|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
 Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:14:32 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps I should point out that even during my time as an active, practicing borned-again Pentecostal, I recognised the logical folly of using Jer 1:5 as an argumtent against abortion.
Back then, I guess I was a bit different from my brothers and sisters in faith, because I choose not to disregard what I learned in school. I realised that during all Bible-seminars I attended, no compelling arguemt against abortion was ever founded in the Bible. Thus, my conclusion was that God didn't ban abortion, and that it should be up to each woman to decide what to do - there are so many other factors that should be considered, a religious argument would only distract from more important issues. We do have freedom of religion, and imposing our religion on non-believers was wrong (They should be convinced to do the right thing by their free will, not coerced).
|
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. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 13:02:03 [Permalink]
|
Mabuse wrote: quote:
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.
So by that logic can we say that if a pre-pubescent girl dies that she was never really alive? All I'm really trying to point out is that human beings are an organism with a natural life cycle, and in many of the early stages, we don't fit all the requirements of life, but just being in a premature stage of a life cycle doesn't prevent an organism from getting labeled “alive”. The beginning of my life cycle as a discrete individual human being began with a zygote, as it did for every other human being. Therefore, biologically, a zygote is “a human life”.
Doesn't mean it is viable human life. Doesn't mean it should have any rights what-so-ever. Doesn't mean it should be considered a “person” or even “human” by social standards. Just that it is a non-arbitrary point where we go from having something that is not a human life to having something that is a human life.
quote:
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"?
Well actually, I already wrote – I thought in a post to you actually – that I never meant to maintain that as a “definition of life”. I am fully aware that there is no biologically or philosophically agreed upon definition of life.
For the sake of brevity and staying on target, I'll just say this: The zygote is alive – no one is disputing that. The zygote has all the genetic materials of a human being, and even through the action of the cells dividing themselves into smaller and smaller units, it begins the human life-cycle process of eventually becoming mature. It is the first stage in the life cycle of any human being, therefore, a human life. And by the way, isn't depleting the energy inside the egg considered “consuming”.
quote:
But only a fraction of the zygotes (rape or not) become a mature human.
I covered that when I made the point that those zygotes are dying from all sorts of genetic defects. Lumping them all together is like lumping together heart disease and cancer. Also, they are in fact dying from a disorder. Even if diseases are disorders are common, do we ever consider them to be part of the natural life cycle of a species?
Am I being clear enough yet? Can we now agree to disagree?
By the way, Mab, in regards to something beskeptical said, I hope you have not interpreted anything I've said in this discussion as me being “upset” with you. I have very much enjoyed this challenging debate.
|
"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 03/01/2006 13:02:27 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 13:07:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
I wasn't upset with Mab. I thought the rape scenerio was off the topic of abortion and carried my concept of "potential" to an extreme even though part of the basis of my concept was that potential was limited by the start of the life cycle of a human being. His argument could be used to argue against someone opposing birth control like condoms, but how does it apply to abortion? |
"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 - 03/01/2006 : 14:52:12 [Permalink]
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11621741/
Mississippi joins the fray.
Ladies, you may want to consider moving to Canada.
|
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 : 15:28:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Mabuse wrote: quote:
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.
So by that logic can we say that if a pre-pubescent girl dies that she was never really alive?
No and yes. I'm saying that arguing the opposite side of the anti-abortionist's use of Jer 1:5 would have that logical conclusion. Which is equally absurd.
quote:
All I'm really trying to point out is that human beings are an organism with a natural life cycle, and in many of the early stages, we don't fit all the requirements of life, but just being in a premature stage of a life cycle doesn't prevent an organism from getting labeled “alive”. The beginning of my life cycle as a discrete individual human being began with a zygote, as it did for every other human being. Therefore, biologically, a zygote is “a human life”.
I disagree that the zygote is the non-arbitrary starting point in the life cycle. I say it's the meiosis that produced the genetic material of which I consist. The fertilization is an assembly/combination of the two discrete blueprints that made me.
quote:
Doesn't mean it is viable human life. Doesn't mean it should have any rights what-so-ever. Doesn't mean it should be considered a “person” or even “human” by social standards. Just that it is a non-arbitrary point where we go from having something that is not a human life to having something that is a human life.
It's one of several less arbitrary points. I've changed my mind (if I ever had made it up) that conception should be considered a non-arbitrary point. The only true non-arbitrary point is exiting the womb. However, that poses some serious ethical problems. That's why I prefer an other more "reasonable" arbitrary point: the viablility outside the womb.
quote:
By the way, Mab, in regards to something beskeptical said, I hope you have not interpreted anything I've said in this discussion as me being “upset” with you. I have very much enjoyed this challenging debate.
I've been unsure about why you've taken the position as you have, and wondered it you understood why I've taken the position I hold. None the less, I've enjoyed the challenge. It has helped me refine my own position. My girlfriend has been reading some of the exchange over my shoulder, and she just shakes her head and wonders how I can keep this all up. 
quote:
That said, for those who are using a literal interpretation, the second line about sanctifying one before birth could be used to argue against abortion, and that is not utilizing a silly extreme about potential becau |
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 03/01/2006 17:46:13 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 16:12:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
...
I wasn't upset with Mab. ...
Good.
About the prepubescent girl analogy, there are cultures that name their kids at age one and not at birth. If the kids don't live to age one, they weren't the same as those that lived past 1 yr. All I'm pointing out is that no matter where you define life, someone else can rationalize a different definition. One definition may be more or less supportable with given logic, but none is exactly absolute. In other words all these definitions are arbitrary to some degree. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 18:28:38 [Permalink]
|
beskeptical wrote: quote:
About the prepubescent girl analogy, there are cultures that name their kids at age one and not at birth. If the kids don't live to age one, they weren't the same as those that lived past 1 yr. All I'm pointing out is that no matter where you define life, someone else can rationalize a different definition. One definition may be more or less supportable with given logic, but none is exactly absolute. In other words all these definitions are arbitrary to some degree.
When a human is named is a social custom. The debate over what is "a human life" was explicitely said to be about biological, not cultural definitions. And those cultures with those naming customs do not deny that the unamed babies are alive. If it is the culture I read about while doing a paper about the ethics of abortion while in my undergrad (sadly, I cannot remember the name of that culture) the naming went according to when they believed the child's "soul" entered their body, not when the child was "life". It doesn't make semantic sense to say something is life only after the thing has lived past a year. What is it doing in between conception and being defined as a life - not living?
Usually when I encounter a anti-abortion argument that uses "life" rhetoric, if I'm outside, I like to pull up a few blades of grass or a weed and say to them, "Look at that, I just destroyed a life." If I'm inside I ask them what they ate for breakfast and then contemn them for destroying whatever life was killed for them to have a meal. My bigger point in this discussion was that the very rhetoric behind "the culture of life" is a trap. They take ownership of the loaded, nice-sounding word "life", and get opponents to say stupid things like, "Well, a fetus isn't really alive yet. (Yes, I've actually heard pro-choicers argue that fetuses aren't alive.) I think the best thing to do in a debate with a pro-lifer is to just mock their rhetoric first, and then impose my own rhetoric that frames things in a way that emphasizes my ethics in a positive light. |
"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 03/01/2006 18:30:44 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 18:44:23 [Permalink]
|
In response to Mabuse: I'm starting to think there is a lot of confusion in this discussion. It's probably run its course, so I'll just agree with you that conception is “one of the several less arbitrary points”.
Certainly we are in total agreement in our ethical stances over the issue of when abortion would be legal; I argued earlier in this discussion for drawing the line in the gray area between conception and birth such as was done by the Roe v Wade ruling, and that fits with your statement: “I prefer an other more ‘reasonable' arbitrary point: the viablility outside the womb.”
Happily, we've both benefited from the discussion, despite any confusion.
quote:
I disagree. A blob of cells can hardly be called "formed". A lump of clay can't really be called "formed" until you can discern the pot. Likewise, until the foetus has discernable arms and legs and a head, it is still a blob. At what week does that happen?
I suppose this could get all dragged out by research into what the sentence and the English word “formed” meant in the original Biblical language, how it has been traditionally interpreted (if there is historical data on that), the cultural context at the time it was written, or I could argue that the genetic material of an individual being united can constitute “formed” more than having discernable features like arms.
But instead, I'll leave you with my initial reaction to this paragraph: touché.
|
"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 - 03/06/2006 : 17:19:08 [Permalink]
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11699703/
Who is it trying to say that this will hurt republicans?
It is official law now in SD. Signed and sealed.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 22:52:12 [Permalink]
|
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1707141&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Tennessee is the next up.
Isn't it great?
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 03:14:41 [Permalink]
|
There are people who really believe that overturning Roe v Wade will put an end to most abortions. How quaint!
It will not. Indeed, there is even a school of thought that it might increase them, because nobody is going to stop fucking, and everybody fucks, one way or another, authorized or not. And most certainly nobody is going to stop fucking just because the Christian Taliban demands it. Abstinence only education does not work, and unwanted pregnancies will continue unabated.
The situation is not the same as it was some 30 years ago. Today, there is an abortion pill. Ban abortion, and there will be created a thriving, black market in them. Ban that pill from these sacred shores, and it will be smuggled in like smack and dispensed freely, if not for free.
I can foresee surreptitious abortion mills being set up, and not necessarily the coat hanger kind, although those types of abortions will certainly be performed. The procedure is easy enough, in most cases, that the whole thing can be kept very simple and mobile. A medical student in need of tuition money could do it in a cheap motel room, cleanly and with a minimum of equipment. Unofficial research into some of the aboriginal teas that were intended to cause an abortion has probably already begun.
And no records of any of it will be kept....
So, Christian Taliban Morons, what will you have gained?
Jack-shit is what you will have gained. 
My conviction that religion is the greatest, self-inflicted evil our species has ever conceived is re-enforced yet again.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/10/2006 03:19:25 |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 07:38:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
There are people who really believe that overturning Roe v Wade will put an end to most abortions. How quaint!
It will not. Indeed, there is even a school of thought that it might increase them, because nobody is going to stop fucking, and everybody fucks, one way or another, authorized or not. And most certainly nobody is going to stop fucking just because the Christian Taliban demands it. Abstinence only education does not work, and unwanted pregnancies will continue unabated.
The situation is not the same as it was some 30 years ago. Today, there is an abortion pill. Ban abortion, and there will be created a thriving, black market in them. Ban that pill from these sacred shores, and it will be smuggled in like smack and dispensed freely, if not for free.
I can foresee surreptitious abortion mills being set up, and not necessarily the coat hanger kind, although those types of abortions will certainly be performed. The procedure is easy enough, in most cases, that the whole thing can be kept very simple and mobile. A medical student in need of tuition money could do it in a cheap motel room, cleanly and with a minimum of equipment. Unofficial research into some of the aboriginal teas that were intended to cause an abortion has probably already begun.
And no records of any of it will be kept....
So, Christian Taliban Morons, what will you have gained?
Jack-shit is what you will have gained.
My conviction that religion is the greatest, self-inflicted evil our species has ever conceived is re-enforced yet again.
Welcome to my world.
That's how it is, here in Brazil, where abortion is illegal except for for rape cases and dangerous pregnancies. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 13:52:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
...
Welcome to my world.
That's how it is, here in Brazil, where abortion is illegal except for for rape cases and dangerous pregnancies.
Catholic country?
Is birth control accepted or frowned upon? |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 14:03:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
...
Welcome to my world.
That's how it is, here in Brazil, where abortion is illegal except for for rape cases and dangerous pregnancies.
Catholic country?
Is birth control accepted or frowned upon?
Theoretically, yes, though Catholicism is losing power and doing it fast, whereas Evangelic Christianism is growing at full speed. Birth control, however, is accepted, encouraged and pretty much preached by everyone not moved by diehard religion, including the government. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 15:18:27 [Permalink]
|
Here's my little prediction: This round of state anti-abortion laws will, as these Theonazi legislators and governors intend, soon get to SCOTUS. My take is that the laws will be shot down this time around. I think one more Justice will need to be appointed by Bush in order to destroy Roe v Wade. Let us hope that Justice Stevens and the others live long.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/11/2006 15:18:53 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
