US Becoming Pro-Life

[PLC1]

Totally wrong... a serial killers victims are not the result of the serial killers irresponsibility.

They are the result of the serial killer's what, then?

Yes it is. I can buy beer or I can brew it. I can buy wine or I can brew it. I can buy liquor but I can't brew that... The law decides what is and isn't legal, even if its an unjust, or just stupid, law.

Is the law stupid, then, when it says that it's OK to murder someone who has only been in the womb for a week or two, but not OK to murder someone who has already been born? I thought you didn't want to change that law. That would mean banning abortion, wouldn't it?

We disagree on the application of the term murder.


Here's your doublethink at work... in your mind its not a human on day 48, but day 49 it suddenly is.

That's not what I said at all.

No one knows when a human being becomes a human being. You're the one who says it happens at the moment of conception. If that's so, then it follows that a human is human from day one, so murdering a child immediately after conception, or ten years later, is the same thing.

That doublethink is all you brotherman... You're the one who lives in the instant gratification world of microwaves and thinks that shortcuts through the force of government are the only way to get things done.

I'm the one arguing that shortcuts through the force of government are not the way to get things done. That would be banning the practice of abortion, passing laws against it, rather than trying to limit it in other ways. You're the one arguing... what? I'm not sure. On the one hand, you're saying that a human is a human, abortion is murder, but that it shouldn't be outlawed. How do you argue murder is ever legal?

I want to see the welfare state dismantled... I'm not so naive as to suggest we do it overnight. Same with Abortion... I would like to see it gone the way of the dinosaur but it will take time if we are to do it right and not end up in a situation like that of prohibition.

I'm with you there, but how best to do it? You don't want to outlaw abortion, and neither do I. You are the one arguing that abortion is murder, yet it shouldn't be outlawed.

As for the welfare state, I'm not sure just what that has to do with abortion. Yes, absolutely, let's dismantle it, and do it carefully and thoughtfully, so that we don't have suddenly desperate people deciding to take up stealing for a living.

How, though?

It seems to me far more likely that the welfare state will fall of its own weight, rather than be dismantled in a logical and thoughtful way, but maybe I'm wrong. I hope so, at least.

 

[GenSeneca]

They are the result of the serial killer's what, then?

A serial killer is a person who murders usually three or more people[1][2] over a period of more than 30 days with a "cooling off" period between each murder, whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification.

Is the law stupid, then, when it says that it's OK to murder someone who has only been in the womb for a week or two, but not OK to murder someone who has already been born? I thought you didn't want to change that law. That would mean banning abortion, wouldn't it?

Your statement was that doctors who perform abortions are the same thing as serial killers, I disagreed and you went off on this tangent about my analogy. Perhaps I shouldn't use analogies with you since they seem to confuse you.

That's not what I said at all.

Here is precisely what you said:

Abortion in the first term should still be legal, but needs to be discouraged.

I inferred from that statement that it should be illegal after the first term, which would be day 49. Hence my statement that you think it should be legal on day 48, but illegal on day 49.

Should abortion be illegal in the second or third term? If so, the same concept applies, one day separates the legal termination of an individual from an illegal termination.

No one knows when a human being becomes a human being.

You keep repeating this.... Do you consider this a rebuttal of my statement that life begins at conception?

Again... When blacks were being denied their rights and people like me were saying, "they are people, not property", what would you have said to someone who replied by saying "nobody knows"?

That would be banning the practice of abortion, passing laws against it, rather than trying to limit it in other ways.

I don't use the term ban or talk about banning the practice. A ban implies zero tolerance on the practice of abortion when I've repeatedly stated that for the 1-5% where the life of the mother and cases of rape and incest are involved, abortion should be allowed. Therefore, I cannot agree with using the term "ban" when discussing abortion.

You're the one arguing... what? I'm not sure. On the one hand, you're saying that a human is a human, abortion is murder, but that it shouldn't be outlawed. How do you argue murder is ever legal?

I don't use the term "murder" either when discussing abortion... so no, I've not been saying "abortion is murder", although you've continually tried to put those words in my mouth.

I'm with you there, but how best to do it? You don't want to outlaw abortion, and neither do I. You are the one arguing that abortion is murder, yet it shouldn't be outlawed.

There you are again claiming that my position is that abortion is murder. Murder is a very specific legal term. While you think its purely semantics to discuss the differences between murder, manslaughter, homicide etc., you also recognize that people have become sloppy in their use of terms which leads to confusion.

As for the welfare state, I'm not sure just what that has to do with abortion.

You do know what an analogy is right? Eliminating the welfare state tomorrow would create quite a mess, the same goes for abruptly ending all abortion. That was my analogy.

 

[PLC1]

A serial killer is a person who murders usually three or more people[1][2] over a period of more than 30 days with a "cooling off" period between each murder, whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification.


Your statement was that doctors who perform abortions are the same thing as serial killers, I disagreed and you went off on this tangent about my analogy. Perhaps I shouldn't use analogies with you since they seem to confuse you.


Here is precisely what you said:

Abortion in the first term should still be legal, but needs to be discouraged.

I inferred from that statement that it should be illegal after the first term, which would be day 49. Hence my statement that you think it should be legal on day 48, but illegal on day 49.

Should abortion be illegal in the second or third term? If so, the same concept applies, one day separates the legal termination of an individual from an illegal termination.


You keep repeating this.... Do you consider this a rebuttal of my statement that life begins at conception?

Again... When blacks were being denied their rights and people like me were saying, "they are people, not property", what would you have said to someone who replied by saying "nobody knows"?


I don't use the term ban or talk about banning the practice. A ban implies zero tolerance on the practice of abortion when I've repeatedly stated that for the 1-5% where the life of the mother and cases of rape and incest are involved, abortion should be allowed. Therefore, I cannot agree with using the term "ban" when discussing abortion.


I don't use the term "murder" either when discussing abortion... so no, I've not been saying "abortion is murder", although you've continually tried to put those words in my mouth.


There you are again claiming that my position is that abortion is murder. Murder is a very specific legal term. While you think its purely semantics to discuss the differences between murder, manslaughter, homicide etc., you also recognize that people have become sloppy in their use of terms which leads to confusion.


You do know what an analogy is right? Eliminating the welfare state tomorrow would create quite a mess, the same goes for abruptly ending all abortion. That was my analogy.

Dang, you're right. It was Pandora that used the term "murder', not you. I've been debating both of you for so many pages, that I lost track of who had said what.

I'm responding to your posts, but referring to what Pandora has said. My bad.

Now, let's clarify:

My position: Abortion is something to be discouraged. It should not be used as a form of birth control, but it is often used just that way. Late term and partial birth abortion is really no different from infanticide, and should be banned altogether.

However, banning abortion entirely would just drive it underground, so that isn't the way to discourage it.

Education in birth control, women's rights, and a pro adoption stance is the way to discourage abortion.

A zygote is not a human being, yet, but is a potential human being. A baby becomes a baby sometime between conception and birth. No one knows when that happens.

Reading through your posts, I think we actually agree on everything except the last statement.

Is that right?

 

[GenSeneca]

Reading through your posts, I think we actually agree on everything except the last statement.
Is that right?

Very much so... you were confused about my position although it closely mirrors your own and I do ardently disagree with that last statement.

It should not be used as a form of birth control, but it is often used just that way.

There should be some repurcussions to having the practice done as a form of birth control. Would you agree or disagree? Those repurcussions could be legal, social and/or biological, but there should be repurcussions.

A zygote is not a human being, yet, but is a potential human being.

Forgive me but I think that's just absurd... I don't follow the logic on that at all.
1. It cannot become anything other than human,
2. Its DNA is that of a Human,
3. It came about as the result of two humans,
Yet you insist its not human... Perhaps you're using the term "Human" in the philosophical sense of it being a sentient being whereas I'm using the term in the biological sense in reference to our species?

No one knows

Serioulsy... This sounds more like a cop out to avoid taking a stand than anything else. If you have a scientific or biological refutation of my statement that an individuals life begins at conception, then I'd love to hear it.

If "No one knows" is sufficient for you on this topic, then it should be acceptable to you on other topics, such as Man Made Climate Change and what is, and is not, torture. However, I doubt you will accept "No one knows" as a response on those topics.

 

[top gun]

The fact remains that the Supreme Court is only going to get more understanding of a woman's right to choose during the next 8 years.

And even the current high court for the last 4 decades during both Liberal and Conservative political Parties in power have allowed the precedent to keep building that until VIABILITY (when it's medically likely that a fetus might live on it's own outside the womb) the woman has the choice... and even after that if health of the mother is at risk.

Which as I've said before any barely thinking person knows it's ALWAYS the woman's decision to have or not have a child regardless. Women were self inducing abortions before the word abortion even existed. So all this argument really is is one made by the lunatic Right to score some political points and if they had their way tell women... We can't stop you, but we're going to hope you die too if you chose not to obey OUR religious beliefs!

Up until viability makes sense. If not and you go to conception you are both saying the current safe & effective Birth Control Pill is murder because it contaminates the womb so that the ALREADY FERTILIZED EGG can't implant and is flushed out "ABORTED"... and you are saying that 2 cells with no mind or feelings whatsoever has the same standing as an out of the womb living on it's own baby (without a particular other person required for life support).

And that position is a religiously zealot position, medically dangerous for women and baseless under the reasonable interpretation of personhood.

 

[PLC1]

Very much so... you were confused about my position although it closely mirrors your own and I do ardently disagree with that last statement.

Yes, actually, much of what I had attributed to you was actually posted to Pandora. It is you and her (him?) who really seem do have a difference of philosophy.

There should be some repurcussions to having the practice done as a form of birth control. Would you agree or disagree? Those repurcussions could be legal, social and/or biological, but there should be repurcussions.

Perhaps, but what? We want to discourage the practice without driving it underground. I'm not sure just what repercussions are practical.

Forgive me but I think that's just absurd... I don't follow the logic on that at all.
1. It cannot become anything other than human,
2. Its DNA is that of a Human,
3. It came about as the result of two humans,
Yet you insist its not human... Perhaps you're using the term "Human" in the philosophical sense of it being a sentient being whereas I'm using the term in the biological sense in reference to our species?

Yes, that's right.

Of course, a human being is a sentient being.

At what point does a fetus become a sentient being? I say no one knows. You say it is a cop out to say that no one knows. Do you know?

I say, with no proof other than philosophical and religious belief of course, that the human spirit is sentient before it enters the body, and that it is that spirit that is controlling the body. A body without the spirit, therefore, is not really a complete human being. A human becomes human, then, when the spirit enters the body. No one knows when that happens, but it seems highly unlikely to happen when the zygote is just a few cells.

If "No one knows" is sufficient for you on this topic, then it should be acceptable to you on other topics, such as Man Made Climate Change and what is, and is not, torture. However, I doubt you will accept "No one knows" as a response on those topics.

We know what torture is, even if there are those who disagree and those who want to obfuscate the issue. Ask someone with real experience, such as John McCain what torture is, or check out what he has already said. I'll go along with the expert.

I'll go along with t he experts in global climate change as well. Check out my response to your post in that thread.

There are things we do know, and things we don't know, things we can prove, things we have evidence for but can't really prove, things we know that aren't so, and things we just have to accept or reject on faith.

It's an interesting world, isn't it?

 

[GenSeneca]

At what point does a fetus become a sentient being?

That hasn't been your question. That question is a philosophical and theological one when I've been arguing biological facts.

I say no one knows. You say it is a cop out to say that no one knows. Do you know?

If you claim no one knows when a human becomes a human in biological terms, yes its a total cop out and requires you to completely ignore science but if you're talking philosophical and theological, then no one can ever know...

Such philosophical and theological questions are irrelevent though... Unless you are suggesting that we need to change the definition of death so that is also takes the philosophical and theological considerations into account.

I say, with no proof other than philosophical and religious belief of course, that the human spirit is sentient before it enters the body, and that it is that spirit that is controlling the body.

Argue the spiritual all you like, law is based on science and reason, not theology and philosophy.

We know what torture is, even if there are those who disagree and those who want to obfuscate the issue.

If anyone is obfuscating the issue, its those who claim that because we waterboarded 3 hardened terrorists to save American lives, that means we've lost our moral credibility.

Ask someone with real experience, such as John McCain what torture is, or check out what he has already said. I'll go along with the expert.

That's a logical fallacy: Appeal to authority. Its a personal judgement call and there will always be those who agree and those who disagree with your assessments.

I'll go along with t he experts in global climate change as well. Check out my response to your post in that thread.

You mean the experts who say its all being blown out of proportion or the ones who say its the greatest existing threat to mankind? ...You do know there are experts on both sides, right?

 

[GenSeneca]

We can't stop you, but we're going to hope you die too if you chose not to obey OUR religious beliefs!

There is only one person contemplating the theological implications of the subject... and he's arguing for your side...

Your side... that would be the side who wishes to deny individual rights to the unborn, the same way people like you tried to do with blacks in the past, by saying they are not people but property.

 

[PLC1]

That hasn't been your question. That question is a philosophical and theological one when I've been arguing biological facts.

Yet, there is more to a human than DNA.

If you claim no one knows when a human becomes a human in biological terms, yes its a total cop out and requires you to completely ignore science but if you're talking philosophical and theological, then no one can ever know...

No one knows when a human being becomes sentient. That is what I've said all along. Sure, you can say that the first two cells that start a zygote have human DNA. and are therefore human, but they aren't sentient, and are no more a human than an acorn is an oak tree.

Such philosophical and theological questions are irrelevent though... Unless you are suggesting that we need to change the definition of death so that is also takes the philosophical and theological considerations into account.

Of course the definition of death has to take into account philosophical and theological considerations. Death occurs when the spirit leaves the body. We assume that happens when the heartbeat stops, but we don't really know.

Is a person who is in a persistent vegetative state alive, or dead? Biologically, you might say that they are alive, as the body still is pumping blood, but the mind is gone, the person is no longer a sentient being, and is not really alive. It is likely that the spirit has left, but there is no way to know that for sure.

Argue the spiritual all you like, law is based on science and reason, not theology and philosophy.

Balony. The law is based on political realities, not on science and reason, nor on theology and philosophy. Is it science and reason that makes it legal to kill a seven month fetus, but not a baby that has been born? Is it science and reason that differentiates a partial birth abortion from infanticide?

If anyone is obfuscating the issue, its those who claim that because we waterboarded 3 hardened terrorists to save American lives, that means we've lost our moral credibility.

Oh, puleez! Surely, you haven't bought into the "we only waterboarded three bad guys, and in so doing saved LA" crap are you? There was a lot more "enhanced interrogation", aka torture, going on than that.

That's a logical fallacy: Appeal to authority. Its a personal judgement call and there will always be those who agree and those who disagree with your assessments.

I'll go with the judgment of those who have experience, over that of those who don't. McCain has personal experience in torture. If I didn't, I'd make the judgment call myself, and say that the so called "enhanced interrogation" is tantamount to torture. Either way, it is not how civilized people behave, period.

You mean the experts who say its all being blown out of proportion or the ones who say its the greatest existing threat to mankind? ...You do know there are experts on both sides, right?

The ones saying that it is the greatest existing threat to mankind are not the experts, but the politicians and alarmists. Are they right? Maybe, but there is no real evidence that they are. The ones saying that it is "blown out of proportion"? Who are they? I'm not sure. The experts are saying what the evidence shows, not what we'd like it to show.

What it is showing is that climate change is real, regardless of blizzards in North Dakota or "green" vessels capsizing, or Al Gore and his private jets.

Neither Al Gore nor Rush Limbaugh are experts. Both of them are wrong.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yet, there is more to a human than DNA.

Without Human DNA, its not human. There is more to a tree than simply wood, but without wood its not a tree... just a pile of leaves.

No one knows when a human being becomes sentient.

Which is, no doubt, why you've chosen to cling to that argument, you can't argue against my biological points.

Of course the definition of death has to take into account philosophical and theological considerations.

No it doesn't. Terms like brain dead and spiritual death exist to differentiate between the physical and existential aspects of death.

Is a person who is in a persistent vegetative state alive, or dead?

You should be the one answering that...

Biologically, you might say that they are alive, as the body still is pumping blood, but the mind is gone, the person is no longer a sentient being, and is not really alive.

Then by your standards, they can be put to death... right? If a Zygote is not sentient (which you don't know one way or the other) and you're fine with it being killed, then why would you object to the vegetable being killed?

Balony. The law is based on political realities

Touche... However, I wouldn't say its based on political realities but rather political majorities.

[Slip it into 4 wheel drive, we're going off topic from here on down]

Oh, puleez! Surely, you haven't bought into the "we only waterboarded three bad guys, and in so doing saved LA" crap are you? There was a lot more "enhanced interrogation", aka torture, going on than that.

Why not? You've bought into the "Enhanced Interrogation is torture" crap... I haven't seen you offer suggestions as to acceptable ways to extract information from high level suspects who've gone through all the other levels of interrogation and still remain uncooperative... Lemme guess, you'll defer that to an "expert" as well?

I'll go with the judgment of those who have experience, over that of those who don't.

Had McCain come out and said waterboarding wasn't torture, you would disagree with him despite his experience and cite some other source.

Either way, it is not how civilized people behave, period.

Then go to my thread and enlighten us heathens as to exactly what interrogation techniques you civilized people would use to get information out of 1-A suspects who've gone through all 5 levels of interrogation and remain uncooperative.

 

[top gun]

There is only one person contemplating the theological implications of the subject... and he's arguing for your side...

Your side... that would be the side who wishes to deny individual rights to the unborn, the same way people like you tried to do with blacks in the past, by saying they are not people but property.

Not at all. Blacks were born and self functioning people that were very wrongly treated. They did not require the constant blood flow life support, pain & suffering of one other particular person to survive. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

What you're doing is putting a "cloaking device" over religious zealotry because you know that dog can't hunt under American law.

The truth is that this is a nation of various beliefs about when a person becomes a person. And to not respect all views is to respect none. That's why it's a "CHOICE" woman to woman.

For instance the Jewish faith believes life begins at "crowning" in the delivery process. And there are multiple other beliefs. So it's best a "CHOICE" issue for the woman actually involved.

Not me... not you... not the government... THE ACTUAL WOMAN INVOLVED.

Granting full personhood to a few cells at conception would be a legal disaster. If that were the case have you no clue the myriad of crimes and charges that could be placed on women, doctors and others for normal everyday occurring events? Anything that might happen to cause a miscarriage would be on the table for criminal chargers.

A fertilized egg with no mind, no feelings, no thoughts or memories would become more important than the woman herself. It's a lot more than just making a woman a criminal for not wanting to carry something inside their own body.

This clock will never turn back because women are independent now. Believe me if anything ever in ones wildest dreams happened to the Roe decision women and men that love & support them would vote in such numbers there would be a Constitutional Amendment passed so fast it would make your head swing. I'd be willing to bet 9 out of 10 in Congress that didn't support the measure would be not just kicked but BLOWN out of office.

Leave the women alone. They have enough to deal with without zealots who are not in their spot trying to dictate what they must do with their body!

 

[PLC1]

Without Human DNA, its not human. There is more to a tree than simply wood, but without wood its not a tree... just a pile of leaves.

Without human DNA, and human awareness, it is not human. It might be potentially human, but it is not a human being.

There is little difference between human DNA and chimpanzee DNA. The real difference is the mind and spirit, not the biology.

Which is, no doubt, why you've chosen to cling to that argument, you can't argue against my biological points.

I don't need to argue against your biological points. You are saying that a human is a human because of biology. I'm saying that there is more to being human than biology.

You keep clinging to the argument that there is nothing more to a human than biology. Are you prepared to back that argument up?

No it doesn't. Terms like brain dead and spiritual death exist to differentiate between the physical and existential aspects of death.

When the body dies, it is dead. The human being does not die, but simply leaves the body. It doesn't really matter whether the body is allowed to function at some level with the help of machines, it is still dead. The human has gone elsewhere.

You should be the one answering that...

OK, I think that such a body is dead.

Then by your standards, they can be put to death... right? If a Zygote is not sentient (which you don't know one way or the other) and you're fine with it being killed, then why would you object to the vegetable being killed?

It can't be put to death if it is already dead. We can admit that it is dead, and turn off the machines, but it died as soon as the spirit left the body.

Touche... However, I wouldn't say its based on political realities but rather political majorities.

True. The majority does seem to make political realities.

[Slip it into 4 wheel drive, we're going off topic from here on down]

Yes, it is kind of off the track, isn't it?

Why not? You've bought into the "Enhanced Interrogation is torture" crap... I haven't seen you offer suggestions as to acceptable ways to extract information from high level suspects who've gone through all the other levels of interrogation and still remain uncooperative... Lemme guess, you'll defer that to an "expert" as well?

Cops get information routinely from scumbags who are more deserving of torture than the "enemy combatants" who may or may not have simply been sold to our forces. They don't employ torture, not even using euphemisms.

Had McCain come out and said waterboarding wasn't torture, you would disagree with him despite his experience and cite some other source.

His opinion would have meant a lot more than Cheney's, regardless of what it was.

Opinions are like noses, everyone has one. The more credible ones are based on personal experience, as well as on relevant facts. McCain's opinion is based on personal experience. Cheney's is based on made up facts.

 

[Dr.Who]

Without human DNA, and human awareness, it is not human. It might be potentially human, but it is not a human being.

Actually a dead human does not have awareness but it is still human. It is also a being, albeit a dead one.

 

[PLC1]

Actually a dead human does not have awareness but it is still human. It is also a being, albeit a dead one.

If you believe that a human is a body only, then you have a point. If you believe in the spiritual part of humanity, then the dead body is just an empty shell.

 

[GenSeneca]

Without human DNA, and human awareness, it is not human. It might be potentially human, but it is not a human being.

There is little difference between human DNA and chimpanzee DNA. The real difference is the mind and spirit, not the biology.

There is but one electron separating lead from gold. You're claiming the only real separation of us from primates is spritual, which is nothing more than your unprovable opinion. Science can prove there is a difference between primates and humans through DNA the same way it can differentiate between lead and gold.

I don't need to argue against your biological points. You are saying that a human is a human because of biology. I'm saying that there is more to being human than biology.

Yes you are, and its all based on the theological and spiritual realm, outside our scientific capability to verify or disprove. You are arguing faith and belief, I am not.

Its not my contention that there isn't a spiritual aspect to humans but the laws about abortion are not based on our spiritual beliefs. They are based on biological understandings. The "Viability" of an embryo is not a spiritual question, its one of biology. The health of a woman is not a spiritual question, its biological.

When the body dies, it is dead.

And when an individual is created, its alive.

The human being does not die, but simply leaves the body.

This is your philispohical opinion which you cannot prove with empirical evidence.

We can admit that it is dead, and turn off the machines, but it died as soon as the spirit left the body.

But how do you KNOW when the spirit leaves the body? If its a requirement to know when an embryo gains its spirit and becomes human, then it follows you must also know when the spirit leaves in order to determine when a human being is nothing but a soulless body.

Cops get information routinely from scumbags who are more deserving of torture than the "enemy combatants" who may or may not have simply been sold to our forces.

So you're saying here that American servicemen (and women) are abusive, incompetent and corrupt... there are 5 levels of interrogation, and several levels of sceenings, that take place before anyone is subjected to "harsh interrogation" techniques.

Declaring they "may or may not" have been simply sold to our troops impies our troops are both incompetent in their screening and corrupt in their continued detention and apprehension of suspects. To further declare that we "torture" (use harsh interrogation tactics) on those who are 'undeserving of the practice' is also an accusation of incompetence for those charged with interrogations, as well as screenings, and also a charge of sadism or abusive behavior.

His opinion would have meant a lot more than Cheney's, regardless of what it was.

Again... Only to you and those who already hate Cheney and agree with your position that waterboarding is torture.

The more credible ones are based on personal experience, as well as on relevant facts.

But the active, and retired, servicemen, and women, who say that Waterboarding isn't torture - who went through a different version of waterboarding than what McCain was subject to, the ones who went through the same version we subject our own troops and terror suspects to - those people you don't quote because you disagree with their opinion. Those people you don't find nearly as credible as the ones who agree with your position.

You are simply biased. Nothing wrong with being biased so long as you admit it... but for you to deny you have that bias, and pretend you're somehow unbiased, is what I find intellectually dishonest.
-------------------

Top Gun, you continually claim my support for individual rights is "religious zealotry" when you know I'm NOT Religious in any way...

According to your own rules, that makes you a LIAR!!!
...and therefore you have lost the argument.