|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 02/23/2006 : 14:54:18 [Permalink]
|
Verso corrected: quote:
The only non-arbitrary place to draw the line is at conception.
Thank you, verso, I really did miss that.
That's as severe a restriction as is possible. And that's yet another reason that I consider the anti-abortionist agenda to be hateful to women, as you would have the government force them to carry all conceptions through to birth. That's indeed hateful, in my book, far worse than "hate speech". People opposing your agenda need only argue against the your conception-point anti-abortion stance, since that's what you are proposing, not the straw man of murdering toddlers, etc.
Now back to point 1: Where, precisely, is this anti-abortion crap written in your scriptures? Or is it simply the invention of modern theocrats seeking a convenient issue for the road to power and wealth?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 14:59:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Verso corrected: quote:
The only non-arbitrary place to draw the line is at conception.
Thank you, verso, I really did miss that.
That's as severe a restriction as is possible. And that's yet another reason that I consider the anti-abortionist agenda to be hateful to women, as you would have the government force them to carry all conceptions through to birth. That's indeed hateful, in my book, far worse than "hate speech". People opposing your agenda need only argue against the your conception-point anti-abortion stance, since that's what you are proposing, not the straw man of murdering toddlers, etc.
Now back to point 1: Where, precisely, is this anti-abortion crap written in your scriptures? Or is it simply the invention of modern theocrats seeking a convenient issue for the road to power and wealth?
Invention by modern day theocrats. The Bible refers to doing something to a woman which causes her to miscarry as a property crime, not murder. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:13:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now back to point 1: Where, precisely, is this anti-abortion crap written in your scriptures? Or is it simply the invention of modern theocrats seeking a convenient issue for the road to power and wealth?
Again, I am not arguing this from a religious standpoint. Why would I? You nearly all consider the Bible a myth, if not a joke. What's the point of quoting verses to you when I know you already reject them?
That's why I've approached it logically, explaining why I think conception is the only logical point to define where life begins. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:15:27 [Permalink]
|
verso said: quote:
Again, I am not arguing this from a religious standpoint. Why would I? You nearly all consider the Bible a myth, if not a joke. What's the point of quoting verses to you when I know you already reject them?
That's why I've approached it logically, explaining why I think conception is the only logical point to define where life begins.
Then when will we read your first logical, secular argument?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:17:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's as severe a restriction as is possible. And that's yet another reason that I consider the anti-abortionist agenda to be hateful to women, as you would have the government force them to carry all conceptions through to birth. That's indeed hateful, in my book, far worse than "hate speech". People opposing your agenda need only argue against the your conception-point anti-abortion stance, since that's what you are proposing, not the straw man of murdering toddlers, etc.
From my standpoint - protecting the unborn is a noble and loving cause.
The point of all the "murdering toddlers" stuff is that - where do you draw the line, if not at conception? It is directly related to my final position of "conception is the only safe place to set it." Why? Because if it's not at conception, then it can be anywhere. If it's anywhere, then you have no right to protect a child in danger from his parents, because his parents may have defined life differently that you.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:19:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
quote:
The average life expectancy rate is based on live births only. Abortions (elective and spontaneous) are not included in that number which by volume would drastically reduce such a number.
Ahh yes, a good, very sad point. The average life expectancy is much lower, because we've murdered so many children.
What a bullshit statement!
Only a fraction of fertilized eggs - human lives in you mind - comes to full term.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html
quote:
10- 25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Estimations of chemical pregnancies or unrecognized pregnancies that are lost can be as high as 50-75%, but many of these are unknown since they often happen before a woman has missed a period or is aware she is pregnant.
So less than half of all conceptions actually results in birth...
Verso, go and check your statistics before you go and cry bloody murder. How many percent of the pregnancies are aborted at abortion clinics and who many goes to full term?
Will you now be honest enough to re-calculate life-expectancy and tell me how much difference a few abortions do?
quote:
quote:
By Dr. Mabuse:
No, I would run off to cower behind a thick wall or a large boulder and call 911. Someone insane enough to go around waiving a loaded gun is dangerous, and might consider me a viable target.
That fact that you easily conjure up a scenario like this makes me wonder what goes on in your mind.
Yes, it was a very complex scenario that I've been obcessed with for months.
Honestly Dr. Mabuse, I usually appreciate your objectivity, but you are simply wasting words here.
So are you. I was merely emulating you argument strategy, did you like what you saw?
Can we at least agree that abortion means termination of a pregnancy, not murdering a baby that has already been born? I'm not a heartless git after all...
quote:
Any honest pro-lifer is just as disgusted with "arsonist anti-abortionists" as they are with any abortionist, or any other murderer.
I would be happy to read any links you provide where pro-life organizations state their disgust and condemnation of violent actions for everyone to read. You get two points for every large media link.
quote:
And yes, I would love to hear how and where you draw the "line."
Ok...
quote:
The only non-arbitrary place to draw the line is at conception.
The egg is not a human - it has no human potential on it's own. The sperm is not a human - it has no human potential on it's own. But once they come together, that "zygote," "fetus" or whatever else you want to call it - has a life expectancy of about 80 years - it is a human life.
Disregarding the exposed fallacy of the life expectancy...
A foetus growing inside the woman has no potential on its own until it is born. As long as it is in her womb, it is doing a piggyback ride, feeding off her like a parasite.
Taking it out before the 7th month will most likely kill it. Now, I don't know exactly in which week a prematurely born baby has a 50/50% chance of survival without severe disabilities with good medical facilities.
At that point, if the mother does not want to, or is somehow unable to care for the baby, then the goverment should be obligated to step in as caretaker.
That's where I think the latest date should be set for abortions (with exceptions for medical emergencies and severe deformations, as decided by medical expertese) where the pregnant woman should have full control of her decisions, at her discression.
Logically, as long as the foetus is part of her body, she is the one who should have full control. I'm suggesting some restrictions.
|
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. |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:20:43 [Permalink]
|
Sigh.
Halfmooner, please read this very carefully. It's my third time posting it:
The egg is not a human - it has no human potential on it's own. The sperm is not a human - it has no human potential on it's own. But once they come together, that "zygote," "fetus" or whatever else you want to call it - has a life expectancy of about 80 years - it is a human life.
That is my logic. At conception, it becomes a growing person, with no breaks in the continuum all the way up to old age and death. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:25:51 [Permalink]
|
verso said:
quote:
Yes, and people die of heart attacks. What does that have to do with anything?
That the distinction you are imposing is totally arbitrary.
You keep using the word "logically"... to quote from a favorite movie of mine: "That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means."
You have yet to present ANY logical argument in favor of banning abortion. Nor has anyone, for that matter.
You are just stating that you wish to impose your will on others based on... your own opinion.
As for the rest of your nonsense about children... this argument is about where life begins. There is no clear agreement on this particular issue. It is an issue that is exceedingly difficult to make an evidenced based decision about. Which leaves only the argument concerning power, and who gets to have power over whom.
However, you won't find any disagreement on the question "Is a child considered living?" In fact, you'd be laughed at and outright ridiculed for asking it. It is a wonder that nobody here has busted your chops on that one to much.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:26:49 [Permalink]
|
Verso stated: quote:
From my standpoint - protecting the unborn is a noble and loving cause.
The point of all the "murdering toddlers" stuff is that - where do you draw the line, if not at conception? It is directly related to my final position of "conception is the only safe place to set it." Why? Because if it's not at conception, then it can be anywhere. If it's anywhere, then you have no right to protect a child in danger from his parents, because his parents may have defined life differently that you.
The line, by general consensus among those not taking an extreme position, is usually drawn at the point of viability outside the womb. Would you or would you not like to see physicians prosecuted for performing "abortions" on unimplanted zygotes for rape or incest victims? Do you consider that to be "murder"?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:35:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
From my standpoint - protecting the unborn is a noble and loving cause.
The point of all the "murdering toddlers" stuff is that - where do you draw the line, if not at conception? It is directly related to my final position of "conception is the only safe place to set it." Why? Because if it's not at conception, then it can be anywhere. If it's anywhere, then you have no right to protect a child in danger from his parents, because his parents may have defined life differently that you.
Then fertilization-clinics will have to close down. Most in-vitro-fertilized embryos are thrown away. Every one of those were human lives waiting to celebrate their 80th birthday. |
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. |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:36:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So less than half of all conceptions actually results in birth...
Verso, go and check your statistics before you go and cry bloody murder. How many percent of the pregnancies are aborted at abortion clinics and who many goes to full term?
Will you now be honest enough to re-calculate life-expectancy and tell me how much difference a few abortions do?
That is fine. I admit I was careless in that statement.
But - I don't care if the life expectancy is 10 years. The point is, at conception, the "entity" begins growing, and the growth is a continuum until death at old age, or young age, or typical age, or whatever you want to call it.
quote:
A foetus growing inside the woman has no potential on its own until it is born. As long as it is in her womb, it is doing a piggyback ride, feeding off her like a parasite.
It's my turn to call major BS. "Potential on it's own?"
So when medicine advances to the point where we can sustain a life outside the womb completely, will your definition of life change to conception?
A definition of "life" based on the current state of medicine is remarkably... weak. |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:38:55 [Permalink]
|
So far the concensus here seems to be:
Life begins at the point of viability.
Which means:
Life will begin earlier as medicine advances.
Interesting. |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:39:04 [Permalink]
|
Abortion will not go away. It's removal is untenable and the legislature lack the political will for it. But it will (should) be regulated and permitted under conditions of the health of the mother, rape, and incest. Make it rare but safe.
What will go away is its use as birth control. However if no provision is made for unwanted pregnancies (my suggestion is Adoption) or quality sex education including the promotion of abstinence until marriage, we strain the gnat and swallow the camel.
I am pro-life in all aspects. I oppose the death penalty. Yet there are situations when I would agree to the taking of a human life. Inconvenience (a very American reason) is not one of them.
May I ask those who are for abortion, what situations would not permit one?
BTW. 40 year who rapes and impregnates the 14yr old who then needs an abortion to save her life. Better hope I'm not the judge. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:41:40 [Permalink]
|
Verso, you made it clear that the motivation for your anti-abortion stance is a purely religious one, but you refuse to cite any religious origin or authority for this position.
Then you claim you are making a secular argument, while only expressing your deeply felt "religious" opinion. Like assholes, everyone's got an opinion, but they are not evidence, in either religious or secular argument. We're still awaiting your first argument of any kind, though we're not holding our breaths.
And, in an effort to determine the depths of your fanaticism, I repeat my questions:
quote:
Would you or would you not like to see physicians prosecuted for performing "abortions" on unimplanted zygotes for rape or incest victims? Do you consider that to be "murder"?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:47:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Verso, you made it clear that the motivation for your anti-abortion stance is a purely religious one, but you refuse to cite any religious origin or authority for this position.
Then you claim you are making a secular argument, while only expressing your deeply felt "religious" opinion. Like assholes, everyone's got an opinion, but they are not evidence, in either religious or secular argument. We're still awaiting your first argument of any kind, though we're not holding our breaths.
Halfmooner,
Talking to you is very annoying. It's like this:
Halfmooner: "do you like pizza, verso?"
verso: "yes, I like pizza."
Halfmooner: "but do you like pizza?"
verso: "yes, pizza is very good"
Halfmooner: "why won't you answer my question? do you like pizza?"
verso: "talking to you is very annoying..."
I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to continue repeating myself, and will not be able to continue addressing your posts. Thanks for the discussion.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
