|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2006 : 06:49:09 [Permalink]
|
Mab wrote: quote:
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I've been afraid to say that the zygote has the “potential” to do all the stuff that alive things do because you could come back at me with the whole sperm and egg also having that potential.
It's even worse than that. A rapist's urge to rape a woman has the potential to become a human being. Therefore it must be against God's will to stop a rape in progress.
And then later continued: quote:
Jeremiah 1:5 is often cited as biblical proof that even before you were born, God had a Plan(tm) for You. And then points out that because of that, abortion is murder. However, KJV says: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;" (emphasis mine) clearly indicates that actions taking place before the conception is known by God to produce the person. Hence stopping someone from committing an act of rape has the potential of having the same result as an abortion. Which is equated to murder.
Who are you talking to? Nobody has brought up any Biblical pro-life arguments, so who would even respond to the above ridiculous paragraph? I am because you are continuing what was originally a response to me, but when I spoke of “potential” I made it clear I was talking in a biological sense, not a moral, ethical, or social sense, so certainly not in a religious. But the above paragraph is ridiculous either way because in addition to a zygote being at least discrete life, if not a “complete” (see below) one, it has already come into that state of unified existence. Sure you can just pull some line out of the Bible and interpret it in some unique way that no on else uses and that has pretty much no relevance to this discussion, but what does that prove? Only that the Bible can be misused. Big whoop. We all knew that.
quote:
quote:
But the difference is that the zygote is the complete organism.
Hardly. The zygote has the blueprints to become a complete organism, but it will not be "complete" until it is able to, or equipped to, live separate from its mother.
Parasites are complete organisms and it is the normal life cycle of the human organism to start out its life as a parasite on the mother. The fact that it is a parasite in that stage doesn't stop it from being considered an organism in its own right by doctors, biologists, and general common sense.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 11:13:48 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
But I keep reading poll after poll that shows that the majority of Americans still support legal abortion.
The majority do favor it. But what has that got to do with anything? Are you not paying attention to conservative politics?
Referring to the apathetic vote block suddenly getting off their asses:
quote:
Since 2000 I've read articles in newspapers and magazines like The Economist, Spectator and The Nation, as well as interviews on NPR talking about this as a real possibility.
You, and they, are in a dreamland. If what this admin has done to date isn't enough to motivate them then banning abortion isn't going to do it either.
quote:
If overturning Roe will not harm the right-wing “in the slightest”, and the Republicans have a majority in federal government, then why didn't Bush use a litmus test for nominees? After all, wouldn't that really rally their radical base?
Different issues. And how do you know he didn't use a "litmus" test on them? How do you know that he didn't ask them if they were pro-life, anti-abortion, willing to overturn RvW? You don't. These candidates (except his secretary Harriet) are approved, rubberstamped, etc by Santorum and the psychotic religious right. I know they are all pro-life anti-abortionists because of the zero disaproval reaction and positive support they have recieved from people like Dobson.
quote:
Actually, there is a lot of political theory that says when you are the minority, the last thing you want to do is just be on the attack.
And the current majority in the congress got there by being all nice and friendly, and W beat McCaine, Internet Man, and Kerry by running on the issues and being nice to them.... pass the pipe.
quote:
What are you, a broken record? Didn't we already cover this? Didn't I already concede where I thought you were right and defend myself where I thought you were simplifying and twisting the situation in your accusations about me being a hypocrite? Or did I just dream it all?
Oh... so it bothers you when people call you rude, does it?
Interesting.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 11:37:26 [Permalink]
|
Dude said:quote:
quote (me):
But I keep reading poll after poll that shows that the majority of Americans still support legal abortion.
The majority do favor it. But what has that got to do with anything? Are you not paying attention to conservative politics?
What it has to do with anything is that if the majority continues to support legal abortion at least in most forms, then if the Republicans push too much for extreme restrictions or outright banning of abortion on a federal level, there could be backlash that would cause their party to no longer be the majority.
quote:
Referring to the apathetic vote block suddenly getting off their asses:
Quote (me):
Since 2000 I've read articles in newspapers and magazines like The Economist, Spectator and The Nation, as well as interviews on NPR talking about this as a real possibility.
You, and they, are in a dreamland. If what this admin has done to date isn't enough to motivate them then banning abortion isn't going to do it either.
That's a fair and respectable opinion. I do not share it, and only time will tell which is correct.
quote:
And how do you know he didn't use a "litmus" test on them? How do you know that he didn't ask them if they were pro-life, anti-abortion, willing to overturn RvW? You don't. These candidates (except his secretary Harriet) are approved, rubberstamped, etc by Santorum and the psychotic religious right. I know they are all pro-life anti-abortionists because of the zero disaproval reaction and positive support they have recieved from people like Dobson.
How do you know Bush did use a litmus test on them? History of the supreme court has shown that often judges seem one way, but then act another once on the bench. I don't think it is that easy to predict what sort of rulings judges will make or to “know” their specific stances on political issues, much less if those personal opinions will be absolutely adhered to in their rulings. quote:
quote (me):
Actually, there is a lot of political theory that says when you are the minority, the last thing you want to do is just be on the attack.
And the current majority in the congress got there by being all nice and friendly, and W beat McCaine, Internet Man, and Kerry by running on the issues and being nice to them.... pass the pipe.
I said “when you are the minority" – Republicans are the majority. They are in a much better position to be attack dogs. quote:
quote (me):
What are you, a broken record? Didn't we already cover this? Didn't I already concede where I thought you were right and defend myself where I thought you were simplifying and twisting the situation in your accusations about me being a hypocrite? Or did I just dream it all?
Oh... so it bothers you when people call you rude, does it?
Nice sidestep. Because I respond to your obsessive accusations you assume it “bothers” me? I guess it does in the most lukewarm sense of that word, otherwise I'd just ignore you, which I'm pretty clo |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/28/2006 11:39:52 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 12:04:54 [Permalink]
|
OK, enough is enough.
Marf and Dude,
It seems like you two are spiraling closer towards a spitting contest. Might I suggest a one week cooling off period where you two just respond to the crux of the posts and not get hung up in discussions on "rude" and "hypocrit". Go ahead and think it if you want, but don't post it to one another.
I think it's hurting the discussion. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 15:29:54 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
I said “when you are the minority" – Republicans are the majority. They are in a much better position to be attack dogs.
....
Are you being deliberately dense? What part of "And the current majority in the congress got there by being all nice and friendly," would lead you to make that remark?
quote:
Nice sidestep. Because I respond to your obsessive accusations you assume it “bothers” me? I guess it does in the most lukewarm sense of that word, otherwise I'd just ignore you, which I'm pretty close to doing. What are you trying to prove? You are sticking to your accusation, and I think you are full of it. You want some sort of SFN parade celebrating Dude's accusation that marfknox is a hypocrite? Maybe we should try to organize an panel to investigate our history and listen to both my side and your side, and then they can rule on who is more in the right. Or we can just drop it.
Or you could take your pick and refrain from either being rude or telling people they are rude.
Val said:
quote:
Marf and Dude,
It seems like you two are spiraling closer towards a spitting contest. Might I suggest a one week cooling off period where you two just respond to the crux of the posts and not get hung up in discussions on "rude" and "hypocrit". Go ahead and think it if you want, but don't post it to one another.
I'm willing to drop it. Just as long as she can refrain from complaining about anyone else being rude.
marfknox said:
quote:
How do you know Bush did use a litmus test on them? History of the supreme court has shown that often judges seem one way, but then act another once on the bench. I don't think it is that easy to predict what sort of rulings judges will make or to “know” their specific stances on political issues, much less if those personal opinions will be absolutely adhered to in their rulings.
By the reaction from the radical right. Universal support and zero dissent with regard to either Roberts or Alito.
W may not have asked them himself, but the people who advised him on who to appoint are unquestionably sure of their position on abortion (and several other issues, I'm sure). If not, they wouldn't have recieved the unanimous approval from the radical right.
Of course, the general public has no idea what their position on ANYTHING is, because it is apparently a-ok to tell congress to go fuck themselves when they ask you questions now days.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 02/28/2006 15:31:27 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 16:53:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Who are you talking to? Nobody has brought up any Biblical pro-life arguments, so who would even respond to the above ridiculous paragraph?
Beskeptigal showed interest in the argument, and I figured that since religious people often want to cite the bible for support of their position, I included a verse that supported my line of reasoning. Just to provide Beskeptigal with more ammo.
quote:
Sure you can just pull some line out of the Bible and interpret it in some unique way that no on else uses and that has pretty much no relevance to this discussion, but what does that prove? Only that the Bible can be misused. Big whoop. We all knew that.
This is about turning one of their own favourite verses cited for their support, and pointing out that the logical conclusion of its use becomes absurd.
But this a side track. Verso has explicitly stated that his argument is non religious.
Edited to add:
You left out the part where I quoted Beskeptigal:
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Those are good points Dr M. The first one may come in handy for me in future posts on other forums.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/jer/1.html
Jeremiah 1:5 is often cited as biblical proof that even before you were born, God had a Plan(tm) for You. <snip>
Emphasis, in red, mine. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/28/2006 16:58:28 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 17:40:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you being deliberately dense? What part of "And the current majority in the congress got there by being all nice and friendly," would lead you to make that remark?
The Republicans developed a clear, positive, unified message: personal responsibility, states rights, culture of life, restoring family values, and such. It's good populist rhetoric. They provided a vivid alternative, and that is why they had success demonizing liberalism. The only Democratic positive message I ever hear touted consistently is “women's right to choose”.
I'm not saying that Democrats shouldn't be attack dogs. Just saying that they gotta get the order right: they need an easy-to-understand, attractive alternative that is unifying to their party and touted consistently by leaders first. Only then can they attack the other side's policies with any success.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 17:57:26 [Permalink]
|
Wow! How this thread has grown...
Reading through it (briefly), there were at least a couple dozen points I really would love to address (From Dr. Mabuse's asinine tangent on Jer 1:5 to marfknox's thoughtful analysis and clear-cut thinking, and everything in between), but unfortunately, can't take the time to do so (in the middle of moving!)
But, besides the bit of sniping that broke out here and there, it has been an interesting read, indeed. I hope to give marfknox's posts a little more thought when things settle down here.
P.S.
Half:
quote:
In my opinion, if the Theonazi's outlaw abortion, they would simply be free to move on to the next step in their agendas on the road to outright "Biblical" law. How about banning contraception? Outlawing single-sex couple adoptions? Punishing homosexuality under the law? Requiring Bible studies in public classrooms? They would hardly be out of hot-button issues, in my opinion.
Talk about slippery slopes!
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 18:16:30 [Permalink]
|
To Dr. Mabuse: I thought the initial comparison to a rape was a flawed point. In my example, I said that part of the requirement for being a living organism is that the subject has the potential to reproduce, and if a pre-pubescent girl dies, she never reached the point where she had the potential to reproduce (I hope it is obvious, but I mean working potential, or one step removed. After all, if we could take this more than one step removed, we could say that almost any matter has the potential for almost anything, and that just brings us into the realm of nonsense.) And I was using that death of a prepubescent girl to argue that a zygote should still be labeled “human life” because, like the girl, the zygote is a discrete living thing with the (one step removed) potential of developing into a growing, consuming, excreteing organism. The potential of a sperm and egg are also a potential, but of a different kind. Instead of a single, discrete organism with all the genetic info of a human being, they are two separate entities. They don't need each other in the specific. An egg can be fertilized by any sperm, not one specific sperm, a sperm can fertilize any egg, not one specific egg. So your rape comparison is questionable because then you are talking about uniting one of a specific group of sperm with a specific egg. To sum up, it is not good ammo for beskepical; the Christians needs only to say, “Of course we can stop the rapist. Just because he was intending to rape her, doesn't mean he was fated to rape and impregnate her. For all we know, it was God's plan that someone stop the rapist so the woman could go off and conceive some other child 3 months later.” quote:
This is about turning one of their own favourite verses cited for their support, and pointing out that the logical conclusion of its use becomes absurd.
I still don't think it works for the reason I stated above. The potential of a guy intending to rape a woman to form a human child isn't the same as the potential of a zygote to form a human child. Also, if we look at the verse again: quote:
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee
It separately addresses before conception and before birth. God says he knew thee before, er, thee was in the belly – so before conception. No sexual encounter is guaranteed to lead to conception. So maybe God knows you, and He knows that you are going to be conceived by your mom's husband two weeks after we save her form being raped by the rapist. And the second part of the verse says He “sanctified” you before birth, but since this is after the whole before the belly thing, it implies that God sanctifies people in between conception and birth. So I can see why this is such a popular verse with pro-lifers. But I still don't see how your rapist analogy fits as an effective counter argument.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/28/2006 18:19:11 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 20:52:04 [Permalink]
|
marfknox contradicted herself:
quote:
The Republicans developed a clear, positive, unified message: personal responsibility, states rights, culture of life, restoring family values, and such. It's good populist rhetoric. They provided a vivid alternative, and that is why they had success demonizing liberalism.
Beyond your self-contradicting paragraph....
Obviously you have not paid attention to conservative political rhetoric over the last two decades.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 03:32:27 [Permalink]
|
I for one have been skipping the Dude and Marf posts so I was indeed interested in Dr. M's. And had obviously said so in my earlier post. Marf, it's fine to be upset, but the post to Dr M about who was he talking to was just really uncalled for. Even if you don't agree with the point, the idea was not ridiculous. In fact, the logic follows clearly that if births are not to be prevented, sex cannot be prevented. In fact, abstinence might be as wrong as condoms.
One can claim the fertilized egg is where life begins, while others might say why stop there? How about the unfertilized egg that has the potential to become life? So it follows that if one says one shouldn't interfere with the egg after it is fertilized, why stop there? Perhaps one shouldn't interfere with the act of conception. Or perhaps we shouldn't interfere with the foreplay that might lead to the act of conception.  Where should it really stop? |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/01/2006 03:47:25 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 03:42:54 [Permalink]
|
It's hard to picture you angry looking at this page, Martha. 
Bryan doesn't have a page so I can't see what he looks like. But he's a nurse. Nurses can usually take a deep breath and calm down, even when the pressure's way up there. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/01/2006 03:46:08 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 10:39:53 [Permalink]
|
verso picked out for comment: quote:
quote: In my opinion, if the Theonazi's outlaw abortion, they would simply be free to move on to the next step in their agendas on the road to outright "Biblical" law. How about banning contraception? Outlawing single-sex couple adoptions? Punishing homosexuality under the law? Requiring Bible studies in public classrooms? They would hardly be out of hot-button issues, in my opinion.
Talk about slippery slopes!
Yes, it is. We've recently discuss topics such as the "slippery slope," and it seems we've generally agreed that their use as either useful analogy, or rhetorical fallacy, depends on whether they are essentially apt or false. For instance, I would ask you, verso, exactly what parts of that slippery slope list would you specifically not support? Or was my "slippery slope" list, indeed, quite appropriate?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:24:06 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
Bryan doesn't have a page so I can't see what he looks like. But he's a nurse. Nurses can usually take a deep breath and calm down, even when the pressure's way up there.
Yeah, its something you have to learn to survive in the profession.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:54:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
To Dr. Mabuse: I thought the initial comparison to a rape was a flawed point.
You are entitled to your opinion of course.
quote:
In my example, I said that part of the requirement for being a living organism is that the subject has the potential to reproduce, and if a pre-pubescent girl dies, she never reached the point where she had the potential to reproduce (I hope it is obvious, but I mean working potential, or one step removed.
Yes, and once you start back-pedalling you're in serious trouble.
That does not mean you can't make a good argument for where to draw the line. I'm just making the point that once you start accepting "one step removed" as an argument, once a point has been established you could just as well argue for another "one step removed". Eventually you would be up shit creek.
quote:
After all, if we could take this more than one step removed, we could say that almost any matter has the potential for almost anything, and that just brings us into the realm of nonsense.)
Which was my original point. Suddenly the point of conception is not longer a non-arbitrary chosen limit, by (Judeo-Christian/Biblical) religious argument.
quote:
And I was using that death of a prepubescent girl to argue that a zygote should still be labeled “human life” because, like the girl, the zygote is a discrete living thing with the (one step removed) potential of developing into a growing, consuming, excreteing organism.
There you are again making an argument for a "one step removed" point.
During the first days after conception, the zygote does not grow in size. The cells only divide themselves into smaller and smaller units, depleting the energy stored in the egg. It doesn't enter a parasitic state until it latches on to the wall of the uterus. Can you still argue that it is a human life? I have to admit I grew a bit tired of reading your exchange with Dude, so I haven't paid attention: Do you still maintain that the definition of life is "Biologically, once there is all the genetic material together and the thing is consuming, producing waste, and growing, it is alive and of whatever species its genetic code dictates"?
I think I have been consistent in this thread that in regards to abortion, viable (ex uterus) human life should be the defining point.
quote:
The potential of a sperm and egg are also a potential, but of a different kind.
So is the rape.
quote:
So your rape comparison is questionable because then you are talking about uniting one of a specific group of sperm with a specific egg. To sum up, it is not good ammo for beskepical; the Christians needs only to say, “Of course we can stop the rapist.
It's not questionable, because before the conception even happened, God knew which sperm and which egg would produce the zygote.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
