[quote]pat wrote:
Good for you. And for the record, covering women up in veils, keeping them at home and punishing them for interacting with another man is is empowering? [/quote]
Is is what now?
I don’t think questions belong in the record.
That one lengthy “record” you got there.
And yes, we figured that you aren’t concerned about the women.
Agreed. But when said “being” is bunking in her womb and stealing her calories, it becomes a different story.
[quote]pat wrote:
Damn you know how to paint a picture…Janet Reno? Come on! You could have at least chosen Rosie or Oprah…Hillary is bangable for an old hag…Anyway, you know of course I would answer that I have to keep the kid despite how much it would suck to do so.[/quote]
I knew what you’d answer. I’m still wondering what you would do if it really happened. You know what they say about theory and practice…
Since the man also has a say in the beginning, would you agree that he be legally forced to care or provide for at least half the child’s needs?
Let’s leave aside the origin of the pregnancy.
How is an embryo a person?
[quote]I was arguing from a utilitarian stand point. Numbers matter. If I could get rid of the vast majority of abortions, but had to keep some around for mitigating circumstances, I would sacrifice.
For instance, if I were a legislator trying to pass a bill and I know that if I included banning all abortions period would not pass, but a bill excluding the conditions or rape, incest, or other extreme circumstances would pass; then that’s what I would do.[/quote]
Ok. Similarly, I could probably accept an abortion ban on 3rd semester abortions. It would piss off 1% of women who waited way too long making up their minds, but - as in your case - it’s an acceptable tradeoff if it means progress somewhere else.
Personality is too vague a term. I wouldn’t say “most” animal either. As far as I know, most animals can’t figure out it’s themselves they see in a mirror and interact weirdly with that copycat behind the glass. I’m pretty sure it’s not even “most mammals.”
I’ll grant you some of the other primates. Some of the smartest chimpanzees are at least as “personable” as some retarded humans… maybe more. It’s hard to really define precisely. An embryo though? Not a person.
All subjectivity aside, I’m not against euthanasia for people who are in a permanent vegetative state. As long as it’s something they’ve clearly indicated they wanted when they were of clear mind.
Personally, if I was (more of) a vegetable, I wouldn’t care - by definition - about whether I live or die. I think it’d be unfair though to subject my family and friends to years of false hope.
And that is some kind of trump card? At some point, some development occurs in the brain that makes it “close enough” to a person to make me uncomfortable with the abortion process. A week before that, the development has not yet occurred and it’s not a person.
I fail to see a problem.
How else could I define them? We’re thinking meat machines. The “thinking” part is what really sets us apart from inanimate objects, plants, and most animals.
A fertilized ovum with a soul shoved into it?
Eliteballa 1
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Damn you know how to paint a picture…Janet Reno? Come on! You could have at least chosen Rosie or Oprah…Hillary is bangable for an old hag…Anyway, you know of course I would answer that I have to keep the kid despite how much it would suck to do so.
I knew what you’d answer. I’m still wondering what you would do if it really happened. You know what they say about theory and practice…
[/quote]
Who knows, I’d hope in any given situation I would make the right decision, but I have been known to make mistakes. In hypothetical’s I am likely to give the right answer. As far as what I’d actually do, there is no way to tell really. I’d have to face it and tell you how I dealt with it after the fact.
Oh fuck yes.
Well that is true, but some animals are aware they exist
That’s fine, but your still a person, albeit a useless one, but still a person, right?
So then your saying once the fetus develops a fictional CNS/brain it crosses into “personhood”? I’ll grant you a person is not much good with out a brain.
Here’s what Medline says about brain development:
[i] Week 3 of gestation
The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop
The gastrointestinal tract begins to develop
Weeks 4 to 5
Arm and leg buds become visible
Brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible
Eyes and ear structures begin to form
Formation of tissue that develops into the vertebra and some other bones
Further development of the heart which now beats at a regular rhythm
Movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels
Week 6
Arms and legs have grown longer, and foot and hand areas can be distringuished
Hands and feet have fingers and toes (digits), but may still be webbed
Brain continues to form
Lungs begin to form [/i]
Here’s the link if your interested:
Certainly I would agree there is a soul and a fertilized ovum is a real tiny person. But I am aware I am discussing the matter with an Atheist and would not presume to argue the case for a soul. That would be another discussion all together.
I am going with a completely empirical approach.
I argue that there are two elements that are required for a person to exist. Design and material. With out either, personhood is impossible to attain.
The information is the complete genetic information contained in the DNA. If it is incomplete development is not possible. Of course the design is that of a human and nothing else.
Material is flesh. From the beginning to the end of life flesh is absolutely necessary to build from. Cease the flow of materials development ceases.
These are the two things a person will carry with them even if they are put through a meat grinder.
Mick28,you seem to confuse your devotion to ignorance with being intelligent. Oh well,even retarded kids are proud of their work…I suppose you’re no different.
Everything you’ve said up to this point has done nothing but REINFORCE the things I have said…and is not even worth the time to point that out to you. Trust me,you’ve outdone yourself in showing everyone here that you truly are an ignorant cunt.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Thats what I would like to know,too. I guess,we both don’t understand. Just to put something in perspective(sort of), my wife…a kindergarten teacher and maybe 3 other teachers(one of whom is white)put up stuff for Black history MONTH. In reaction to that,other teachers went to the principal and complained that no one was putting up stuff for President’s DAY. Keep in mind this was at the beginning of February…and when was President’s Day??
Hey, it could be that those teachers RESENT black history month.
DUH.
And that speaks directly to my point genius.
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
Well that is true, but some animals are aware they exist[/quote]
But it’s very hard to understand how they internally interpret that. I don’t think that’s enough to make them persons.
Once you’ve been considered a person, the label tends to stick, even if you lose enough faculties that you have more in common with chair than with a fellow human being. Loved ones tend to remember you at your best (understandably) and “project” that memory on your present self.
I’ll guess you meant functional and not fictional.
[quote]Here’s what Medline says about brain development:
Week 6
Brain continues to form [/quote]
Well yeah, but just having the barest, faintest sign of a brain is not enough. If it was as easy as saying “as soon as the first nervous system cells appear…”
Hey, how’s this: They’re persons when they start to dream. No dreams means not enough brain there yet to claim personhood.
As search on Google reveals that recent psychology findings lead scientists to believe that fetuses start dreaming in their 32nd week. Well into the 3rd semester.
The question should not be whether I believe or not; it should be whether it’s actually true or not.
Even if there is a soul, how can you know when God sees fit to ensoul a body?
[quote]The information is the complete genetic information contained in the DNA. If it is incomplete development is not possible. Of course the design is that of a human and nothing else.
Material is flesh. From the beginning to the end of life flesh is absolutely necessary to build from. Cease the flow of materials development ceases.
These are the two things a person will carry with them even if they are put through a meat grinder.[/quote]
The problem with your approach is that after going through the meat grinder, you still have the DNA and you still have flesh. Is a ground-beefed human still a person?
According to that definitions, our cemeteries are filled with persons. Some have less flesh left than others, but the DNA and material is around for a long time.
I think you need something more.
One thing I have always wondered is, why do people who care so ardently about the unborn care so ardently about the unborn? What advantage does it accrue them, personally, that there be more, rather than fewer, people?
Is it for religious reasons? The more babies there are, the more potential Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, whatever?
Is it for patriotic reasons? Outlaw abortion in America and outbreed the other countries?
Or is it something simpler? Something like “because babies are so cute, and it makes me sad to think that any baby, anywhere might be harmed.”
I just don’t get it.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
One thing I have always wondered is, why do people who care so ardently about the unborn care so ardently about the unborn? What advantage does it accrue them, personally, that there be more, rather than fewer, people?
Is it for religious reasons? The more babies there are, the more potential Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, whatever?
Is it for patriotic reasons? Outlaw abortion in America and outbreed the other countries?
Or is it something simpler? Something like “because babies are so cute, and it makes me sad to think that any baby, anywhere might be harmed.”
I just don’t get it.[/quote]
Advantage? I’m not looking for a reward or an advantage. I simply believe that murdering a human life in the womb is beyond justification. If it was for demographic reasons I’d look more towards contraception and getting Amerians to marry, stay married, and have someone home with the kids. No, my stance issues from a revulsion, a horror, and an outright rejection of the idea that an abortion is simply discarding a “thing” with no more worth than a fingernail. But, that’s just me.
[quote]pookie wrote:
According to that definitions, our cemeteries are filled with persons. Some have less flesh left than others, but the DNA and material is around for a long time.
I think you need something more.
[/quote]
I don’t see anybody holding funerals for early miscarriages either. I wonder why that is.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Advantage? I’m not looking for a reward or an advantage. I simply believe that murdering a human life in the womb is beyond justification. If it was for demographic reasons I’d look more towards contraception and getting Amerians to marry, stay married, and have someone home with the kids. No, my stance issues from a revulsion, a horror, and an outright rejection of the idea that an abortion is simply discarding a “thing” with no more worth than a fingernail. But, that’s just me.[/quote]
Much more worth than a fingernail. At least as much worth as a malignant tumor.
But it seems that your campaign to end abortion is for emotional reasons, in order to soothe your feelings of revulsion and horror.
On a practical level, however, can you explain to me just how the world would be a better place if only there were more babies being born?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
On a practical level, however, can you explain to me just how the world would be a better place if only there were more babies being born?[/quote]
I can’t explain in any concrete way how the neighbor’s little rug rat will make the world a better place. But, his is an innocent human life, also.
By the way, a tumor isn’t a stage in an individual human being’s life-cycle.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
If Obama wins can we look forward to many more black history months?
Oh goody…can’t wait.
I don’t know exactly what you are saying here, but I’ll comment anyway.
I’m not a fan of Obama, but I think one of the better things that would come from him being elected, would be that he IS a black president. He would be a highly visible, positive role model for young black children. Someone, among others, that could potentially compete against entertainers and athletes for the attention and admiration of black youths. I don’t see how that can be a bad thing.
Of course, I don’t really know what comment meant anyway, so I apologize if I’m reading you wrong.
I’m not all that fond of elevating one race over another. And I think at this point we, as a country need to ditch black history month. That doesn’t do one single positive thing for black people. But it does irritate whites and other racial groups.
That’s what I meant.
I don’t see how anything’s elevated. And thanks for speaking on my behalf, but black history month sure doesn’t “irritate” me.
As far as anything positive, it highlights the achievement of prominent blacks in history that, for so long, were excluded from history lessons.
Where is “Native American Month”?
Were they not discriminated against?
I love liberals, there so…um…politically correct.
Is the first commandment in the politically correct Bible “Thou shalt never say a word against anything that is black”?
Thanks for the laugh.
Oh and feel free to respond regarding the absence of Native American history month.
[/quote]
What a ridiculous, sideways, and ignorant response.
First of all, November is Native American Month. And second…wait, no, there is no second. You’re too ignorant to be worth it. At least try to know what you’re talking about.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
On a practical level, however, can you explain to me just how the world would be a better place if only there were more babies being born?
I can’t explain in any concrete way how the neighbor’s little rug rat will make the world a better place. But, his is an innocent human life, also.[/quote]
Sure, but the world is already full of human lives, innocent and otherwise, with more being packed in all the time. Abortion serves, as infanticide served before the process was perfected, as a way to eliminate the surplus humans from a population. Other methods are famine, disease and war.
You may object to the term “surplus” being applied to humans, but for our purposes, it fits. Surplus is defined as “an excess of production or supply over demand.” The babies are unwanted, therefore they are destroyed. How else do you deal with a surplus? Is there really sufficient domestic demand for infants by prospective adoptive parents to absorb an extra million or so babies a year? If not, should we export the surplus babies to other countries?
No, but a tumor is more similar to an embryo than a toenail is.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
…
First of all, November is Native American Month.
…[/quote]
Really?
I live in Oklahoma, of all places, and I have a touch of Indian ancestry myself, yet I’ve never even heard of Native American Month. I had a college class on Native American Writers a few years ago that was taught by a full-blooded Osage, and he never mentioned Native American Month, even in November.
Is this actually a big thing in Wisconsin, or did you just Google it?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
malonetd wrote:
…
First of all, November is Native American Month.
…
Really?
I live in Oklahoma, of all places, and I have a touch of Indian ancestry myself, yet I’ve never even heard of Native American Month. I had a college class on Native American Writers a few years ago that was taught by a full-blooded Osage, and he never mentioned Native American Month, even in November.
Is this actually a big thing in Wisconsin, or did you just Google it?[/quote]
I think they used to call it “Indian Summer,” but that just wasn’t PC.