[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re an Aussie. Tell me about the aborigine and the history of the perception of his humanity in Australia and the mother country of Britain. Tell me. I have the time.[/quote]
Huh? I’m from NZ my friend (and originally from Sri Lanka). Them’s fightin’ words.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Em (and any others who care to), think carefully about the slavery/abortion comparison. Don’t react or respond right away. It is a powerful and appropriate analogy for an objective listener/thinker. There are more parallels than I have already listed. Think.[/quote]
I’m hesitant to respond to this since you basically discredited any opinion I have on anything. Still I think this is one of the better posts on this thread, so, here goes, Push.
I understand the comparison and it does make sense. And in the future, it may prove to be even more accurate. But, it’s not going to change my mind. Not right now, not at this point in my life.
Call me apathetic if you must, but it’s just not my battle. I don’t have enough conviction to invest myself emotionally in this. Maybe I’m being selfish, but this fight doesn’t affect me enough to fight one way or another.
Maybe I’m selfish but I’m worried about myself and things that directly affect me at this point in my life. I worked myself up through a poor childhood with a mother that abandoned me. I’ve been homeless, hungry, and dead broke. I’m over 30 and still trying to finish my undergraduate degree. No one should envy my life, but I’ve made progress in spite of everything else, including my own stupid mistakes. And other than some Stafford student loans, I haven’t asked much from anybody. I just can’t bring myself to get worked up over abortion. I’m sorry – call it apathy, but I’ve got my own mountains to climb.
Now feel free to discredit and dissect what I have said. We leave ourselves open to that every time we post on a public forum. But I felt the need to be honest about my position and feelings on the subject.
Hey, maybe in the future your comparison will be completely accurate. Maybe the moment of conception will produce what is universally agreed upon as a human life. If that becomes the case, then I’m definitely guilty of being a silent witness to the crimes. But that’s between me and my maker and I’m sure I will be judged accordingly.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Or did New Zealander’s always recognize the Maori as fully human? I have read several books on Captain Cook and I know the basic history of your islands in that time period but I do not know much about the progression since then (Cook’s travels).[/quote]
Nothing like. That’s not to say they didn’t have their problems, but they got off pretty easy for an indigenous group.
Always recognized as human.
Hey guys looks like I’m late to the debate
Killing = bad
Babies = Good
Killing babies = Bad (unless they are zombie babies, those fuckers are scary)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Em (and any others who care to), think carefully about the slavery/abortion comparison. Don’t react or respond right away. It is a powerful and appropriate analogy for an objective listener/thinker. There are more parallels than I have already listed. Think.[/quote]
Do you really mean to imply that I am a knee-jerk thinker and that thoughtful consideration is something I need to be guided into?
Look, I understand and understood your analogy just fine. My problem with it was that instead of saying “I believe many of you will one day come to view your indifference to the abortion issue as being alike to the indifference of those who stood on the sidelines during slavery” you essentially accused Varq of being the sort of morally repugnant fellow who’d betray slaves. And you painted an emotionally evocative picture to accompany the accusation. It’s dirty pool.
You analogy has a place. Just not as an accusation.
Having said that, I will admit that I have some concern that my tentative support of abortion will one day seem morally repugnant, if not to myself because I am dead, then perhaps to others.
Nevertheless, it is the best I can do at this moment. I’ve worked with teen parents in the past, who stared at me blankly over the simplest, most basic bits of parenting advice. They’re rearing kids who’ll be societal headaches before too long. I know this because I currently work with the 7 & up set. My caseload consists mostly of young teens. They’re big now, and getting into trouble.
I read T-Nation, and the game I see being played by way too many of the teen boys makes me glad the girls aren’t going to be trapped if they become pregnant. After young David D’Angelo scores with her, raw dog, she can still have a life.
Unless our society undergoes a radical change, abortion is a necessary evil. You are mostly on the side, I suspect, of policies that create this necessity.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Pat, I once saw a sign at the tattoo parlor in Bangkok, where I got my first tattoo. It said, “people with tattoos don’t care that people without tattoos don’t have tattoos.”
I don’t care if I never influence another person on this board to change their opinion regarding abortion, because neither their opinion, the future vice-president’s opinion, or the Supreme Court’s opinion are going to affect me in the slightest.
I am never going to get an abortion, nor do I ever plan to pay to have the procedure done on anyone I know. That is the extent of my anti-abortion stance. Call me a cold-hearted bastard if you wish, but I personally see no purpose in working to deny a woman the right to have one, if, after weighing all the options she is convinced that it is in her best interest to do so.
You evidently see a purpose. This is obviously an issue of monumental importance to you. Outstanding. More power to you. I would not presume to tell you that your position is wrong, and that mine is the only possible right one, nor would I presume to try to get you to change your position, even if such a thing were possible over the internet.
You go your way, I’ll go mine. I promise not to murder any unborn infants while you’re not looking.
You stated this much better than I did when I said, “I just don’t care about abortion.”
And since I remember you being a fan of Prince (I hope that I’m remembering correctly and that was you), you are near the top of my list of favorite posters on this site.[/quote]
Prince is phenomenal…I have seen him in concert a few times pre-anti cussing, prince. Can’t sing “Irresistible Bitch” with out the “Bitch” part, after all.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
tedro wrote:
Christine wrote:
This is where we will disagree. Some think a human is formed the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm. This is why the controversy with the morning after pill. I disagree.
Biologically there is no disputing that this is when a human is formed, or in other words when human life begins.
Okay, if you want to think of it that way, no problem by me. I don’t see a fertilized egg as anything more than having the potential for becoming human.
OK. For the sake of discussion then…when?
[/quote]
You first.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
In that case masturbation/bj/handjob is also wrong because sperm is POTENTIAL life.
You are depriving those sperm’s (or 1 out of the few million) potential future and instead turn them into your gf’s protein shake.
This follows the same logic, does it not?[/quote]
No it does not. A sperm even though an autonomous being is not a human life. IT has a potential for making one, but is not one in itself. A fertilized egg has all the makings of a human, minus the lack of material. But the “thing” is genetically equivalent to a full grown human in every way but development. Alas a human does not stop developing until death. It seems most pro-abortionists are scrambling to find a point in human development where they can say it’s not a human, though there is no genetic decerment between a human looking fetus and one not there yet. The settling point then seems to be “as long as it doesn’t look human, it’s cool to whack it.” I call bullshit. The only two decerable breaks in the chain of human development is conception and death.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Having said that, I will admit that I have some concern that my tentative support of abortion will one day seem morally repugnant, if not to myself because I am dead, then perhaps to others.
Nevertheless, it is the best I can do at this moment. I’ve worked with teen parents in the past, who stared at me blankly over the simplest, most basic bits of parenting advice. They’re rearing kids who’ll be societal headaches before too long. I know this because I currently work with the 7 & up set. My caseload consists mostly of young teens. They’re big now, and getting into trouble.
I read T-Nation, and the game I see being played by way too many of the teen boys makes me glad the girls aren’t going to be trapped if they become pregnant. After young David D’Angelo scores with her, raw dog, she can still have a life.
Unless our society undergoes a radical change, abortion is a necessary evil. You are mostly on the side, I suspect, of policies that create this necessity. [/quote]
Bullshit. I thought we we leaving “feelings” out of the debate. The way a baby is brought into being does not change the fact that they are people who should not be killed simply because somebody fucked up and decided they didn’t want them there.
Abortion is an unnecessary evil who has no place in any society anywhere ever. It is one of the purest forms of evil in fact for the person having the abortion is doing it out of pure selfishness and the victim is as purely innocent as can be.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
pushharder wrote:
malonetd wrote:
…You stated this much better than I did when I said, “I just don’t care about abortion”…
Yessssss, let’s hold our heads high, hold hands and sing as we celebrate our Pridefest of Apathy. About murder.
It’ll be tough to take you two seriously when it comes to other matters of debate and we find out “you care” about the matter at hand then.
You’d have to convince me that it is murder first.
Like I said to Varq, it’s incumbent on you to convince me it’s not.
Varq is much more eloquent than I.
However, I really don’t give a shit what you believe. I’m not attempting to change your mind on the matter. Bottom line is that the halting the progression of some cells from becoming a person is not equivalent to the murder of an actual human.
It is not the equivalent of any crime committed against an actual human.
A slave was not considered an actual human then either.
By the way, what is an actual human?
Ha!
This is where we will disagree. Some think a human is formed the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm. This is why the controversy with the morning after pill. I disagree.
I don’t get your analogy with the slaves. You’re attempting to convince me that in the future we might change our definition of what defines a human?
You DO get my slave analogy. You’re too smart not too. I know you. Now whether you decide to deal with it or not, i.e., to respond and point out the inadequacies of the analogy and how inappropriate you feel it is in a logical manner and without epithets and emotional vitriol…is up to you.
And yes, it is conceivable, even likely, that in the future we might change our definition of what defines a human.
It happened in the 19th and 20th centuries when society as a whole completely reevaluated the “humanness of the black man”…and the Jew…and the gypsy…and the Australian aborigine…and the Pole…and the African pygmy…and the Ukrainian…and the resident of Nanking…
Do I really need to go on? Is this really a concept that is so complex that it cannot be grasped by so many? [/quote]
You’re right, I do understand, but I think that it is irrelevant to the discussion. It appears to me that you are bringing up the atrocities of slavery and genocide inflicted upon conscience humans in an attempt to illicite an emotional response.
I simply do not subscribe per some religious doctrines that personhood begins at conception.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So if you would have lived in 1858 and a runaway slave would have appeared at your Pennsylvania home on his way to freedom in Vermont, you would have honored the existing law at the time which required you to turn him into the authorities and subsequently be returned to his Mississippi master?
After all, at that time and in this country, a slavemaster had the right to decide to end his slave’s illegally obtained freedom if he so chose.
Regardless of you, the Pennsylvania blacksmith, and your feelings about the “humanmess” of the slave, regardless of how sad you might be at the thought that one more nigger might remain in chains, you would refuse the slaveowner his right?
[/quote]
Push, this conversation has officially progressed from the sublime to the ridiculous. Very well. I’ll play.
It’s an interesting analogy you make, comparing fetuses to black slaves. It’s not the most apt analogy, but I’ll let that go, because it’s such a clever move on your part.
If I answer that I would defy the law and help the escaped slave to freedom, then you will respond that I am a hypocrite, for not applying my enlightened 21st-Century moral compass to the equally legal but equally morally repugnant problem of a doomed fetus.
If, on the other hand, I remain consistent to my position that I would uphold the legal rights of the mother, by responding that I would honor the legal rights of the slave owner and assist in the capture and return of his legal property, then you imply that I am beneath contempt: clearly a racist and sympathizer of the unquestionably immoral institution of slavery.
Very clever indeed.
But really, I can’t answer what I’d do in 1858, because I would have been a different person then. Likely I would have had a completely different outlook toward black slavery than someone who grew up in the twentieth century, whose education consisted of more than a little indoctrination about the Unspeakably Abhorrent Practices of Racial Discrimination and Slavery.
As an aside, I daresay you would have an even harder time predicting what you would do, Southern born and bred as you are. If you were a reasonably affluent individual in the South in 1858, I might go so far as to surmise you would have owned a slave or two yourself, or wished that you did.
In any case, in 1858, in many parts of the United States, it was legal for private citizens to own slaves, if they so chose and could afford them. A number of slave owners probably considered their slaves to be subhuman, but such an attitude was certainly not universal, nor was it a prerequisite for slave ownership. Conversely, if one believed in the humanity and equality of black slaves, it did not follow that he would become an abolitionist, nor indeed did every abolitionist believe that a black slave was or should be the equal of a free white man.
Today, slavery and involuntary servitude are only legal inside federal and state prisons, as per the 13th Amendment. If a black convict escaped from the state prison, and I helped him escape to Canada in defiance of the law, that might be the “moral” thing to do, or it might not. It would, however, definitely be aiding and abetting a felon. I may, or I may not, depending on the circumstances, help the escapee, but it would surely not make me an immoral racist if I decided not to.
In 2058, science may find conclusive evidence that every fertilized egg is a sentient person, equivalent to a full-term infant, and the UN will pass a resolution expanding legal protection to include zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. The cessation of the life of a developing fetus at any stage of the pregnancy will thus be universally recognized as a homicide, and abortion will become illegal throughout the world. Your side will have won. Huzzah.
Of course, by that time PETA will probably have persuaded the United Nations World Government to declare that all animals are indeed sentient “persons” as well, and that private ownership of cats, dogs, horses, cows and other animals is a violation of their unalienable animal rights, blatant speciesism, and tantamount to slavery.
At which time, one man may rhetorically ask another if he would have returned an escaped dog to his master back in 2008, in hopes of setting him up to be scorned by his enlightened internet peers as a morally deficient on the one hand, or philosophically inconsistent on the other.
In the meantime, however, if your dog escapes, I will return him to you without much soul-searching, and would hope that you do the same.
[quote]pat wrote:
blazindave wrote:
In that case masturbation/bj/handjob is also wrong because sperm is POTENTIAL life.
You are depriving those sperm’s (or 1 out of the few million) potential future and instead turn them into your gf’s protein shake.
This follows the same logic, does it not?
No it does not. A sperm even though an autonomous being is not a human life. IT has a potential for making one, but is not one in itself. A fertilized egg has all the makings of a human, minus the lack of material. But the “thing” is genetically equivalent to a full grown human in every way but development. Alas a human does not stop developing until death. It seems most pro-abortionists are scrambling to find a point in human development where they can say it’s not a human, though there is no genetic decerment between a human looking fetus and one not there yet. The settling point then seems to be “as long as it doesn’t look human, it’s cool to whack it.” I call bullshit. The only two decerable breaks in the chain of human development is conception and death.[/quote]
If you think about it, we’re all in different stages of human development. I am a late-20 something adult, I was an adolescent, a child, a baby, a fetus, etc, I will soon be a middle-aged adult.
The (false) dichotomy (mentioned by blazindave) created between the human being and his person is really just an invention of popular philosophy over the past 10-20 years as a rebuttal to pro-lifers. The philosophy has been driven by a need to defend Roe v. Wade, not the other way around.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That’s fine. Then look at it from a scientific and ethical standpoint. Leave religion out of it and rationally ponder.
[/quote]
Are you implying that because I come to a different conclusion than you I have not rationally pondered the issue? The rights, if any, of an embryo is not equivalent to the rights of a person.
Varqanir, good post.
In many ways, humans don’t live far outside of current paradigms and technology. Both evolve in time, experience significant shifts, but seeing far beyond them is very rare.
Technology has already redefined the moment “death” arrives. 100 years ago a human in coma would be buried. Today we know know better. In some way ethics is a function of technology which is a function of time. Our ways will look barbaric to people 100 years from today.
I want to repost a quote which explains why start of life and personhood are different things:
" When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question “So when does life begin?,” she answered:
"If we�??re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that�??s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn�??t happen with an embryo.""