Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

[Oleena]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Would you also moralize that vasectomies are immoral, since this is (in a reproductive sense) is anti-life? Just how far do you pro-lifers want to stretch this idea of personhood?

Red herring. Start a new thread. [/quote]

It’s not a red herring. The “pro-life” argument wants to break it down so that life begins at conception, thereby placing a specific moment when cells become human, while belligerently screaming “YOU CAN’T DEFINE WHEN THEY BECOME HUMAN”. To take it back like you do means you can’t arbitrarily place your own markers for when becoming human happens.

You’re going to have to realize at some point a lot of the markers you rely on in this world are less clearly defined than you might like.[/quote]

Biological markers for a living thing (human in this case): metabolism, unique DNA genome, and reaction to stimuli. So, unless a human is morphed from something else, from conception it is a human life.[/quote]

It doesn’t have all of those markers from the moment of conception.

[Makavali]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Would you also moralize that vasectomies are immoral, since this is (in a reproductive sense) is anti-life? Just how far do you pro-lifers want to stretch this idea of personhood?

Red herring. Start a new thread. [/quote]

It’s not a red herring. The “pro-life” argument wants to break it down so that life begins at conception, thereby placing a specific moment when cells become human, while belligerently screaming “YOU CAN’T DEFINE WHEN THEY BECOME HUMAN”. To take it back like you do means you can’t arbitrarily place your own markers for when becoming human happens.

You’re going to have to realize at some point a lot of the markers you rely on in this world are less clearly defined than you might like.[/quote]

Biological markers for a living thing (human in this case): metabolism, unique DNA genome, and reaction to stimuli. So, unless a human is morphed from something else, from conception it is a human life.[/quote]

More arbitrary goal setting. There are a LOT of things with their own DNA, a metabolism, and ability to react to stimuli. And these are things that you wouldn’t consider to be alive in any ethical sense.

You are setting boundaries based off what “feels good” to you. I won’t lie, this happens in the pro-choice crowd as well, however the primary concern for pro-choice is in the name. Choice. The ability for the woman to decide.

If you are truly concerned, start advocating for technology that allows children to be kept alive out of the womb earlier and earlier and is affordable or subsidized. Because that will be the only way for you to stop it.

On a side note, I do semi agree with Oleena’s assertion that people who exceed a preset number of terminations should be sterilized, but that in itself would present an incredible amount of ethical debate. The most clear cut way forward is education on methods of birth control (and not just ones sanctioned by a Church), as well as pushing forward in clinical trials for other methods. There is a particularly interesting one being developed in India at the moment that would involve a simple injection for males which would render them sterile for up to 10 years. The kicker here is that a second injection would restore full fertility at any point decided on by the male in question. Things like this are in development and yet we never hear about them. From Stage 4(?) trials, it appears that the pregnancy rate is 0%.

/hijack

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Would you also moralize that vasectomies are immoral, since this is (in a reproductive sense) is anti-life? Just how far do you pro-lifers want to stretch this idea of personhood?

Red herring. Start a new thread. [/quote]

It’s not a red herring. The “pro-life” argument wants to break it down so that life begins at conception, thereby placing a specific moment when cells become human, while belligerently screaming “YOU CAN’T DEFINE WHEN THEY BECOME HUMAN”. To take it back like you do means you can’t arbitrarily place your own markers for when becoming human happens.

You’re going to have to realize at some point a lot of the markers you rely on in this world are less clearly defined than you might like.[/quote]

Biological markers for a living thing (human in this case): metabolism, unique DNA genome, and reaction to stimuli. So, unless a human is morphed from something else, from conception it is a human life.[/quote]

It doesn’t have all of those markers from the moment of conception.[/quote]

Which ones does it not have?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I mean saying “It has the potential to become a person, and therefore is a person.”
[/quote]

Either it’s a human or not.

You didn’t answer why you wouldn’t consider the a fetus under 4 weeks old to not be a person. My answer to your question is it’s degree of development. What’s your answer to the original question of why would would consider a 4 week old fetus a person?

So, it is a development is key to person hood? So, a 3 year old is not as developed in the areas of structural, muscular, mental, and sexual…all speaking physically…compared to a 14 year old. So, it is okay to kill the 3 year old and not the 14 year old?

Because it has the biological markers of a human since it was a zygote (conception).

[Oleena]

It may not have completely human DNA; as i already mentioned, nearly a third of all pregnancies result in improper pulling apart of the chromids, which results in a genetic disaster that the body will eventually try to abort. So no, at conception you do not have a guarantee of any of those things.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
More arbitrary goal setting. There are a LOT of things with their own DNA, a metabolism, and ability to react to stimuli. And these are things that you wouldn’t consider to be alive in any ethical sense.[/quote]

Like what exactly?

[quote]
You are setting boundaries based off what “feels good” to you. I won’t lie, this happens in the pro-choice crowd as well, however the primary concern for pro-choice is in the name. Choice. The ability for the woman to decide.[/quote]

Not really, there is precedent in the medical field for this definition. I’m not just making up stuff here.

My primary concern is the dignity of human life. And, the only feelings I bring into this is love for human kind in general. Otherwise, call me Stonewall Jackson.

P.S. I’m pro-choice as well, just not about abortion.

[Makavali]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
P.S. I’m pro-choice as well, just not about abortion.[/quote]

Pro-choice in the context of this debate is about allowing the woman the choice to decide about abortion. So no, you’re not.

[KneeDragger_79]

You brought forth arguments for your cause and I failed to address them? Where? looks side to side

And sorry I do NOT live in the basement of my parents house. I will address any and all points you every bring forward. Yet I know you nor any other person has defined the unborn for me, save one. So who is picking the topics they choose?

Using acceptable science, define the unborn -

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
snicker So are you a hypocrite when you determine someone’s future before they even have spent a day in this world? All while you can never determine your own? Oleena can help you build straw men btw. Obviously you need help to do just that.

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Chuckles

The whole Conservatives Vs Liberals inference/distinction point is kinda silly to say the least. Pretty redundant, really.

You don’t need to study much philosophy/politics to realize VIRTUALLY EVERYONE is a hypocrite.

To my mind, less abortions= More shitty parents= More fucked-up kids= A more fucked up future for pretty much everyone.

Seriously, what sane minded person doesn’t cringe at least a little bit when they find out some filthy little skank IS going have yet another baby, born into yet another crappy life situation??

Should we also try banning alcohol, just because SOME people might become alcoholics? [/quote]
[/quote]

For future reference, the whole point is to NOT have a strawman in an argument. BTW knee, How is that whole coming up with points I failed to address thing going? I noticed you failed to have any response to my last posts.[/quote]

[KneeDragger_79]

Oh shit!! What are we to do? This was over two decades ago! Dummy, I used to live in ID back then and they wrestled with the topic twenty years ago and we both know how fast the bureaucratic wheels turn. Modern medicine finds new ways to define life earlier and earlier. BUT you find articles from the '90s? WTF?

lol

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
This seems relevant:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/30/us/veto-of-idaho-abortion-bill-is-possible.html[/quote]

[KneeDragger_79]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
And btw, the word “unbiased” means that you are not given to one side of an argument more than another, Kneed.
[/quote]

Does not work that way.

What would you say about someone who claimed to be unbiased when it came to rape?

[/quote]

lol.[/quote]

x3 jaa jaa jaa

[KneeDragger_79]

Columbo you might have some competition with the Humanitarian Award this year. I am just not sure.

[quote]Oleena wrote:
“Tied her up more often”? lol. No, a painless restraint is when the staff team holds a person down until they calm down enough to stop trying to kill themselves. It only happens when the person is actually going for it (razor in hand, trying to tie sheets, taking substances, trying to run into traffic). If the person becomes worse, THEN they go to a hospital where they are either given so many substances that their ability to comprehend life fades (trying to talk to them is not happening) and they stop trying to commit suicide because of this, and/or they are given mild medications and tied up.

Would you rather we just let her do it? Do you see a better way of stopping it?[/quote]
Let’s keep this on topic because I have better things to do, other than argue with your ‘unbiased’ opinion about the difference of restraint and tying a person up.

Also, you’re confused. I didn’t say I wouldn’t want the person’s life, I am saying many times the person being born ends up not wanting their life.

Remind me of how YOU KNOW THIS? Because ONE person has a rough life, THAT justifies the slaughter of millions of children? Step the fuck off the high horse you are trying to ride. You will get hurt because you do not know what you are doing! shakes head

Perhaps I personally would have done better, but given their parent’s unique combination of brain chemicals, which also might have made them have sex without protection even though they never wanted a baby, they end up very unhappy and oftentimes wishing they weren’t born. Your birthday present analogy had nothing to do with the scenario I presented.

First, anyone can chose to be happy with the hand of cards they are dealt. Let me know if you still fail to grasp that point. Secondly, does free will ever come into play, or is it ALWAYS ‘brain chemicals’ that determine how a person behaves? Have you ever taken ritalin or known someone who did? Tell me kids committed suicide because the ingestion of the drug had nothing to do with their behavior? People are responsible for their own behavior! Not their neighbor, not their siblings and sure as fuck not even their parents!! Everyone here is saying the same thing Olee, pull the cotton out your ears. People are responsible for their own individual thoughts and behavior.

The option of the child killing themselves will not be given until they are 18. They might still find a way of doing it, but that’s just how it works nowdays.

Your point is? We should kill them in the womb before you can see the expression on the their faces and in their eyes? Grown up behavior Olee, the word mature doesn’t even cover your shadow.

Do you really think that an unborn child who’s life is ended misses out? They never feel the negative of life, only the positive. How is that missing out?

Comprehend the words you typed Olee. You presume to KNOW their life will be tough though! I do NOT know how any, all or even one child will turn out in this life. How is it YOU know that some, or even one, might turn sour and so that justifies killing all the children, which are thought to be an ‘inconvenience’?

[KneeDragger_79]

I went back to page 14 before I found a single point that you made, which I missed. Grow the fuck up and realize NONE of your points are anything new. And just so you know, I have never brought God into this discussion, never even once. Again, grow the fuck up and stop presuming to know how I will behave. Racism is no different you bigoted fuck stain. Oh wait, knowing my behavior is exactly how Oleena is trying to argue for your same cause! Shocker, I KNOW!!

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“playing God” is when you exterminate any life when you deem necessary or in the way. Creating life should be given the same reverence.

Now please define the unborn for me.

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
So I have a question for all you anti-abortion fellas. How would you all define “playing god” in a general sense? Interfering with the nature process of life perhaps?[/quote]
[/quote]

First, why is it that you can only “play god” when it comes to exterminating life? Why is it that saving a life that otherwise would have ended is not considered the same? Second, go back and read where I clearly told you how I was using unborn and finally, you failed to answer my question as to why the definition of unborn has any relevance to this argument.[/quote]

[KneeDragger_79]

No Mak, you are wrong yet AGAIN. You continually never surprise me with your gibberish. Brother Chris is pro-choice about the Dr. sees for her care, the clinics she visits, the food she eats and even the water she drinks. I am also pro-choice btw Pro-choice does NOT mean she should have the option to kill a defenseless child. He even states your point ahead of time and you still need to say ‘nah - uh!’

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
P.S. I’m pro-choice as well, just not about abortion.[/quote]

Pro-choice in the context of this debate is about allowing the woman the choice to decide about abortion. So no, you’re not.[/quote]

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Oleena wrote:
It may not have completely human DNA; as i already mentioned, nearly a third of all pregnancies result in improper pulling apart of the chromids, which results in a genetic disaster that the body will eventually try to abort. So no, at conception you do not have a guarantee of any of those things.[/quote]

…so it doesn’t have a unique DNA genome from its parents? I’m confused as what you’re trying to imply here.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
P.S. I’m pro-choice as well, just not about abortion.[/quote]

Pro-choice in the context of this debate is about allowing the woman the choice to decide about abortion. So no, you’re not.[/quote]

Okay, so it’s a word game. So, you’re pro-killing unborn children. Cool.

[Makavali]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
P.S. I’m pro-choice as well, just not about abortion.[/quote]

Pro-choice in the context of this debate is about allowing the woman the choice to decide about abortion. So no, you’re not.[/quote]

Okay, so it’s a word game. So, you’re pro-killing unborn children. Cool.[/quote]

If we’re arguing this route, then so is anyone that beats one off. Or has recreational sex.

[GorillaMon]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Not everyone has the same notion of personhood, so why pretend otherwise?
[/quote]

Because there is absolute truth.

Would you also moralize that vasectomies are immoral, since this is (in a reproductive sense) is anti-life? Just how far do you pro-lifers want to stretch this idea of personhood?

Yes, vasectomies are immoral because artificially sterilize the person and make the sexual union corrupted by taking the open to life part out of it.[/quote]

Vasectomies are a sensible option for people that don’t want kids.

I actually think it would be more morally questionable/dubious for a person who has lots of sex/sexual partners to NOT at least consider having a vasectomy.

[Cortes]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
P.S. I’m pro-choice as well, just not about abortion.[/quote]

Pro-choice in the context of this debate is about allowing the woman the choice to decide about abortion. So no, you’re not.[/quote]

Okay, so it’s a word game. So, you’re pro-killing unborn children. Cool.[/quote]

If we’re arguing this route, then so is anyone that beats one off. Or has recreational sex.[/quote]

Beats off an unborn child? Well yes that certainly does sound immoral!!!

(Sorry, I really could not resist

[Cortes]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Would you also moralize that vasectomies are immoral, since this is (in a reproductive sense) is anti-life? Just how far do you pro-lifers want to stretch this idea of personhood?

Red herring. Start a new thread. [/quote]

It’s not a red herring. The “pro-life” argument wants to break it down so that life begins at conception, thereby placing a specific moment when cells become human, while belligerently screaming “YOU CAN’T DEFINE WHEN THEY BECOME HUMAN”. To take it back like you do means you can’t arbitrarily place your own markers for when becoming human happens.

You’re going to have to realize at some point a lot of the markers you rely on in this world are less clearly defined than you might like.[/quote]

Back to the point. Yeah, it IS a red herring, because we are talking about acts that are similar in form but different in kind. The first, the topic at hand, can and in the cases we are discussing does result in the creation of a new life. This is not debatable. The latter act will never result in such.

So yeah, red herring, you are talking about the corruption or prevention of the procreative act, which is a different problem than the actual snuffing out of a third party.

I am not getting the equivocation between creation of life and snuffing out of life that is popping its head up in this weird thread over and over. One of you guys is definitely going to have to fill me in on how putting an equal sign between the two doesn’t look weird to you.

[Cortes]

[quote]Oleena wrote:
It may not have completely human DNA; as i already mentioned, nearly a third of all pregnancies result in improper pulling apart of the chromids, which results in a genetic disaster that the body will eventually try to abort. So no, at conception you do not have a guarantee of any of those things.[/quote]

What does the body’s natural ejection of an unviable fetus (or whatever) have to do with the price of tea in China?

The body turns up its natural furnace in response to the threat of disease. That doesn’t mean I should put my kids in an oven to make certain they never get sick. You may accomplish what you set out to, but at what cost? And who are you to know better than their own body.

I almost don’t want to hit send and just erase this post and drop out of this thread because it is so disturbingly absurd. Here I am, though, like the kid buying his third ticket this week for the carnival freakshow…