, people should not be forced to live against their will nor in the face of the kind of pain that you would inflict on them in torture. Again we have another piece of Catholic dogma, life is to be preserved at all costs, suicide--even in the face of intolerable pain--cannot be accepted, but the torture of people IS acceptable. Wow! And you call ME a nut?

Now exactly which part of that is catholic dogma? And bring the documents from the catholic church here and explain how my position is based on the catholic documents and not on the constitution which is CERTAINLY NOT a catholic document.

I have noted your Catholic principles all along, clearly, concisely, and with no rancor (or maybe just a little), if that isn't enough send out a plea on the thread for some Catholic to come and rescue you by showing that I'm wrong--oooh, wouldn't that be fun for you?

Do believe that we shold strike all laws off the books with regard to killing because they force some people to bow to the wishes of other people? Do you think all laws should be stricken off the books because they all inevetably force some to bow to the wishes of others? If you answer no to either of those questions mare, your argument fails.

By the way. Have you ever read the laws with regard to murder? If you kill another human being with intent, you are guilty of murder. Pretty black and white. Do you believe the pope wrote the laws regarding murder and should be stricken from the books?

Apples and oranges, no corollary, sorry Pale, it won't work. You can't frame the discussion and throw out all the information that doesn't fit your tidy little religious framework.

Yes mare. It was a bald faced lie. And which question are you claiming that I didn't answer?

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
I'm not Armchair, and I don't agree with your "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? From my post #74 on this thread.

And are you suggesting that if one doesn't answer a question that one must be catholic? I am sorry that a catholic abused you mare, but you really do need to learn that everyone who disagrees with you is not a catholic.

No, only the Catholic-dogma spouting ones. Yes, ignoring the question is a very Catholic thing to do. In Sunday school classes one is supposed to listen and learn, not ask painful and embarrassing question.

You made the claim that "thou shall not kill" was catholic doctrine. Clearly you were wrong.

It's right there in the Holy Book, #6 of the Ten Commandments. Check it out.

There is a nut here mare. It isn't me. You clearly have been, at some point in your life, terribly abused by a catholic man and I am genuinely sorry that it happened to you. No woman should be abused by a man, catholic or otherwise. But you must, at some point, for your sanity's sake come to realize that everyone who doesn't agree with you is not a catholic and I challenge you to bring forward anything that I have said that would qualify as a religious argument.

I have pointed out your religious-based arguments all through the exchange of posts--if you didn't notice, then you should go back and reread because you can't hope to hold up your end of the "discussion" unless you actually READ what I write.

Yeah, yeah, abuse by Catholics, yada, yada, yada. Stop trying to make this about other people, Pale, it's not about other people--it's about you and your hideous ideas about punishing women for convenience murders. The Catholic dogma is just a weapon.

One other thing mare. If a woman kills her child 2 days after it is born, do you believe she should be punished?

I think that questions based on not reading my posts makes you look less competent than you might wish. The woman has jurisdiction over the fetus until viability. I don't support napalming orphanages either. Or torture.

 

[palerider]

There is no value without desire. A being or entity cannot benefit or be harmed in any morally relevant sense unless it has the capacity to want things, and the things it wants can be given or taken away.

A fetus cannot be harmed in any morally relevant sense unless it has desires. An aversion to pain is an example of a basic, fundamental desire that a fetus can acquire. However, having such an aversion (the capacity to feel pain) requires a functioning brain. Without this, a fetus cannot be harmed in a morally relevant way.

Throughout history men have given what appeared to be fine and well though out reasons that it was OK to kill members of a certain group. Yours is just one more. The fact remains that in this country, human beings have a right to live and unborns are undeniably human beings.

Tell me armchair, do you believe that I would be "morally innocent" if I denied you the potential to become whatever you grew to become? Would I be "morally innocent" if I denied you the capacity to have a family, to enjoy relationships, to learn, to simply live? The decision to kill a human being isn't captured in the moment that the killing takes place and held there forever. When you kill a human being, you deny them every event that would have happened in their lives from that moment on.

A woman has until the fetus acquires a brain, and thus acquires interests, to determine whether or not she will consent to the use of her body. If she wishes, she may have an abortion, and no wrong has been done.

I don't know what you do for a living, or who you know, or what good or bad you have done in the world, or what you may do. But since the time you were concieved, your life began moving forward and the range of things you might have done was infinite. And to the best of any of our knowledge, you only get this one time around. To deny you that, whether you were aware that you were being denied or not, can not be morally justified.

 

[palerider]

Poor Pale, you're really in a snit about this. You are trying to frame the discussion by leaving out pertinent infomation and by equating things that are not not the same--in fact not even similar--so that you can make these self-righteous attacks. It won't work, sorry.

I don't get into "snits". I am cold and emotionless. Remember. You said so yourself.

Clearly you can't answer the question without exposing your hypocricy, so we will mark that one in the win column for pale.

When something is living INSIDE your body, and cannot live outside your body, you have my permission to run over it with your car, get drunk and beat it to death, or shoot it during an armed robbery. You are trying to control women's bodies for YOUR religious purposes. None of the examples you gave are analagous.

Mare. Do you think for a second that attatching religion to an opponent's argument invalidates that argument and releases you from the obligation to rebutt his or her statements. Although my arguments are not religious, even if they were, because they are religious does not necessarily make them invalid. Claiming that my position is religious or that I am a catholic does not constitute an argument. Such thinking is a logica fallacy mare.

Irrelevant, there is a right to be secure in one's person, and having religious bigots in the bedrooms telling you what you can't do and passing laws about what a woman can do with the INSIDES of her own body is relevant. Of course abortions are tragic, but what is more tragic is letting religious people run the world and take away our freedoms--look at Iran.

Secure in your person and papers mare, means that you may not be searched without a warrant. Supreme court case after supreme court case has proved that. You can not do whatever you want and claim that it is a private matter and you therefore should be left alone to do it. Espceically if another human being is involved.

Which women are having abortions in thier bedrooms mare? If I believe that a man should be punished for assaulting his wife in the bedroom if she does not want sex am I a religious biggot?

Again, the fact that you hate religion does not mean that if you can find a way to CLAIM that my argument is religious, you are freed from actually rebutting my argument. So we will mark this one in the win column for pale also.

Torture is barbaric and there is no reason to ever do it. The crazy thing about abortion is that there is no corollary, the situation is unique. You wish to legislate and punish women for refusing to honor what YOU consider a "sacred thing" and you are positively browned-off that most people don't agree with you. What annoys you even more is that people like me who actually agree with you in principle can't stand your one-sided response to what is a tragic problem. You use your silly murder this and murder that arguments that don't really address the issue. There are two lives inter-twined in a way that you cannot conceive (quite literally) but yet you want to be god-like and legislate how half of the human race has to behave.

Killing your children because they are less than convenient is barbaric and monstrous. I can thing of just a very few situtations in which I would condone torture while you are unable to think of any situations in which you would deny a woman the right to kill her child. Who is the barbarian mare?

And once again, your CLAIM that my argument is religious does not release you from the requirement to actually argue against it. So we will mark this one also in my win column.

I would like to convince women that abortions aren't necessary, but unlike you I know that there is a lot preparation that will have to be done before we can honestly tell women that there is NO NEED for them to abort their babies. You deny all this, you want a sound-byte solution and the one you have chosen is the same one the Catholic Church has chosen: Blame women, punish women, control women. I won't buy your hysterical program. It's not only criminally religious, but it won't work either, it will cause more suffering than it will prevent.

Unless thier lives or long term health are in danger, they aren't necessary mare. That is a basic flaw in your reasoning. You assume that they are necessary when they are not and any argument that follows that flawed thinking is also flawed.

No, it not fair enough. I have posted what I think needs to be done to solve this problem, a multi-faceted approach that begins by dealing with the CAUSES of abortion first. But you always skip over that and get right into the murder this and murder that argument and move smartly into blaming women and trying to punish them. You don't like the comparison with Catholic dogma, but you keep on saying it--what am I supposed to think?

Of course it is mare.

Wrong questions, Pale. You are framing the argument in such a way as to prevent more than half of the problem from being discussed. As long as it is nothing more to you than evil women murdering babies for convenience, then there can be no discussion--you're using the George Bushism: "You're with us or you're against us." It's a stupid approach to a worldwide problem.

There is no other question mare. That is my position . Debate it or move on. It is not religious, it is not moral. It is the law.

Clearly you can't argue my points or you would have to admit that you are defeated. So we will mark those in my column as well since you have lost them by default. I suppose you think that if you can work George Bush in there somewhere you also don't have to form a coherent rebuttal.

Your question is leading and deliberately ambiguous. Have I misrepresented anything you've said? Deliberately or because I truly didn't understand? What are you asking?

My question is pointed and specific. Are you making the claim that you have not misrepresented anything that I have said?

Catholic dogma is ubiquitous, there is no secret about how the Catholic Church views birth control and abortion. If you aren't aware of it, then you must be living under a rock. Review your posts, you have it down pat.

Bring it here mare. My position is that unborns are human beings. Human beings have a right to live. All rights are secondary to the right to live. Bring forward the catholic dogma that states those words.

Clearly you can't bring forward any such dogma, so we will mark that one in my column as well.

Wrong questions again, Pale. Does any life have the right to exist? You have stated that only HUMAN life has an inalienable right to exist. The Catholic Church agrees with you too.

Abuse to continue in subsequent post...

Again, you are completely unable to answer so I win again. And I am sure that some catholics agree with me, but then so do some jews, and so do some agnostics, and so do some athiests, and some buddhists, and some hindus. Does the fact that some agree with me mean that I am spouting their dogma as well mare.

My argumen is my own and unless you can defeat it head on, point by point, you have lost this debate.

It's very clear from your tirades that anyone who would kill a child for convenience is evil (though you shy away from that word lest people suspect that you are a closet-Catholic). The same argument could be made for the "sacred seed" because a woman cannot even get the results of that seed removed from her body if it was put there violently by a rapist.

Yes, I believe that anyone who would deliberately kill a child is evil. But then all women don't kill thier children, do they mare? So clearly all women aren't evil. Your vague references to "sacred seed" are just crazy mare. I am sorry that you were abused by a catholic man but I am not him. Either argue my points, or admit that you can't.

Wrong questions again, Pale. It isn't a question of what the fetus did, it rarely is, it's what's happening in the rest of the world that gets the decisions made--AND THAT'S WHERE I WOULD START TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM instead of doing the Catholic Church coercion-trip by blaming women and punishing them.

Again, you fail to answer. So lets mark this one for me as well.

Not in so many words, you're way to clever for that, just like you avoid religious terms when you can. You wish to deny legal rights to gay people, that's the Catholic stance and it comes right out of the Bible.

Not in any words even remotely like that. In fact, I have never even given a hint as to whether I have any opinion on gays. Your claim that I don't is a blatant lie on your part. And I have never expressed a wish to deny homosexuals any right at all. I said that I don't favor granting special rights based on sexual preference. I would also say that I don't think a man should be granted the right to marry 3 women because that is his sexual preference.

(continued)