[quote]pat wrote:
Since you seem to be hell bent on defying man and science to somehow prove otherwise, I am assuming that if you were convinced it were a child, you would be against abortion.[/quote]
I am not defying science , maybe some men
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Don’t think the fact that you have dodged several hard questions from people that we’ve forgotten we’ve asked them.[/quote]
Ask a simple question not hidden in a tirade of dribble , I will do my best to answer [/quote]
Sorry, those were direct questions.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Since you seem to be hell bent on defying man and science to somehow prove otherwise, I am assuming that if you were convinced it were a child, you would be against abortion.[/quote]
I am not defying science , maybe some men
[/quote]
No. If you contend that the child in utero, is not a human being, you are defying science. That’s a matter of scientific fact. Don’t take my word for it, go look up the work of embryology. Find me one credible unbiased source that claims different.
None of them consider the issue of ‘viability’ outside the womb as the point where said organism becomes human, zero, nada.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t see the 2 issues connected at all. A gun is just an object. On it’s own, it can do nothing, and it can be used for many other things other than homicide.
However abortion is an action, a willful action to take a human life deliberately. The comparison is a complete non-sequitur.[/quote]
Similarly, a suction hose, forceps and a scraper are just objects, which on their own are incapable of action, and can be used for other purposes than to end a pregnancy. It is the willful use of these for a specific purpose you would like to see banned, not the objects themselves. All right, fair enough, but you must concede that both arguments, taken to their logical conclusion, do take similar forms.
[quote]No you cannot get rid of it completely, evil will go to any lengths to accomplish it’s goal. But that likewise doesn’t mean it’s right or should be tolerated. There are plenty of laws on the books and those laws get broken all the time. So by the logic that laws get broken, does it mean that we should not have laws?
That’s what I think I am hearing from your post. People are going to do it anyway, so why try to stop it? Well, murder is illegal. Should murder be legal because we cannot stop people from killing each other? What lengths are we willing to go to ensure that nobody kills anybody ever? It’s impossible to think that way.
Should we allow stealing because people steal anyway? What lengths are we willing to go to ensure that no one steals from anything ever?
So because people steal, people are going to steal no matter what, shouldn’t we rather just make it legal to steal?[/quote]
If you read my post and understood from it that I was advocating a complete removal of laws, then you misunderstood my post, whereas CountingBeans seemed to understand it quite clearly. Just as you object to the comparison between the arguments for and against gun ownership and the arguments for and against abortion, I object to the comparison between abortion and murder, or theft, or rape, for the simple reason that whereas the latter is and always has been prohibited not only by law but by pre-legal societal convention, abortion is, under our present legal reality, not. Get the laws changed, and we will have an equivalency. But in any case that is not what my post was about at all.
[/quote]
I got it, I just disagree.
It just seems you are muddying and over complicating the issue to me. It ignores the quintessential question of whether or not the life you are taking is a human life. And you either agree that it’s ok to take human life based on arbitrary lines, or it’s not ok to take human life.
ok
I am not really concerned with crime and punishment. It should be illegal for the same reasons homicide is illegal. I am not interested in throwing a bunch of ignorant women in jail, per se. I am concerned with recognizing the act for what it is, clearly stating that it is, what it is, and that is wrong and it should not be done. We have to get to this point before we can address the others. However, I would favor a phasing in of laws and incrementing in the crime and punishment phase.
I prefer a peaceful transition. I think the laws, properly written showing that homicide begins with abortion would go along way to gaining acceptance as fact. Much like the 13th amendment terminated slavery. It didn’t really take long for society to follow suit in understanding the evils of slavery, so it would be with abortion.
Sure I would love comprehensive education and an elevation of sociological consciousness, but I shop at Walmart. Some people will never get it no matter what evidence you bring. Some people just have to be told, ‘you are not allowed’. Some people will try anyway, but most people would not. We are a nation of laws. Other societies don’t have respect for the rule of law, but the U.S. for the most part does.
You shut down the clinics. You shut down the easy access, most of the work is already done. I don’t think you need a watch dog. There are enough stupid people out there who will find a way to make examples of themselves that the law on the books and ordinary law enforcement means would be sufficient to get most of the would be black marketeers.
You’re going to have stragglers. But that doesn’t mean we have to approve. I think in this country, the rule of law would take care of most of the problem.
Look at Kermit Gosnell. It doesn’t even need to go that far.
This would be a foolish tact. Miscarriages happen, car accidents happen, tornadoes happen. Sure some people will disguise their illegal abortion as a miscarriage, but it doesn’t make sense to clamp down in such an extreme way to catch a few stragglers. The law is already pretty inconsistent in this area as it is. Children born, with deformities due to the mother’s behavior during pregnancy are sometimes prosecuted by law and other times not. Again, not concerned as much with this. I am concerned with the deliberate, willful taking of the human life. Not the grey areas that may compromise the child’s life because the mother is an idiot.
Your really looking at issues here that would account for a small percentage of people. Let’s get rid of the willful deliberate action of killing your child and we can look at the rest of it on a case by case basis.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Seriously. How far are you willing to travel down this road?[/quote]
Great post, and this is why I said it is a culture problem and not a “need some new laws” problem.
That being said, any reduction in the number of elective abortions is a good thing, and we’ve been seeing that trend.
There will likely, always and forever be people who want to have abortions. The goal is to make it so somehow those people are very few and far between due to their own volition, not by force. But it sounds an awful lot like utopia, so I don’t know that it will ever be. [/quote]
How far are you willing to go to stop any crime? Since we cannot eradicate crime completely, should it not then be legal?
[/quote]
Maybe that is a good analogy . Some crimes should be legal as some abortions should be
[/quote]
What abortions should be illegal?
[quote]
No. If you contend that the child in utero, is not a human being, you are defying science. That’s a matter of scientific fact. Don’t take my word for it, go look up the work of embryology. Find me one credible unbiased source that claims different.[/quote]
To be fair, you’re asking him to do something impossible.
But it’s not impossible de facto. It’s impossible de jure.
Science can prove that a fetus is a specimen of the homo sapiens specie, according to its models.
And it can prove that it is a “human organism”.
But proving it’s a human being is a philosophical and ethical problem.
One could argue that “humanity” (and its intrinsical ethical value) has nothing to do with biological taxonomies.
Such a position would not be “wrong”, per se, but it would definetely be evil.
Why ?
Because it purposefully restricts the “field of application” of morality.
And this kind of “amoralization”, so to speak, is always the first cobblestone on the famous “road paved with good intentions”.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Seriously. How far are you willing to travel down this road?[/quote]
Great post, and this is why I said it is a culture problem and not a “need some new laws” problem.
That being said, any reduction in the number of elective abortions is a good thing, and we’ve been seeing that trend.
There will likely, always and forever be people who want to have abortions. The goal is to make it so somehow those people are very few and far between due to their own volition, not by force. But it sounds an awful lot like utopia, so I don’t know that it will ever be. [/quote]
How far are you willing to go to stop any crime? Since we cannot eradicate crime completely, should it not then be legal?
[/quote]
Maybe that is a good analogy . Some crimes should be legal as some abortions should be
[/quote]
What abortions should be illegal?[/quote]
All of them.
Without any exception.
Maybe we should decriminalize some of them. But even in such cases, they shouldn’t be legal.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Interesting. I would like you to expand on this. Preferably after having read my arguments on this thread: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/killing_babies_no_different_from_abortion_experts_say
I haven’t read this thread yet, but i will.
FTR, you may find a somewhat “expanded” version of my position in this old thread :
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_abortion_thread?id=5260457&pageNo=18
[quote]kamui wrote:
I haven’t read this thread yet, but i will.
FTR, you may find a somewhat “expanded” version of my position in this old thread :
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_abortion_thread?id=5260457&pageNo=18[/quote]
Still reading, but this quote of yours:
[quote]But strictly speaking, it’s not a “right to life” because “right” is not only a moral concept, it’s a legal and social one.
Chimps and house flies aren’t (and can’t be) members of our social community nor parts of our legal system.
In other words, non human beings doesn’t have any right. But we, as human beings, have some duties toward every and all living beings, non human ones included. [/quote]
is especially pertinent to the discussion. You’ll see why.
And we can expect pushharder to poke his head in with a bonobo-related retort any minute now.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Don’t think the fact that you have dodged several hard questions from people that we’ve forgotten we’ve asked them.[/quote]
Ask a simple question not hidden in a tirade of dribble , I will do my best to answer [/quote]
Sorry, those were direct questions. [/quote]
please repeat those diect questions
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Since you seem to be hell bent on defying man and science to somehow prove otherwise, I am assuming that if you were convinced it were a child, you would be against abortion.[/quote]
I am not defying science , maybe some men
[/quote]
No. If you contend that the child in utero, is not a human being, you are defying science. That’s a matter of scientific fact. Don’t take my word for it, go look up the work of embryology. Find me one credible unbiased source that claims different.
None of them consider the issue of ‘viability’ outside the womb as the point where said organism becomes human, zero, nada.[/quote]
I am calling it a fetus until viability I will call it a human being a point of viability…
I get the number of chromosomes(46) . I understand a sperm is not complete in the number (23). I am not arguing any of that . My claim is more a legal definition . It is not a CHILD until later development . It would be like calling a toddler a zygote
I have a question for the great scientific mind on this board . Honestly I do not know the answer 
Does a seed has all the genetical material that a plants has ? And if so why do we call it a seed ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have a question for the great scientific mind on this board . Honestly I do not know the answer Does a seed has all the genetical material that a plants has ? And if so why do we call it a seed ?[/quote]
A seed is the embryo of a plant. It has all of the genetic material required to make a plant, but it first needs to be implanted into the uterine lining of Mother Earth, which is the dirt. After which it will germinate and become a seedling, which would be the equivalent of a fetus.
Sperm are not seeds, even though we euphemistically refer to them as such (“semen” actually being the Latin word for “seed”). If it is analogous to anything in the vegetable kingdom, it would be pollen.
We create actual human “seeds” all the time, through in vitro fertilization. We can store these “baby seeds” in cryogenic stasis, for years, then plant the seeds in a healthy uterus when the time is right.
This raises an obvious ethical question. Standard procedure is to create more than one embryo, to give the prospective mother better odds of having a successful pregnancy.
So what happens to the unused embryos? Unless one wants to be Octomom and carry eight fetuses to term, one would select the healthiest implanted embryo and “thin out the seedlings” so to speak: discard the others.
One could elect to keep the other seeds on ice, paying typically 40 dollars a month for cryo fees. Conceivably (yuk yuk) one could donate the excess embryos to infertile women…or sell them, I suppose.
You see why this is a sticky ethical issue. Depending on how you look at it, one’s options for in vitro fertilization include mass murder and human trafficking.
Of course, for most people, the disposal of unused embryos poses an ethical problem no more daunting than would a late menstrual period, which very likely was an unimplanted embryo getting flushed naturally out of the body.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Kamui!!! It’s good to here from you my friend!
Well, in the scope of this discussion, human being / human organism was assumed to be one in the same. Trust me, it’s been difficult enough to keep the discussion this disciplined.
You are correct technically of course. But then I could argue that ‘human being’ is merely the layman’s term for a living homo sapien, much like ‘dog’ is used for canine.
I will certainly be happy to have a more pointed and detailed discussion where we are using technically correct terminology and a narrow focus, but I don’t figure it would go very far since we tend to agree on the matter.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Seriously. How far are you willing to travel down this road?[/quote]
Great post, and this is why I said it is a culture problem and not a “need some new laws” problem.
That being said, any reduction in the number of elective abortions is a good thing, and we’ve been seeing that trend.
There will likely, always and forever be people who want to have abortions. The goal is to make it so somehow those people are very few and far between due to their own volition, not by force. But it sounds an awful lot like utopia, so I don’t know that it will ever be. [/quote]
How far are you willing to go to stop any crime? Since we cannot eradicate crime completely, should it not then be legal?
[/quote]
Maybe that is a good analogy . Some crimes should be legal as some abortions should be
[/quote]
What abortions should be illegal?[/quote]
All of them.
Without any exception.
Maybe we should decriminalize some of them. But even in such cases, they shouldn’t be legal.
[/quote]
Ahhhh, I missed your wisdom. I swear if I ever get back to Europe, Kamui will be a stop on the journey.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Interesting. I would like you to expand on this. Preferably after having read my arguments on this thread: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/killing_babies_no_different_from_abortion_experts_say
[/quote]
I got a better idea… Why don’t you post your points from other said thread and that way it will be a lot less work for everybody who wants to follow along or participate.
It’s a little difficult to expect people to peruse entire threads. Lord knows I could just point to other threads where I made good points, but it’s murder for the reader to do that. It’s just not a reasonable expectation.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Interesting. I would like you to expand on this. Preferably after having read my arguments on this thread: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/killing_babies_no_different_from_abortion_experts_say
[/quote]
See the ‘mind/ body problem’, the biological parts of a person do not make one a person, the assembled parts of a person doesn’t make one a person, nor does it make one alive. I would love to take the discussion in this direction.
Still reading, but if i understood you correctly, our positions are pretty close, while not identical.
You think we should use a “wider net”, and apply the concept of personhood to some non-human beings.
Something like a non-anthropocentric humanism.
I agree we should use a “wider net”, but i think we shouldn’t use the concept of personhood to make this net.
We should use the concept of “living being” instead. Which means that we should not only respect the “highest” forms of life, but each and every form of life.
Something like a “biocentric” foundation of morality.
In my eyes, morality need two things :
- the widest possible spectrum
- the highest possible standards
Life is the “widest” thing one can meaningfully respect (because you simply can’t “respect” a non-living thing)
So Life should be the basis of our widest possible spectrum. Not "humanity or “personhood”.
Those two concepts should be used to define the “standards” of morality instead.
True humanity, and true personhood are not what we are.
It’s something we sometimes (and quite rarely) achieve, and it’s something we should strive for.
In other words : if morality was a pyramid, life would be its ground-level foundations and humanity its hardly reached capstone.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Interesting. I would like you to expand on this. Preferably after having read my arguments on this thread: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/killing_babies_no_different_from_abortion_experts_say
[/quote]
I got a better idea… Why don’t you post your points from other said thread and that way it will be a lot less work for everybody who wants to follow along or participate.
It’s a little difficult to expect people to peruse entire threads. Lord knows I could just point to other threads where I made good points, but it’s murder for the reader to do that. It’s just not a reasonable expectation.[/quote]
I made a LOT of points on that thread, and went off on a lot of tangents, mostly in response to other people’s comments. I didn’t want to clutter up kneedragger’s thread by copy-pasting from another thread.
And besides: kamui is a European. I assumed, quite reasonably, that he would not find clicking on a link and perusing the content as murderously onerous as an American might.