Agreed. We seem to see many issues from different angles.
I apologize for missing your previous recantation to thunder. I was remiss in not reading all posts verbatum upon my return to the thread. Consider the slack–cut.
I acknowlege your opinions and have tried to give weight to them and dismiss our personal(internet) headbutting. But your continued bullying of those with whom you disagree with is boorish behavior.
As someone else recently stated:
“such a tack is not conducive to maintaining a quality conversation.”
[quote]I acknowlege your opinions and have tried to give weight to them and dismiss our personal(internet) headbutting. But your continued bullying of those with whom you disagree with is boorish behavior.
[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As to why people who think fertilization is enough to qualify the unborn as a baby, I am not necessarily in that camp - but I suggest that it has to do with their value judgments, probably informed by their morality/religion. I know many that say it this way: no line can ever be drawn with any precision, so the only real option is to err on one side or the other, so they err on the side of treating a fertilization as worth of being called a baby. A very plausible argument. [/quote]
The issue is not whether an individual can decide for themselves using their own value judgement whether to keep a baby. If that is all this was about, there would be no argument. I am all for people being able to make their OWN value judgements. There is controversy because people want to control everyone else’s value judgement. If a zygote is not a “baby”, why are people trying to stop zygotes from being aborted if they aren’t their own children? Why is anyone trying to take away someone else’s ability to make their own judgements?
Further, I think science should in fact take a look at what constitutes “consciousness”. Terri Schiavo was not of a consciuous state of mind. Therefore, why are people trying to control others and decide for all of them that no matter what, a person or “zygote” should be kept alive? This debate has many levels with much of the problem appearing to be some need for some religious individuals to control the choices of others.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
As to why people who think fertilization is enough to qualify the unborn as a baby, I am not necessarily in that camp - but I suggest that it has to do with their value judgments, probably informed by their morality/religion. I know many that say it this way: no line can ever be drawn with any precision, so the only real option is to err on one side or the other, so they err on the side of treating a fertilization as worth of being called a baby. A very plausible argument.
The issue is not whether an individual can decide for themselves using their own value judgement whether to keep a baby. If that is all this was about, there would be no argument. I am all for people being able to make their OWN value judgements. There is controversy because people want to control everyone else’s value judgement. If a zygote is not a “baby”, why are people trying to stop zygotes from being aborted if they aren’t their own children? Why is anyone trying to take away someone else’s ability to make their own judgements?
Further, I think science should in fact take a look at what constitutes “consciousness”. Terri Schiavo was not of a consciuous state of mind. Therefore, why are people trying to control others and decide for all of them that no matter what, a person or “zygote” should be kept alive? This debate has many levels with much of the problem appearing to be some need for some religious individuals to control the choices of others.[/quote]
Or some non-religious people, (I’ll just lump everyone anti-abortion under that label like you did the other way.)
trying put the label of choice on human life. With rights and choices come responsibilities.
That being said, I do agree that your zygote and consciousness questions have great merit, when you take away your biased rantings against “religious” people. Its a very complex issue to some of us who can actually think and might even be a little religious also.
Personally I’m against abortion, but there are so many questions and issues. Its certainly not all black and white. I think, instead of name calling along party lines, Prof X, leave that to the others, lets have some more of your thoughtful questions like the ones you just posed. IMO those are questions worth pondering. (And might actually get some folks to thinking about the issue instead of instantly taking a side based on emotion.)
The issue is not whether an individual can decide for themselves using their own value judgement whether to keep a baby. If that is all this was about, there would be no argument. I am all for people being able to make their OWN value judgements. There is controversy because people want to control everyone else’s value judgement.[/quote]
Yes, and it happens all the time, for good reasons. Sometimes society feels like it should intervene on behalf of producing a good society, over the objections of individual choices. Abortion is such a law - anti-abortion advocates think the state has an interest in overriding personal preferences in this matter.
The same impulse manifests itself all the time - and we are thankful for it.
You keep making this argument that the state should not intervene in sort of a libertarian absolutist way - so there should be no punishment for me exercising my choice to fire a black employee simply because I hate blacks?
We get robbed of our individual choices in the name of the common good all the time - I can’t beat my children, have sex on the courthouse steps or any other public place, or fire someone for being Asian.
I am not arguing that there shouldn’t be a balance between individual freedoms and social restrictions - I am on no way suggesting that the government should control all aspects of anyone’s life. My point is that there are degrees in between, and preferences made, and exceptions taken. Example: I don’t think there should be any law against sodomy, but I am not on board with allowing unlimited access to abortions.
You are arguing in broad generalizations, that the government shouldn’t restrict personal choices - but you do so without qualifiers and exceptions. I don’t think that is defensible.
Who has defined that a zygote is not a baby? Perhaps some doctors have, but doctors are not in charge of deciding where human rights begin. Again, science does not inform us that is it is wrong to kill a 6 month old, a 6 year old, or a 66 year old. Science is silent on that question. Our values determine that - and so the same would apply to what point we extend rights to the unborn.
We ‘control’ others all the time as a way of determining what positive values our society will accept. You keep complaining about it - but I don’t suspect you are willing to accept the conclusion of your ideas. What is the point of a law prohibiting public nudity?
Other problems that I have with the abortion choice: I don’t like the concept of referring to people as property, and I can’t understand why a man has absolutely no say in the determination in a pro-abortion regime.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Interesting, the feminist groups who first pushed abortion rights are now responsible for killing more women than any other single thing.
It’s about womens rights to spread their legs with no responsibility! The feminists want women to be just as “carefree” as a man after a sexual union.
That is their single biggest motivating factor and it’s…
SICK!
Are all of you just as vocal when it comes to adoption and wellfare?
Who are all of you?
Anyone focusing on “anti-abortion laws” while ignoring the negativity going into a child being brought up by parents who don’t really want him, a father who may not love him, being raised in circumstances that provide no moral nourishment, or being abandoned by his parents altogether.[/quote]
Good point, but does the end justify the means? Equally reprehensible to your scenario is the other side of the coin. (To some) Can we ever reach a middle ground here or we will we be forever diametrically opposed. I don’t think legislation either way will ever settle the issue. I think everyone’s voices have been heard to death. Where can we at least begin to compromise?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You keep making this argument that the state should not intervene in sort of a libertarian absolutist way - so there should be no punishment for me exercising my choice to fire a black employee simply because I hate blacks?[/quote]
This logic is faulty. You are comparing a woman’s OWN body to the effect you can have on someone outside of yourself and outside of your family. The two are not the same. If your actions negatively affect someone else outside of your own person that you have no biological control over, there should most definitely be laws against it. A woman’s body is not someone else’s.
[quote]
We get robbed of our individual choices in the name of the common good all the time - I can’t beat my children, have sex on the courthouse steps or any other public place, or fire someone for being Asian.[/quote]
All of these are affecting people outside of yourself. Your actions, in that regard involve human beings that are not included in yourself. The two are not the same. A zygote is not its own viable entity. In effect, it is a SYMBIOTE at that time period meaning a woman is most of the equation.
[quote]
You are arguing in broad generalizations, that the government shouldn’t restrict personal choices - but you do so without qualifiers and exceptions. I don’t think that is defensible.[/quote]
Then we disagree here because I think I just defended it.
Again, this is faulty. 6 month olds and 66 year olds are their OWN individual viable entities. A zygote is not.
To protect those outside of the individual nudist from obscenity.
[quote]
Other problems that I have with the abortion choice: I don’t like the concept of referring to people as property, and I can’t understand why a man has absolutely no say in the determination in a pro-abortion regime.[/quote]
This much I agree with. I would hate for any future woman I marry to have an abortion against my will. I see this as a major issue.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…
If a zygote is not a “baby”, why are people trying to stop zygotes from being aborted if they aren’t their own children? Why is anyone trying to take away someone else’s ability to make their own judgements?
Who has defined that a zygote is not a baby? Perhaps some doctors have, but doctors are not in charge of deciding where human rights begin. Again, science does not inform us that is it is wrong to kill a 6 month old, a 6 year old, or a 66 year old. Science is silent on that question. Our values determine that - and so the same would apply to what point we extend rights to the unborn.
…[/quote]
A zygote is not a fetus. A fetus is not an infant. An infant is not a toddler. A toddler is not a teenager. A teenager is not an adult. An adult is not an elderly person.
These are all stages of human life.
To pretend because a zygote is not at the next stage means it is something other than a stage of human life is a trick of the pro-abortion movement.
The human zygote will not become a chicken. It is a human! To kill it for convenience is a despicable act.
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Or some non-religious people, (I’ll just lump everyone anti-abortion under that label like you did the other way.)
trying put the label of choice on human life. With rights and choices come responsibilities.
That being said, I do agree that your zygote and consciousness questions have great merit, when you take away your biased rantings against “religious” people. Its a very complex issue to some of us who can actually think and might even be a little religious also.
Personally I’m against abortion, but there are so many questions and issues. Its certainly not all black and white. I think, instead of name calling along party lines, Prof X, leave that to the others, lets have some more of your thoughtful questions like the ones you just posed. IMO those are questions worth pondering. (And might actually get some folks to thinking about the issue instead of instantly taking a side based on emotion.)
[/quote]
Just to make it clear, my issue is not with religion, it is with people who get so full of their own nonsense that they forget that the basis of Christianity is CHOICE. That is why we are here. You have a choice to follow God or not. You have a choice whether to believe or not. Some people choose to ignore God and laugh at the concept.
I choose to acknowledge God and the existance of realities far beyond our minor comprehension. I do not feel it is my duty to force the world to think like me. That action removes choice and makes it law. This is not what God was about.
The human zygote will not become a chicken. It is a human! To kill it for convenience is a despicable act.[/quote]
It will also not become a human without the mother as the host. Regardless of your own personal values, why is it you care what anyone else’s values are? You may never make a decision for an abortion. I hope to never make a decision for one. That doesn’t mean that I attempt to make everyone else hold onto my personal values.
This logic is faulty. You are comparing a woman’s OWN body to the effect you can have on someone outside of yourself and outside of your family. The two are not the same. If your actions negatively affect someone else outside of your own person that you have no biological control over, there should most definitely be laws against it. A woman’s body is not someone else’s. [/quote]
Well, I will answer it this way - and that would address other points you made.
The entire point is that once a woman is pregnant, we are no longer talking about just her body. To be frank - that is exactly the debate at hand, and you are assuming the conclusion. The conclusion is exactly what is up for grabs in this debate.
The entire point of anti-abortion advocates is that the unborn is something more than just a piece of personal property belonging to the woman and second, it cannot defend itself. That is the argument - the unborn is an outside person that is negatively affected by something the woman does.
You are free to make the argument otherwise, but you can’t claim faulty logic. What you have assumed to be true is what everyone is currently debating.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That is a very good argument. And it was used by the South to rationalize slavery. I bet you wouldn’t have liked it much if you lived then.
“What difference is it to you if I own a slave? It’s no ones business” they screamed!
I would have said the same thing I do now about abortion: It’s everyones business!
You can not, unless you are losing your mental faculties, argue that having an abortion is like those who contributed to slavery.[/quote]
In many ways abortion is worse! We have about 50 million killed with abortion.
And others said they would never own slaves as they felt it was wrong, but didn’t mind others owning them.
Tell me again how this moral filth is any different than the earlier moral depravity.
[quote]Your argument is so weak it is laughable. It also clearly shows just how much clouded cognition I am dealing with.
[/quote]
If it so weak then please explain how one man can speak out against abortion yet want to allow it nationwide?
And that same thing happened during slavery. Much of the South simply said if you don’t believe in slavery don’t own one.
You are quite wrong there are many parallels here.
Both also represent a very big black eye on our country and the people who promote such an act.
Is there a point after the fertilization of a human egg that you would think abortion is not that big a deal?
No.
Unfortunately, that is just your opinion and nothing more. It is based in no scientific fact. Fertilization alone does not mean a baby will come to term. A zygote is not a fetus. A zygote is not a baby.[/quote]
Never said it was.
However, shortly after conception, a unique DNA code is formed which will remain unchanged through the life of the fetus, and after birth. Scientists define this event as the start of a human organism – of human life. Many pro-lifers assert that the presence of a unique human DNA code also signals the start of a human person.
Those who would kill it are wrong.
It is YOU who want to control others thoughts. You don’t like being challenged on the smallest of matters here on this board. I have seen it over and over.
I am interested in protecting those who cannot protect themselves. You don’t care about that topic. As long as you have enough food in front of you and a place to train, I’m not sure you care about anything. At least that’s the walk away message from your thousands of posts.
I didn’t bring religon into this debate, but as long as you did. Are you a Christian?
Where did you read that in the Bible? I’d like the passage.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If it so weak then please explain how one man can speak out against abortion yet want to allow it nationwide?
And that same thing happened during slavery. Much of the South simply said if you don’t believe in slavery don’t own one.
You are quite wrong there are many parallels here.
Both also represent a very big black eye on our country and the people who promote such an act.
[/quote]
Arguing with you is a waste of my time. I do believe you are the only one who will attempt to carry out off the wall analogies to a 30+ page conclusion. Have fun. I won’t be playing with you. Debate is only entertaining if both of the parties involved are at least primarily sane.
This logic is faulty. You are comparing a woman’s OWN body to the effect you can have on someone outside of yourself and outside of your family. The two are not the same. If your actions negatively affect someone else outside of your own person that you have no biological control over, there should most definitely be laws against it. A woman’s body is not someone else’s.
Well, I will answer it this way - and that would address other points you made.
The entire point is that once a woman is pregnant, we are no longer talking about just her body. To be frank - that is exactly the debate at hand, and you are assuming the conclusion. The conclusion is exactly what is up for grabs in this debate.
The entire point of anti-abortion advocates is that the unborn is something more than just a piece of personal property belonging to the woman and second, it cannot defend itself. That is the argument - the unborn is an outside person that is negatively affected by something the woman does.
You are free to make the argument otherwise, but you can’t claim faulty logic. What you have assumed to be true is what everyone is currently debating.[/quote]
I can understand this view point. My personal stance for my life is that a child is more valuable than anything I have worked for up to this point so I would not destroy the chances of creating one FOR MY OWN LIFE. What bothers me is that people in this country are not content with being in control of their own lives. They want everyone to think the same as they do. This is not easily relateable to people being harmed outside of your own person. This is not relateable to racial discrimination or sexual discrimination in the job place.
Nowhere else in life is there a situation where there is a symbiotic relationship between two parties in terms of human beings. As long as the definition of symbiosis involves interaction between two organisms living together in more or less intimate association or even the merging of two dissimilar organisms, then discussing it should present itself far above the other issues you brought forward. It is different. It should be discussed as being different.
In a symbiotic relationship, the larger member is the praimary source of “life”. Therefore, it should be that individual’s choice primarily aside from the issue you raised about the male in the relationship having a say as well.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I hope to never make a decision for one. That doesn’t mean that I attempt to make everyone else hold onto my personal values.[/quote]
Ahh the liberal mantra…
“I hope to never own a slave. That doesn’t mean that I attempt to make everyone else hold onto my personal values.”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I hope to never make a decision for one. That doesn’t mean that I attempt to make everyone else hold onto my personal values.
Ahh the liberal mantra…
“I hope to never own a slave. That doesn’t mean that I attempt to make everyone else hold onto my personal values.”
Typical open minded American circa 1850’s[/quote]
If you really want to play it that way include all the people who had to burn because of theological technicalities.
People who BELIEVE are ok, people who KNOW scare me…
Zeb, in essence you are advocating violence against people that do not share your beliefs. State controlled, public trial, civilized violence, but violence…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Or some non-religious people, (I’ll just lump everyone anti-abortion under that label like you did the other way.)
trying put the label of choice on human life. With rights and choices come responsibilities.
That being said, I do agree that your zygote and consciousness questions have great merit, when you take away your biased rantings against “religious” people. Its a very complex issue to some of us who can actually think and might even be a little religious also.
Personally I’m against abortion, but there are so many questions and issues. Its certainly not all black and white. I think, instead of name calling along party lines, Prof X, leave that to the others, lets have some more of your thoughtful questions like the ones you just posed. IMO those are questions worth pondering. (And might actually get some folks to thinking about the issue instead of instantly taking a side based on emotion.)
Just to make it clear, my issue is not with religion, it is with people who get so full of their own nonsense that they forget that the basis of Christianity is CHOICE. That is why we are here. You have a choice to follow God or not. You have a choice whether to believe or not. Some people choose to ignore God and laugh at the concept.
I choose to acknowledge God and the existance of realities far beyond our minor comprehension. I do not feel it is my duty to force the world to think like me. That action removes choice and makes it law. This is not what God was about.[/quote]
I dont see why religion has to be brought into the abortion debate. Anyone with a shred of knowledge about science knows that a zygote is the first stage of human development that ends ultimately with death. Now, does consciousness happen with a zygote? Probably not, but why should that be what determines whether you can kill it.
And it is a joke to say “you shouldn’t try and force your beliefs on other people” to pro lifers. HELLO they think you’re trying to force your beliefs onto an innocent life(the baby).
It is like an overlord telling an abolitionist “you may believe all people are equal, but i dont, so don’t force your beliefs on me.” I’m sure you’ll say “no no no its different, because another person is involved with your decision(the slave),” but pro-lifers believe another life is involved when abortion is at stake.
So, please, stop with this “dont force your beliefs on me” as an attack on pro-lifers.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If it so weak then please explain how one man can speak out against abortion yet want to allow it nationwide?
And that same thing happened during slavery. Much of the South simply said if you don’t believe in slavery don’t own one.
You are quite wrong there are many parallels here.
Both also represent a very big black eye on our country and the people who promote such an act.
Arguing with you is a waste of my time. I do believe you are the only one who will attempt to carry out off the wall analogies to a 30+ page conclusion. Have fun. I won’t be playing with you. Debate is only entertaining if both of the parties involved are at least primarily sane.[/quote]
Sane?
You think that because I take an opposing view point and drive it home with a very fair comparison of abortion to slavery, I am insane?
Seems, you are the one hurting. Hurting for excuses to continue killing the unborn.
