I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan but... - Page 2

lookout123 · 02-01-2005, 10:33 AM

garnet, that isn't exactly true. i also believe life begins at conception. i also don't support a complete prohibition on the abortion. if a woman wants to end the life of the baby inside her, that is her choice. until and unless, a VAST majority of americans decide that the time for legal abortion is over. the laws on our books should be about the will of the majority of the people, whether or not they properly align with MY morals is MY problem.

that being said, the pro-choice/pro-abortion rhetoric pisses me off. "it" is alive. "it" is a human embryo that would live without intervention. "it" is murder. call it what it is and make your choices.

i still think the anti-abortion movement should find the next young girl who throws her newborn into a dumpster and defend her in court. just to find out what exactly the difference is. if it can be legally aborted at 10AM, why is it a felony to kill it at 11AM?

russotto · 02-01-2005, 10:45 AM

I believe that Louis Pasteur answered the "when life begins" question. Life doesn't begin at conception. Nor does it begin at implantation, nor quickening, nor birth. Life is present the entire time. And, in case there's any question, it's human life the entire time.

Conception is certainly an important milestone. But nature doesn't have a lot of respect for the zygote. A lot of them, I believe a majority, don't even make it to implantation. It's hard for me to work up a lot of moral outrage over a few undifferentiated cells which most likely won't make it anyway. Potential? The potential is there the whole time, even before conception. Following the potential argument leads you to "every sperm is sacred" -- or at least, "every egg is sacred". So with that, I find there simply is no bright line before which it's reasonable to say "abortion's no big deal" and after which "abortion is akin to infanticide". You can pick one as the Roe v. Wade court did, but everything short of a total ban will tick off the so-called "pro-life" side, and anything close to a total ban will tick off the so-called "pro-choice side", so you can't win.

garnet · 02-01-2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

i also believe life begins at conception. i also don't support a complete prohibition on the abortion. if a woman wants to end the life of the baby inside her, that is her choice.

Not to beat this into the ground or anything, but I've never really understood that position. If you believe human life begins at conception, you're saying a fetus is just as valuable as an adult human being. Isn't it therefore murder to have an abortion? And shouldn't this murder be illegal, just as it is if you murder an adult? Sorry, I think that's hypocritical.

Undertoad · 02-01-2005, 10:53 AM

Right Russ, I've heard that 2/3rds of zygotes spontaneously fail to implant.

Ergo, holding to your rhetorical correctness L123, more babies have been flushed down sewer systems than have ever been born live, and most women are guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

lookout123 · 02-01-2005, 11:03 AM

garnet, that is the point. I believe that it is murder. the vast majority of america doesn't. so, i'm not on a major campaign to force america to comply with my belief system. america's laws don't have to fall into line with my beliefs. my actions only have to fall into line with america's laws.

as i've said before, the only abortion related argument that really gets to me is the idea of minors being able to have abortions without parental/guardian notification. my attitude is that if a minor can't sign up for extracurricular school activity without parental consent (because they aren't mature enough to make all decisions on their own) then, maybe they shouldn't be able to have a surgical procedure without parental notification.

garnet · 02-01-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

garnet, that is the point. I believe that it is murder. the vast majority of america doesn't. so, i'm not on a major campaign to force america to comply with my belief system. america's laws don't have to fall into line with my beliefs. my actions only have to fall into line with america's laws.

Sorry, it's still hypocritical. Suppose the majority of Americans thought child molesting should be legal. Would you be OK with that, just because it's what the majority thinks? Either it's murder or it's not.

lookout123 · 02-01-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Right Russ, I've heard that 2/3rds of zygotes spontaneously fail to implant.

Ergo, holding to your rhetorical correctness L123, more babies have been flushed down sewer systems than have ever been born live, and most women are guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

i think that is taking it back to a ridiculous starting point. you are talking about normal biological functions. some implant, some don't. the ones that do, result in a woman peeing on a stick, and either crying with joy, or absolute terror. it is at that point in time, when a woman knows she is pregnant that she now has to make her choice. the abortion debate begins with - a woman is pregnant.

lookout123 · 02-01-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garnet

Sorry, it's still hypocritical. Suppose the majority of Americans thought child molesting should be legal. Would you be OK with that, just because it's what the majority thinks?

no, it wouldn't be ok. i would still believe it is wrong. but again, if the majority of americans support it, i do not have the ability to force my belief system on them.

let's look at this from the flipside. if i supported forcing my belief system on all of america, in situations where it is counter to the will of the majority, you would be condemning me as being a closed minded fundamentalist christian, trying to strip people's rights from them.

i believe abortion is murder. i believe that our society as a whole would be better without it. the majority of america disagrees. therefore, my beliefs probably won't line up with the laws. i have the choice to stay in america and accept it, or leave and go to some mythical place where we all have the same beliefs.

i believe child molestation is wrong. a majority of america agrees. it is illegal. my beliefs and our laws are in tune. happy day.

i can hold strong beliefs without trying to force them on you. if strict anti-abortion laws were enforced without almost universal support for the reasoning behind the laws, then it would do nothing but push abortion clinics into the back alleys and harm many more people. that is not a better situation than having a safe, legal abortion clinic in operation.

garnet · 02-01-2005, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

no, it wouldn't be ok. i would still believe it is wrong. but again, if the majority of americans support it, i do not have the ability to force my belief system on them.

Why don't you stand up for what you believe in rather that following the crowd like a sheep? Some people may condemn you as a "fundamentalist," but so what? That's their problem.

I disagree with pro-lifers' stand on abortion, but at the same time I respect anybody who stands up for and lives their life according to what they believe in, regardless of whether or not it's a popular political position.

Undertoad · 02-01-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

i think that is taking it back to a ridiculous starting point. you are talking about normal biological functions. some implant, some don't. the ones that do, result in a woman peeing on a stick, and either crying with joy, or absolute terror. it is at that point in time, when a woman knows she is pregnant that she now has to make her choice. the abortion debate begins with - a woman is pregnant.

You established the starting point, I simply noted the ridiculous in it.

IIRC, involuntary manslaughter is when you kill another person through your actions even if you didn't know for certain that it would lead to death. I don't know for sure but I believe there are women who produce eggs but don't have a lifestyle that would encourage implantation. Marathon runners. If everything you've said is the case, you need to bring these women up on charges or explain to me what the conceptual difference is.

lookout123 · 02-01-2005, 11:56 AM

uh, garnet - i do stand up for what i believe in. i believe in allowing the people of a nation to decide the direction of the nation.

i openly discuss my beliefs on issues. it is rare, but sometimes people do change their views after discussing issues with other people. carrying picket signs and handing out pamphlets isn't exactly in tune with my personality. besides, how many minds have been changed because of the protestors? not many, i would say, at least not in favor of the protestors agenda.

like i said, to force anti-abortion laws on a nation where the people don't agree with my view on it will only push the procedure into the back alleys. you cannot legislate morality. if the american culture were to change enough that the abortion debate is irrelevant because people no longer wanted the procedure... well i guess the laws, wouldn't really matter, would they? but to force prohibition on an unwilling society would be counter productive. as in most areas, i believe this is an issue better handled through personal interaction than government regulation.

UT - i don't even know where to go with this line of reasoning. i state that a woman who knowingly aborts her fetus is committing murder. as stated above, i don't support a prohibition on the action. you are taking this back to a point before there is even a possible choice available.

i guess i don't understand what point you are trying to bring home to me. that a fetus isn't a baby? is there anything substantially different between the newborn baby immediately before and immediately after leaving it's mother?

Troubleshooter · 02-01-2005, 12:10 PM

Part of the problem with the whole governance issue is that the gov't isn't supposed to do what is popular, but what is right. People keep losing track of that point.

What is necessary at this point is for an arbitrary time in the pregnancy to be assigned as the 'do not abort' point. Any time after that, barring health risks, it should be against the law to abort. Any time before that it should be legal, or possibly have a modified penalty of some sort.

The only way to assess that point in time is based on physiological evidence as to when the point of viability, the ability to maintain basic life functions, is reached. The government's responsibility is to pretects its current citizens and insure that it has more in the future.

Now, the only way that that is going to happen is if some legislator actually has the ethical capability to actually look at the issue in the right light, as an ethical issue, not an issue to generate more votes.

That concludes today's political fantasy...

Undertoad · 02-01-2005, 12:14 PM

No, I'm trying to bring home the point that you believe that a zygote and a fetus IS a baby. I don't care to change your mind, I'm just exploring it. If a woman knowingly kills her baby, it is murder. THEREFORE, if a woman unknowingly kills her baby, it is involuntary manslaughter. Why don't you agree?

There is an extremely substantial and significant difference between the baby one minute before birth and one minute after. Your willing blindness to this difference is alarming, but again, I'm not trying to change your mind.

lookout123 · 02-01-2005, 12:18 PM

the problem there TS is this isn't a right/wrong issue like child molestation. everybody except absolute nuts agrees screwing kids is wrong.

before this is a right/wrong issue, there would have to be a consensus on living human/not living human. then you can move on to making the laws, because killing a human has already been accepted as a wrong action. if it is human - it would be a crime. if it isn't - no harm no foul.

Quote:

Part of the problem with the whole governance issue is that the gov't isn't supposed to do what is popular, but what is right. People keep losing track of that point.

that is like saying the justice system is about right/wrong. it isn't, its about legal/illegal, proveable/nonproveable - ask any lawyer. the government is supposed to follow the will of the people.

lookout123 · 02-01-2005, 12:25 PM

UT - once you have looked at the ultrasound of your son 2 days before birth and held him within minutes of being born, the physical differences kind of melt away. my son, would have survived if he had been born 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks before his real birth time. he would still be the person he is. what makes the exact birth minute so crucial?

as far as the difference in a known pregnancy and a fertilized egg that doesn't implant? i guess i don't know. i guess i don't really care that much. because again, i'm not trying to have abortion outlawed, and i don't look poorly upon those who've had abortions, i'm not overly concerned about the legal status of a woman who had a fertilized egg that flowed out and into the sewer.

i'm not being a smartass, but i'm more interested in choices that are made than in possibilities of what is life, what isn't.

02-01-2005, 10:33 AM	#16
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	garnet, that isn't exactly true. i also believe life begins at conception. i also don't support a complete prohibition on the abortion. if a woman wants to end the life of the baby inside her, that is her choice. until and unless, a VAST majority of americans decide that the time for legal abortion is over. the laws on our books should be about the will of the majority of the people, whether or not they properly align with MY morals is MY problem. that being said, the pro-choice/pro-abortion rhetoric pisses me off. "it" is alive. "it" is a human embryo that would live without intervention. "it" is murder. call it what it is and make your choices. i still think the anti-abortion movement should find the next young girl who throws her newborn into a dumpster and defend her in court. just to find out what exactly the difference is. if it can be legally aborted at 10AM, why is it a felony to kill it at 11AM? __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

02-01-2005, 11:03 AM	#20
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	garnet, that is the point. I believe that it is murder. the vast majority of america doesn't. so, i'm not on a major campaign to force america to comply with my belief system. america's laws don't have to fall into line with my beliefs. my actions only have to fall into line with america's laws. as i've said before, the only abortion related argument that really gets to me is the idea of minors being able to have abortions without parental/guardian notification. my attitude is that if a minor can't sign up for extracurricular school activity without parental consent (because they aren't mature enough to make all decisions on their own) then, maybe they shouldn't be able to have a surgical procedure without parental notification. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

02-01-2005, 11:56 AM	#26
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	uh, garnet - i do stand up for what i believe in. i believe in allowing the people of a nation to decide the direction of the nation. i openly discuss my beliefs on issues. it is rare, but sometimes people do change their views after discussing issues with other people. carrying picket signs and handing out pamphlets isn't exactly in tune with my personality. besides, how many minds have been changed because of the protestors? not many, i would say, at least not in favor of the protestors agenda. like i said, to force anti-abortion laws on a nation where the people don't agree with my view on it will only push the procedure into the back alleys. you cannot legislate morality. if the american culture were to change enough that the abortion debate is irrelevant because people no longer wanted the procedure... well i guess the laws, wouldn't really matter, would they? but to force prohibition on an unwilling society would be counter productive. as in most areas, i believe this is an issue better handled through personal interaction than government regulation. UT - i don't even know where to go with this line of reasoning. i state that a woman who knowingly aborts her fetus is committing murder. as stated above, i don't support a prohibition on the action. you are taking this back to a point before there is even a possible choice available. i guess i don't understand what point you are trying to bring home to me. that a fetus isn't a baby? is there anything substantially different between the newborn baby immediately before and immediately after leaving it's mother? __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin Last edited by lookout123; 02-01-2005 at 12:02 PM.

02-01-2005, 12:10 PM	#27
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	Part of the problem with the whole governance issue is that the gov't isn't supposed to do what is popular, but what is right. People keep losing track of that point. What is necessary at this point is for an arbitrary time in the pregnancy to be assigned as the 'do not abort' point. Any time after that, barring health risks, it should be against the law to abort. Any time before that it should be legal, or possibly have a modified penalty of some sort. The only way to assess that point in time is based on physiological evidence as to when the point of viability, the ability to maintain basic life functions, is reached. The government's responsibility is to pretects its current citizens and insure that it has more in the future. Now, the only way that that is going to happen is if some legislator actually has the ethical capability to actually look at the issue in the right light, as an ethical issue, not an issue to generate more votes. That concludes today's political fantasy... __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

02-01-2005, 12:25 PM	#30
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	UT - once you have looked at the ultrasound of your son 2 days before birth and held him within minutes of being born, the physical differences kind of melt away. my son, would have survived if he had been born 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks before his real birth time. he would still be the person he is. what makes the exact birth minute so crucial? as far as the difference in a known pregnancy and a fertilized egg that doesn't implant? i guess i don't know. i guess i don't really care that much. because again, i'm not trying to have abortion outlawed, and i don't look poorly upon those who've had abortions, i'm not overly concerned about the legal status of a woman who had a fertilized egg that flowed out and into the sewer. i'm not being a smartass, but i'm more interested in choices that are made than in possibilities of what is life, what isn't. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

02-01-2005, 10:45 AM	#17
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	I believe that Louis Pasteur answered the "when life begins" question. Life doesn't begin at conception. Nor does it begin at implantation, nor quickening, nor birth. Life is present the entire time. And, in case there's any question, it's human life the entire time. Conception is certainly an important milestone. But nature doesn't have a lot of respect for the zygote. A lot of them, I believe a majority, don't even make it to implantation. It's hard for me to work up a lot of moral outrage over a few undifferentiated cells which most likely won't make it anyway. Potential? The potential is there the whole time, even before conception. Following the potential argument leads you to "every sperm is sacred" -- or at least, "every egg is sacred". So with that, I find there simply is no bright line before which it's reasonable to say "abortion's no big deal" and after which "abortion is akin to infanticide". You can pick one as the Roe v. Wade court did, but everything short of a total ban will tick off the so-called "pro-life" side, and anything close to a total ban will tick off the so-called "pro-choice side", so you can't win.

02-01-2005, 10:53 AM	#19
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Right Russ, I've heard that 2/3rds of zygotes spontaneously fail to implant. Ergo, holding to your rhetorical correctness L123, more babies have been flushed down sewer systems than have ever been born live, and most women are guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

02-01-2005, 12:14 PM	#28
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	No, I'm trying to bring home the point that you believe that a zygote and a fetus IS a baby. I don't care to change your mind, I'm just exploring it. If a woman knowingly kills her baby, it is murder. THEREFORE, if a woman unknowingly kills her baby, it is involuntary manslaughter. Why don't you agree? There is an extremely substantial and significant difference between the baby one minute before birth and one minute after. Your willing blindness to this difference is alarming, but again, I'm not trying to change your mind.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)