If you are anti-abortion be ready to implement an alternative

[aardvarkcore]

You can talk all you want about how you want to preserve life but if you arn't prepared to adopt a child I think you are quite hypocritical. I am pro-life and believe abortion isn't right but I do think many people need to put their money where their mouth is.

I think people who are anti-abortion should put their time and their effort into setting up, promoting and/or supporting an adoption infrastructure. So many people waste their time talking about issues and don't ask why they are happening and what alternatives and/or solutions are there?

The same problem is happening with poverty. To much talking; time to actually start doing something about it.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

You can talk all you want about how you want to preserve life but if you arn't prepared to adopt a child I think you are quite hypocritical. I am pro-life and believe abortion isn't right but I do think many people need to put their money where their mouth is.

I think people who are anti-abortion should put their time and their effort into setting up, promoting and/or supporting an adoption infrastructure. So many people waste their time talking about issues and don't ask why they are happening and what alternatives and/or solutions are there?

The same problem is happening with poverty. To much talking; time to actually start doing something about it.This is a complete mistake.

If I tell you that I'm going to murder my son, who is now 9 years old, unless you adopt him, what will you say? Can i just say "well if you're going to keep opposing murder, but you won't adopt my son, then you're a hypocrite!"

If abortion is unjustified homicide, then it remains so whether I am willing to adopt multitudes of children or not. Nobody can play this kind of blackmail game - "If I have to abort - It's your fault for not adopting!" That wouldn't hold up in any other homicide case, so it's special pleading to use that reasoning here.

[Jnthn]

You can talk all you want about how you want to preserve life but if you arn't prepared to adopt a child I think you are quite hypocritical. I am pro-life and believe abortion isn't right but I do think many people need to put their money where their mouth is.

I think people who are anti-abortion should put their time and their effort into setting up, promoting and/or supporting an adoption infrastructure. So many people waste their time talking about issues and don't ask why they are happening and what alternatives and/or solutions are there?

The same problem is happening with poverty. To much talking; time to actually start doing something about it.I'm afraid your argument is fundamentally flawed.

At its root, being anti-abortion means believing in reproductive responsibility. This means in practice that if a woman gets pregnant and brings the child to term the first responsibility for the child's upbringing lies with the biological mother and father. There is precisely no obligation on pro-lifers to provide support for those who have given birth where an unplanned pregnancy has occurred.

The good news is that many pro-life agencies do provide support despite the absence of obligation, but with the best will in the world one cannot expect goodwill support services to expand indefinitely to deal with a problem which has irresponsibility at its root.

Adoption of unplanned pregnancies is treating a symptom. As always, dealing with the root problem has a better chance of resolving the issue: individuals need to understand that whenever a man and a woman has sexual intercourse, they are opening themselves up to the possibility of conception and dealing with the outcome of conception is the dividend of sexual activity.

J

[aardvarkcore]

I see your point. I am just sick of "pro life activists" spending their time talking down on people who are aborting rather than supporting an alternative. I wasn't trying to pull out the guilt card on anyone or trying to pin the responsibility on others. I am from New Zealand where adoption levels are low and abortion levels are high, the infrastructure of adoption is terrible here and so many people waste their time talking down on abortionists and protesting the legality of it but no-one seems to be putting their effort into supporting an alternative.

I truly believe if you are going to talk about an issue and not support an alternative it's ridiculous.

[Jnthn]

I see your point. I am just sick of "pro life activists" spending their time talking down on people who are aborting rather than supporting an alternative. I wasn't trying to pull out the guilt card on anyone or trying to pin the responsibility on others. I am from New Zealand where adoption levels are low and abortion levels are high, the infrastructure of adoption is terrible here and so many people waste their time talking down on abortionists and protesting the legality of it but no-one seems to be putting their effort into supporting an alternative.

I truly believe if you are going to talk about an issue and not support an alternative it's ridiculous.The fundamental point is that there is an alternative - reproductive responsibility - but neither society (on the whole) or the state are willing to impose that standard because (in my opinion) abortion has become so tied up with the notion of women's rights and attempting to challenge that link is seen as regressive.

Adoption is at best a sticking plaster, not a solution.

J

[aardvarkcore]

Adoption is at best a sticking plaster, not a solution.

But it is a viable alternative (and probably the most viable alternative) ... the solution; taking away the persons free will to ensure they don't accidentally become pregnant? (Reminds me of the film Equilibrium :lol: )

[Bill the Cat]

*** rant on

Dude, the typical adoption costs in excess of $15,000 here in the states and takes a good year (unless you are stinkin rich in Hollywood). I don't have $15,000 laying around, but I'd love to adopt 1 or 2 kids if it were not so ridiculous. Why the heck do we need a credit check to adopt? I can understand being financially able to care for a child, but some folks may have had a run of bad luck and they ruined their credit for years which will keep them from adopting. If you have $15,000, chances are that youy can afford to care for them.

***Rant off

[Pilgrim]

*** rant on

Dude, the typical adoption costs in excess of $15,000 here in the states and takes a good year (unless you are stinkin rich in Hollywood). I don't have $15,000 laying around, but I'd love to adopt 1 or 2 kids if it were not so ridiculous. Why the heck do we need a credit check to adopt? I can understand being financially able to care for a child, but some folks may have had a run of bad luck and they ruined their credit for years which will keep them from adopting. If you have $15,000, chances are that youy can afford to care for them.

***Rant off

I hear your frustration but it's a bit of a red herring. Actually having a child through birth costs 20G's or more so right off the bat you're saving money. (Ok, that's a bit unfair, if you have insurance you're paying far less but the total bill is up there.) Secondly, your frustration with having to wait for a child is precisely that, YOUR frustration. It has nothing to do with the ease of handing over a child for adoption which is pretty easy. Most new born children can be placed in adoptive homes with in days of their birth. So the point is, from an abortion stand point, the slow process for those wanting to adopt has little to do with the process of giving up a child for adoption which takes little time or effort at all.

Matter of fact, my mother in law has a neighbor who has been in the adoption process for a while. They didn't like the wait. But last Friday they were informed that a child was available and the could pick her up the next day. Guess how old the child was when the picked her up Saturday? One day old. So the whole adoption complaint has little to do with how easy it would be for parents to give a child up for adoption. (especially since in many cases adopting families foot the medical bills too.)

[Jnthn]

But it is a viable alternative (and probably the most viable alternative) ... the solution; taking away the persons free will to ensure they don't accidentally become pregnant? (Reminds me of the film Equilibrium :lol: )What's your aversion to personal responsibilty here? Do you or do you not believe that people are responsible for their reproductive faculties?

J

[Bill the Cat]

I hear your frustration but it's a bit of a red herring. Actually having a child through birth costs 20G's or more so right off the bat you're saving money. (Ok, that's a bit unfair, if you have insurance you're paying far less but the total bill is up there.)

I had really good insurance and the births cost $50 copay for each of my 3.

Secondly, your frustration with having to wait for a child is precisely that, YOUR frustration. It has nothing to do with the ease of handing over a child for adoption which is pretty easy. Most new born children can be placed in adoptive homes with in days of their birth. So the point is, from an abortion stand point, the slow process for those wanting to adopt has little to do with the process of giving up a child for adoption which takes little time or effort at all.


There's a ton of preliminary stuff that has to go on, like visits from Social Services, interviews, credit checks (:brood:), and the like. Plus, the process isn't over once the baby is handed over. Visits from S.S. happen after that too, as well as the rest of the legalities. My wife was adopted, so I got a nice insider's view on the process, and that was inside the family (long story!!).

Matter of fact, my mother in law has a neighbor who has been in the adoption process for a while. They didn't like the wait. But last Friday they were informed that a child was available and the could pick her up the next day. Guess how old the child was when the picked her up Saturday? One day old. So the whole adoption complaint has little to do with how easy it would be for parents to give a child up for adoption. (especially since in many cases adopting families foot the medical bills too.)

I'm looking at it from the adopting perspective, not the give-up-for-adoption one. The OP questioned why pro-lifers are not adopting. I listed a few reasons. The cost and wait is daunting, although options are there to offset those a bit. But the price tag is enough to scare many off from this option.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Secondly, your frustration with having to wait for a child is precisely that, YOUR frustration. It has nothing to do with the ease of handing over a child for adoption which is pretty easy.Umm... did you forget the nine month gestation period that preceeds the birth?

[Pilgrim]

What's your aversion to personal responsibilty here? Do you or do you not believe that people are responsible for their reproductive faculties?

J

What's your aversion to a compassionate societal solution? I mean seriously, why is it always either or in these conversations. The reality is that you are right, personal responsibility must be taken, but just as correct is the idea that society and communities can work with individuals and for each other.

[Jnthn]

What's your aversion to a compassionate societal solution? I mean seriously, why is it always either or in these conversations. The reality is that you are right, personal responsibility must be taken, but just as correct is the idea that society and communities can work with individuals and for each other.It isn't a solution, Pilgrim, that's why I called adoption a sticking plaster. It is a temporising measure at best that cannot work in the long term

To describe it as an either-or is misleading because the solutions do not operate in the same time frame. You are not comparing two options that occur at the point of (unwitting) conception.

J

[aardvarkcore]

It all comes down to free will ... the problem is rooted in people accidentally getting pregnant; but what can we do to stop that? Not a heck of a lot.

[RumTumTugger]

It all comes down to free will ... the problem is rooted in people accidentally getting pregnant; but what can we do to stop that? Not a heck of a lot.


Wrong there are 2 things that can be done. which should be taught to our kids.

1.for a women it is to keep her legs closed
2. for the man control his urges.

This whole thing but we did everything we could not to get pregnant while still eating our cake why should we be "punished" is bunk. No they didn't since no so called "birth control" method be it the condom, diaphragm, the pill etc is guaranteed. The only way to be 100% way to be sure you wont' get pregnant when you aren't ready for it is to abstain until you are ready.

Michele.

[Jnthn]

It all comes down to free will ... the problem is rooted in people accidentally getting pregnant; but what can we do to stop that? Not a heck of a lot.That's an incredibly defeatist viewpoint and doesn't sit well with your vigourous condemnation of those who don't (in your view) provide an alternative.

I suggest you haven't thought the issue through to sufficient depth.

J

[themuzicman]

You can talk all you want about how you want to preserve life but if you arn't prepared to adopt a child I think you are quite hypocritical. I am pro-life and believe abortion isn't right but I do think many people need to put their money where their mouth is.

I think people who are anti-abortion should put their time and their effort into setting up, promoting and/or supporting an adoption infrastructure. So many people waste their time talking about issues and don't ask why they are happening and what alternatives and/or solutions are there?

The same problem is happening with poverty. To much talking; time to actually start doing something about it.

There is a long waiting list in the US for infant adoptions.

The kids waiting for adoption have nothing to do with the availability of abortion.

Michael

[aardvarkcore]

There is a long waiting list in the US for infant adoptions.

This is kind of my point, arn't you better off putting time into sorting out the adoption infrastructure than complaining about abortionists?

[themuzicman]

This is kind of my point, arn't you better off putting time into sorting out the adoption infrastructure than complaining about abortionists?

You missed my point. There is a huge list of people waiting to adopt infants, not a huge list of infants awaiting adoption.

Michael

[Pilgrim]

Exactly! The whole issue of adoption being a bad option because of the waiting is a red herring. There is not a baby born today who could not be placed in an adoptive home by next week.

[Rahab]

You can talk all you want about how you want to preserve life but if you arn't prepared to adopt a child I think you are quite hypocritical. I am pro-life and believe abortion isn't right but I do think many people need to put their money where their mouth is.

I think people who are anti-abortion should put their time and their effort into setting up, promoting and/or supporting an adoption infrastructure. So many people waste their time talking about issues and don't ask why they are happening and what alternatives and/or solutions are there?

The same problem is happening with poverty. To much talking; time to actually start doing something about it. The ultimate argument we used in our Crisis Pregnancy Center (Birthright) was adoption. It was our resource to guide a pregnant woman away from terminating her pregnancy.However, our concern was also her welfare until the birth. We had limited "foster families" yet folks willing to provide the mother with economical, emotional and moral support. IMO, the issue is not "pro lifers who will not adopt" but the lack of realistic evaluation of which social categories of women generaly end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

So, I will summarize for you based on our CPC statistics :

- single women (primarely young adults or teens). Women who do not have an economical stability sufficient enough or any at all to support themselves during a pregnancy. No medical insurance, no stable income to meet prenatal medical bills, often coming from dysfunctional and low income homes and NO guarantee that their family/relatives will support them until the birth.(to include emotional and moral support). A large proportion of those women had to be "placed" in Single Mothers Homes or with our volunteer families.

The "luckiest" would find thru our adoption referrals their future adoptive family. The costs of medical care and other economical factors would be assumed by such family. The others had to rely on our local and quite modest resources mostly provided by church ministries.


IMO, pro life movements should invest their time and energy and resources into providing economical, emotional and moral support DURING the pregnancy. They need to be facilitators towards the welfare of the mother FIRST and FOREMOST.

Once a woman makes the adoption decision, an entire support system needs to welcome her and validate her choice. Such validation means the world for her. It confirms she made the right choice not just for a future child but also for herself.

Pro Life movements need to be extremely committed to support their CPCs. Churches need to organize themselves into provding temporary shelter, medical care, hosting families and assist efficiently in locating potential adoptive parents. Churches can raise the dollar amounts necessary to cover legal fees etc when they find a prospective adoptive parent.

Many accidental pregnancy cases will end up in CPCs. Counselors have to somehow back up their adoption centered arguments with realistic and concrete measures of support. We did not just pat ourselves on our backs because we were succesful.. We knew that it was only the first step towards a nine month long commitment on our part to support mom. And I can honestly say that we could have used all the time and energy from Pro life activists who picket Women Health Care clinics to reach our support goals.

We had wonderful groups such as the Daughters of the Republic who would knit layettes and organize baby showers. A few local churches would have their Women's Ministries sponsor a couple of our "clients". Taking them to the doctor, out to lunch, taking them shopping, even some taking Lamaze classes as their coach. Those were simple and giving local folks. Their altruism was not motivated by a sense of anger, hatred or any political drive. Rather by a sense of wanting to participate where they are needed most.

On the topic of adopting infants : I would not have restricted myself to only adopting an infant. My choice would have been for an 8 to 15 year old age range. Probably because I could have my own infants. Each Wednesday, our local Tampa Bay 10, introduces a child up for adoption. Those kids have been in the Foster system for a long time. Their original family either could not take of them or would not take care of them. They are still parentless today.Their common dream is to have a permanant family where they can use the word" mom" or "dad".

IMO, those should not be dismissed because of your argument connecting lack of adoption to lack of adoptive pro lifers. And it is precisely what such argument would do. Adopting a child, any child, means having the desire to parent and nurture a little person who was born unwanted. Taking care of those who are already born IMO needs to be a Pro life focus.

[Jnthn]

The ultimate argument we used in our Crisis Pregnancy Center (Birthright) was adoption. It was our resource to guide a pregnant woman away from terminating her pregnancy.However, our concern was also her welfare until the birth. We had limited "foster families" yet folks willing to provide the mother with economical, emotional and moral support. IMO, the issue is not "pro lifers who will not adopt" but the lack of realistic evaluation of which social categories of women generaly end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

So, I will summarize for you based on our CPC statistics :

- single women (primarely young adults or teens). Women who do not have an economical stability sufficient enough or any at all to support themselves during a pregnancy. No medical insurance, no stable income to meet prenatal medical bills, often coming from dysfunctional and low income homes and NO guarantee that their family/relatives will support them until the birth.(to include emotional and moral support). A large proportion of those women had to be "placed" in Single Mothers Homes or with our volunteer families.

The "luckiest" would find thru our adoption referrals their future adoptive family. The costs of medical care and other economical factors would be assumed by such family. The others had to rely on our local and quite modest resources mostly provided by church ministries.


IMO, pro life movements should invest their time and energy and resources into providing economical, emotional and moral support DURING the pregnancy. They need to be facilitators towards the welfare of the mother FIRST and FOREMOST.

Once a woman makes the adoption decision, an entire support system needs to welcome her and validate her choice. Such validation means the world for her. It confirms she made the right choice not just for a future child but also for herself.

Pro Life movements need to be extremely committed to support their CPCs. Churches need to organize themselves into provding temporary shelter, medical care, hosting families and assist efficiently in locating potential adoptive parents. Churches can raise the dollar amounts necessary to cover legal fees etc when they find a prospective adoptive parent.

Many accidental pregnancy cases will end up in CPCs. Counselors have to somehow back up their adoption centered arguments with realistic and concrete measures of support. We did not just pat ourselves on our backs because we were succesful.. We knew that it was only the first step towards a nine month long commitment on our part to support mom. And I can honestly say that we could have used all the time and energy from Pro life activists who picket Women Health Care clinics to reach our support goals.

We had wonderful groups such as the Daughters of the Republic who would knit layettes and organize baby showers. A few local churches would have their Women's Ministries sponsor a couple of our "clients". Taking them to the doctor, out to lunch, taking them shopping, even some taking Lamaze classes as their coach. Those were simple and giving local folks. Their altruism was not motivated by a sense of anger, hatred or any political drive. Rather by a sense of wanting to participate where they are needed most.

On the topic of adopting infants : I would not have restricted myself to only adopting an infant. My choice would have been for an 8 to 15 year old age range. Probably because I could have my own infants. Each Wednesday, our local Tampa Bay 10, introduces a child up for adoption. Those kids have been in the Foster system for a long time. Their original family either could not take of them or would not take care of them. They are still parentless today.Their common dream is to have a permanant family where they can use the word" mom" or "dad".

IMO, those should not be dismissed because of your argument connecting lack of adoption to lack of adoptive pro lifers. And it is precisely what such argument would do. Adopting a child, any child, means having the desire to parent and nurture a little person who was born unwanted. Taking care of those who are already born IMO needs to be a Pro life focus.Thanks for this Rahab. Good to have your insight.

J

[Teallaura]

...


I'm looking at it from the adopting perspective, not the give-up-for-adoption one. The OP questioned why pro-lifers are not adopting. I listed a few reasons. The cost and wait is daunting, although options are there to offset those a bit. But the price tag is enough to scare many off from this option.You forgot the very real threat of losing the child even years after the adoption through no fault of the adoptive parents to a biological parent who for several possible reasons is given back parental rights. It's one of the main reasons people prefer anonymous adoptions and some have even resorted to moving after the adoption to limit the possibility of contact from the birth parents. If the courts better protected the rights of the adoptive parents (assuming of course that they did act in good faith) I think we'd see more adoptions despite the cost.

[Teallaura]

This is kind of my point, arn't you better off putting time into sorting out the adoption infrastructure than complaining about abortionists?Do you mean that because there are (big) problems with adoption in this country it's okay to murder babies? It does not follow - as has been pointed out several times thus far. The lack of adoptive parents (which is not true except for special needs kids and even many of those find placement quickly) is not grounds for continuing to permit abortions. Sorry kid, you don't get to live unless someone besides your mom will or can take you - that's absurd.

There are a number of private and public social services that provide support for Family Planning (the health department will give you your birth control at no cost or low cost depending on income - condoms are always free) and which support the mother throughout and after her pregnancy. Just in the public sector alone we have WIC (HD admins - Mom eligible during pregnancy, child eligible to age five), SOBRA (M'caid - covers all pregnancy associated costs and is easier to obtain than standard M'caid), Social Services (usually DHR), Prenatal Care (M'caid and/or health departments, usually dependant on M'caid payment structure - global payments shift to private physicians over HD), Family Planning (HD - for those with the sense God gave a grapefruit to use it in the first place) and for the kiddie once born EPSDT (M'caid covers all medical costs for disease/condition detected via routine or special screening and covers costs of screenings as well).

That's just the public sector - there are a lot of crisis pregnancy centers that will see mom through the whole pregnancy and after the birth as well as many other charitable orgs that will provide any number of services needed by the family. The idea that it's abortion or adoption is just nonsense - and the idea that abortion should even be an viable alternative is monstrous.

The resources are out there, available and plentiful for Mom to get through the pregnancy and either give up for adoption (which is a noble thing in my opinion when Mom knows she can't make a good life for her kid) or raise the child herself (it's nonsense that she can't possibly make it - she may end up poor but she won't starve). Any good social worker can find a way to get a client what they need (that's what case managers do) so the 'but there's no other choice' junk is a pure crock.

[Rahab]

Thanks for this Rahab. Good to have your insight.

J One more thing I need to add is that reliance on the welfare system to support, assist, aid a pregnant woman in the category I have mentionned will face the following obstacles :

- The Medicaid budget is undergoing some substantial cuts which are already affecting Medicaid Dependant individuals. Such negative impact has also caused CMS (Children Medical Services) to drop the coverage of some of their special need children. There is a push for those children to be placed in specialized institutions (state funded) rather than placing them with uninsured families. (We observe the same trend from the Elderly Services for seniors currently maintained and cared for in their home or in their relatives' home.)

- Despite of their dedication and well intended efforts, Social Workers tend to be dealing with an inflated caseload to where they are limited in time and energy to manage effectively every single case. Let alone the red tape which plagues their efforts, causing delays and waiting lists for needy individuals. Their hands remain tied when it comes to limited funds attributed to various programs.


- If there is some degree of assistance thru the current welfare system, one should never confuse such assistance for meeting all the needs of my category woman. Emotional and moral support remains essential to her. Thus the necessity for individual or church ministry centered intervention.

-CPCs rely on private donations to even be able to purchase their pregnancy tests kits. They are in no financial or material condition to use any financial resource to "see a Mom thru her whole pregnancy". They need to network with resources capable of compensating for lack of funds and volunteers. They rely on voluntarism and local human resources. Which, again, religious communities being the ones making that significant difference. If you are pastoring a church, make contact with your local CPCs and find out how you can assist them. Do not rely on the notion that the welfare system is adequate to meet this pregnant woman's needs.

Suggestions for Church ministries : motivate your WIC (Women in the Church) groups to organize themselves and inform themselves on how to exercise an effective advocacy role for a needy pregnant women refered to you by your CPC.

By that I mean : women who will handle and deal with all the frustrations she would otherwise deal with on her own. From the moment she changed her mind in that CPC and decided to pursue her pregnancy, such woman will need to be equipped and informed on how to recieve the best assistance .She will need advocates exercising pressure on the entire system. What we do not want is an overburdened "mom". She needs to focus on her emotional and mental and physical health during her pregnancy. She needs to be able to validate her own decision by experiencing the best quality of life with the minimum of stress factors.

Some of us who are mothers KNOW that even as we had a decent quality of life during our pregnancies, stress and burdens could take a serious toll on our overall health.

The "pampering" ministries : From your WIC, you can draw resources to nurture this woman. From taking her shopping for maternity clothes to insuring she gets proper nutrition. From home visitation and home cleaning teams to taking her her out to lunch. From treating her for a movie to assuming any chore you can relieve her from. From rubbing her back to having a care package of lotions, shampoo, personal hygiene items etc.... Oh so many things I know your Ladies can come up with.


The Birth ministries : From your WIC, draw the resources to find her birth mentor. Such woman needs to be a mother. She needs to be available to attend Lamaze classes. She is the one who will remain near by when closing in on the due date.She will escort her to every prenatal care apt. She will be the one giggling and getting excited over the first sonogram. She will set the tone for excitement, joy and anticipation. Feelings that your pregnant mom deserves to experience. You need a very special woman for that task. I am confident that the Holy Spirit knows which gifts were given to whom. She will also be the transition helper if the birth results in an adoption.

The Post Partum ministry : The emotional impact a new mother experiences at the time she surrenders her neonate should NEVER be underestimated. The chemical changes need to be acknowleged. Such chemistry is naturaly programmed to respond to the needs of the infant. In absence of this infant, she will experience a period of emotional unbalance. Possibly depression. Some counselors recommend to allow for a bonding period until mom is discharged .Others suggest that she has no contact with her neonate. In any case, such post partum mentor is to serve under the advice of a professional counselor.

It is essential that as relationships will have been built in the course of that entire community effort, that this mom continues to be guided on a long term basis. The time will have come for her to modify her lifestyle and state of mind so that she will never again face an unwanted pregnancy. IMO, as she went thru the process of assuming her pregnancy and adoption, she will retain an experience which will guard her from a second unwanted pregnancy.


You may wonder Jhthn "why is Rahab so determined to share such insights .After all, she is pro choice.". Because when I faced my first unwanted pregnancy, had there been a CPC Counselor to introduce me to such a reassuring and comforting reliable support system, I would NOT have terminated that pregnancy. I would have opted for adoption. I would have taken the path of those 9 months with a sense of being special, worthy of care and love and support. Isolation, fear of social stigma, emotional panick, a sense of abandonment and so many other conflicting thoughts and feelings prevailed. From the decision I made, I sank into a repeated pattern of self destructive behavior. To include having no desire to protect myself. My entire spirit became numb.

We have to ask ourselves which types of emotions and thoughts dwell into the mind of a woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy rather than rehashing how stupid and irresponsible she was to get pregnant. We have to walk in her shoes and meet those needs as if they were our own. I so insist on that process of empathy. We have to draw her from isolation, reassure her that no stigma can come from any of us and introduce her to our willingness to care for her. She is to be welcome as special. We cannot claim to emulate Christ if we forsake her as some moron with no sense of responsibility.

We have the task to reveal to her what her potential can be.

[Teallaura]

Nothing is perfect (although none of those are insurmountable - writing that congressman thing being the first step) but none of the issues with social services you mention justify using abortion as an alternative. I doubt you meant such an implication but I wanted to make it crystal clear, especially in this thread.

WIC in the public sector is Women, Infants and Children. It's one of the best run programs in history.

I concur that financial/medical aren't the only considerations. In my opinion the support issues are better dealt with in the private sector where paranoia over the First Amendment does not hamper such efforts and where ministries far more attuned to holistic approaches are present, very unlike similar efforts in the public sector.*










* My experience it primarily with ASO's. Don't get me wrong, they're some good ones out there but in my experience they have little long term effect on behavior as they tend to 'affirm' everything. Support that never tells you where you went wrong or offers positive steps to fix it tend to be ineffective in the long term - people end up right back where they started from. There's a time to cry with people - and a time for a good kick in the pants. Ministries can provide both (hopefully with the discernment to know when to do what) where public sector support services really can't - or won't. We see the same thing in recurrent abortions that we see in HIV positives continuing to engage in high risk behaviors. Both have public sector counseling and both have high levels of failure.

[Jnthn]

One more thing I need to add is that reliance on the welfare system to support, assist, aid a pregnant woman in the category I have mentionned will face the following obstacles :

- The Medicaid budget is undergoing some substantial cuts which are already affecting Medicaid Dependant individuals. Such negative impact has also caused CMS (Children Medical Services) to drop the coverage of some of their special need children. There is a push for those children to be placed in specialized institutions (state funded) rather than placing them with uninsured families. (We observe the same trend from the Elderly Services for seniors currently maintained and cared for in their home or in their relatives' home.)

- Despite of their dedication and well intended efforts, Social Workers tend to be dealing with an inflated caseload to where they are limited in time and energy to manage effectively every single case. Let alone the red tape which plagues their efforts, causing delays and waiting lists for needy individuals. Their hands remain tied when it comes to limited funds attributed to various programs.


- If there is some degree of assistance thru the current welfare system, one should never confuse such assistance for meeting all the needs of my category woman. Emotional and moral support remains essential to her. Thus the necessity for individual or church ministry centered intervention.

-CPCs rely on private donations to even be able to purchase their pregnancy tests kits. They are in no financial or material condition to use any financial resource to "see a Mom thru her whole pregnancy". They need to network with resources capable of compensating for lack of funds and volunteers. They rely on voluntarism and local human resources. Which, again, religious communities being the ones making that significant difference. If you are pastoring a church, make contact with your local CPCs and find out how you can assist them. Do not rely on the notion that the welfare system is adequate to meet this pregnant woman's needs.

Suggestions for Church ministries : motivate your WIC (Women in the Church) groups to organize themselves and inform themselves on how to exercise an effective advocacy role for a needy pregnant women refered to you by your CPC.

By that I mean : women who will handle and deal with all the frustrations she would otherwise deal with on her own. From the moment she changed her mind in that CPC and decided to pursue her pregnancy, such woman will need to be equipped and informed on how to recieve the best assistance .She will need advocates exercising pressure on the entire system. What we do not want is an overburdened "mom". She needs to focus on her emotional and mental and physical health during her pregnancy. She needs to be able to validate her own decision by experiencing the best quality of life with the minimum of stress factors.

Some of us who are mothers KNOW that even as we had a decent quality of life during our pregnancies, stress and burdens could take a serious toll on our overall health.

The "pampering" ministries : From your WIC, you can draw resources to nurture this woman. From taking her shopping for maternity clothes to insuring she gets proper nutrition. From home visitation and home cleaning teams to taking her her out to lunch. From treating her for a movie to assuming any chore you can relieve her from. From rubbing her back to having a care package of lotions, shampoo, personal hygiene items etc.... Oh so many things I know your Ladies can come up with.


The Birth ministries : From your WIC, draw the resources to find her birth mentor. Such woman needs to be a mother. She needs to be available to attend Lamaze classes. She is the one who will remain near by when closing in on the due date.She will escort her to every prenatal care apt. She will be the one giggling and getting excited over the first sonogram. She will set the tone for excitement, joy and anticipation. Feelings that your pregnant mom deserves to experience. You need a very special woman for that task. I am confident that the Holy Spirit knows which gifts were given to whom. She will also be the transition helper if the birth results in an adoption.

The Post Partum ministry : The emotional impact a new mother experiences at the time she surrenders her neonate should NEVER be underestimated. The chemical changes need to be acknowleged. Such chemistry is naturaly programmed to respond to the needs of the infant. In absence of this infant, she will experience a period of emotional unbalance. Possibly depression. Some counselors recommend to allow for a bonding period until mom is discharged .Others suggest that she has no contact with her neonate. In any case, such post partum mentor is to serve under the advice of a professional counselor.

It is essential that as relationships will have been built in the course of that entire community effort, that this mom continues to be guided on a long term basis. The time will have come for her to modify her lifestyle and state of mind so that she will never again face an unwanted pregnancy. IMO, as she went thru the process of assuming her pregnancy and adoption, she will retain an experience which will guard her from a second unwanted pregnancy.


You may wonder Jhthn "why is Rahab so determined to share such insights .After all, she is pro choice.". Because when I faced my first unwanted pregnancy, had there been a CPC Counselor to introduce me to such a reassuring and comforting reliable support system, I would NOT have terminated that pregnancy. I would have opted for adoption. I would have taken the path of those 9 months with a sense of being special, worthy of care and love and support. Isolation, fear of social stigma, emotional panick, a sense of abandonment and so many other conflicting thoughts and feelings prevailed. From the decision I made, I sank into a repeated pattern of self destructive behavior. To include having no desire to protect myself. My entire spirit became numb.

We have to ask ourselves which types of emotions and thoughts dwell into the mind of a woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy rather than rehashing how stupid and irresponsible she was to get pregnant. We have to walk in her shoes and meet those needs as if they were our own. I so insist on that process of empathy. We have to draw her from isolation, reassure her that no stigma can come from any of us and introduce her to our willingness to care for her. She is to be welcome as special. We cannot claim to emulate Christ if we forsake her as some moron with no sense of responsibility.

We have the task to reveal to her what her potential can be.(emphasis added)

To be honest, Rahab, the question never crossed my mind. It was obvious from your original post (and this one!) you were providing genuine insight from experience in an even-handed manner.

Despite evidence to the contrary, I'm not always reactionary :teeth:

J

[dizzle]

The idea that it's abortion or adoption is just nonsense - and the idea that abortion should even be an viable alternative is monstrous.

Amen. And completely degrading to women.

[Rahab]

(emphasis added)

To be honest, Rahab, the question never crossed my mind. It was obvious from your original post (and this one!) you were providing genuine insight from experience in an even-handed manner.

Despite evidence to the contrary, I'm not always reactionary :teeth:

J I am glad!:smile: But I think the clarification was necessary and if not for you for other folks who are aware I favor a pro choice position.

Adoption has the double positive effect to both address the woman's welfare and the future child's welfare. One can safely assume that a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy does not want to be a parent. There is much more than " I do not want to be pregnant" in her mind. There is the rejection of the notion to be responsible for the welfare of a child and that until he/she is an adult. Convincing her that she must adopt a different state of mind and be that lrong term parent implies taking the high risk that the child will grow up in a dysfunctional home where he/she continues to not be wanted. Let alone the lack of guarantee that this woman is in fact fit to be a nurturing and functional parent.

Once we can remove from her the long term responsibility burden by proposing adoption, we can work on motivating her to consider that 9 months of her life will result in her contributing to the happiness of a childless couple. At the same time, the support system I described is introduced to her. She can also be assured that the future child will be benefiting of a functional and nurturing family.

By giving her a sense of contribution and active participation, you turn an "accident" into a productive endeavor. It takes time and dedication to reach that goal.

What happens then if those arguments fail to influence her towards pursuing her pregnancy? Should we just "dump" her? Absolutly not. The bridge that was built thru communication and encouragemnt needs to extend all the way "to the other side"of her abortion. We want to insure that she gains an acute sense of responsibility towards herself and how she manages her relationships. We do not want her to face another unwanted pregnancy. We also want to watch and listen for signs of Post Abortion Syndrom. We want to continue to relate to her and not forsake her.

Thru PAS counseling we often dig out the roots of which factors in her upbringing and relational environment caused her to engage in a relationship or several where sexual promiscuity was prevailiant. The common root cause is often a very low self esteem. Thus a pattern of neglicting oneself. We then have to undertake a reconstruction job. We have to introduce her to a new foundation. The Christian method we used was very effective because it relies on emphasizing how precious she is in God's eyes. It motivates such woman to consider herself worthy of self protection and worthy of a functional and long lasting relationship. We prevent a potentialy self destructive pattern.

[nickcopernicus]

"Nearly 41% of Earth's land is now used for agriculture, yet we're on the brink of vast population growth, from 6.7 billion people today to an estimated 9.2 billion by 2050, with the majority living in cities" - Popular Science July 2007 page 45

I find it quite interesting that many "pro-life" activists would rather see people starve to death in agony then be aborted.
We can't even feed the people we have here now. There are millions of unwanted feti that are aborted a year. With the elimination of abortion, the population would increase even faster.
I find the term "pro-life" in light of such circumstances, quite hypocritical.

Cheers,

Nick

[Teallaura]

"Nearly 41% of Earth's land is now used for agriculture, yet we're on the brink of vast population growth, from 6.7 billion people today to an estimated 9.2 billion by 2050, with the majority living in cities" - Popular Science July 2007 page 45

I find it quite interesting that many "pro-life" activists would rather see people starve to death in agony then be aborted.
We can't even feed the people we have here now. There are millions of unwanted feti that are aborted a year. With the elimination of abortion, the population would increase even faster.
I find the term "pro-life" in light of such circumstances, quite hypocritical.

Cheers,

Nick
:lmbo:

Dude, famines not set off by weather/natural causes are inevitably man-made. We have ample production capacity - that would be why we pay people not to farm - but a very inadequate distribution system into war zones and other militarily dangerous areas. People starve because someone makes the willful decision to block efforts to get food to them. That happened tin Ethiopia and is happening in the Sudan now. It has happened repeatedly though out history. There are no instances in the modern era of large scale starvation that did not have an active disruption more often than not at the point of a gun.

Oh, and 'agriculture' includes non-food crops and very possibly in your cite (by the way, link?) illegal crops. I'm thinking opium and cotton probably shouldn't be included when considering food production - unless you really think people are stupid enough to grow non-food and starve as a direct result?

Can we say 'red herring'? :ahem:

[Raphael]

"Nearly 41% of Earth's land is now used for agriculture, yet we're on the brink of vast population growth, from 6.7 billion people today to an estimated 9.2 billion by 2050, with the majority living in cities" - Popular Science July 2007 page 45

I find it quite interesting that many "pro-life" activists would rather see people starve to death in agony then be aborted.
We can't even feed the people we have here now. There are millions of unwanted feti that are aborted a year. With the elimination of abortion, the population would increase even faster.
I find the term "pro-life" in light of such circumstances, quite hypocritical.

Cheers,

Nick

Hmmmm, if something happened to Robert Mugabe, and Zimbabwe was farmed properly, with food crops not tabaco, Zimbabwe would be able to provide more than enough food for everyone living in Africa. (granted currently that would mean rebuilding Zimbabwe from the gound up, as it will be decades for them to recover from where Mugabe has got them)
(completely off the abortion topic I know, but addressing the food red herring)

[themuzicman]

"Nearly 41% of Earth's land is now used for agriculture, yet we're on the brink of vast population growth, from 6.7 billion people today to an estimated 9.2 billion by 2050, with the majority living in cities" - Popular Science July 2007 page 45

I find it quite interesting that many "pro-life" activists would rather see people starve to death in agony then be aborted.
We can't even feed the people we have here now. There are millions of unwanted feti that are aborted a year. With the elimination of abortion, the population would increase even faster.
I find the term "pro-life" in light of such circumstances, quite hypocritical.

Cheers,

Nick

This is what is known as "complete stupidity." The US and Canada can and do produce FAR more food that we consume, and could feed huge numbers of people with the capacity we currently have. We're swimming in grain so badly, we turn a bunch of it into fuel.

In short, food supply is NOT the issue with respect to starvation around the world.

That pro-death activists would even hint at this kind of reasoning is barbaric.

(Why don't we send it around the world? Because the governments of starving people wont' let it in.)

Michael

[semmie]

"Nearly 41% of Earth's land is now used for agriculture, yet we're on the brink of vast population growth, from 6.7 billion people today to an estimated 9.2 billion by 2050, with the majority living in cities" - Popular Science July 2007 page 45

I find it quite interesting that many "pro-life" activists would rather see people starve to death in agony then be aborted.
We can't even feed the people we have here now. There are millions of unwanted feti that are aborted a year. With the elimination of abortion, the population would increase even faster.
I find the term "pro-life" in light of such circumstances, quite hypocritical.

Cheers,

Nick

yeah. ditto what teal, raphael, and muz said.

and wanted to add that this pro-lifer is active in her pursuit to combat starvation--amongst other things. i can't change the world in one fell swoop, but i can do my part; and i am doing my part. what are you doing to fight world hunger, you pro-choicer? and what are you doing about the clean water issue? what are you doing about genocide? what are you doing about the AIDS situation?

i am pro-LIFE. i am not simply anti-abortion. and most of the pro-lifers that i know are active in their fight (to whatever extent they personally are able) against poverty and starvation and other issues of that magnitude.

you've got quite a pair, kid. take your ridiculous comments, and go build a well in Uganda. or are you too pro-choice for that?

[Rahab]

"Nearly 41% of Earth's land is now used for agriculture, yet we're on the brink of vast population growth, from 6.7 billion people today to an estimated 9.2 billion by 2050, with the majority living in cities" - Popular Science July 2007 page 45

I find it quite interesting that many "pro-life" activists would rather see people starve to death in agony then be aborted.
We can't even feed the people we have here now. There are millions of unwanted feti that are aborted a year. With the elimination of abortion, the population would increase even faster.
I find the term "pro-life" in light of such circumstances, quite hypocritical.

Cheers,

Nick Nick,

What your commments suggest to me is a politic of "damage control" rather than a preventative one. Can a Somalian woman assume to raise more than one child. Probably not.

The core of the issue as I see it is irresponsible sexual behavior resulting in pregnancies. To add a disconnect with the notion of being prepared and equipped to assume raising a future child. Let alone in Third World Nations, the existence of regional taboos, myths, lack of proper sexual education which aggravate the number of repeated and unplanned pregnancies.

Culturaly, such woman is considered ready to "breed" shortly after her puberty. Western notions of completing education, exercising a profession, generating an income, double parenting families are alien to her. She evolves in a cultural and socio economical environment plagued by the absence of such notions where women are basicaly considered inferior creatures. The "barefoot and pregnant " vision of women is widely accepted in such world.

More than economical support of such poverty stricken populations, the West needs to pursue to modify those interior cultural mentalities. We have already seen a decrease of birth rates among populations of immigrant origine once they are integrated into a Western society. Because women tend to seek education and seek to work, as a result, they develop economical strength and a sense of social responsibilities. They become aware of the necessity to be able to economicaly support and raise a future child.

But those Third World cultural and mentality centered cause factors for multiple unplanned pregancies are not applicable to the West where the number of unplanned pregnancies remains way too high. Women have unlimited access to means of contraception (so do men) which ought to prevent unplanned pregnancies. IMO, the disconnect there is individual dysfunctional mentalities which jeopardize the individual sense of self esteem thus rationaly centered decisions. Rationaly, any woman should be able to make the decision to NOT become pregnant. Thus use preventative methods which also include how she will manage her relationships. We all have the choice to not be sexualy active. We all have the choice to also be sexualy active and prevent a pregnancy to occur.

Considering those alternatives based on prevention, it seems to me that suggesting a politic of terminating pregnancies to control surpopulation is a red herring. No differently than suggesting to treat a symptom while neglicting to treat the illness itself.


Mind you, I am pro choice yet I do recognize that the rational choice is to prevent an unplanned pregnancy to occur rather than resort to damage control and as liberaly as we do now.

[nickcopernicus]

This is what is known as "complete stupidity." The US and Canada can and do produce FAR more food that we consume, and could feed huge numbers of people with the capacity we currently have. We're swimming in grain so badly, we turn a bunch of it into fuel.

In short, food supply is NOT the issue with respect to starvation around the world.

That pro-death activists would even hint at this kind of reasoning is barbaric.

(Why don't we send it around the world? Because the governments of starving people wont' let it in.)

Michael
Nick:
:lol: Do you have some kind of evidence for your assertion?

Cheers,

Nick

[Raphael]

Nick:
:lol: Do you have some kind of evidence for your assertion?

Cheers,

Nick
Sure.

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=84&art_id=nw20070719174325187C724138
July 19 2007 at 07:28PM
Harare - Zimbabwe has scrapped a scheme allowing fuel purchases with foreign currency, removing one of the few remaining ways for people to acquire petrol in a country struggling with a crumbling economy.

The facility is also used by foreign diplomats and officials working for international aid organisations, and the move, along with the government's hostile reaction to a new offer of US food aid, underlined President Robert Mugabe's hardline stance.

It is also common in the Kwazulu-Natal, when there is a need for food aid when there is seasonal flooding for the amaKhosi (chiefs) to make their people pay to receive the aid.

You have to understand African politics. African leaders will quite happily make sure that any opposition members do not benefit from food aid (as has happened Zimbabwe).

African leaders really don't care about whether or not the people are starving. They will accept food aid to feed their soldiers, so that the soldiers are stronger than the rest.

[nickcopernicus]

yeah. ditto what teal, raphael, and muz said.

and wanted to add that this pro-lifer is active in her pursuit to combat starvation--amongst other things. i can't change the world in one fell swoop, but i can do my part; and i am doing my part. what are you doing to fight world hunger, you pro-choicer? and what are you doing about the clean water issue? what are you doing about genocide? what are you doing about the AIDS situation?
Nick:
You're doing your part are you? What exactly are you doing?
Now, I'll answer your questions.

1)
I am doing a WHOLE LOT OF stuff! Did you know that concerning Municipal Solid waste there are three methods of energy and space conservation? The most effective method is to reduce the ammount of trash we produce. In other words, use less stuff, and you'll have less trash. The second way is to re-use the stuff you already have. If more people used reusable razors then the disposable one's then we'd have less trash concerning razors. The last and the least effecient way is to recycle. That is, to remanufacture goods so that they can be used again. An example is recycled paper. Now, what does this have to do with world hunger? Well it has a LOT of stuff to do with it. You see, semmie, I don't have any children. I have no family. therefore, they will never grow hungry. Even better, they aren't using the resources that will now go to someone else. The most effective way to reduce world hunger is to NOT HAVE SO MANY CHILDREN! I am baffeled why poor people who can't afford children would have them anyway. That is cruel. I am by no means poor ( not rich either), and I could easily afford children. But I am doing my part by not having any and I save quite a bit of energy. Don't believe me?
Well, as if 2006, the Energy Consumption per person in the United States (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_13.pdf)is 334 million btu. Even if we ignore the average of a 1.1% increase since 1949 and multiply that times say, 60 years, I am saving 4008 x 10^7 btu's of energy if I were to have two children. I'd imagine that I'd probably save a lot of food as well.

2) Yes I am a pro-women's righterer. Sometimes called a feminist.

3) What water issue?

4) I'm a war veteran of Afghanistan and I am currently supporting the troops in Iraq. What are you doing?

5) As far as AIDS, I'm not spreading it; so that's a start.
semmie:
i am pro-LIFE. i am not simply anti-abortion. and most of the pro-lifers that i know are active in their fight (to whatever extent they personally are able) against poverty and starvation and other issues of that magnitude.
Nick:
Really? How many children have you adopted?
I'd given upwards of a thousand dollars to the 4 and 5 year old Afghani Children while I was deployed there.
semmie:
you've got quite a pair, kid. take your ridiculous comments, and go build a well in Uganda. or are you too pro-choice for that?
Nick:
Well, I've got my hands full here in Iraq as it is. When will you join me?

[nickcopernicus]

Rahab:
Nick,
What your [comments] suggest to me is a politic of "damage control" rather than a preventative one. Can a [Somali] woman assume to raise more than one child. Probably not.
Nick:
Not really. A Somali woman should not have children that she cannot afford. We must understand that people are still animals. People are going to copulate and have children because….we’ll, quite simply, it’s natural. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with that. However, if we can’t stop people from having so much children, the least we can do is prevent population growth. Abortion should be used as a last result, because it’s not pleasant for anyone involved. However we should mitigate the problems with population growth as best we can. Unfortunately, many will see this as me saying that we should just murder more people. This is not my intention; rather I’d say that an abortion is actually little more then an intentional miscarriage.
Rahab:
The core of the issue as I see it is irresponsible sexual behavior resulting in pregnancies. To add a disconnect with the notion of being prepared and equipped to assume raising a future child. Let alone in Third World Nations, the existence of regional taboos, myths, lack of proper sexual education which aggravate the number of repeated and unplanned pregnancies.
Nick:
With respect, friend rahab, sex need not be limited in order to limit pregnancies. Problems arise when, as you said, the lack of proper sexual education occurs. Things like teaching abstinence only are futile. The best way to get a teenager to do something is to tell them that it’s evil, bad and they are absolutely not to do it. Fortunately for my parents, I did manage to go thru highschool abstinent. Of course I was a True™ Christian and was able to control myself. Unfortunately, for many people, teenagers included, sex just feels to good not to do it. Many respond that one cannot just “throw condoms at the problem and hope it will go away.” True enough, but when you have a person bleeding very badly and there’s no medic around, sometimes ya gotta apply a tourniquet. In other words, in many countries such as Amsterdam, teen pregnancies and STD’s are much lower then in the “Christian” state of America.
Rahab:
[Culturally], such woman is considered ready to "breed" shortly after her puberty. Western notions of completing education, exercising a profession, generating an income, double parenting families are alien to her. She evolves in a cultural and socio economical environment plagued by the absence of such notions where women are considered inferior creatures. The "barefoot and pregnant " vision of women is widely accepted in such world.
Nick:
I agree; and it’s quite sickening. I probably should not write this, but I’ll present it as my opinion and I know you’ll disagree.

“Such was the way of the Church and such is the Christian religion.”

Rahab:
More than economical support of such poverty stricken populations, the West needs to pursue to modify those interior cultural mentalities. We have already seen a decrease of birth rates among populations of immigrant origine once they are integrated into a Western society. Because women tend to seek education and seek to work, as a result, they develop economical strength and a sense of social responsibilities. They become aware of the necessity to be able to [economically] support and raise a future child.
Nick:
:yes:
Rahab:
But those Third World cultural and mentality centered cause factors for multiple unplanned [pregnancies] are not applicable to the West where the number of unplanned pregnancies remains way too high. Women have unlimited access to means of contraception (so do men) which ought to prevent unplanned pregnancies. IMO, the disconnect there is individual dysfunctional mentalities which jeopardize the individual sense of self esteem thus [rationally] centered decisions. [Rationally], any woman should be able to make the decision to NOT become pregnant. Thus use preventative methods which also include how she will manage her relationships. We all have the choice to not be [sexually] active.[b] We all have the choice to also be [sexually] active and prevent a pregnancy to occur.
Nick:
Emphasis mine.
Unfortunately Rahab, that’s not exactly true. Consider the fact that eating is actually good for you because you need it to live. Sex is actually a good thing because it’s a good workout, and before artificial insemination, the human race needed it so survive. Consider that eating, like sex, is a perfectly natural thing. Why are so many Americans overweight; nay obese? Surely they have the choice to eat responsibly. Unfortunately, telling someone to “just stop having sex” is akin to telling an absurdly obese person to “just stop having McDonalds.” I’m afraid it’s not that simple. Yeah, cutting down on eating is the best and most efficient and effective way to halt obesity just like abstinence is the best way to minimize the chances of becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant or obtaining STD’s. Just like diets where one starves oneself usually don’t produce optimal results; “fasting from sex” won’t do much either.
Rahab:
Considering those alternatives based on prevention, it seems to me that suggesting a politic of terminating pregnancies to control surpopulation is a red herring. No differently than suggesting to treat a symptom while [neglecting] to treat the illness itself.
Nick:
On the contrary, I don’t think it’s irrelevant. While it’s true that chicken soup, vitamin C and plenty of rest will help cure a cold, there’s nothing wrong with taking some niquil to help you in the mean time. In other words, I am suggesting we treat the symptoms as well as working on the cure. It’s possible to die of the symptoms you know.


Rahab:
Mind you, I am pro choice yet I do recognize that the rational choice is to prevent an unplanned pregnancy to occur rather than resort to damage control and as [liberally] as we do now.
Nick:
It was never my intention to say that abortion should be a substitute for birth control.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

Sure.
It is also common in the Kwazulu-Natal, when there is a need for food aid when there is seasonal flooding for the amaKhosi (chiefs) to make their people pay to receive the aid.

You have to understand African politics. African leaders will quite happily make sure that any opposition members do not benefit from food aid (as has happened Zimbabwe).

African leaders really don't care about whether or not the people are starving. They will accept food aid to feed their soldiers, so that the soldiers are stronger than the rest.
Nick:
Is that so? I am aware of some of the many of the problems that frustrate the aid by these horendous governments. Unfortunately, there is still the matter of the world popluation almost doubling in the next 50 years. If we are using 41% for farmland now, food shortages will increase dramatically. In light of this; decreased abortions will increase the population. My point remains that this is not a good thing.

Cheers,

Nick

[Raphael]

Nick:
Is that so? I am aware of some of the many of the problems that frustrate the aid by these horendous governments. Unfortunately, there is still the matter of the world popluation almost doubling in the next 50 years. If we are using 41% for farmland now, food shortages will increase dramatically. In light of this; decreased abortions will increase the population. My point remains that this is not a good thing.

Cheers,

Nick
I really question that stat of 41% of land is being farmed.....41% of arable land is more likely.
And I would hazard an estimate that at least 50% of the 41% is subsistence farming which isn't that productive.

As I mentioned Zimbabwe used to be "Africa's breadbasket", even with most of the production going to tobacco farming. If Zimbabwe was farmed properly, just with food crops, they could produce enough food to feed the whole of Africa (and Zimbabwe isn't a big country) without resorting to GM food, which Africa refuses to touch, most African countries who are in desperate need of Food Aid will not accept any GM food.

[themuzicman]

2) Yes I am a pro-women's righterer. Sometimes called a feminist.

What about the girls that are being aborted? Do you support their rights?


Michael

[nickcopernicus]

I really question that stat of 41% of land is being farmed.....41% of arable land is more likely.
And I would hazard an estimate that at least 50% of the 41% is subsistence farming which isn't that productive.
Nick:
The article was actually about a guy named Dickson Despomier, a 67 year old microbiologist who is trying to design basically skyscrapper greenhouses for food. Basically a 30 story building could feed 50,000 people for a year. Unfortunately, he said the first "virtual farm" could cost upwards of a billion dollars. A billion dollars to feed 50,000 people in one year is $20,000 per person. One would have to be really fat to spend 20,000 on food in a years. But I suppose that would be the initial cost, and it would go down afterwords. The point here is that the avaliablity of farmland is going to be a serious problem in the next 50 years.
Raphael:
As I mentioned Zimbabwe used to be "Africa's breadbasket", even with most of the production going to tobacco farming. If Zimbabwe was farmed properly, just with food crops, they could produce enough food to feed the whole of Africa (and Zimbabwe isn't a big country) without resorting to GM food, which Africa refuses to touch, most African countries who are in desperate need of Food Aid will not accept any GM food.
Nick:
Well, I suppose that's their problem then. It does however, undermine my claim of starvation being a problem due to population growth as of now. I will ceede that it's not the lack of resources that are starving people as of now, but my original intent was the future. Hence why I spoke mainly of 2050.
Would you not say, though that these people who can't even manage to feed themselves need to stop having so many children?

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

What about the girls that are being aborted? Do you support their rights?


Michael
Nick:

I'm afraid those "girls" that are being aborted aren't girls at all. They are potential girls. A potential human being has no rights while an actual human being does. Unfortunately, exactly when a fetus is classified as a human being is somewhat arbitrary and is a central role in debate. those who oppose 3rd trimester "partial birth abortions" have a good point when they ask how exactly is a child that is just about to be born not a human when one that is .00000003 seconds old is? The same could be asked of how exactly is an unfertilized egg and a sperm not a human when .00000000003 seconds after conception, those two cells constitute a "human." It's a pickle music guy, it is.

However the fact remains that given our current population expantion and limited resources, people are going to start starving to death. Abortion is an unfortunate, but "useful" aid in the reduction of population growth.

Honestly, I think people should be sterlized at birth and only be able to have children when they pass a specific test. But there are all kinds of problems with this; the least of which being someones right to bring a person into this world. The selfish gene....ridiculous.

Cheers,

Nick

[themuzicman]

So, killing the unborn is justified because you think there's too many people already?

Um... are you really up to date on world population?

Last I heard, the world population was going to peak around 2050, and then decline significantly due China's one child policy, Europe's, Russia's and Japan's woeful birth/woman rate, and sex selection abortion in India.

However, to answer your original question:

The moment of conception is the first moment at which we can identify a cell that is genetically distinct from the mother and father. At that point, it becomes a separate being. Now, if you want to call it a rabbit or a horse, I guess you could try, but genetically, that being is human. That's why people call it a "human being."

I find it interesting that you're willing to give a person who is responsible for a new life permission to kill that life for convenience, but are unwilling to even consider whether that life that is killed has any rights at all.

Do you believe that fathers have the right to choose, too?

Michael

[Darth Executor]

Mass exterminations in india, china and africa would solve the population problem. I guess Nick is preparing to be the next Stalin.

[nickcopernicus]

So, killing the unborn is justified because you think there's too many people already?
NICK:
That was a very good strawman.
themuzicman:
Um... are you really up to date on world population?
Nick:
Yes.
themuzicman:
Last I heard, the world population was going to peak around 2050, and then decline significantly due China's one child policy, Europe's, Russia's and Japan's woeful birth/woman rate, and sex selection abortion in India.
Nick:
Where exactly did you "hear" this?
themuzicman:
However, to answer your original question:

The moment of conception is the first moment at which we can identify a cell that is genetically distinct from the mother and father. At that point, it becomes a separate being. Now, if you want to call it a rabbit or a horse, I guess you could try, but genetically, that being is human. That's why people call it a "human being."
Nick:
:lol:
Are you serious? First of all there is no such thing as a "moment" of conception.
When twins are made, the two sperm do not enter the egg at the exact same time. So, during those nanoseconds of a difference, is that a human being that somehow divides into 2 human beings? Sometimes two fertilized "human beings" fuse in the womb. So we now have two "human beings" that are now 1. This is called a Chimera (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1392149)
Am I the only one who finds this arithmitic of "souls" absurd?
themuzicman:
I find it interesting that you're willing to give a person who is responsible for a new life permission to kill that life for convenience, but are unwilling to even consider whether that life that is killed has any rights at all.
Nick:
Yeah, it's just "convenience." After all we know that every teenager that gets pregnant is able to raise that child correctly in a loving household. We know that it would be [b]great[b] if there could be more crack babies born. Sure, feti that test positive for genetic illness that will kill them should live for a few short years in agony only to die for that "wonderful" exeperience.
Your brand of compassion for your fellow human beings is interesting.
themuzicman:
Do you believe that fathers have the right to choose, too?

Michael
Nick:
To a degree.
If a father wishes for the child to be aborted, and the mother does not, then that father should owe that mother 0% child support. Call it a "divorce" of one's child. That could be the compromize between a woman's right to her body and the would be father's right to choose. After all that is "his" sperm. But I suppose he "gave" it away...

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

Mass exterminations in india, china and africa would solve the population problem. I guess Nick is preparing to be the next Stalin.
Nick:
Yeah, that's exactly what I wrote.:ahem:

Cheers,

Nick

[themuzicman]

NICK:
That was a very good strawman.

That is what you said.

Nick:
Yes.

Nick:
Where exactly did you "hear" this?

UN Statistics.

Nick:
:lol:
Are you serious? First of all there is no such thing as a "moment" of conception.
When twins are made, the two sperm do not enter the egg at the exact same time. So, during those nanoseconds of a difference, is that a human being that somehow divides into 2 human beings?

Yes.

Sometimes two fertilized "human beings" fuse in the womb. So we now have two "human beings" that are now 1. This is called a Chimera (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1392149)

And?

Am I the only one who finds this arithmitic of "souls" absurd?

Probably.

Nick:
Yeah, it's just "convenience." After all we know that every teenager that gets pregnant is able to raise that child correctly in a loving household. We know that it would be [b]great[b] if there could be more crack babies born. Sure, feti that test positive for genetic illness that will kill them should live for a few short years in agony only to die for that "wonderful" exeperience.
Your brand of compassion for your fellow human beings is interesting.


Oh, so eugenics comes into the equation, too. Interesting. Did you miss the study that showed that over 70% of women would change their sexual habits if abortion were illegal?

Nick:
To a degree.
If a father wishes for the child to be aborted, and the mother does not, then that father should owe that mother 0% child support. Call it a "divorce" of one's child. That could be the compromize between a woman's right to her body and the would be father's right to choose. After all that is "his" sperm. But I suppose he "gave" it away...

Cheers,

Nick

At least you're consistent, although it does damage your "women's rights" claim beyond repair.

Michael

[jordanriver]

"Nearly 41% of Earth's land is now used for agriculture, yet we're on the brink of vast population growth, from 6.7 billion people today to an estimated 9.2 billion by 2050, with the majority living in cities" - Popular Science July 2007 page 45

I find it quite interesting that many "pro-life" activists would rather see people starve to death in agony then be aborted.
We can't even feed the people we have here now. There are millions of unwanted feti that are aborted a year. With the elimination of abortion, the population would increase even faster.
I find the term "pro-life" in light of such circumstances, quite hypocritical.

Cheers,

Nick

The people we have here now includes the people in gestation.
You're just volunteering other people to die so there will be more for you.

JR

[themuzicman]

Actually, at least in the US, there is a long waiting list for newborn adoptions.

[Rahab]

Nick:
Not really. A Somali woman should not have children that she cannot afford. We must understand that people are still animals. People are going to copulate and have children because….we’ll, quite simply, it’s natural. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with that. However, if we can’t stop people from having so much children, the least we can do is prevent population growth. Abortion should be used as a last result, because it’s not pleasant for anyone involved. However we should mitigate the problems with population growth as best we can. Unfortunately, many will see this as me saying that we should just murder more people. This is not my intention; rather I’d say that an abortion is actually little more then an intentional miscarriage. I guess my point was that the concept of having a child or several based on the economical viability of the mother is quite alien to this Somali woman. The "wrong" is that disconnection with proper family planning.

I may have to argue the clinical difference between the word "miscarriage" and "abortion" : if both result in the termination of a pregnancy, the word "miscarriage" implies the specific condition of the embryo separating or detaching from the uterine wall to then be expelled via cervical dilation. That process can occur without the invasive aspect of current abortive methods which vary depending on the gestation time. If the intention is for both to abort (interrupt) a pregnancy, intentional miscarriage and abortion differ based on the means used to trigger that interruption process.

Nick:
With respect, friend rahab, sex need not be limited in order to limit pregnancies. And I was not suggesting the limitation rather the responsible realization that vaginal intercourse may result in a pregnancy. Thus the use of conception control means.

Problems arise when, as you said, the lack of proper sexual education occurs. Things like teaching abstinence only are futile. If we go back to our Somali woman, I wonder how much of a sense of self respect and self esteem she can nurture in such poor socio economical environment. IMO, such qualities are the foundation for an effective abstinance based lifestyle. Our Somali woman is in no way stimulated by her environment to validate herself as a human being worthy of anything. Her daily existence is nothing but survival. IMO, you can hardly envision to build her up towards a process of self validation unless you remove her from such a negative environment.



The best way to get a teenager to do something is to tell them that it’s evil, bad and they are absolutely not to do it. Fortunately for my parents, I did manage to go thru highschool abstinent. Of course I was a True™ Christian and was able to control myself. Unfortunately, for many people, teenagers included, sex just feels to good not to do it. Many respond that one cannot just “throw condoms at the problem and hope it will go away.” True enough, but when you have a person bleeding very badly and there’s no medic around, sometimes ya gotta apply a tourniquet. In other words, in many countries such as Amsterdam, teen pregnancies and STD’s are much lower then in the “Christian” state of America. As I explained , based on my opinions, abstinance works effectively when people are enabled to valide themselves. There must be an incentive or motivation to consider oneself precious, special thus worthy of preserving oneself from dysfunctional relationships. The more an individual becomes selective with whom he/she will relate to, the fewer occurances of relationships leading to sexual promiscuity. To add the importance of equipping those individuals with long term plans, with a vision of contribution to the betterment of mankind.

IMO, that is not accomplished in any environment which defeats the sense of being precious or a potential contributor to society. Keep in mind in which environment our Somali woman survives. Keep in mind the number of teens coming from dysfunctional homes where positive reinforcement never took place. Rather verbal, emotional and at times physical abuse.

Nick:
I agree; and it’s quite sickening. I probably should not write this, but I’ll present it as my opinion and I know you’ll disagree.

“Such was the way of the Church and such is the Christian religion.” Patriarchal society models festering the notion of women as inferior creatures are undeniably present in several religions. However, keep in mind that the teachings of Christ have defeated such ancestral notions while enhancing the role of women in the early Church. Paul entrusted Lydia to lead believers in prayer groups which is consistant with Christ's mentality. Suddenly, women are invited to experience closeness with God no differently than men do.It was an extraordinary change within a gender sectarian cultural mentality.He welcome the gestures of devout love of women who would be of "bad reputation". He declares that the Grace of God is not limited to one gender by freeing an adulteress from her certain death. All become equal sinners all needy of God's Grace.


Nick:
:yes:

Nick:
Emphasis mine.
Unfortunately Rahab, that’s not exactly true. Consider the fact that eating is actually good for you because you need it to live. Sex is actually a good thing because it’s a good workout, and before artificial insemination, the human race needed it so survive. Consider that eating, like sex, is a perfectly natural thing. Why are so many Americans overweight; nay obese? Surely they have the choice to eat responsibly. Unfortunately, telling someone to “just stop having sex” is akin to telling an absurdly obese person to “just stop having McDonalds.” I’m afraid it’s not that simple. Yeah, cutting down on eating is the best and most efficient and effective way to halt obesity just like abstinence is the best way to minimize the chances of becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant or obtaining STD’s. Just like diets where one starves oneself usually don’t produce optimal results; “fasting from sex” won’t do much either. I am not sure where you got the impression that when I spoke of "irresponsible sexual behavior", I meant sexual intimacy as a whole. What I meant is that there must be a realistic understanding that unprotected vaginal intercourse may result in a pregnancy. IMO, it is irresponsible to take that risk when anti conception means are widely available. And if such means are not available, sexual intimacy can be accomplished without being restricted to vaginal intercourse. One issue we seem to be dealing with is taboos surrounding human sexuality. Creating a stigma towards persons who assume their sexuality by other means than vaginal intercourse.To some extent, one source of such stigma is a religious belief that "sex is only for procreation".

Nick:
On the contrary, I don’t think it’s irrelevant. While it’s true that chicken soup, vitamin C and plenty of rest will help cure a cold, there’s nothing wrong with taking some niquil to help you in the mean time. In other words, I am suggesting we treat the symptoms as well as working on the cure. It’s possible to die of the symptoms you know. The symptoms exist only because an illness has triggered them. That was my point. What I am being concerned about is that we confuse abortion for a solution to an issue which has to do primarely with a mental disconnect from responsible sexual behavior. To include a disconnect from family planning to where an economicaly poor couple should consider whether they can economicaly support a child before they venture into a pregnancy. Let alone the belief I hold that not all adults are mentaly and emotionaly functional to be parents.Especialy those who themselves grew up in a dysfunctional home.



Nick:
It was never my intention to say that abortion should be a substitute for birth control.

Cheers,

Nick I understood that. But in essence, that is what abortion is : BIRTH control. The realistic notion is CONCEPTION control. Can you see the difference? And that semantic difference reflects the impact it would have on the overall rate of abortions.Basicaly, most unplanned pregnancies are preventable. The long time endeavor to reverse the current rate of abortion to minimal consists in motivating a change of mentality while also addressing the socio economical environment issues which jeopardize the individual sense of self respect and self esteem.

[Rahab]

[quote]
Probably. Your answer is defeated by the reality that I do require a definition of what a "being" is when claims of a zygote being a "human being" are being thrown around. DNA coding unique and specific to our species does not equal the notion of a "being". There are millions of folks on this planet who, like me or Nick, do not settle for mere claims but require evidence that a human zygote is a "being".



Oh, so eugenics comes into the equation, too. Interesting. Did you miss the study that showed that over 70% of women would change their sexual habits if abortion were illegal? Did your study include the changes of "sexual habits" of men? Probably not as the female is the one who would undoubtly bear the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy. Not much motivation for a man to modify his "sexual habits". Even if struck with a court order to pay child support to include all expenses for prenatal care and economical survival of the future mother. But I am wasting my time here.... you made it clear that it is about "women changing their sexual habits".As if the responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy relies only on women and only dependent on their "sexual habits". No differently than the few males on T Web who have used the following comment "if she cannot keep her legs closed".

[themuzicman]

Your answer is defeated by the reality that I do require a definition of what a "being" is when claims of a zygote being a "human being" are being thrown around. DNA coding unique and specific to our species does not equal the notion of a "being". There are millions of folks on this planet who, like me or Nick, do not settle for mere claims but require evidence that a human zygote is a "being".

A "being." A unique living organism that consumes nutrition and sustains itself in the environment suitable for its present stage of development.

Did your study include the changes of "sexual habits" of men? Probably not as the female is the one who would undoubtly bear the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy. Not much motivation for a man to modify his "sexual habits".

That's what the birds and the bees tell you.

Even if struck with a court order to pay child support to include all expenses for prenatal care and economical survival of the future mother. But I am wasting my time here.... you made it clear that it is about "women changing their sexual habits".As if the responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy relies only on women and only dependent on their "sexual habits". No differently than the few males on T Web who have used the following comment "if she cannot keep her legs closed".

ROFL! It's always easy to know when Rahab loses an argument. SHe goes on a rant like this, trying to assert moral superiority, and failing.

Michael

[Rahab]

A "being." A unique living organism that consumes nutrition and sustains itself in the environment suitable for its present stage of development. Based on your definition, you can also assert that biologists refer to bacterium as a "being".:ahem:



That's what the birds and the bees tell you. Neither are mamelians. I have confronted your assertion that a change of sexual habit applies to women leaving out men. Which denotes a mentality way too close to the "she should have kept her legs closed".



ROFL! It's always easy to know when Rahab loses an argument. SHe goes on a rant like this, trying to assert moral superiority, and failing.

Michael And of course you are not addressing what I confronted above. You are in no position to comment on Nick's appreciation of the value of women as you did earlier. Your comment based on "women changing their sexual habits"while leaving men out of the scenario of responsible sexual behavior just back lashed at you. You are so absorbed in your need to attack Nick's position that you did not notice your own prejudice.

[themuzicman]

Based on your definition, you can also assert that biologists refer to bacterium as a "being".:ahem:

Sure. It's a living organism.

Neither are mamelians. I have confronted your assertion that a change of sexual habit applies to women leaving out men. Which denotes a mentality way too close to the "she should have kept her legs closed".

I was simply referring to how women would react based upon a study. I've made no moral assertions in this regard whatsoever. Apparently you have some issues that go beyond me in this regard.

And of course you are not addressing what I confronted above. You are in no position to comment on Nick's appreciation of the value of women as you did earlier. Your comment based on "women changing their sexual habits"while leaving men out of the scenario of responsible sexual behavior just back lashed at you. You are so absorbed in your need to attack Nick's position that you did not notice your own prejudice.

I wasn't the one who only interviewed women. I imagine men would change their habits, too, but I have no basis for saying so. To be honest, you're being quite irrational about all of this.

Nick's assertion that he is all for "women's rights" excludes unborn women. That seems hypocritical to me. Nick also says that if we legalize abortion that there will be an explosion of "unwanted" babies. However, studies suggest otherwise.

I'm sorry to bother you with facts.

Michael

[Rahab]

Sure. It's a living organism. I will expect that in the future , to be consistant with your definition, you apply the term "being" preceeded by the species identity as a qualificative anytime you mention any living organism. I am looking forward to seeing widely used terms such as : arachnidian being, helmithian being, amphibian being etc...that ought to be quite interesting.



I was simply referring to how women would react based upon a study. I've made no moral assertions in this regard whatsoever. Apparently you have some issues that go beyond me in this regard. You had no problem quoting a study which suggests ONLY a change about women's sexual habits. Did your critical thinking not catch the discrepancy of leaving out your gender as an active participant to sexual behavior leading to an unplanned pregnancy? I would not call "having some issues" noticing that such study left out the male responsibility. What was interesting to me is that you did not flinch at that obvious discrepancy.



I wasn't the one who only interviewed women. I imagine men would change their habits, too, but I have no basis for saying so. To be honest, you're being quite irrational about all of this. Again, my claim is that if making abortion at all stages of the gestation illegal would affect the overall mentality of potential mothers (note the mother is the one who assumes the gestation not the father), it certainly would not impose on the biological father any gestational time. YET dad is as responsible to this unplanned pregnancy as mom is. Obviously, the cause effect on a female is different than on a male. That ought to be quite simple to grasp.

Nick's assertion that he is all for "women's rights" excludes unborn women. Why do you dismiss the reality that Nick, contrary to you, does differenciate between potential and actual? Never has he claimed, contrary to you, that your definition of "being" somehow transforms a zygote into a "woman".




That seems hypocritical to me. It would be hypocritical if Nick were to abide to your claim that a "being" applies to any living organism as you stated earlier. Obviously, Nick does not abide to such definition and does not confuse a zygote for a "woman". I do not know when and if he considers that a fetus at some point of time of the gestational stages is to be considered as a "being" and why. I will let him deal with that topic.



Nick also says that if we legalize abortion that there will be an explosion of "unwanted" babies. However, studies suggest otherwise.

I'm sorry to bother you with facts.

Michael Your definition is not a fact. It is at best a semantic manipulation to where you have been challenged now to apply it to all other living organisms of all existing species. The mention of that alleged study leaves out the equal participant to conception, that is representatives of your gender. Again, I do not favor concepts and notions which result in making women THE culprit to be.

Let's review how unwanted pregnancies were dealt with prior to Roe/Wade : either by the means of an illegal abortion usualy performed in unsanitary and non sterile conditions. To include the absence of follow thru care resulting in health hazards. Or by pursuing the pregnancy to abandon the neonate at birth. Or retention of the neonate yet to be neglicted or raised by a relative.(which would have been the best option and when available).

What I would see as an increase, is teens hiding their pregnancy, going into isolation and still looking for extremely unsafe ways to abort. Whereas, the current choice option gives them the opportunity to access realistic alternatives such as adoption.And that with a willingness coming from them.

Not because the state took custody of their organs and declared them to be used for the purpose of supporting gestation till birth. As an increase, I would see more newborn infants left to die in a dumpster. Though rare, those tragic events do occur nowadays. It is not difficult for a woman to dissimulate her pregnancy. She can purposefuly indulge in a high fat/high sugar diet and pass for obese. What I foresee is a phenomenon of isolation for those women rather than coming out motivated by the current choice policy.

What I also have learned from my counseling in a CPC is that a woman who does not want to be pregnant will find any way to terminate such pregnancy. Even as it may mean jeopardizing her health.

The question is do Americans as a whole, men and women, wish to empower the state to exercise a custodial role over the use of their organs? I say, most do not. Naturaly, women expect to be treated equaly as men where they can decide for the use of their organs. If they want them to continue to be a life support system for a living human organism, surely it should not be the state's decision. Nor should it be the state 's decision that they do not.

The state has the burden to prove that at all gestational stages, terminating a pregnancy results in terminating the life of a human being recognized as such. So far, the state has failed to present any compelling scientific evidence to support that. Only with that evidence, and IMO, the interest of such human being should prevail over the mother's right to own her own organs and choose what to do with them. Only as such scientificaly recognized human being is jeopardized due to her choice. Which IMO and based on embodied subjectivity certainly does not occur until the middle of the second trimester.(and I am being quite liberal here considering that some scientific data shows that synapses do not occur until the 21 to 22 weeks of gestation).

Making all abortions at all gestational stages illegal must be supported by a consensus that: any abortion results in the termination of a human being thus an obstruction to his/her right to continue to exist. However, such right is usualy recognized among human beings who have the capacity to exist . And capacity to exist implies a degree of self awareness of existence itself. Such capacity in our species is reflected via our neurological and cerebral componants and resulting bio chemical interaction.

IMO, presented with compelling evidence of such capacity to exist within our species, most of us, no matter how pro choice we may be, would consider the UNETHICAL aspect of placing our choice above the welfare of such capacitated being.We consult such ethical issues when dealing with removing someone from life support. What weighs in the ethical scale is their capacity to experience any degree of self awareness. We do not wiew then just a "living organism" but indeed a human being.

[themuzicman]

I will expect that in the future , to be consistant with your definition, you apply the term "being" preceeded by the species identity as a qualificative anytime you mention any living organism. I am looking forward to seeing widely used terms such as : arachnidian being, helmithian being, amphibian being etc...that ought to be quite interesting.

Yup, you're irrational.

You had no problem quoting a study which suggests ONLY a change about women's sexual habits. Did your critical thinking not catch the discrepancy of leaving out your gender as an active participant to sexual behavior leading to an unplanned pregnancy? I would not call "having some issues" noticing that such study left out the male responsibility. What was interesting to me is that you did not flinch at that obvious discrepancy.

So, you never believe a study that only queries women, huh? How do you know anything about abortion statistics? Do you ensure that men are asked about their abortions?

Again, my claim is that if making abortion at all stages of the gestation illegal would affect the overall mentality of potential mothers (note the mother is the one who assumes the gestation not the father), it certainly would not impose on the biological father any gestational time.

How can you be so SEXIST as to only consider the mother? You're putting on the mother the entire responsibility for the pregnancy. How can you live with such a discrepancy? :ahem:

YET dad is as responsible to this unplanned pregnancy as mom is. Obviously, the cause effect on a female is different than on a male. That ought to be quite simple to grasp.
Why do you dismiss the reality that Nick, contrary to you, does differenciate between potential and actual? Never has he claimed, contrary to you, that your definition of "being" somehow transforms a zygote into a "woman".

Well, the zygote has a distinct chromosomal structure which positively identifies it as female. Not sure what else you'll need.


It would be hypocritical if Nick were to abide to your claim that a "being" applies to any living organism as you stated earlier. Obviously, Nick does not abide to such definition and does not confuse a zygote for a "woman". I do not know when and if he considers that a fetus at some point of time of the gestational stages is to be considered as a "being" and why. I will let him deal with that topic.

Yeah, well, I've seen historical examples of what happens when people identify other human beings as "non-persons", and I prefer not to continue to repeat those results.

Your definition is not a fact. It is at best a semantic manipulation to where you have been challenged now to apply it to all other living organisms of all existing species.


LOL... Provide a better one.

The mention of that alleged study leaves out the equal participant to conception, that is representatives of your gender. Again, I do not favor concepts and notions which result in making women THE culprit to be.

LOL, biut you're willing to consider studies that only study women in other instances... hypocrite.

Let's review how unwanted pregnancies were dealt with prior to Roe/Wade : either by the means of an illegal abortion usualy performed in unsanitary and non sterile conditions. To include the absence of follow thru care resulting in health hazards. Or by pursuing the pregnancy to abandon the neonate at birth. Or retention of the neonate yet to be neglicted or raised by a relative.(which would have been the best option and when available).

Just FYI, the folks that testified for Roe v. Wade and before congress regarding unwanted pregnancies that claimed that tens of thousands of "back alley abortions" were occurring every year later admitted to making that up. There is no evidence of mass "back alley abortions" back when abortion was illegal.

What I would see as an increase, is teens hiding their pregnancy, going into isolation and still looking for extremely unsafe ways to abort. Whereas, the current choice option gives them the opportunity to access realistic alternatives such as adoption.And that with a willingness coming from them.

Well, that's your opinion. Studies suggest otherwise.

Not because the state took custody of their organs and declared them to be used for the purpose of supporting gestation till birth. As an increase, I would see more newborn infants left to die in a dumpster. Though rare, those tragic events do occur nowadays. It is not difficult for a woman to dissimulate her pregnancy. She can purposefuly indulge in a high fat/high sugar diet and pass for obese. What I foresee is a phenomenon of isolation for those women rather than coming out motivated by the current choice policy.

So, you're saying that letting the doctor kill the child by burning and dismembering it is preferable suffocation to putting it in a dumpster?

Can we declare both as equally bad?

Of course, I think a lot more people would be much safer if we legalized bank robbery, too. Then we wouldn't need guns, and the police wouldn't be called to apprehend the poor robbers, and people wouldn't be hurt in bank robberies gone bad.

But I don't suppose you really WANT your logic applied to other crimes, now, do you...

What I also have learned from my counseling in a CPC is that a woman who does not want to be pregnant will find any way to terminate such pregnancy. Even as it may mean jeopardizing her health.

So, because a few women will kill their babies anyway, we should legalize and give positive reinforcement to killing millions of babies every year.

Something is just twisted about that.

Remember, abortion has a 50% mortality rate. The baby always dies.

The question is do Americans as a whole, men and women, wish to empower the state to exercise a custodial role over the use of their organs? I say, most do not. Naturaly, women expect to be treated equaly as men where they can decide for the use of their organs. If they want them to continue to be a life support system for a living human organism, surely it should not be the state's decision. Nor should it be the state 's decision that they do not.


We do that every day. We require parents to provide care for their children. And they use ALL of their organs, not just one. If a parent wishes to give up a child, the parent STILL must provide for the care of that child until such time that transfer to the state can be arranged. So, this isn't anything shocking or new.

The state has the burden to prove that at all gestational stages, terminating a pregnancy results in terminating the life of a human being recognized as such. So far, the state has failed to present any compelling scientific evidence to support that. Only with that evidence, and IMO, the interest of such human being should prevail over the mother's right to own her own organs and choose what to do with them. Only as such scientificaly recognized human being is jeopardized due to her choice. Which IMO and based on embodied subjectivity certainly does not occur until the middle of the second trimester.(and I am being quite liberal here considering that some scientific data shows that synapses do not occur until the 21 to 22 weeks of gestation).

The science is actually pretty clear. Doctors do procedures on babies that aren't viable for the specific health of the baby. Mothers, when they find that they are pregnant, begin to change their habits to care for their 8 week old babies, and we do studies to improve care for the unborn down to that age to aid them.

The only party remaining on the other side of the debate is the pro-choice crowd, who refuses to open their eyes.

Making all abortions at all gestational stages illegal must be supported by a consensus that: any abortion results in the termination of a human being thus an obstruction to his/her right to continue to exist. However, such right is usualy recognized among human beings who have the capacity to exist . And capacity to exist implies a degree of self awareness of existence itself. Such capacity in our species is reflected via our neurological and cerebral componants and resulting bio chemical interaction.

The unborn child does have the capacity to exist. IN fact, it does exist and continues to exist until it is ready to enter the next stage of development.

I find it odd that we're willing to take a farm away from a farmer to preserve the American Dung beetle, but we're not willing to preserve the life of an unborn child because it inconveniences a woman for a few months.

IMO, presented with compelling evidence of such capacity to exist within our species, most of us, no matter how pro choice we may be, would consider the UNETHICAL aspect of placing our choice above the welfare of such capacitated being.We consult such ethical issues when dealing with removing someone from life support. What weighs in the ethical scale is their capacity to experience any degree of self awareness. We do not wiew then just a "living organism" but indeed a human being.

You've presented the usual, tired pro-choice rhetoric, which is becoming more and more meaningless with every passing day.

Michael

[Rahab]

Yup, you're irrational. Is that your counter argument.?Are you not a poster known to be critical of the use of ad hom instead of counter arguments? I am holding you up to your definition, Michael. Any consistancy on your part ought to result in applying the term "being" to all species. Maybe the absence of rational here is you not reflecting on how your definition would affect all species.



So, you never believe a study that only queries women, huh? How do you know anything about abortion statistics? Do you ensure that men are asked about their abortions? You specificaly mentionned "sexual habits" which ought to relate to sexual behavior. Or do you think that "sexual habit" was a definition for abortion?I understood your specific wording of "changing sexual habits" to refer to a change of sexual behavior. Which undoubtly ought to include BOTH parties not just women. That should be easy to comprehend.



How can you be so SEXIST as to only consider the mother? You're putting on the mother the entire responsibility for the pregnancy. How can you live with such a discrepancy? :ahem: You do not seem to be interested in an intelligent communication here rather to twist and misrepresent my statements. For clarification, the cause effect of any pregnancy is going to affect the mother more than it can ever affect the father. I thought you would easily grasp that notion. The usual male participation consists in an ejaculation allowing for spermatic fluid to transport among millions of others the one "lucky" spermatoid who will fertilize the ovum. I feel it necessary to remind you that the mother's participation outside of her ovum results in 9 months of gestation. That should be easy to comprehend.



Well, the zygote has a distinct chromosomal structure which positively identifies it as female. Not sure what else you'll need. The confirmation from health care professionals that they address their future mothers with "the health of the woman you are carrying is fine. We expect that you will deliver your woman on time". Need I say more?



Yeah, well, I've seen historical examples of what happens when people identify other human beings as "non-persons", and I prefer not to continue to repeat those results. What you have seen is the illegitimate denial of people being human beings based on their ethnicity, religion or cultural differences. Such as the Puritans of the "New World" considering native Africans kidnapped from their land and transported to the Colonies for the purpose of enslavement as savages who would in no way be able to relate to God. Thankfuly Adams made an excellent case to demonstrate otherwise attacking the core of such prejudicial mentality.

Is that what you are relying on to reject the reality that a zygote has no capacity to even experience existence? Are you equaly rejecting the notion that without a brain we can hardly speak of a "being"? Or maybe you believe that a brain is not necessary to experience any self awareness of existing. Some folks believe in some type of immaterial ectoplasmic "aura" floating over their head.... so I am starting to wonder what you believe.




LOL... Provide a better one. I will submit Locke's :

"a thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider it self as it self, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it". This quote is taken from Essay on Human Understanding (second book).

There are several more quotes taken from philosophical works which all point to the necessity of the capacity for consciousness to even consider the concept of "Being". I am quite surprised you are not familiar with such course of thought.





LOL, biut you're willing to consider studies that only study women in other instances... hypocrite. Unless I am mistaken, you are the one who offered that alleged study as some type of argument. However, I am the one who noted the discrepancy of "changing sexual habits" only in women. Again, calling folks hypocrits as you also have with Nick is not going to be a punch line. It was a pleasure to point you to your error as you defined him as a hypocrit when he obviously does not abide to your definition of a zygote being a "being" and now a "woman".



Just FYI, the folks that testified for Roe v. Wade and before congress regarding unwanted pregnancies that claimed that tens of thousands of "back alley abortions" were occurring every year later admitted to making that up. There is no evidence of mass "back alley abortions" back when abortion was illegal. That's completely irrelevant since I never made such a claim that there were "tens of thousands of back alley abortions". Save that rebuttal for folks who made such claims. What I have mentionned though is that a pregnancy would be terminated in unsanitary and non sterile conditions. That there was no follow thru post procedure care thus a higher risk of complications and infections. I have equaly mentionned neonates being abandonned. Equaly mentionned the retention of neanates yet to be neglicted. The more fortunate ones being raised by a relative or being put up for adoption.



Well, that's your opinion. Studies suggest otherwise. You tend to mention those phantomatic studies quite a bit. Links to the actual clinical study would be appreciated so that I and others can draw our own conclusion rather than just being expected to take your word for it.



So, you're saying that letting the doctor kill the child by burning and dismembering it is preferable suffocation to putting it in a dumpster? Only a very dense individual or someone who has to play dumb to escape the responsibility to address the entirety of my arguments could draw such absurd conclusion.

For starters: in order to "dismember" , you have to somehow have members to tear apart. At which gestational stage do you believe an embryo has limbs? Your choice of inflammatory vocabulary may betray your ignorance of 1) fetal development 2) abortion procedures.

Secondly : I am not sure why you keep insisting that I or Nick must abide to your beliefs that there is no difference between a neonate and a zygote, embryo, fetus etc... Each time you assume that either he or I believe that the term "child" is an accurate description of a zygote, embryo etc... at any of those stages, you are making a serious error.

It's quite simple to grasp, Michael : the neonate who ends up being dumped to die of starvation and dehydration is VIABLE out utero. It was delivered as a viable fetus not requiring anylonger the mother's organs to support its viability and development. It needs not her pulse, blood pressure and respiration to have a functional oxygenation of its cells. Her/his lungs are developped enough to have an autonomous respiratory function promoting the entire oxygenation. It needs not anylonger a placenta to recieve nutrition. It does not depend anylonger on the mother's nutritive system to be hydrated and fed. ANYONE can take over the care of such delivered fetus.

If you think that somehow I do not acknowlege those obvious functions in that neonate and consider, as you seem to do, that a zygote is similar to such neonate, you are mistaken.

You are the one who does not acknowlege any difference as you lump under the word "child" both neonate and zygote hoping to trigger an emotional response.

I need to ask you to define for me how you interpret, recieve, percieve what "viable" means as related to our species.

And no I do not condome infanticide. Which is exactly what happens when a viable fetus is terminated. The question remains though if you understand what viable means.

Can we declare both as equally bad? I have to decypher thru your choice of terminology to describe an abortion to figure out at which gestational stage I am to consider that an abortion is an infanticide : "burning" can only refer to chemical abortion practised in the late second trimester and early third. In fact, it is not a "chemical" but saline solution injected in the early pulmonary branches. "dismembered" has to refer to mid first trimester certainly not prior to 8 weeks.

To the first abortion reference indicating a late term abortion :(burn): a viable fetus out utero even if necessitating respiratory support until the lungs have reached normal development should NOT be aborted. At that point of time, there is little doubt that he/she has the capacity to not only percieve but interpret sensorial receptions. That degree of self awareness and response to the in utero environment IMO warrants an ethical concern.

To the second: (dismembered) : that of course eliminates early pregnancy as I will safely assume that nobody here believes that at the zygotic and early embryonic stages, any "dismembering" is taking place. Based on intra uterine observation and Doppler Wave detector technics, we know that the probability of an embryo having any degree of neurological and brain function is basicaly zero. Which I know you consider to be irrelevant since a living organism is a being regardless of its lack of ability, capacity and physical componants to even sense anything at all.

Those two conditions of the human development to compare with a neonate : frankly, I can evaluate while remaining consistant with my beliefs based on embodied subjectivity that both the late term abortion and the abandonment of the neonate are an act of infanticide. Mind you that I do not consider murder or criminal homicide to be applied to the termination of any born person who has no capacity, ability or physical componants necessary to generate sensorial reception and possible interpretation. Which usualy means no cortical (to include thalamus and hypothalamus) and no stem functions.

Of course, I think a lot more people would be much safer if we legalized bank robbery, too. Then we wouldn't need guns, and the police wouldn't be called to apprehend the poor robbers, and people wouldn't be hurt in bank robberies gone bad.

But I don't suppose you really WANT your logic applied to other crimes, now, do you... You are asserting that 1) I consider abortion at all gestational stages to be a crime
2) I consider that killing or abandonning a neonate is OK. Are you making the questions and the answers both? I do NOT condome the notion of abandonning any delivered fetus, which describes a neonate. Is that clear? I have no ethical issue with terminating a pregnancy up to about 12 weeks. Is that clear?



So, because a few women will kill their babies anyway, we should legalize and give positive reinforcement to killing millions of babies every year. What an absurd conclusion! I have wasted valuable time with you, Michael.

Something is just twisted about that.

Remember, abortion has a 50% mortality rate. The baby always dies. Your own interpretation of my comments is what is twisted.



We do that every day. We require parents to provide care for their children. And they use ALL of their organs, not just one. If a parent wishes to give up a child, the parent STILL must provide for the care of that child until such time that transfer to the state can be arranged. So, this isn't anything shocking or new. You are going to compare the entire circulatory system of a female to "providing care for an infant". To my knowlege, any new mom could die yet her infant will survive. Try having a 12 week old fetus survive without the mother's pulse, BP, respiration and normal body temperature. She would have to be kept on life support for her organs to even be able to process oxygenation and nutrients.

You are going to compare those organic functions becoming a property of the state to dispose of to parenting an infant?



The science is actually pretty clear. Doctors do procedures on babies that aren't viable for the specific health of the baby. Mothers, when they find that they are pregnant, begin to change their habits to care for their 8 week old babies, and we do studies to improve care for the unborn down to that age to aid them. That has absolutly nothing to do with any scientific evidence that at all stages of the gestation, we have a capacitated being whose rights must prevail over the rights of an obvious and undeniably capacitated person.

The only party remaining on the other side of the debate is the pro-choice crowd, who refuses to open their eyes. And the relevance of that comment to providing scientific evidence?



The unborn child does have the capacity to exist. IN fact, it does exist and continues to exist until it is ready to enter the next stage of development. Please describe how a zygote has the capacity to have any self awareness of its existence.

I find it odd that we're willing to take a farm away from a farmer to preserve the American Dung beetle, but we're not willing to preserve the life of an unborn child because it inconveniences a woman for a few months. But is not that Beetle a "being" too? You just got trapped in your own definition. Why do you not refer to it as a "American Dung Beetle being"? The little fellow is also a living organism..... according to you, it should qualify as a "being".No need to answer.. I am not going to devout more time to your posts.



You've presented the usual, tired pro-choice rhetoric, which is becoming more and more meaningless with every passing day.

Michael Good. This way I can now focus on Nick's responses and comments.

[Raphael]

Nick:
The article was actually about a guy named Dickson Despomier, a 67 year old microbiologist who is trying to design basically skyscrapper greenhouses for food. Basically a 30 story building could feed 50,000 people for a year. Unfortunately, he said the first "virtual farm" could cost upwards of a billion dollars. A billion dollars to feed 50,000 people in one year is $20,000 per person. One would have to be really fat to spend 20,000 on food in a years. But I suppose that would be the initial cost, and it would go down afterwords. The point here is that the avaliablity of farmland is going to be a serious problem in the next 50 years.

His figures are still false.

I assmume that this: ""Nearly 41% of Earth's land is now used for agriculture, yet we're on the brink of vast population growth, from 6.7 billion people today to an estimated 9.2 billion by 2050, with the majority living in cities" - Popular Science July 2007 page 45"
is a direct quote?

if that is the case the arguement, based on that fact, is completely invalid.

Source: CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html) Stat's are referring to the entire world.
Land use:
arable land: 13.31%
permanent crops: 4.71%
other: 81.98% (2005)
[b]Irrigated land:[b]
2,770,980 sq km (2003)

[b]Population growth rate: [/quote]
1.167% (2007 est.)

[nickcopernicus]

That is what you said.
Nick:
A flat out lie.
themuzicman:
UN Statistics.
Nick
Then you either misunderstand the data or your source is wrong.
The muzicman:
Yes.
You misunderstand what a moment is.
Your comprehension of what constitutes a "human being" is severely mistaken, irrational, and ridiculously arbitrary.
themuzicman:
And?
Nick:
:lol:
themuzicman:
Probably.
Nick:
:shrug: I was just wondering if you had some sort of rational justification for calling a fertilized egg a "human." Apparently not.
themuzicman:
Oh, so eugenics comes into the equation, too. Interesting. Did you miss the study that showed that over 70% of women would change their sexual habits if abortion were illegal?
Nick:
Did you miss the part were your misogynic bigotry seeks to annul the rights of women?
Oh that's right, you're a man, and couldn't care less if a woman has a right to rid her body of an actual parasite.
Keep' em barefoot and pregnant! And I'd better have a hot mean on the table when I get home!


themuzicman:
At least you're consistent, although it does damage your "women's rights" claim beyond repair.

Michael
Nick:
No, it does not.
If you disagree, then post a sound deductive argument that shows how my stance on a man's right to have a say so in an abortion contradicts my claim as a feminist.
I won't hold my breath.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

The people we have here now includes the people in gestation.
You're just volunteering other people to die so there will be more for you.

JR

Nick:
You beg the question that a fetus is an actual person.

cheers,

Nick

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Nick:

I'm afraid those "girls" that are being aborted aren't girls at all. They are potential girls. A potential human being has no rights while an actual human being does.What's so ironic is that you took someone else to task shortly after this (in the post immediately before my post here) for - wait for it - begging the question. Physician heal thyself!

[jordanriver]

Nick:
You beg the question that a fetus is an actual person.

cheers,

Nick

If the fetus in question is human, its a person. Have you taken the time to look up 'person's definition.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/person

Definition #1 is that a person is a human, individual.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child:
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

JR

[nickcopernicus]

What's so ironic is that you took someone else to task shortly after this (in the post immediately before my post here) for - wait for it - begging the question. Physician heal thyself!
Nick:

Fine. let's assume the opposite.

1. If it is the case that a potential human being has the same rights as an actual person and a sperm is a potential human being, then a man has no right to have shower babies because he has commited 300 - 500 million counts of murder
2. it is the case that a potential human being has the same rights as an actual person and a sperm is a potential human being
ergo
3. a man has no right to have shower babies because he has commited 300 - 500 million counts of murder

That's a lot of dead "human beings"....let the arrests begin!
Oh yeah, and periods as well. Those too are "potential human beings"


Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

If the fetus in question is human, its a person. Have you taken the time to look up 'person's definition.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/person

Definition #1 is that a person is a human, individual.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child:
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

JR
Nick;

Right..... I don't see anywhere in there where a bag of cells is described as a human being.

Cheers,

Nick

[Jnthn]

Nick:

Fine. let's assume the opposite.

1. If it is the case that a potential human being has the same rights as an actual person and a sperm is a potential human being, then a man has no right to have shower babies because he has commited 300 - 500 million counts of murder
2. it is the case that a potential human being has the same rights as an actual person and a sperm is a potential human being
ergo
3. a man has no right to have shower babies because he has commited 300 - 500 million counts of murder

That's a lot of dead "human beings"....let the arrests begin!
Oh yeah, and periods as well. Those too are "potential human beings"


Cheers,

NickShame on you, Nick, you have to resort to misrepresentation. The focus of discussion here is the foetus not spematozoa.

J

[Jnthn]

Nick;

Right..... I don't see anywhere in there where a bag of cells is described as a human being.

Cheers,

NickSo, you deny your own humanity? Unless you're made out of metal and integrated circuits, you're still a "bag of cells"

J

[nickcopernicus]

Shame on you, Nick, you have to resort to misrepresentation. The focus of discussion here is the foetus not spematozoa.

J


Nick:

That's not misrepresentation at all. Are you arguing that it's not the case that a sperm or an egg are potential human beings? Is it not the case that given the proper circumstances, they would become humans?

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

So, you deny your own humanity? Unless you're made out of metal and integrated circuits, you're still a "bag of cells"

J
Nick:
Unlike a parasitic fetus, I don't require my nutrients from a "host" organism.

Cheers,

Nick

[Jnthn]

Nick:

That's not misrepresentation at all. Are you arguing that it's not the case that a sperm or an egg are potential human beings? Is it not the case that given the proper circumstances, they would become humans?

Cheers,

NickNo. A fetus is not a spermatozoan. A fetus is not an unfertilized egg.

Your kind of whacked-out logic is on the par of saying you shouldn't cut a tree down in case the wood is used to make an axe-handle that is used to kill someone.

J

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Nick

Your first resply, before editing, was: "Nick: If you dont' have a brain, then you're not human. How's that for healing? Cheers, Nick"

I can see why you deleted that before I could reply. The egg would have been all over your face, as soon as you turned to your introductory text on pre-natal biology.

Let's see if your new revised reply fares any better:Nick:

Fine. let's assume the opposite.

1. If it is the case that a potential human being has the same rights as an actual person and a sperm is a potential human being, then a man has no right to have shower babies because he has commited 300 - 500 million counts of murderMore question begging I see. Remember, your contentious claim is that a fetus is only a potential person and not an actual one. But your proposition here merely assumes this. So physician, you're still looking a little green around the gills to me.

Cheers
Jack

[Jnthn]

Nick:
Unlike a parasitic fetus, I don't require my nutrients from a "host" organism.

Cheers,

NickReally? Because unless you photosynthesise, you require nutrition from external sources.

It's also arguable whether the description of a foetus is accurate. I believe the mother gets some benefits from bringing a child to term, whitch makes the relationship more mutualistically symbiotic. Regardless, since the fetus is grown from her own egg and genetic stock, it makes the idea of parasitism hard to stick.

J

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Nick:

That's not misrepresentation at all. Are you arguing that it's not the case that a sperm or an egg are potential human beings? Is it not the case that given the proper circumstances, they would become humans?

Cheers,

NickYou're confused ont he issue of potential. A sperm and an egg (not singly, but a pserm and an egg) have the potential to joina nd become a human being. That's one kind of potential, the potential to create something.

That's not the kind of potential we're talking about with a foetus. In this case we're not talking about the creation of a new organism, but the potential of an existing organism to develop.

Rememeber - equivocation is no more a useful method of argument than begging the question.

Cheers
Jack.

[nickcopernicus]

No. A fetus is not a spermatozoan. A fetus is not an unfertilized egg.

Your kind of whacked-out logic is on the par of saying you shouldn't cut a tree down in case the wood is used to make an axe-handle that is used to kill someone.

J
Absurd.

A sperm is just one cell from being able to reach its potential

Jnthn:
Really? Because unless you photosynthesise, you require nutrition from external sources.

It's also arguable whether the description of a foetus is accurate. I believe the mother gets some benefits from bringing a child to term, whitch makes the relationship more mutualistically symbiotic. Regardless, since the fetus is grown from her own egg and genetic stock, it makes the idea of parasitism hard to stick.
Nick:
Yes, I require nutrition from external sources. All living things do. However, there is a difference between an organism that is a parasite and one that is not.

The relationship between a fetus and it's mother is not symbiotic because the mother recieves no nutrition from the fetus. None at all. The fetus requires the mother in order to survive while the mother does not require the fetus to survive.

Cheers,

Nick

[Teallaura]

Not a believer in evolution, I see. That whole 'survival of the fittest' thing is absolutely dependent on reproduction. Passing on one's genetic material is what it's all about in a naturalistic world view. Either he doesn't believe in evolution or has no concept of a symbiotic relationship.

[nickcopernicus]

Nick

Your first resply, before editing, was: "Nick: If you dont' have a brain, then you're not human. How's that for healing? Cheers, Nick"

I can see why you deleted that before I could reply. The egg would have been all over your face, as soon as you turned to your introductory text on pre-natal biology.
Nick:
I try to correct my mistakes.
Jack Bauer:
Let's see if your new revised reply fares any better:More question begging I see. Remember, your contentious claim is that a fetus is only a potential person and not an actual one. But your proposition here merely assumes this. So physician, you're still looking a little green around the gills to me.

Cheers
Jack
Nick:
No, the original argument that you critizied involved the rights of a potential human being. I was under the impression that this was what you disagreed with. Are you saying that a bag of cells constitutes a human being? If so, then why isn't the few flaky cells that come off your nose when you scratch it "human beings" as well? They too posses human DNA. They too are "alive."
I think my position of a fetus not being an actual human being is consistent while yours (if you maintain that a fetus/zygote is an actual human being) is arbitrary.


Jack Bauer:
You're confused ont he issue of potential. A sperm and an egg (not singly, but a pserm and an egg) have the potential to joina nd become a human being. That's one kind of potential, the potential to create something.

That's not the kind of potential we're talking about with a foetus. In this case we're not talking about the creation of a new organism, but the potential of an existing organism to develop.

Rememeber - equivocation is no more a useful method of argument than begging the question.
Nick:
No that's not "one kind of potential" at all. Both require certian Chemical reactions to occur in order for the developing organism to survive without NUTRITIONAL or CHEMICAL support directly from it's mother. Would you care to tell me exactly why the two must be in EXACTLY the same situation for them to both be potential human beings? My defintions of potential remain consitent throughout my argument; hence no equivication.

The basic counter argument is that a newborn infant can't survive without its mother either. The answer to that objection is that the infant is no longer biologically dependant...i.e. parasiticlly dependant upon its mother. It has lost its parasitic properties. As such, he or she is now an actual human.


Humans aren't biological parasites.

Cheers,

Nick

[Jnthn]

Absurd.

A sperm is just one cell from being able to reach its potentialDrop the Tony Robbins crap. A sperm is not foetus. When a sperm and an unfertilised egg fuse, they cease to become what they were.

The relationship between a fetus and it's mother is not symbiotic because the mother recieves no nutrition from the fetus. None at all. The fetus requires the mother in order to survive while the mother does not require the fetus to survive.Nutrition is not the be-all determinant of a parasitic relationship. In fact there are clear indicators that the "host" benefits during a pregnancy (here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2005/02/15/hpreg15.xml&sSheet=/health/2005/02/15/ixhmain.html))

[nickcopernicus]

Not a believer in evolution, I see. That whole 'survival of the fittest' thing is absolutely dependent on reproduction. Passing on one's genetic material is what it's all about in a naturalistic world view. Either he doesn't believe in evolution or has no concept of a symbiotic relationship.
Nick:
Hilarious Tellaura.

Kindly tell us:

1. How exactly "survial of the fittest" has anything to do with a fetus NOT being parasitic and instead being symbiotic.
2. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that "he [nickcopernicus] doesn't believe in evolution or has no concept of a symbiotic relationship"


Did it ever occur to you that in many ecosystems, if a problem arises somewhere in the food chain, say.... there are too many wolves and not enough sheep, that nature will temper this by having the wolves starve to death? It's not about massive procreation for organisms that are at the top of the food chain. We aren't fish. Fish need to have thousands of "children" because many of them get eaten. Such is not the case with Humans and other animals that re on the top of the food chain. Overpopulation results in massive starvation, disease or whatever mother naure "decides" to do to limit the population.

My original point remains:

"Pro life activists" would rather have people starve to death then be aborted.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

NICK:
Absurd.

A sperm is just one cell from being able to reach its potential
JNTHN:
Drop the Tony Robbins crap. A sperm is not foetus. When a sperm and an unfertilised egg fuse, they cease to become what they were.
NICK:
Yeah? And a fetus is not a human being. When a fetus develops into a human being, it stops being a bunch of undifferentiated cells and turns into tissues, organs,organ systems…and other stuff that that mammals (of which humans are) have.
NICK:
The relationship between a fetus and it's mother is not symbiotic because the mother receives no nutrition from the fetus. None at all. The fetus requires the mother in order to survive while the mother does not require the fetus to survive.
JNTHN:
Nutrition is not the be-all determinant of a parasitic relationship. In fact there are clear indicators that the "host" benefits during a pregnancy (here)
NICK:
True. However all parasites that I know REQUIRE a host in order to receive nutrition. Like many parasites, a fetus can ultimately kill its host. Yes, unfortunately, many women (especially before modern medicine and in third world countries) die of childbirth. But I suspect that since both are “equally human” neither takes precedence. Kill the host to let the parasite survive.
BTW, if a tapeworm “cures” me of constipation by giving me diarrhea does this mean that we now have a “symbiotic relationship?”

Cheers,

Nick

[Jnthn]

NICK:
Yeah? And a fetus is not a human being. When a fetus develops into a human being, it stops being a bunch of undifferentiated cells and turns into tissues, organs,organ systems…and other stuff that that mammals (of which humans are) have.Foetuses are not undifferentiated bunches of cells.

c. Week 5 - the circulatory system is in place
c. Week - much of the digestive system is in place (pancreas, gall bladder etc.)

This is nothing like the picture you choose to present.

NICK:
True. However all parasites that I know REQUIRE a host in order to receive nutrition. Like many parasites, a fetus can ultimately kill its host. Yes, unfortunately, many women (especially before modern medicine and in third world countries) die of childbirth. But I suspect that since both are “equally human” neither takes precedence. Kill the host to let the parasite survive.On those rare occasion with gestation and child-birth threaten the mother it is due to malfunctions such as breech births. The fact is that foetuses do not inherently kill their hosts nor seek to do so.

BTW, if a tapeworm “cures” me of constipation by giving me diarrhea does this mean that we now have a “symbiotic relationship?”I'm glad you chose to put this in because it (and your quip about fetuses being a bunch of undifferentiated cells) shows how fundamentally incompetent you are when it comes to talking about matters like this. Are you unaware that diahorrea is a killer? Anyway, your choice of putting "cures" in quote marks exposes your disingenuity and your penchant for crass equivocation.

J

[Rahab]

Nick:
Unlike a parasitic fetus, I don't require my nutrients from a "host" organism.

Cheers,

Nick Nick, The term "parasitic" could only apply to an embryo of a different species somehow implanted in a human female's uterus. Let alone the reality that her immune system would automaticaly attack such foreign organism. Which is not the case for a human embryo in a human female. In fact, the human blastocyst sends specific signals which trigger an output of progesterone production which is vital for its secure implantation onto the uterine wall.

There is an obvious bio chemical compatibility between the mother's entire endocrinal system and the human blastocyst. That would certainly not apply to any parasitic organism.

Just a slight correction here. I hope you do not mind....

IMO, rather than opting for the "parasite" argument which can be so easily demonstrated as erroneous, the potential versus actual (which you brought up earlier) is far more difficult to ignore or deny.

Is your pro choice position extended to all stages of the human gestation or are you envisionning an ethical issue based on a specific fetal development?

[jordanriver]

Nick:
Unlike a parasitic fetus, I don't require my nutrients from a "host" organism.

Cheers,

Nick


A parasitic fetus's host isn't its mother.
A parasitic fetus is a twin of its host:
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/parasitic+fetus
parasitic fetus in asymmetrical conjoined twins, an incomplete minor fetus attached to a larger, more completely developed twin.

JR

[jordanriver]

Nick;

Right..... I don't see anywhere in there where a bag of cells is described as a human being.

Cheers,

Nick

Neither did the Supreme Court in 1973. But they were wrong and so are you.
Have a look on page 2 of an embryology text:
http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0721694128/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/103-9524034-2159812

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology by Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud) by Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud
Page 2
Developmental periods
Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.
...A zygote is the beginning of a new human being

So your fetus is not only a human being, but has been a human being since a few stages back.

JR

[Vigilante]

I don't really have anything meaningful to add here accept I do have a question or two.

Somebody above mentioned what features a baby has at 5 weeks, but I'm wondering how early a mother knows they are pregnant and tend to get abortions. Can they tell within hours or days? Or is it usually weeks or months?
And does anybody have statistics that show the average age of the baby when aborted? And lastly, is there an age at which abortion is denied? I mean like what if they wanted an abortion at like 6 months or something? I've hear horror stories about abortions this late, where they insert instruments in her to chop the baby to pieces and pull it out bit by bit. I've heard stories where they put some kind of salt liquid in her which is like acid and burns the baby up, at LATE stages in development.

So I would ask Nick, given your views that "at some stage" this "potential" human is not yet human, are you NO LONGER pro-choice when the baby is clearly looking like a human with limbs and organs and a brain developing? Are you pro-choice at 4 weeks but pro-life at 5? Is the baby still not human when a mother chooses to have it burned alive with salt acid at 5 months?
Are you willing to fight for the life of a 4 month old baby but not a 2 month old?
Also, since this sack of protoplasm is "not human", I want to know what it is. It is certainly not a virus or fungus or parasite or ape or cow or fish. The DNA makeup is human, not vegetable, mineral, or animal. So if it's NOT human, what IS it? And what takes place to MAKE it human?


Also I might mention that most people I know have tossed around the idea of adopting, but not from USA. They talk about adopting German or French or Chinese unwanted girls. But those are far most expensive and hard to get. Some get upwards of $50K I've heard. Plus you have to travel to the country for weeks at a time more than once! Along with all the paperwork and hassles.
If adopting were "sign here, have a nice day", I think adoption numbers would grow exponentially. But of course a lot more is needed for safety, just a thought.



Peace

[nickcopernicus]

NICK:
Yeah? And a fetus is not a human being. When a fetus develops into a human being, it stops being a bunch of undifferentiated cells and turns into tissues, organs, organ systems…and other stuff that that mammals (of which humans are) have.
Jnthn:
Foetuses are not undifferentiated bunches of cells.

c. Week 5 - the circulatory system is in place
c. Week - much of the digestive system is in place (pancreas, gall bladder etc.)

This is nothing like the picture you choose to present.
Nick:
Is that so? Thanks for the biology lesson. Now kindly tell us how a fetus is a human being. I mean, a zygote is a human being as well is it not?
NICK:
True. However all parasites that I know REQUIRE a host in order to receive nutrition. Like many parasites, a fetus can ultimately kill its host. Yes, unfortunately, many women (especially before modern medicine and in third world countries) die of childbirth. But I suspect that since both are “equally human” neither takes precedence. Kill the host to let the parasite survive.
Jnthn:
On those rare occasion with gestation and child-birth threaten the mother it is due to malfunctions such as breech births. The fact is that foetuses do not inherently kill their hosts nor seek to do so.
Nick:
And mosquitoes don’t “inherently” seek to kill their host either. They’re just hungry. Unfortunately, they are still parasites.
NICK:
BTW, if a tapeworm “cures” me of constipation by giving me diarrhea does this mean that we now have a “symbiotic relationship?”
Jnthn:
I'm glad you chose to put this in because it (and your quip about fetuses being a bunch of undifferentiated cells) shows how fundamentally incompetent you are when it comes to talking about matters like this. Are you unaware that diahorrea is a killer? Anyway, your choice of putting "cures" in quote marks exposes your disingenuity and your penchant for crass equivocation.
Nick:
Diarrhea can be a killer? :duh:
Yeah, I’m so incompetent that I can’t tell that attachment 1 is deffinetly a human being.
Folks, see below the “human being” that we are disposing of (in some cases).


Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

Nick, The term "parasitic" could only apply to an embryo of a different species somehow implanted in a human female's uterus. Let alone the reality that her immune system would automaticaly attack such foreign organism. Which is not the case for a human embryo in a human female. In fact, the human blastocyst sends specific signals which trigger an output of progesterone production which is vital for its secure implantation onto the uterine wall.

There is an obvious bio chemical compatibility between the mother's entire endocrinal system and the human blastocyst. That would certainly not apply to any parasitic organism.

Just a slight correction here. I hope you do not mind....
Nick:
Correct. I'll admit to exaggerating the parasitic relationship between a mother and her unborn child. It's not so much the core of my argument but a correllary and a supporting justification for abortion when rape or life endangerment is into play.
Rahab:
IMO, rather than opting for the "parasite" argument which can be so easily demonstrated as erroneous, the potential versus actual (which you brought up earlier) is far more difficult to ignore or deny.
Nick:
Oh, the potential/actual argument is the core of my jusfication for abortion. Some could call my assesment of over population an appeal to consequences, but as I am a moral consequentialist/ moral contextualist, this is consistent with my philosophy of ethics.
Rahab:
Is your pro choice position extended to all stages of the human gestation or are you envisionning an ethical issue based on a specific fetal development?
Nick:
I think that third Trimester abortions should be avoided except for cases of life danger to the life of the mother OR severe mental retardation or another a genetic illness that will kill the child after a few years or so.

Cheers,

Nick

[Jnthn]

Nick:
Is that so? Thanks for the biology lesson.You needed it. Your knowledge of Biology isn't even at high school level.

Now kindly tell us how a fetus is a human being. I mean, a zygote is a human being as well is it not?When a human male and a human female copulate and fertilze an egg which develops into a foetus, what does that foetus develop into? An SUV? A collection of Encyclopediae? A tree frog? No it's a human.

It's created from human genetic material and ends up a human once it is delivered. There is a straight line from conception, through birth and into independent life. At no time during gestation does that fertilized egg deviate one iota from that track that is unique to humanity.

Nick:
And mosquitoes don’t “inherently” seek to kill their host either. They’re just hungry. Unfortunately, they are still parasites. Another Biology Classic from Nickcopernicus™

Mosquitos don't cause malaria, it's the plasmodium that the female Anopheles Mosquitos carry that causes malaria.
Diarrhea can be a killer? :duh: A tapeworm is equivalent to a foetus? :duh: :duh: :duh: :duh: :duh:
Yeah, I’m so incompetent that I can’t tell that attachment 1 is deffinetly a human being. Folks, see below the “human being” that we are disposing of (in some cases).Nick, Do you have some kind of memory or attention deficit condition? The context of our discussion was at the level of the foetus, and no amount of you trying to re-scope the conversation is going to get you in a better position.

Regardless, it's interesting that you persist with the nonsense that what you see is the marker of humanity. What I see in that picture (assuming you've provided a picture of a human fertilised egg - I wouldn't put it past you to post the picture of a fertilised dog egg for "yuks") is a developing container that holds all the genetic information that a human adult has or needs.

A fertilised egg is genetically human, and there's no way you can get around that, Nick.

J

[Rahab]

I don't really have anything meaningful to add here accept I do have a question or two.

Somebody above mentioned what features a baby has at 5 weeks, but I'm wondering how early a mother knows they are pregnant and tend to get abortions. Can they tell within hours or days? Or is it usually weeks or months? Not to answer for Nick, but usualy the absence of a menstruation is the first indication of a pregnancy. In any case, I am not sure that a "circulatory system" and "digestive system" are what convince anyone that a human (by DNA coding) biological organism is a "being". I do not think that anyone can deny that the adjective "human" is in fact accurate as it describes a DNA coding unique and specific to our species. However is it sufficient to justify the title of "being"?

And does anybody have statistics that show the average age of the baby when aborted? And lastly, is there an age at which abortion is denied? I mean like what if they wanted an abortion at like 6 months or something? Most abortions occur between 6 and 12 weeks. The PBA ban means to target third trimester abortions. Those were extremely rare prior to the ban.



I've hear horror stories about abortions this late, where they insert instruments in her to chop the baby to pieces and pull it out bit by bit. I've heard stories where they put some kind of salt liquid in her which is like acid and burns the baby up, at LATE stages in development. Previously known as partial birth abortion, such procedure has been banned. It consisted in inducing cervical dilation while causing fetal death by inserting a probe into the fetus' brain. The term "partial birth" came from the position of the fetus partialy engaged in the birth canal after cervical dilation was complete.


Also, since this sack of protoplasm is "not human", I want to know what it is. It is certainly not a virus or fungus or parasite or ape or cow or fish. The DNA makeup is human, not vegetable, mineral, or animal. So if it's NOT human, what IS it? And what takes place to MAKE it human? When refering to biological organisms, the DNA content and coding are what define species differenciation. However, again, does DNA content suffice to also define a human DNA coded organism as a "being"?


Also I might mention that most people I know have tossed around the idea of adopting, but not from USA. They talk about adopting German or French or Chinese unwanted girls. I am not sure from which source you gathered that overseas adoptions take place in Germany and France and why specificaly girls. I am well aware of neonates and children being adopted from Asia, Africa and South America though.

[Rahab]

Nick:
Correct. I'll admit to exaggerating the parasitic relationship between a mother and her unborn child. It's not so much the core of my argument but a correllary and a supporting justification for abortion when rape or life endangerment is into play. One reality, Nick, is that on the pro life side, the rape situation should not defeat the initial conviction that at all stages of the human gestation, there is a human "being". So, really, a consistant pro lifer who abides to such belief would make no exceptions for rape. The incidence of pregnancies aggravating a pre existing health condition is realisticaly rare. There too, I do not think that building any pro choice argument on such exceptional circumstance is productive.

Nick:
Oh, the potential/actual argument is the core of my jusfication for abortion. Some could call my assesment of over population an appeal to consequences, but as I am a moral consequentialist/ moral contextualist, this is consistent with my philosophy of ethics. Understood. I need to ask you though if you allow for an "actual" at any point of the human gestation. As I do.

Nick:
I think that third Trimester abortions should be avoided except for cases of life danger to the life of the mother OR severe mental retardation or another a genetic illness that will kill the child after a few years or so. Nick, medical technology for in utero exploration and testing is allowing for early detection of specific genetic malformations leading to potential intra uterine growth retardation. Basicaly, one needs not to wait until the third trimester to recieve a tragic prognosis of a potentialy non viable fetus or severely malformed to the point of shortened longevity after delivery.

Life endangeremnt of the mother : I can only think of scenarios involving the immediate removal of the cervix or uterus to prevent an agressive cancer at an advanced stage from developing metastasic effects. However, neonatal intensive care has evolved so effectively that a premature induced delivery at 22 weeks may result in a viable neonate with a good prognosis granted he/she recieves prolongued ICU care.(mostly to support an underdevelopped pulmonary system). So in essence, there is not much justification to allow for a third trimester abortion.

The scenario I gave you is based on this : some forms of agressive cancer (large cells) necessitate the excision of the malignant tumors as neither chemo alone or radiation therapy would insure that no metastasic effect takes place. Those would be detected earlier than the third trimester. Both cervical and uterine cancer affect the epithelial tissues causing a fast transfer of contaminated cells into the lymphatic system (metastases). That's why those cancers often result in the excision of the entire organs rather than just the removal of the tumoral tissues.

IMO, such situation is far more critical and more proned to occur in the first and second trimesters where routine prenatal checks can detect such invasive and agressive cancers. Where the choice to delay any treatment to include the surgical removal of either organ to not jeopardize the pregnancy may result in a life threatening situation for the mother. The alternative of a premature delivery would be out of question. And even as some chemo treatments at lower toxicity would not affect negatively the fetus, there is no guarantee that such treatment would prevent metastasic effects.

[Vigilante]

However is it sufficient to justify the title of "being"?
No it isn't. I was just asking because Nick's arg seems to be that abortion is ok because it's not a "human" with features like a human, but a sack of shapeless, formless cells. But if women usually don't know they are pregnant, and thus get abortions, until the 4th or 5th week (or 6 to 12th week as you said), well it seems at this point it is no longer shapeless cells, but actually has organs growing and so forth, and has shape and form.

Thanks for the rest of the data, anybody else?

I am not sure from which source you gathered that overseas adoptions take place in Germany and France and why specificaly girls. I am well aware of neonates and children being adopted from Asia, Africa and South America though.
Generally people adopt girls from China because they are unwanted there for the most part. My brother, specifically, looked into adopting from Germany, and in order to do so you have to go there for 2 weeks, and return there again before the process is over, and can cost that much.


Peace

[nickcopernicus]

You needed it. Your knowledge of Biology isn't even at high school level.
Nick:
Thanks for your evaluation of my level of Biological education "Dr." Jnthn.
Jnthn:
When a human male and a human female copulate and fertilze an egg which develops into a foetus, what does that foetus develop into? An SUV? A collection of Encyclopediae? A tree frog? No it's a human.
Nick:
emphasis mine.
The key word here is develop, "Dr." Jnthn. If a fetus is already a human being, then what you are in fact saying is that a human being develops or changes into a human being.Your knowledge of logic isn't even at college level.
Jnthn:
It's created from human genetic material and ends up a human once it is delivered. There is a straight line from conception, through birth and into independent life. At no time during gestation does that fertilized egg deviate one iota from that track that is unique to humanity.
Nick:
And this somehow proves or gives evidence that a fetus, which needs to develop into something else, is a human being?
Jnthn:
Another Biology Classic from Nickcopernicus™

Mosquitos don't cause malaria, it's the plasmodium that the female Anopheles Mosquitos carry that causes malaria.
Nick:
Another reading comprehension classic from "Dr™" Jnthn. Let's look at what I posted once more:

And mosquitoes don’t “inherently” seek to kill their host either. They’re just hungry. Unfortunately, they are still parasites. - nickcopernicus

Folks, from this our resident biologist has found that what nick meant was that mosquitoes cause malaria.

I think the issue was the parasitic relationship, not a blood disease.
jnthn:
A tapeworm is equivalent to a foetus? :duh: :duh: :duh: :duh: :duh:
Nick:
What you didn't know that? I'm sure that's what I implied. :ahem:
jnthn:
Nick, Do you have some kind of memory or attention deficit condition? The context of our discussion was at the level of the foetus, and no amount of you trying to re-scope the conversation is going to get you in a better position.
Nick:
No; you simply wish to focus on your precious fetus. I, on the other hand have been discussing sperm, eggs, zygotes, and feti. Now kindly tell me when exactly does something change from a potential human being to being an actual human being?

Let's review.

1. Newborn baby? :thumb:
2. Fetus? :thumb:
3. Zygote? :thumb:
4. The alleged "moment of fertilization?" :thumb:
5. A sperm cell? :thumb:
6. An egg? :thumb:

It looks like more shower baby murders, Jnthn.

Now kindly tell me WHEN exactly is a human being formed? Or are all the examples listed above "actual" human beings?

Jnthn:
Regardless, it's interesting that you persist with the nonsense that what you see is the marker of humanity. What I see in that picture (assuming you've provided a picture of a human fertilised egg - I wouldn't put it past you to post the picture of a fertilised dog egg for "yuks") is a developing container that holds all the genetic information that a human adult has or needs.

A fertilised egg is genetically human, and there's no way you can get around that, Nick.

J
Nick:
emphasis mine.
I'm so glad you said that. I present you with two "tragic" inccidents:

1. A woman is on her period and is copulating with her husband. During his erotic release, he happens to fertilize the egg while it is passing.... Of course no one can see the bloody and tragic death of this human being....But They have both just committed "man"slaughter.


2. A guy masturbates on a freshly used tampon. He just committed Murder.


Do you see how ridiculous your position is?


Cheers,

Nick

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Nick:
I try to correct my mistakes. Must try harder.
Nick:
No, the original argument that you critizied involved the rights of a potential human being.No. What I disagreed with, and I was explicit, was your assuming that which is at issue, when you objected to the idea that a "potential" human being has the same rights as a human being. That was begging the question, since a pro-lifer could agree with it, and yet still not hold your view on abortion. What drives that comnent of yours is your assumption that at the fetal stage we are not human, but at the, say, infant stage we are.
I was under the impression that this was what you disagreed with. Are you saying that a bag of cells constitutes a human being? A foetuis is not a bag of anything, much less a bag of cells. It is a living organism.
If so, then why isn't the few flaky cells that come off your nose when you scratch it "human beings" as well?They are not any type of organism at all, let alone a human one. heck, they aren't even alive.
They too posses human DNA. They too are "alive."ALive? Surely you jest.
I think my position of a fetus not being an actual human being is consistent while yours (if you maintain that a fetus/zygote is an actual human being) is arbitrary.The reverse is the case, since I say that a human organism is a human. You ont he other hand draw an arbitrary line at which a non human organism becomes a human organism.
Nick:
No that's not "one kind of potential" at all. Both require certian Chemical reactions to occur in order for the developing organism to survive without NUTRITIONAL or CHEMICAL support directly from it's mother. Would you care to tell me exactly why the two must be in EXACTLY the same situation for them to both be potential human beings? My defintions of potential remain consitent throughout my argument; hence no equivication.You can just deny that there's more than one kind of potential if you like, but there just is more than one kind of potential, like it or not.

You said that a sperm and egg are a potential human being as well, just like a fetus. And in fact they both have potential, but as I explained, it is potential of a different sort. That's what equivocation is, nick. A sperm and egg have the potential to become a human organism, while a fetus is already an organism with the potential for further development.
The basic counter argument is that a newborn infant can't survive without its mother either. The answer to that objection is that the infant is no longer biologically dependant...i.e. parasiticlly dependant upon its mother. It has lost its parasitic properties. As such, he or she is now an actual human.

Humans aren't biological parasites. Your definition is reverse engineered to support your claim about whether a foetus is a human. Why should anyone but you accept that we should take the definition of a human being, and just tack on "AND it must not be biologicvally dependent on anyone"?

[Jnthn]

Nick:
Thanks for your evaluation of my level of Biological education "Dr." Jnthn.You're welcome grasshopper. Glad to have moved your education beyond that of Kindergartener.

Nick:
emphasis mine.
The key word here is develop, "Dr." Jnthn. If a fetus is already a human being, then what you are in fact saying is that a human being develops or changes into a human being.Your knowledge of logic isn't even at college level.No develops as a human being. Swing and a miss.

Nick:
And this somehow proves or gives evidence that a fetus, which needs to develop into something else, is a human being?It proves that a foetus is irrevocably on a track from conception to adult death that is uniquely human

Nick:
Another reading comprehension classic from "Dr™" Jnthn. Let's look at what I posted once more:
And mosquitoes don’t “inherently” seek to kill their host either. They’re just hungry. Unfortunately, they are still parasites. - nickcopernicusFolks, from this our resident biologist has found that what nick meant was that mosquitoes cause malaria.

I think the issue was the parasitic relationship, not a blood disease. Nice try, but an D- for you: you clearly volunteered a Mosquito as an example of a parasite and the Mosquito itself caused malaria in all cases. You masterfully omitted two key facts; the plasmodium and the fact that only the female Anopheles carries the plasmodium.

Nick:
What you didn't know that? I'm sure that's what I implied. :ahem:As another poster showed, they are not equivalent.

Nick:
No; you simply wish to focus on your precious fetus.That's because it's the context of the discussion.

I, on the other hand have been discussing sperm, eggs, zygotes, and feti. Now kindly tell me when exactly does something change from a potential human being to being an actual human being?It's human from the point of conception because it is genetically human.

Let's review.

1. Newborn baby? :thumb:
2. Fetus? :thumb:
3. Zygote? :thumb:Yup.
4. The alleged "moment of fertilization?" :thumb:What's an "alleged" moment of fertilisation? Either the egg is fertilised or it isn't.

5. A sperm cell? :thumb:
6. An egg? :thumb:No, they are not genetically equivalent to a fertilized egg.

It looks like more shower baby murders, Jnthn. Only if you equivocate to the point of stupidity, but that's par for the course in your case.

Now kindly tell me WHEN exactly is a human being formed? Or are all the examples listed above "actual" human beings?Asked and answered.

Nick:
emphasis mine.
I'm so glad you said that. I present you with two "tragic" inccidents:Oh, goody. You have to revert to slash fiction to make a point.

1. A woman is on her period and is copulating with her husband. During his erotic release, he happens to fertilize the egg while it is passing.... Of course no one can see the bloody and tragic death of this human being....But They have both just committed "man"slaughter.Ovulation and menstruation don't occur at the same time, idiot. There would be no womb lining for the egg to attach to!:lol::lol::lol::lol:

2. A guy masturbates on a freshly used tampon. He just committed Murder.Same error - tampons are used for catching menstrual blood! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


Do you see how ridiculous your position is?


Cheers,

NickDo you not see how non-existent your position is?

I suggest you stop participating in this discussion. You're looking more the fool with every keystroke.

J

[Rahab]

A foetuis is not a bag of anything, much less a bag of cells. It is a living organism. The issue is NOT whether a living organism with a DNA coding unique and specific to our species is human but whether such DNA content suffices to declare such organism a "being" at ANY stages of its developement.


Your definition is reverse engineered to support your claim about whether a foetus is a human. Why should anyone but you accept that we should take the definition of a human being, and just tack on "AND it must not be biologicvally dependent on anyone"? As you mention the "definition of a human being", I am curious as to how you define the term "being". We can all safely agree that the adjective "human" describes accurately DNA coding specific and unique to our species.

[Teallaura]

The issue is NOT whether a living organism with a DNA coding unique and specific to our species is human but whether such DNA content suffices to declare such organism a "being" at ANY stages of its developement.
That's illogical - the DNA 'content' is fixed at conception. Nothing is gained or lost subsequent to that. If content is determinative then you are no more a human 'being' (your definition) than a zygote - and your argument fails. It is, however, unquestionably determinative in identifying humans. Your incredibly subjective use of being does not save this argument - it isn't even a valid one. You cannot get around redefining born mentally handicapped persons as non-beings in so doing - which is of course patently absurd and flies completely in the face of Roe.

The argument is over the extremely subjective issue of 'personhood'. I'm not sure who said it but whoever claimed that Roe denied that a fetus is human is absolutely incorrect. Roe specifically states that the fetus is human. The issue in Roe is 'personhood' and the relative rights of mother to child. The decision, based on the science of the time (which is highly suspect now) was that the mother's right to choose superseded the child's right to live so long as the child remains in the womb. It's one of the reasons Roe's legal reasoning is so incredibly weak - the personhood argument simply cannot be sustained into the third trimester - and not with any serious validity* by the eighth week.


As you mention the "definition of a human being", I am curious as to how you define the term "being". We can all safely agree that the adjective "human" describes accurately DNA coding specific and unique to our species.
'Being' the way you use it is necessarily subjective and your definition is arbitrary as a direct result. You don't wanna have this out with Theo - he'll eat you for lunch.






*I don't actually grant that the argument has validity - but the validity of the argument as accepted by its proponents cannot be sustained logically very long into the pregnancy at all.

[Rahab]

That's illogical - the DNA 'content' is fixed at conception. Nothing is gained or lost subsequent to that. If content is determinative then you are no more a human 'being' (your definition) than a zygote - and your argument fails. Actualy, I rely on embodied subjectivity to define the "being" part of the tossed around "human being" term. A concept that John Locke explored and supported long before I even came to consider its validity. The reality remains that a zygote does not even come close in any way shape or form (literaly) to meet Locke's definition. Whereas a second trimester fetus has already reached a stage of physical development which allows for some degree of sensorial reception and response to its environment.




It is, however, unquestionably determinative in identifying humans. Your incredibly subjective use of being does not save this argument - it isn't even a valid one. You cannot get around redefining born mentally handicapped persons as non-beings in so doing - which is of course patently absurd and flies completely in the face of Roe. Actualy,again, mentaly disabled persons can still retain a degree of self awareness of their own existence depending on which physical componants are being affected.There is a vast difference between an embryo whose cerebral function can only be limited to a cortical plate and a mentaly disabled person who would meet the medical criteria of permanant or persistant vegetation as the most dramatic scenario of mental disability. In any case, I am not sure the fine men and women who constitute the Supreme Court Justices are in fact so scientificaly trained and equipped to make any decisions based on which componants are necessary to even speak of any degree of sentience.

They barely made a "touch and go" IRW human personhood, using outdated terms such as "the quickening". Surely you are familiar with the transcripts of the Decision which reflect clearly their hesitation to even take in account a possible prenatal "personhood" which would jeopardize the central argument based on privacy issues.

The argument is over the extremely subjective issue of 'personhood'. I'm not sure who said it but whoever claimed that Roe denied that a fetus is human is absolutely incorrect. Roe specifically states that the fetus is human. The issue in Roe is 'personhood' and the relative rights of mother to child. The decision, based on the science of the time (which is highly suspect now) was that the mother's right to choose superseded the child's right to live so long as the child remains in the womb. It's one of the reasons Roe's legal reasoning is so incredibly weak - the personhood argument simply cannot be sustained into the third trimester - and not with any serious validity* by the eighth week. I am not sure how much subjectivity is involved in neurologists and brain trauma specialists confirming that ANY degree of human sentience, self awareness, sensorial reception and possible interpretation is dependent on specific anatomical and organic functions. In absence of such organs, I believe it is quite difficult to make a scientificaly valid case that any degree of the above manifestations are in fact occuring. Undoubtly, they are occuring in utero at various degrees but certainly not at the embryonic stages.

Let me remind you that I am in favor of attributing the status of person PRIOR to birth. And that based on ANY degree of sensorial reception and response during the fetal stages. Certainly not zygotic or embryonic. The current issue to solve is to establish the exact gestational timeline to when such anatomicaly triggered manifestation is in fact occuring and why. I mentionned earlier that there is a lack of consensus based on the activation of synapses.



'Being' the way you use it is necessarily subjective and your definition is arbitrary as a direct result. You don't wanna have this out with Theo - he'll eat you for lunch. And declaring that a "being" is a biological organism is NOT subjective? It seems that Muzikman's definition failed to meet the challenge of naming any species as : adjective describing the species followed by "being". There may be a reason as to why biologists do not refer to a frog as a batrician being.

Fine you will to launch in being critical of a philosophical definition of "being", but the time has come for you to explain why the term "being" is so exclusively used and applied to the human species and no others.






*I don't actually grant that the argument has validity - but the validity of the argument as accepted by its proponents cannot be sustained logically very long into the pregnancy at all. Actualy, embodied subjectivity as the criteria to differenciate a "being" from a biological organism is quite consistant with the idea of attributing the status of person prior to birth considering that in the third trimester, both the neurological and cerebral functions work in harmony to trigger various degrees of self awareness.

You need to bark at the tree of folks who consider that birth somehow means a sudden acquisition of self awareness and that prior there is no such capacity or ability at any degrees.

[Rahab]

Nick.... may I suggest you take a look at this link.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=39935

That thread back in 2004 meant to deal with the "Actual and Potential" argumentation. Jomby, a conservative Christian develops very compelling arguments involving philosophical considerations (from various schools of thought) on the concept of "being". It was the most productive debate I ever had on T Web.

I realize it is a lengthly thread necessitating time and definitly mental energy! But IMO, it would be helpful for you to see the vastitude of pro and con arguments which can be developped on such topic. And what is ulimately productive is the reality that Jomby and I mutualy recognized that such arguments yet require even further reflection where claims of absolute correctness and truth would jeopardize the endeavor to gain further knowledge.

[nickcopernicus]

You're welcome grasshopper. Glad to have moved your education beyond that of Kindergartener.
NICK:
Well, can we move on to glycolosis, the Krebs cycle and electron transport phosphorylation next? It's been a while since we covered that in kindergarten. :ahem:
jnthn:
No develops as a human being. Swing and a miss.
AFAICT, you have said A develops into A.
jnthn:
It proves that a foetus is irrevocably on a track from conception to adult death that is uniquely human
"irrevocable"? Oh, so you've never heard of a miscarage then?
jnthn:
Nice try, but an D- for you: you clearly volunteered a Mosquito as an example of a parasite and the Mosquito itself caused malaria in all cases. You masterfully omitted two key facts; the plasmodium and the fact that only the female Anopheles carries the plasmodium.
Nick:
Feel free to show where I mentioned malaria. Feel free to quote where I mentioned any disease that a mosquito causes. Feel free to find anywhere in this thread where I wrote or inferred that mosquitoes cause anything.
jnthn:
As another poster showed, they are not equivalent.
Nick:
I don't recall saying that they were equivalent. I used an analogy. Most analogies don't involve exact matches.
jnthn:
That's because it's the context of the discussion.
Well, that's nice; however, I feel zygotes are relevant, as it seems that you are saying they are human beings as well. What I wonder is how a bunch of undifferentiated cells constitutes a "human being."
jnthn;
It's human from the point of conception because it is genetically human.
Nick:
But jnthn, an egg cell and a sperm cell are both "genetically human" as well. One could argue that because they are haploid cells, they dont' count. I could then counter that with the fact that heart cells are diploid. Is each cell in your heart a "human being" as well?
jnthn:
Yup.
What's an "alleged" moment of fertilisation? Either the egg is fertilised or it isn't.
Nick:
That's true enough. Either 1 human divides into 2 humans like a bacteria or it does not. Either two "human beings" can combine into one human being or they cannot. Hence the assessment of a zygote as a "human being" is ridiculous. Your claim might be stronger with a fetus, but while actual human beings do grow (child - Adult), they don’t' "grow" organs.
jnthn:
No, they are not genetically equivalent to a fertilized egg.
Nick:
Big deal.
jnthn:
Only if you equivocate to the point of stupidity, but that's par for the course in your case.

Asked and answered.
Nick:
Not really.
Jnthn:
Oh, goody. You have to revert to slash fiction to make a point.
Ovulation and menstruation don't occur at the same time, idiot. There would be no womb lining for the egg to attach to!:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Same error - tampons are used for catching menstrual blood! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Nick:
I was 100% wrong here. I haven't studied the menstruation cycle for about 6 years.
jnthn:
Do you not see how non-existent your position is?
Nick:
No.
jnthn:
I suggest you stop participating in this discussion. You're looking more the fool with every keystroke.

J
Nick:
And I suggest you stop claiming that a bunch of undifferentiated cells by way of having human DNA are human beings, you look more the fool with every keystroke.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

Nick.... may I suggest you take a look at this link.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=39935

That thread back in 2004 meant to deal with the "Actual and Potential" argumentation. Jomby, a conservative Christian develops very compelling arguments involving philosophical considerations (from various schools of thought) on the concept of "being". It was the most productive debate I ever had on T Web.

I realize it is a lengthly thread necessitating time and definitly mental energy! But IMO, it would be helpful for you to see the vastitude of pro and con arguments which can be developped on such topic. And what is ulimately productive is the reality that Jomby and I mutualy recognized that such arguments yet require even further reflection where claims of absolute correctness and truth would jeopardize the endeavor to gain further knowledge.
Nick:
I'll have a look and let you konw what I think.

Cheers,

Nick

[Vigilante]

And I suggest you stop claiming that a bunch of undifferentiated cells by way of having human DNA are human beings, you look more the fool with every keystroke.

But if the the earliest date a woman generally has an abortion is roughly 8-12 weeks, it is NOT "undifferentiated cells" in there. The baby has respiratory system developing, a working heart, reproductive organs, kidneys, lungs, all kinds of stuff. By the normal abortion age, this is not a sack of identical cells doing nothing. This site has a bunch of cool videos of the baby and it's functions at different stages of development:

http://www.ehd.org/science_imagegal_3.php

After watching some of those, are you still saying the baby is "not" a human? If not then I'd like to know what other classification of life it falls under. And at what point does it go magically from non-human to human? And when it does, are you pro-life after that moment, and only pro-choice before it?

Thanks,

Peace

[nickcopernicus]

But if the the earliest date a woman generally has an abortion is roughly 8-12 weeks, it is NOT "undifferentiated cells" in there. The baby has respiratory system developing, a working heart, reproductive organs, kidneys, lungs, all kinds of stuff. By the normal abortion age, this is not a sack of identical cells doing nothing. This site has a bunch of cool videos of the baby and it's functions at different stages of development:

http://www.ehd.org/science_imagegal_3.php
Nick:
You are correct: at that point, they are not "undiferentiated cells." That, however, is beside the issue of a bunch of undiferentiated cells (not unlike cancer) with human DNA not constituting a "human being."
vigilante:
After watching some of those, are you still saying the baby is "not" a human? If not then I'd like to know what other classification of life it falls under. And at what point does it go magically from non-human to human? And when it does, are you pro-life after that moment, and only pro-choice before it?
Nick:
You beg the question that a 4 to 8 week embryo is a "baby."

a.1 Yes. It falls under the classification of life as an "embryo."
a.2 Whist many ancients did see childbirth as "magical," such properties need not apply to the complex, painful, and for some, fufilling processes of procreation. In any case, the boundaries of a potential human being and an actual being are well.....arbitrary. You see, Vigilante, one could argue that actual birth is when the potential human being becomes an actual human being. A good objection is that there is little to no physiological difference between a newborn baby and one that is about to be born in say... 10 seconds. However, the converse is also true. so an egg got fertilized....Big deal. Calling a fertilized egg a "human being" is just as arbitrary as calling a baby about to be born in .5 seconds a "potential human being." it's a pickle either way.

a.3 I'm neither "pro-life" or "pro-choice",;both are used for rhetorical value, and over - simplify the situation. I'm "pro-Human."

Abortion is an unfortunate thing for all involved.


Cheers,

Nick

[Vigilante]

Thanks for responding Nick.

See I'm lost on the whole "potential" thing. I don't even think that word is useful. It is not a potential at all, it WILL become human if the process isn't stopped by some accident or outside force. Potential sends the idea that becoming human is "possible", but maybe it'll become something else instead. But that isn't so, it WILL become human, unless other forces screw it up. But other forces can never screw it up so that it becomes a horse or camel. It will always become human, even if a really really screwed up one.

Trying to classify the embryo as non-human doesn't make sense in that every animal on earth, more or less, is an embryo at some point. But if embryos are not human, or horse, or cow, or fish, but become so later, then doesn't that mean ALL embryos from all animals are the "same" thing? Since none of them are really classified as the animal in question, but classified as "embryo", what makes them different? And isn't that difference exactly the thing which makes them belong TO the animal in question? And shouldn't THAT thing be the thing which classifies the animal?
Or put another way, take two embryos, can't tell them apart, but because they are embryos, they are the same class of animal or species, whatever. So why is one 100% "potential" to be human and the other 100% potential to become horse, if they are the same?
I think, because they are NOT the same, one has entirely distinctive qualities that make it human, the other has entirely distinctive qualities that make it horse. You just can't see the qualities without some lab equipment, big deal.

I'm stuck on this idea that at some point, the life growing in a woman is NON-human. I don't consider the word "embryo" a good word to reclassify the life. Any more then "infant", "toddler", "teenager" or "senior" reclassifies it. They are all human, at different stages of development.
This entire debacle seems to me a wicked game to reclassify life in order to ease the conscience when killing it off.

[dizzle]

Abortion is an unfortunate thing for all involved.

Why?

[Vigilante]

I want to add one more thing:

You beg the question that a 4 to 8 week embryo is a "baby."

And what if I said YOU are just begging the question that it's NOT? You can't just assert your are right then say WE are begging the question to call it a baby.
If it's not a baby, when does it become a baby, and why? Who decides these classifications and definitions? Cause so far all of them has felt very ad hoc and arbitrary.

[nickcopernicus]

Why?
Nick:
Well, for one thing whoever paid for it is flat out of $300 or so bucks:ahem:

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

Thanks for responding Nick.

See I'm lost on the whole "potential" thing. I don't even think that word is useful. It is not a potential at all, it WILL become human if the process isn't stopped by some accident or outside force. Potential sends the idea that becoming human is "possible", but maybe it'll become something else instead. But that isn't so, it WILL become human, unless other forces screw it up. But other forces can never screw it up so that it becomes a horse or camel. It will always become human, even if a really really screwed up one.
Nick:
Well, in this context, the word "potential" is mean that the developing organism has the potential for known sentience or the self-awareness, revlective thought, and rationality found (so far) only in human beings. Becuause a fetus, especially the one's in the pictures that you have shown don't posses those properties, I don't refer to them as such.
BTW, a zygote CAN develop into a cancerous tumor, so it's not exactly correct to say that it WILL become a human being, even without intentional disruption in the form of killing the mother or the fetus/embryo/zygote.
vigilante:
Trying to classify the embryo as non-human doesn't make sense in that every animal on earth, more or less, is an embryo at some point. But if embryos are not human, or horse, or cow, or fish, but become so later, then doesn't that mean ALL embryos from all animals are the "same" thing? Since none of them are really classified as the animal in question, but classified as "embryo", what makes them different? And isn't that difference exactly the thing which makes them belong TO the animal in question? And shouldn't THAT thing be the thing which classifies the animal?
Nick:
Well, the thing here Vigilante, is that I ascribe to evolutionary biology...so we may arrive at an impasse. Perhaps not though. Vigilnate, All human cells contain human DNA and as such they are "human;" but just having human DNA does not make something a human BEING.
According to evolutionary biology, humans and things like blue wales are classified as different species because of their phenotypes are vastly different, and they are unable to produce fertile offspring...Mechanical seperation notwithstanding. Theoretically, i could clone a human being out of a thybone's DNA. That doesn't make a leg a human being...a potential human being? a part of an actual human being? Yes, but an actual human being? Probably not.
Vigilante:
Or put another way, take two embryos, can't tell them apart, but because they are embryos, they are the same class of animal or species, whatever. So why is one 100% "potential" to be human and the other 100% potential to become horse, if they are the same?
Nick;
The main difference when both are undiferentiated cells is their specific amounts and arangements of adenosine, guanine, thymine and cytosine in their DNA molecules.
Vigilante:
I think, because they are NOT the same, one has entirely distinctive qualities that make it human, the other has entirely distinctive qualities that make it horse. You just can't see the qualities without some lab equipment, big deal.
Nick:
Well, since I did not claim that a human embryo and a horse embryo are "the same" we agree here.
Vigilante:
I'm stuck on this idea that at some point, the life growing in a woman is NON-human. I don't consider the word "embryo" a good word to reclassify the life. Any more then "infant", "toddler", "teenager" or "senior" reclassifies it. They are all human, at different stages of development.
Nick:
Well, the good news is that I don't classify embryo's as "non-human", just not actual human BEINGS, so we agree on that.
Vigilante:
This entire debacle seems to me a wicked game to reclassify life in order to ease the conscience when killing it off.
Nick:
Well, just remember that just as your god probably had good reasons to have all the Amaklite infants slaughtered instead of beaming them directly into heaven, remember that most (or at least the ones that I have met) potential mothers dont' have abortions arbitrarily. Many have good reasons for what they do. A good example is a crack baby.


PLUS, don't all these children that you call them go into heaven? Do you honestly think that a crack baby would rather live here on earth in agony, probably be born addicted to crack, become a crack head, and go to hell would rather avoid all that and go directly to heaven?


Cheers,

Nick

[Rahab]

PLUS, don't all these children that you call them go into heaven? Do you honestly think that a crack baby would rather live here on earth in agony, probably be born addicted to crack, become a crack head, and go to hell would rather avoid all that and go directly to heaven?


Cheers,

Nick Bonjour Nick... Thanks for your PM and you do deserve a medal for reading thru my thread on "Actuals and Potentials":wink:

You are asking a thought provoking question. The answers you may get IMO will depend on whether a Christian believes that access to heaven is granted to all creatures who do not have the capacity to even acknowledge the concept of a God, let alone His Plan of Salvation. And how we conciliate that belief with the belief that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God".Anyone who believes that a zygote is already a human BEING has to deal with the reality then that such zygote. has also "fallen short of the Glory of God". We have to come up with a dispensation plan if we want to claim at any time that an aborted zygote will "go to heaven". For that matter, we have to extend that dispensation to any human organism at any stages of his/her human development for as long as he/she does not have the capacity to even THINK the concept of God.

Basicaly, anyone unable to exercise "free will" cannot be expected to make a decision about the destination of their soul in any afterlife concept. I percieve God to be omniscient thus not have such unreasanable expectation. I hope that answers your question. Keep in mind I am not necessarely representative of other Christians' beliefs.
Secondly, some of us (as a general, us, Christians not meaning folks in this thread) do not believe in a literal "hell" as a "lake of fire", place of eternal torment etc... We understand "hell' to be a state of perpetual dereliction where the human spirit is totaly separated from God . The oblivion. A state where one cannot even be aware of his/her own existence and that eternaly. No goal, no purpose, no direction, and even a state of separation and isolation from his/her own kind. Absolute and hermetic isolation. Imagine a form of extreme autism and that eternaly.

When you think about it, when a Christian expires with the last thought ever of "I am going to be with God", that's when heaven starts. The last conscious knowlege ever. What happens after has started in a short and last moment of epiphany. Eternity does not have to be an extended notion of time. It can be that one last thought each Chrlstian cherishes.

[dizzle]

When you think about it, when a Christian expires with the last thought ever of "I am going to be with God", that's when heaven starts. The last conscious knowlege ever. What happens after has started in a short and last moment of epiphany. Eternity does not have to be an extended notion of time. It can be that one last thought each Chrlstian cherishes.

Rahab, no matter how sweet and sentimental that sounds, that is not Christianity. By your reasoning, the Muslim who dies with the last thought that "Now I get my seventy brown-eyed virgins" also has his own heaven. That is not Christian belief. Christianity affirms a literal bodily afterlife - I know that isn't the subject of this thread, but I cannot allow you to misinform someone on what is acceptable belief within the historic Christian faith.

[dizzle]

Nick:
Well, for one thing whoever paid for it is flat out of $300 or so bucks:ahem:

Cheers,

Nick

So if it were free there would be no problemo? Do you think, say, my Internet bill each month is equally regrettable since it costs me fifty bucks?

[Sheepdog]

The irony here is that there are many people looking to adopt in the US, and they are either on waiting lists or adopting from overseas.

Why?

Because we are butchering "unwanted" babies at a rate of 4-5000 a day.

[Teallaura]

...

You are asking a thought provoking question. The answers you may get IMO will depend on whether a Christian believes that access to heaven is granted to all creatures who do not have the capacity to even acknowledge the concept of a God, let alone His Plan of Salvation. And how we conciliate that belief with the belief that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God".Anyone who believes that a zygote is already a human BEING has to deal with the reality then that such zygote. has also "fallen short of the Glory of God". We have to come up with a dispensation plan if we want to claim at any time that an aborted zygote will "go to heaven". For that matter, we have to extend that dispensation to any human organism at any stages of his/her human development for as long as he/she does not have the capacity to even THINK the concept of God.

...

So, are we applying this logic to newborns? Is infanticide also permissible with you at that stage under this new bit of idiocy? It can't be human because we don't have a dispensational theory for it? You're kidding, right?

Spend more time in Christianity 101 - your understanding of Christian theology is sorely lacking.

[Vigilante]

Nick:
Well, in this context, the word "potential" is mean that the developing organism has the potential for known sentience or the self-awareness, revlective thought, and rationality found (so far) only in human beings. Becuause a fetus, especially the one's in the pictures that you have shown don't posses those properties, I don't refer to them as such.
BTW, a zygote CAN develop into a cancerous tumor, so it's not exactly correct to say that it WILL become a human being, even without intentional disruption in the form of killing the mother or the fetus/embryo/zygote.
That's all well and good, but who decided that those qualities are the line between not a human "being" and a human being? Are they just your own opinion? Cause lots of people have a different opinion.

Nick:
Well, the thing here Vigilante, is that I ascribe to evolutionary biology...so we may arrive at an impasse. Perhaps not though. Vigilnate, All human cells contain human DNA and as such they are "human;" but just having human DNA does not make something a human BEING.
According to evolutionary biology, humans and things like blue wales are classified as different species because of their phenotypes are vastly different, and they are unable to produce fertile offspring...Mechanical seperation notwithstanding. Theoretically, i could clone a human being out of a thybone's DNA. That doesn't make a leg a human being...a potential human being? a part of an actual human being? Yes, but an actual human being? Probably not.
It's not really a matter of just having some "human dna". It's that it is all packaged into a growing life which has, for argument, 99.8% chance of being a new human, all things being equal. I cut myself on accident the other day and took off a chunk of skin, it certainly had human DNA in it, I think it's obvious this skin is not a human being.
But an organism that is steadily growing into one, I think CAN be called a human being. At least insofar as "it" has a right to live, to be protected, should be saved if possible.

Nick:
Well, the good news is that I don't classify embryo's as "non-human", just not actual human BEINGS, so we agree on that.
Seems another arbitrary distinction. So only something you consider human "being", and NOT just "human", has a right to live and be protected? Only at some unknown point in time when "being" is added to it, does it get human rights? Or what about rights AT ALL? Are animals "beings", if they aren't introspective about their thoughts or self-aware, whatever. If they don't have the same qualities of "being" that we do, why should we protect and care for them?

Nick:
Well, just remember that just as your god probably had good reasons to have all the Amaklite infants slaughtered instead of beaming them directly into heaven, remember that most (or at least the ones that I have met) potential mothers dont' have abortions arbitrarily. Many have good reasons for what they do. A good example is a crack baby.
Bible says it is appointed once for man to die. In other words, we all HAVE to die. If I use your reasoning here, for example, let's kill the baby because it is a crack baby or might have some disease, we can justify killing it. So then, since these people were sacrificing their own children, whoring them out and selling them, the best course would BE to kill them right? Rather then let them live such a horrendous life. Many people say God WAS being merciful to these kids, freeing them from certain horrible death or at least an unthinkable childhood. Other people argue that our sin affects not only ourselves, but others. Liken that to a dead beat dad who tries to rob someplace, gets caught and thrown into prison. Doesn't his family suffer due to his sin? But that's another issue for another time.
I don't assume most abortions are arbitrary, and I'm sure an emotional case can be made for some. But I think a lot of others are done simply out of fear, or pressure from the boyfriend or even parents. I've heard stories of boys forcing her to get one. Or getting one out of fear of her parents finding out she's pregnant, etc...
And we can debate about what is the best way to die. I'd rather be shot through the head then drown. I'm afraid of suffocating. And similarly, I'd rather have a girl get an abortion, then go full term and have the baby in a bathroom at her prom and throw the child in the garbage can so it can die slowly. Better to kill the life when it perhaps cannot feel pain or is unaware of its existence then to murder it when it can feel pain, and suffer to death.
And on the other hand, unless in an extreme situation, I'd throw out a guess that most of those mothers could go full term and put up for adoption.

PLUS, don't all these children that you call them go into heaven? Do you honestly think that a crack baby would rather live here on earth in agony, probably be born addicted to crack, become a crack head, and go to hell would rather avoid all that and go directly to heaven?
These emotionally charged questions don't help the conversation much, but oh well. There IS some biblical support that children go to heaven, and that "age of accountability" stuff. And there are verses that seem to go against it as well. One thing is for SURE though, ALL humans are born into sin, and Jesus is still the only one who saves. So the question is not, "is there some unique quality to children that gets them saved of their own merit", but rather "does Jesus choose to save these, or not?" I would like to think that God surely has a plan for the life of every human, whether it lives 3 days in the womb, or a century. And perhaps he does save all children whose lives have been shortened. One other thing is also for sure, whatever the case may be, you will surely NOT be able to charge him with being unjust, or unloving.
As for the second part of the paragraph. The "crack baby" apparently has no choice in the matter anyway. I think every human would rather live then die, it's inherent in all of us. And who says people addicted to drugs can't be saved? Who are we to decide what sort of infirmities are and are not acceptable for a new life to live with? Maybe a case can be made to kill off the crack babies. But then what's next? People still have downy babies, maybe we should kill them off too? Maybe we should kill off Siamese twins? Or ones with misformed limbs? Or some sort of disease? Perhaps the baby has a problem which means it would only live for a matter of days or weeks, does the baby not deserve that much? These, again, seem arbitrary limits, some kind of eugenics that certainly is NOT the choice of the child, but of the parent. Eugenics is probably not the right word, since that is about breeding, but you see what I mean. If a crack baby shouldn't live, then why should the crack-head mother? Might as well kill them both, since apparently, according to you, being addicted to crack is a quality not worth having a life over. A doesn't this just turn us into little Hitler's? Running around deciding which humans should live and which shouldn't based on our own personal ideas about the world?

Of course I sympathize though, I'm not a brick. And this is a sensitive subject, but don't play on emotions to make your case. The solution is not, "lets find a way to allow more abortions and get them justified". The solution is to not have such babies in the first place if possible, to abstain when your should, and at least use good protection when you can't control yourself. To teach kids about these problems and teach them the proper use of sex. Though what is "proper" is for another discussion.
I liken the issue to a man continually cutting himself with a knife, and we all run around trying to find the best band aids and medicine to fix the cuts, rather then just take the dang knife away! The problem is not, how do we deal with babies with problems. It is how do we teach people to be responsible reproducers of human life. Why aren't people getting themselves checked for STDs and AIDS? Why aren't couples finding out the probables of heritable diseases and such? Why are crack heads having babies? Maybe I'm not the only one, but if I found out that my own kids would have a 90% chance of some horrid problem, I think I'd likely get myself fixed and just adopt. Seriously. Not saying I'm the standard, but if more people were responsible, we wouldn't HAVE to figure out what lives are and are not deserving of life.



Peace

[nickcopernicus]

Bonjour Nick... Thanks for your PM and you do deserve a medal for reading thru my thread on "Actuals and Potentials":wink:
Nick:

I'll admit that it was not an onerous task. I enjoyed it.[/quote]
Rahab:
You are asking a thought provoking question. The answers you may get IMO will depend on whether a Christian believes that access to heaven is granted to all creatures who do not have the capacity to even acknowledge the concept of a God, let alone His Plan of Salvation. And how we conciliate that belief with the belief that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God".Anyone who believes that a zygote is already a human BEING has to deal with the reality then that such zygote. has also "fallen short of the Glory of God". We have to come up with a dispensation plan if we want to claim at any time that an aborted zygote will "go to heaven". For that matter, we have to extend that dispensation to any human organism at any stages of his/her human development for as long as he/she does not have the capacity to even THINK the concept of God.

Basicaly, anyone unable to exercise "free will" cannot be expected to make a decision about the destination of their soul in any afterlife concept. I percieve God to be omniscient thus not have such unreasanable expectation. I hope that answers your question. Keep in mind I am not necessarely representative of other Christians' beliefs.[/quote]
Nick:
Yes, and this was one of my objections to Christianity. Not the existence of god, mind you. It is simply one of the reasons I'd be hard pressed to be a Christian even if the God of Christianity exists...Which he probably doesn't :wink:
Rahab:
Secondly, some of us (as a general, us, Christians not meaning folks in this thread) do not believe in a literal "hell" as a "lake of fire", place of eternal torment etc... We understand "hell' to be a state of perpetual dereliction where the human spirit is totaly separated from God . The oblivion. A state where one cannot even be aware of his/her own existence and that eternaly. No goal, no purpose, no direction, and even a state of separation and isolation from his/her own kind. Absolute and hermetic isolation. Imagine a form of extreme autism and that eternaly.
Nick:
Yes, I am aware of some of the different ideologies or schools of thought involving Hell. I do find it a bit unfortunate that your god, if he exists did not just not have the scribes write what they (or he) mean and mean what they wrote.
Rahab:
When you think about it, when a Christian expires with the last thought ever of "I am going to be with God", that's when heaven starts. The last conscious knowlege ever. What happens after has started in a short and last moment of epiphany. Eternity does not have to be an extended notion of time. It can be that one last thought each Chrlstian cherishes.
Nick:
And as an atheist, I'd say that probably, that's the closest thing to heaven that a Christian will ever experience.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

Darth Zena:
So if it were free there would be no problemo? Do you think, say, my Internet bill each month is equally regrettable since it costs me fifty bucks?
Nick:
I would be interested in how abortions could ever be "free." At the very least, even volenteer doctors would have to "spend" their time.
But to answer your questions directly.

1. No
2. No, because you don't "need" the internet (or at least most people don't). but if your rent was too high for you to afford it, and you would become homeless because of it, then it'd would be similar, but not equally unfortunate.

Cheers,

Nick

[dizzle]

1. No
2. No, because you don't "need" the internet (or at least most people don't). but if your rent was too high for you to afford it, and you would become homeless because of it, then it'd would be similar, but not equally unfortunate.

So in other words, you can't explain why abortion is unfortunate for all parties involved? Gotcha.

[Rahab]

Rahab, no matter how sweet and sentimental that sounds, that is not Christianity. By your reasoning, the Muslim who dies with the last thought that "Now I get my seventy brown-eyed virgins" also has his own heaven. That is not Christian belief. Christianity affirms a literal bodily afterlife - I know that isn't the subject of this thread, but I cannot allow you to misinform someone on what is acceptable belief within the historic Christian faith. This not about "informing anyone on what is acceptable belief within the historic Christian faith.". This is about finding a way to relate to the mind of an atheist. I made it VERY clear to Nick that I am not representative of other Christians in my beliefs in general.

You certainly do not expect Nick to convert to Christianity based on what heaven may or may not be or hell may or may not be or do you? Again, some of us accepted Christ not based on the fear of whichever hell or the promise of any heaven. You have to somehow respect the reality that we are not all driven to Christ because of those quite abstract notions. Some are driven to Him because of here and now. The afterlife concept remains a secondary reward as in a way to be close to God and eternaly.The love we experience for God here and now becomes the motivation to desire to experience it eternaly, beyond physical death.

I also find it offensive that you can compare Muslim males pining over "seventy brown-eyed virgins" to a female Christian yearning and longing for an eternal relationship with Christ. The desire of any Christian to be "face to face" with Christ cannot be compared to any afterlife concept involving what we could acquire in this life.

[dizzle]

Before I respond in full to that hissy fit, do you really believe this:

When you think about it, when a Christian expires with the last thought ever of "I am going to be with God", that's when heaven starts. The last conscious knowlege ever. What happens after has started in a short and last moment of epiphany. Eternity does not have to be an extended notion of time. It can be that one last thought each Chrlstian cherishes.

When you speak on medical issues, it is apparent that you have some training and knowledge in that area even if your utilatarian values are monstrous, however, when you speak in theology it is just as obvious that you simply have an abysmal knowledge. So is that what you really believe?

[Rahab]

Nick:

I'll admit that it was not an onerous task. I enjoyed it. I am glad...

Nick:
Yes, and this was one of my objections to Christianity. Not the existence of god, mind you. It is simply one of the reasons I'd be hard pressed to be a Christian even if the God of Christianity exists...Which he probably doesn't :wink: Who says that an omniscient God would not KNOW that some of His Creatures cannot exercise free will? You see, it is quite simple for me : when I see Him as being omniscient, I expect that He will have knowlege of all things. When I see omnipresent, I expect that His Presence is not restricted by time and space. There is no contradiction for me as I expect that His Knowlege of all things guarantees an infallible and flawless choice on His part. That to also include Grace which flows from Him towards us and not the other way around. It is absolutly beyong my way of thinking to even envision that God would reject and separate Himself from ANY human creature because he/she cannot exercise free will.

One needs not to comply and be conformed to whichever theology may teach otherwise to experience a relationship with God.

Nick:
Yes, I am aware of some of the different ideologies or schools of thought involving Hell. I do find it a bit unfortunate that your god, if he exists did not just not have the scribes write what they (or he) mean and mean what they wrote. I have a personal view (usualy one which triggers protests from some of my fellow Christians) that we often project our own nature into what we interpret from scriptures.

Nick:
And as an atheist, I'd say that probably, that's the closest thing to heaven that a Christian will ever experience.

Cheers,

Nick That is the closest I could come to relating to your mind, Nick! Good that we both understand our spiritual boundaries. Were you a believer, of course the notion of an afterlife with a glorified body would be acceptable. And that would not necessarely mean that this glorified body state of consciousness would be similar to the one this expiring Christian was limited to experience in this physical life. The Christian notion of a glorified body IMO also implies a higher state of consciousness way beyong what we can access today.

[Vigilante]

No, because you don't "need" the internet...

AAK! :glare: :mob:

[Rahab]

Before I respond in full to that hissy fit, do you really believe this: What hissy fit? I denounced your absurd comparison. You were caught making an equivocation which does not match at all the Christian vision of spending eternity in the Presence of God.

When you think about it, when a Christian expires with the last thought ever of "I am going to be with God", that's when heaven starts. The last conscious knowlege ever. What happens after has started in a short and last moment of epiphany. Eternity does not have to be an extended notion of time. It can be that one last thought each Chrlstian cherishes.

When you speak on medical issues, it is apparent that you have some training and knowledge in that area even if your utilatarian values are monstrous, My values consist in being extremely active in caring for disabled individuals at whichever level of disability they may be. Not quite the "monstruous utilitarian" label you so will to apply to my values because I disagree with your claims that abortion is murder at all stages of the human gestation. I hope that's enough of a reality check for you to be more careful as to the types of labels you place on other people.



however, when you speak in theology it is just as obvious that you simply have an abysmal knowledge. So is that what you really believe? No. I believe that there is a state of higher consciousness following physical death. I do discern though between the consciousness we have now, obviously dependent on our brain, and the one we access thru a "glorified body".There is not much descriptive details in scriptures as to how that "glorified body" is formed.Is it made of matter similar to the matter we are made of now? Is it some sort of "ectoplasmic" matter? IMO, no absolute can be pronounced at this point.No differently than having to assume what type of form God has based on John describing Him as a "Spirit". No absolute can be declared.

Similarly, repeated claims that a zygote is a "being" require concrete evidence to support such claims made in the absolute. I have yet to have recieved concrete evidence to support such declaration made in the absolute.

The philosophical evaluation of what or who a "being" is relies on the ability to experience existence itself and have some degree of self awareness of that existence. Those are directed and triggered by a material reality: the human body. We do not expect a batrician body to experience such degrees of self awareness. Yet, that froggy is also a biological organism.

Your "utilatarian" label is quite absurd as it would make any biologist, who does not refer to a human embryo as a human BEING, someone with monstruous values. As if "values" have anything to do with folks who explore realisticaly which material factors trigger the human thought. Let's include brain trauma specialists who actively care for their patients as folks with monstruous values when they declare one of them to be void of any cortical and stem activity. Let's include the legislators and physicians who composed the Brain Death Determination Act as folks with monstruous values.

We are all ethicaly challenged folks for concluding that any human organism without ANY cortical and stem activity is not a "being". Our motivations are evil and based on who is useful and who is not. :ahem:

[jwarrend]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet so apologies if it's redundant with something someone already said.


Similarly, repeated claims that a zygote is a "being" require concrete evidence to support such claims made in the absolute. I have yet to have recieved concrete evidence to support such declaration made in the absolute.

It seems to me that in this kind of situation, where the stakes are potentially high, erring on the side of caution is the more appropriate path. Can you be absolutely sure that the fetus is NOT a "being"? If not, then how can you be sure that killing it would do no harm? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, if you saw a bag that had something in it and didn't know whether that something was alive or not, would you nevertheless go up to the bag and kick it?

So, even if the pro-life side couldn't prove that the fetus is a human "being", that failure wouldn't make abortion conscionable; it becomes so only if the pro-abortion side can demonstrate that the fetus is absolutely NOT a human "being".

-Jeff

[dizzle]

What hissy fit? I denounced your absurd comparison.

The comparison was perfectly valid. You were telling an unbeliever that perhaps "eternity" is simply the last wonderful belief thought that a person has. I didn't realize you were so prejudiced against Muslims.

So you go off on your wordy tirades.

You were caught making an equivocation which does not match at all the Christian vision of spending eternity in the Presence of God.

Fluff. And pathetically laughable.

First YOU weren't offering a Christian vision of anything. What YOU offered wasn't remotely Christian. Second, I took the foundation of what you were claiming (since Lord knows you don't dare ever denounce other faith claims, claiming even that Spong is a Christian), and applied it to the truth claims and dreams of another faith. I never claimed it was a "Christian" vision, but the hope of another faith. If eternity is the liberal goobledegook that you were presenting to an unbeliever as a Christian possibility, then how does that apply to Muslims who believe that 70 virgins are their reward? EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, since what you proffered was nothing but the "last thought" and eternity in a moment of time.

My values consist in being extremely active in caring for disabled individuals at whichever level of disability they may be. Not quite the "monstruous utilitarian" label you so will to apply to my values because I disagree with your claims that abortion is murder at all stages of the human gestation.

I bet you don't kick puppies on your way running around errands. Since I didn't claim you were utiliatarian in EVERYTHING but specifically in the context of this thread, it is exactly your denial of the intrinsic value of humans at ALL stages of development that I am speaking of.

I hope that's enough of a reality check for you to be more careful as to the types of labels you place on other people.

Oh dear, Rahab is lecturing me again. You mean like the label of non-being that you give to humans at lesser stages of development than you? Oh yes Ms. Pot, please do be more careful.

No. I believe that there is a state of higher consciousness following physical death. I do discern though between the consciousness we have now, obviously dependent on our brain, and the one we access thru a "glorified body".There is not much descriptive details in scriptures as to how that "glorified body" is formed.Is it made of matter similar to the matter we are made of now? Is it some sort of "ectoplasmic" matter? IMO, no absolute can be pronounced at this point.No differently than having to assume what type of form God has based on John describing Him as a "Spirit". No absolute can be declared.

Funny that you didn't present that to the unbeliever. Do you often make up things about what you believe truth is? I don't think that is a particularly honest evangelistic tactic.

Similarly, repeated claims that a zygote is a "being" require concrete evidence to support such claims made in the absolute. I have yet to have recieved concrete evidence to support such declaration made in the absolute.

Your repeated claims in life after death require concrete evidence. Oh okay, you are allowed to have faith or things that are self-evident. Please give me concrete proof that it isn't a being. As Jeff said, the presumption is in favour of life, not in favour of possibly killing human beings. Your absolute certainty has no concrete evidence. It is utilitarian and denies inherent worth in humans, but rather worth conferred upon what they can do.

The philosophical evaluation of what or who a "being" is relies on the ability to experience existence itself and have some degree of self awareness of that existence.

That is your opinion which denies that the intrinsic value of humans. When someone dies, btw, they are still a human being. There are dead human beings and living human beings.

*SNIP - irrelevant Rahab fluff*

Your "utilatarian" label is quite absurd as it would make any biologist, who does not refer to a human embryo as a human BEING, someone with monstruous values.

You really know how to dress up a turd. Let's play then

Your label of my being grossly mistaken and mislabeling people would make any nonutilitarian with regards to embryos wrong. Oh, that's right, "absurd" and "truth" aren't determined by majority vote. Your "monstrous" label of Hitler would make any German who wasn't actively rebelling against him someone with monstrous values.

Oh.... but they WERE, and thus Rahab, though it may shock your idol of humanism, I DO think that such utilitarians DO have monstrous values.


As if "values" have anything to do with folks who explore realisticaly which material factors trigger the human thought.

:rofl: Oh yeah, must let something like "values" inform our whole life. You see Rahab, I expect people to live consistently, and have values. I don't think compartmentalization as you seem to be comfortable with is honest or noble.


Let's include brain trauma specialists who actively care for their patients as folks with monstruous values when they declare one of them to be void of any cortical and stem activity. Let's include the legislators and physicians who composed the Brain Death Determination Act as folks with monstruous values.

We could look at specific examples and see if it is so. I am not awed by society as you seem to be. Plus, I think you fully realize that you are comparing apples with oranges for dramatic effect. Tsk, tsk Rahab, that is not forthright.


We are all ethicaly challenged folks for concluding that any human organism without ANY cortical and stem activity is not a "being". Our motivations are evil and based on who is useful and who is not. :ahem:

Nice rant. But yet your philosophy IS based upon what people can do. I am glad you don't consistently apply this to the disabled, but I am wondering if you favour in-utero murder for those that are known to be severely disabled - such as the halequin babies that Minn loves to trot out.

[dizzle]

This not about "informing anyone on what is acceptable belief within the historic Christian faith.". This is about finding a way to relate to the mind of an atheist. I made it VERY clear to Nick that I am not representative of other Christians in my beliefs in general.

Yet you later denied that was even YOUR beliefs. Is it, or isn't it? Or did you just make that up to be more acceptable to Nick? There is a word for that and it isn't pleasant.

You certainly do not expect Nick to convert to Christianity based on what heaven may or may not be or hell may or may not be or do you?

The Bible certainly does in part. Why do you find that ridiculous?

Again, some of us accepted Christ not based on the fear of whichever hell or the promise of any heaven. You have to somehow respect the reality that we are not all driven to Christ because of those quite abstract notions. Some are driven to Him because of here and now.

Actually I am not required to respect anything - I don't respect absurdity, heresy, or Muslims lusting for 70 heavenly virgins. As far as your last sentence, that sounds very purdy, yet the Bible I read says:

If in this life only we have hope in Christ we are of most men the most pitiable.

Is that one of the verses you have decided aren't inspired? (like the Old Testament passages you don't like and rip out?)

The afterlife concept remains a secondary reward as in a way to be close to God and eternaly.The love we experience for God here and now becomes the motivation to desire to experience it eternaly, beyond physical death.

Secondary? That pesky Bible gets in the way again.

I have a desire to depart and be with Christ which is far better.

But then again, it wouldn't surprise me if you disagreed with the priorities of Paul. After all he was a homophobic bigot right?


I also find it offensive that you can compare Muslim males pining over "seventy brown-eyed virgins" to a female Christian yearning and longing for an eternal relationship with Christ.

I am sure some Muslims find your mockery of their hope offensive, and please Rahab, get off your imperiour finger-wagging - your example that I was referring to wasn't specific to "a female" but simply an "expiring Christian" and was a general example, not specific. If I could find some faith system that thought that their reward would be 70 Chippendales dancers, I would have used them, so you wouldn't be able to play the "female" card which is irrelevant.

The desire of any Christian to be "face to face" with Christ cannot be compared to any afterlife concept involving what we could acquire in this life.

Your statement to Nick cannot be compared to a Christian belief, so please do make Christian claims if you want them to be respected thus.

[Rahab]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet so apologies if it's redundant with something someone already said. That's a good question. I do not mind addressing it, jwarrend.



It seems to me that in this kind of situation, where the stakes are potentially high, erring on the side of caution is the more appropriate path. IMO, the stakes are high only when we can make a concrete case that there is a potential for fetal awareness. Which cannot occur until neuronic assembly has taken place. It definitly excludes the zygotic stage.

Can you be absolutely sure that the fetus is NOT a "being"? Based on the criteria of embodied subjectivity, I am absolutly positive that a zygote is not a "being". Whereas a second trimester fetus presents organic development and functions which may trigger some degree of awareness.

If not, then how can you be sure that killing it would do no harm? I have no doubt that aborting a fetus with any degree of awareness raises a serious ethical issue. But I see no ethical issue with any abortion prior to that stage of fetal development.


To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, if you saw a bag that had something in it and didn't know whether that something was alive or not, would you nevertheless go up to the bag and kick it? I never questionned the reality that a zygote as a biological organism is alive. The issue not being "alive" but whether there is any concrete evidence that it is a "being". Let alone a "woman" (as Muzikman claimed it to be) or a "person" or a "people". Nonetheless, we do know what is going on inside the amniotic sack and we can even explore in utero the various stages of fetal development. The problem is not that we "do not know", the problem is how we each define what a "being" is or a "person" or a "people" and as a new addition thanks to Muzikman what a "woman" is.

So, even if the pro-life side couldn't prove that the fetus is a human "being", that failure wouldn't make abortion conscionable; it becomes so only if the pro-abortion side can demonstrate that the fetus is absolutely NOT a human "being". From my perspective and based on embodied subjectivity, I can prove that any biological organism human or not who has no neurological and cerebral function which work in harmony to trigger any degree of sentience, awareness, sensorial reception and possible interpretation is not a "being". As I stated earlier, the fact that a biological organism has a DNA coding unique and specific to our species does not suffice to define it as a "being".Let alone a "person" or a "people" or a "woman".

As an aside, embodied subjectivity is NOT a new concept to define what or who a "being" is. Various philosophical currents had explored what makes the human species so unique and adorned with the title of "persons". An exploration which went as deeply as reflecting on the "ergo" aspect of the human existence.

[nickcopernicus]

AAK! :glare: :mob:

Nick:

I'll get to you soon enough Vigilante. You had a good post; I'm going to take my time responding to it properly. Probably, I won't get as many "Amens" though. Oh well.

Cheers,

Nick

[Rahab]

The comparison was perfectly valid. You were telling an unbeliever that perhaps "eternity" is simply the last wonderful belief thought that a person has. I didn't realize you were so prejudiced against Muslims. Actualy, I specificaly mentionned a Christian and not just any person. My English cannot be that bad that the word Christian and what it implies was spelt as "person". It was also specificaly described as " I am going to be with God" which excludes pining over virgins. Again, it is possible that I spelt it as " the last wonderful thought belief thought that a person has". But we both know I did not. I was very specific as to which "person" and which specific faith induced last thought.

I could not care less what you think Muslims would draw from my remarks(they might do a better job than you do keeping my remarks into their context). The reality remains that comparing the yearning of a Christian " I am going to be with God" to pining over virgins is absurd.



So you go off on your wordy tirades. So you go off on exploiting whichever flaws you will to obsessively focus on. Rather than reflecting and commenting on the meaning of what is being communicated.



Fluff. And pathetically laughable. The reality stands that you compared the Christian thought and vision of "being with God" to a thought conveying images of a male looking for sexual gratification. That was your baby, not mine. Mine was clearly a specificaly defined thought and vision not dwelling on sexual gratification. That you cannot discern the difference, is extremely bizarre.

First YOU weren't offering a Christian vision of anything. What YOU offered wasn't remotely Christian. What I offered to Nick was the reality of Christians whose last conscious thought is "I am going to be with God". Something extremely precious and certainly not to be compared to pining over a bunch of virgins, whether they have blue or brown eyes. As he excludes any afterlife (obviously as an atheist), he can still relate to how something as abstract (to him) as the Christian Heaven becomes an entry into the eternal because it is their last conscious thought.


Second, I took the foundation of what you were claiming (since Lord knows you don't dare ever denounce other faith claims, claiming even that Spong is a Christian), I find sharing Christ through my actions in my daily life to be far more productive and inspiring than claiming all sorts of absolute truths while causing even greater divisions in the body of Christ. Or boring to death someone like Nick! There are enough Dee Dees in this world to rant and rave over the various copyrights on truth, character and morality our faith allegedly holds....But maybe, I should not say "our"... I have to remind myself that you have also a copyright on defining who is a Christian and who is not.

The day you are as devoted to the body of Christ as Spong has been, maybe, only maybe, will I consider your vociferations IRW his spirituality to have some degree of validity.




and applied it to the truth claims and dreams of another faith. I never claimed it was a "Christian" vision, but the hope of another faith. If eternity is the liberal goobledegook that you were presenting to an unbeliever as a Christian possibility, then how does that apply to Muslims who believe that 70 virgins are their reward? EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, since what you proffered was nothing but the "last thought" and eternity in a moment of time. Actualy, what I professed was specificaly " I am going to be with God". To my knowlege, only Christians and not just any other faith have that yearning. And since, it was not just any "person" but specificaly a Christian, I am not sure why you keep harping over hopes of Muslims or other faiths.... quite bizarre, indeed.



I bet you don't kick puppies on your way running around errands. Since I didn't claim you were utiliatarian in EVERYTHING but specifically in the context of this thread, it is exactly your denial of the intrinsic value of humans at ALL stages of development that I am speaking of. I never denied that a human zygote is human. I am sure I have repeated over one hundred times in any thread dealing with the same topic that any biological organism with DNA coding unique and specific to our species is undeniably HUMAN. Have you somehow shyed away from using the term "human being"? We have now switched to "human" alone. Very interesting.

And what is the "intruistic value of humans at ALL stages of development" Dee Dee? Care to define which arguments, elements, factors, form that "intruistic value" while you address my question.



Oh dear, Rahab is lecturing me again. You mean like the label of non-being that you give to humans at lesser stages of development than you? Actualy, you are uncorrect. It has never been in comparison to me. It has been in comparison to the obvious and undeniable organic functions which trigger any degree of awareness and that DURING the fetal stage which is definitly not the zygotic stage. Maybe some day, you will forsake your need (rather obsessive too) to misrepresent my position.



Oh yes Ms. Pot, please do be more careful. That comment is kind of way off... another rather bizarre response considering that you misrepresented my position. Whereas, your words have clearly defined my values as being utilitarian and monstruous... and since I do not consider my disabled patients to be "non beings" and I in fact consider them as extremely precious and worthy of my care, your words are simply sounding like empty cymbals. Or like a fart gliding on a plastic table cloth (French idiom....).



Funny that you didn't present that to the unbeliever. Do you often make up things about what you believe truth is? I don't think that is a particularly honest evangelistic tactic. "The unbeliever" is about as disinterested in alleged absolute truths as I am interested in what you think an "honest evangelistic tactic" is. I would not call your tactics of insulting a gay female on T Web to be evangelistic. Nor would I call threatening folks with visions of "lakes of fire " to be any honest tactic. In my perspective, it is pure psychological manipulation. I am quite glad that this "lake of fire" business was never a motivation for me to come to Christ and love Him.



Your repeated claims in life after death require concrete evidence. Oh okay, you are allowed to have faith or things that are self-evident. Please give me concrete proof that it isn't a being. As Jeff said, the presumption is in favour of life, not in favour of possibly killing human beings. Your absolute certainty has no concrete evidence. It is utilitarian and denies inherent worth in humans, but rather worth conferred upon what they can do. Again, noone has denied in this thread that a biological organism with a DNA coding unique and specific to our species is "life". When we value that word "life" as meaning systematicaly "person", "people", "being" based on its DNA coding ONLY is what I seriously question. The biology species argument (which you seem to follow) completely ignores WHY such organism has greater value than any other organism of any other species. This WHY meaning which factors, elements, material facts empower our species to gain such value.

Well, your (bizarre) conclusion that I attribute worth to human biological organisms (as I reminder, we are all human DNA coded biological organisms) based on "what they can do" is rather off considering that I specificaly chose to work with disabled human biological organisms. And at every possible level of disability. In fact, a great part of my motivation is to do everything I can to improve their quality of life. I certainly would not have made that choice if I were abiding to any utilitarian thought to evaluate their worth. They would be dismissed by me.



That is your opinion which denies that the intrinsic value of humans. There must be something missing in your sentence. Again, define which elements, factors, arguments constitute the "intruistic value of humans".


When someone dies, btw, they are still a human being. There are dead human beings and living human beings. Their DNA coding remains unique and specific to our species. However, I can assure you that a clinicaly dead patient and in accordance to the Brain Death Determination Act is not a "being" anylonger. Nor is a corpse dug up for an autopsy refered to as a "being" by a pathologist. But if it reassures you somehow to call a corpse a "being"....now that you are back using human "BEING", it may be time for you to define what or who a "BEING" is. I asked that same question to Teal earlier in the tread and have yet to see her definition. Maybe you will venture in one,since you are using the word "being" again.





You really know how to dress up a turd. Let's play then

Your label of my being grossly mistaken and mislabeling people would make any nonutilitarian with regards to embryos wrong. Oh, that's right, "absurd" and "truth" aren't determined by majority vote. Your "monstrous" label of Hitler would make any German who wasn't actively rebelling against him someone with monstrous values.

Oh.... but they WERE, and thus Rahab, though it may shock your idol of humanism, I DO think that such utilitarians DO have monstrous values. I was wondering when an equivocation with the notorious H word (Hitler) would appear. An abortion topic thread cannot be productive unless someone mentions ach... ze Fuhrer. Talk about "turd", Dee Dee.



:rofl: Oh yeah, must let something like "values" inform our whole life. You see Rahab, I expect people to live consistently, and have values. I don't think compartmentalization as you seem to be comfortable with is honest or noble. Well, I do not think that folks who believe they have a copyright on charater and morality based on "I am a Christian" are honest or noble. See, we each have our own pot on the front burner.



We could look at specific examples and see if it is so. I am not awed by society as you seem to be. Plus, I think you fully realize that you are comparing apples with oranges for dramatic effect. Tsk, tsk Rahab, that is not forthright. It is a fact I do not consider my fellow human beings (society) as deprived individuals who are inferior moraly and characterialy (is there such a word) because they are not Christians. In that sense, I definitly am not conformed to your ideal of "Christian".



Nice rant. But yet your philosophy IS based upon what people can do. A zygote is not a "people". If you are going to use that term again, you are going to be asked to define what a "people" is and WHY. Same as for the use of the term "being".



I am glad you don't consistently apply this to the disabled, but I am wondering if you favour in-utero murder for those that are known to be severely disabled - such as the halequin babies that Minn loves to trot out. No, in general I do not favor abortion at any stage where fetal awareness is occuring. My position is not about "favoring" abortion. My position is to promote prevention from unwanted pregnancies. I consider the termination of a pregnancy to be avoided but not because I cry out "murder in utero". That was never my argument when I was working in a CPC. And I was honest enough to not show ONLY pics of a second trimester fetus as so many activist pro lifers do to trigger an emotional response because of the pronounced human features of such fetus.... I suppose showing pics of a blastocyst, zygote and less than 8 weeks embryo would obviously NOT trigger an emotional response.

Speaking of honesty and nobility : why not showing the pic Nick posted earlier? What you or others refer to as " people" or "person" or "being" or "woman" (thanks to Muzikman).

I will address your other post in a couple of days. My son will be home for a few days.A bientot.

[OfficialPro]

I've heard all sorts of things about how the alternatives are inadequate.

such as, minority babies are usually shuffled through the foster care system and if a baby is not white and male, chances of being adopted go down hugely.

or some horror stories about orphanages and something in Ireland called "The Magdalene Laundries" which allegedly resulted in a ton of kids born to unwed mothers that were abused and lead such sheltered lives that they didn't know that postage stamps were necessary on letters and things. (Abortion is illegal in Ireland)

Some people don't want to utilize alternatives because having a baby will ruin their "girlish figure." Talk about narcissism...

[Vigilante]

Is there a cat fight in here? :popcorn: