Sure, and some "think" they can have a high fat, salt, low fiber diet and add tobacco and alcohol to the mix and their biology will catch up. If you're an evolutionist we've evolved this way, or if you're a creationist or intelligent designist then we were designed this way. Or all of the above for that matter, but the fact is we've been designed to do what comes naturally. Women give birth, men protect and provide and inseminate. Everything else after that is a sudden deviation of the design until evolution catches up which takes a long time. Like that crackpot senator suggested, once women can will themselves to not get pregnant then I'll go along with the choice part. I don't make the rules of nature, I just follow them and as a human, my stance is that it's our duty as humans to protect and provide and nourish our young, not to pulverize them with wire hangers or weed whackers or whatever, that dehumanizes us. Like it or not that's my position.
We have been designed to use our brains to circumvent whatever "natural" circumstances cause us discomfort. Plenty of "inseminating" men have failed to provide and protect. There's very little that's "natural" about our lives these days, so forget about the natural propaganda.
Your attitude is we'd should be still living in caves , wearing animal skins, and being terrified of fire. I agree that we shouldn't pulverize the young with wire hangers or weedwackers ( you sure have a vivid imagination of the wrong kind) but I fail to see what that has to do with abortion. And WHAT senator said women could "will themselves to not get pregnant". You are not following the rules of nature, just the rules of YOUR nature.....which seems to say women are nothing but broodstock...
Junkie? I had a followup to your earlier post, which i found very refreshing, for its straightforward presentation. But i did want to dig a bit deeper into the basis for your view. ..just a clarification would be great.. some thoughts on the basis for your views. Of course it is muddying. The topic is not the origin of life, or some abiogenesis theory, but when does an individual human being come into existence? It is a deflection to talk about the big bang, or evolution, or the origins of life, when that is not the subject. Seriously, grannie? Pulling the woman card? There is no slam on women, here, just an attempt to define when human life begins. It is a clear fact that human beings are mammals, & as such, bear their young live, as their progeny develop within the womb. The argument would be much different if we were marsupials, or laid eggs, but we are mammals, so the factors of our mammalian status enter in to the debate. The 'personhood' of the unborn is exactly the debate, here. That is why the desires, needs, or wants of others involved are secondary. FIRST, we have to determine if there is a human being involved, who should have protected status. THEN other mitigating factors can be assessed. Well, that is a lame argument. We cannot prevent any kind of murder or wrongful death, so we should just abandon any attempt to do so? I always try to liven up my prose with more colorful terms, but those are not the debate. Sometimes posters get pissy with me, & i'll return fire. But i usually bow out before it gets too heated, because i find that unproductive & boring. But that is personal, & is irrelevant to the debate. Yes, there will always be abortions. And muggings. And burglary. And money laundering. The responsibility of a civil society is to provide justice for its citizens. To do that, we generally protect the weaker members from the aggression & exploitation of the strong. IF an unborn child is a full human being, with their own genetic code, their own mind, heart, & all other bodily organs, AND IF we deem them to be worthy of protection from those who would end their lives for ANY other issues, THEN it is becoming of a civil, moral society to do that. We should protect & defend the innocent, weaker members of our society, & NOT let them be victims of other's agendas. Deflection by definition. You can 'dehumanize' with clinical terms, & the anti abortionists can humanize with terms like 'baby'. But those are both hysterical arguments, & skirt the issue. Is this 'thing' a human being, or not? You can call it what you will, but it has its own mind, heart, dna, & is fully capable of growing to adulthood, barring any violence to its person. This 'thing' is a separate human being, dependent on the mother's womb for room & board, until it can move out.. just like post birth children. Civilized, enlightened societies try to protect the weak from the strong, & our degeneration as a society reflects our values of human life. I have fully embraced the decline of our culture, & accept the indicators of our decline. This is one of many, & spells the end of civilization in america, as it has in other post moral societies. Killing unborn babies is now acceptable, & has become mainstream. I fought it for many years, in the 70s & into the 80s, but the barbarism of america continues to grow, as other indicators also illustrate. I see abortion as a dehumanizing criminal act, racist in its origins in america, & part of the social engineering destruction of the family & the fabric of society. I have hoped for a return to morality & civility, but i do not see it, or expect it anymore. We are a lost society, with no moral anchor for our culture. Like others before us, we will fade into the anonymity of history. But it is very sad that a once moral people, who valued freedom & built a working system of self rule & extolled the virtues of human liberty, are now complicit with the destroyers of life & liberty.
Sam, no where in that Scripture does it say "The soul exists at conception"....especially given that Matthew says "of the Holy Spirit"...which is not a "soul", is it? It's a manifestation of the Trinity.
I think you're referring to Senate candidate Todd Akin of Missouri....a Republican who in his pandering to "pro-lifers" on the subject of an exception for rape in cases of abortion, tried to claim that "in a legitimate rape, the female body shuts down". IOW, trying to claim there were NO pregnancies due to rape, so he wouldn't support an exception for rape. So....that crackpot...was one of yours.
A new "individual" human being comes into existence at birth, that hinges on "individual." "Individual" means "separate" by definition, so an attached zef cannot be "individual." It is a slam to women to state or imply that they have abortions on a "whim", IOW, casually, without careful consideration. No need to muddy the waters with discussions of "mammalian status" or "when life begins." No, it is immaterial "what" the zef is. The essential question here is WHERE it is, and you are trying to diminish the essentialness of that question by emphasizing the WHAT of it. If any law is not working to achieve its intended purpose, it is time to reconsider tactics. Anti-abortion laws have never worked, they do not prevent abortion, and they do not even reduce it. As I pointed out previously, government is incapable of protecting the unborn. Laws do not work toward that end. Only a woman can protect her own unborn, and those who wish to reduce abortion should work toward methods of enticement and encouragement, rather than attempting to achieve their ends with the force of government. It is becoming of a civil, moral society to respect women's ability to make decisions about their own lives. This 'thing', the zef does not have a working mind until quite late in gestation, approximately 27 weeks. If you agree that a working mind is essential to 'human beingness', the zef does not qualify until 27 weeks gestation. This 'thing' is NOT a separate human being, it is attached. In spite of your efforts to minimize the importance of that attachment, the attachment to a living breathing woman is essential for the 'thing's' survival. It is strange that you find the virtues of human liberty so compelling, yet are willing to ignore that in the case of women. Can you not grasp that many believe forcing women to bear children they do not want or are unable to provide for, is quite immoral? Can you not grasp that reducing women to mere breeding machines, ignoring their possible contributions to society in other areas, is perceived as immoral?
Grannie, It becomes kind of a stumper for the "pro-lifers" who say a fetus or even a zygote is a "separate human being".... when you say "Okay, so you won't mind that 'separate human being' leaving another person's uterus, right?" And then they contradict themselves by admitting it is NOT a "separate person".
firstly, good to see you back. secondly, it would seem you haven't actually done anything to improve your lack of knowledge on the issue. We have already done this pregnancy is unique argument before .. you lost.
Whats your proof pregnancy is not a unique situation, other than "the courts will not care what u say"?
Then I suggest you learn how to structure a question correctly .. you asked a question I answered it, just as you did on the other topic, if the answer does not meet with your expectations then the failing is on how the question was asked not on the answer. Please do show any definition I have distorted, or where I have offered vague redefinitions of 'personhood', or any other verbal muddying? I have answered all the points you made, not my problem if the answers don't fit your assumptions. That is your assumption not mine. not one single deflection, simply answers that you don't like and cannot respond to. How true. All points are arbitrary, and my response is directly related to your comment where you claim Many of these determinations seem a bit arbitrary to me.. just plucking a 'standard' out of a hat., pro-lifers do nothing different. Just as my response concerning your comment if you take the position that one person's 'rights' ends where another person's begins. is directly related. Even the final part of my comment is directly related to your comment of Or should mothers have the right to end their babies' lives whenever they want, up to some other arbitrary age? If you having trouble responding then please just say so, trying to deflect your own inability by accusing me is disingenuous. you made a statement, onus on your to provide evidence to support it, or do you now think that evidence is not required in a debate? You are free to assume what ever you wish, that does not change the fact that you wanted a debate based on a scientific basis, but you then delved into religious beliefs with your claims of "sacred" and the "sanctity of life", which are both religious based ideas. If your wish was to have a scientific debate then don't delve into religious ideology. What humans are protected, please be specific? Humans are only protected to the point that they impose onto other people causing them injuries, their protection is then moot as the person they are injuring has every right to defend themselves up to and including deadly force, this harks back to your comment of "one person's 'rights' ends where another person's begins" .. your problem is that you are only taking the rights of the fetus into consideration and ignoring the rights of the woman. Then you have a comprehension failure, I clearly stated what MY opinion is - my personal opinion is when there is consistent brain wave activity. not what the medical, scientific AND legal position is - Strictly speaking under scientific and medical conditions a fetus becomes a baby upon birth, no matter how far along the pregnancy is you seem to be under the impression that my opinion cannot be different to the medical, scientific and legal opinion. and I disagree with you. IMO it matters little if the fetus is defined as a human being right from conception, by involving the courts the decisions on abortion have been removed from the realm of medical and scientific community and placed firmly in the legal community and there are numerous legal arguments as to why abortion should be legal AND that the state should pay for it. Exactly what has been redefined in your opinion. If you think that being able to distinguish between an adjective and a noun is nothing more than "grammatical nuances" then you are being disingenuous, and I don't have to redefine a fetus as a non person, it's status matters little to the arguments I use. furthermore if you want to have a reasonable debate then I suggest you cease using overtly emotional statements that have nothing to do with abortion and are purely projected to try and raise a guilt response.
You asked the question, why ask questions if you are just going to ignore the answers and then claim that others are obfuscating. you stated that 'personhood' is a redefinition, used to obscure scientific reality, & introduce moving goalposts, & vague definitions?., all I did was show you that you are wrong. rubbish, the rights of the woman are entirely tied to the rights of the unborn and a baby after birth is socially dependent not biologically dependent, and there is justification you just cannot comprehend it. IF a fetus is a separate human being with all the protections that implies it also has to abide by the restrictions, it CANNOT be assumed that it has consent to invade and use another persons body, it HAS to gain consent to do so, consent is not transferable without the agreement of the person who gave the original consent, that is the legal position that applies to ALL human beings - so unless you are advocating for the fetus to be deemed as some sort of super-person then the argument for abortion would continue regardless of the fetuses status. The whole issue does not rest on the status of a fetus, it rests on consent. Which changes nothing about your original comment of If protection of human life is going to be dependent on some moving goalposts, we are at the mercy of those making the definitions. , you are content to allow a certain group of people to "move the goalposts" then you are no different. At worst in most historical cultures abortions prior to "quickening" was seen as nothing more than a misdemeanor and I have no interest in your religious evaluation of morality considering you wanted this debate to have a scientific base and you accuse me of deflecting etc when you are guilty of the very things you project onto others. Rubbish, the judges on SCOTUS of 1973 were fairly evenly split between conservative and liberal and it is not the job of those judges to dictate morality, their job is to decide whether something is constitutional or not. The laws surrounding abortions prior to Roe had absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the fetus or morality. The facts are that the first abortion restriction laws were based on poison laws due to the numerous "potions" that were dangerous to the woman, even later laws were introduced because the medical profession wanted to remove the un-trained from being able to perform them, even the term pro-life did not become associated with abortion until the late 1960's. Who decides whose morality is right, is yours any better than the next person, by what right do you assume that your version of morality should be imposed onto other people let alone the state doing so. It amazes me that you started a thread wanting a "scientific" basis and from your very first post you delved into religion and with each following comment you have slipped further from your "scientific" basis.
and you are attempting to ignore the differences between being biologically dependent and socially dependent when you can find a "deadbeat" tenant that is physically attached to another person without their consent, and the law does not allow the person to detach themselves, even if it causes the death of the other, then you might have a case . .you cannot and you don't. Yet again you are ignoring the rights of the woman here, simply fixating on the unborn, casting the woman in the role of the aggressor when the reality is that the fetus is the one who instigates the aggression against the woman and causes her injuries .. you find me any other situation where a person is expected to endure injuries without their consent. 1. Something I have never said and as such you are projecting what you want to be true onto me. Being dependent on another person does not involve inflicting injuries onto them .. If you have someone who is dependent on you and they attack you are you, or are you not, entitled to defend yourself, even if that dependent is mentally incompetent.? Yes you are - I don't want to drown in a sea of relativity. is an emotional appeal, add to that you are also conducting a slippery slope fallacy - If our basic right to life is not protected, but is redefined to meet some elite agenda, none are safe, - you are asserting that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. I have answered everyone of your statements without any form of emotional appeals or delving into hysteria, can you say the same, everything I have written is based on actual facts concerning history, law and science. The question has been answered, that you choose to ignore those answers is your burden not mine.
You never posted a court case which explained why pregnancy is not a unique situation. therefore, your arguement is invalid. "try using the search" is a way to avoid my arguements, because your arguements are weak, and you have to avoid my good arguements using strawman counterarugements.
All well and good, but you are missing or ignoring one very big elephant in the room, even a 2 minute old newborn is NOT reliant on a single person for everything, it can be reliant on ANY person. Please show me anywhere where it is stated that an individual is "capable of sustaining its life on its own, else it is not an individual" or did you just make that up? An individual is defined as Single; separate - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/individual - a fetus does not meet the criteria, a baby does. The other elephant you miss is that a baby does not live inside of another person, unlike a fetus. - - - Updated - - - always amazes me how pro-lifers can wilfully misrepresent other people .. but there again I've come to expect it.
none of the answers supplied are factually correct ..The wilful misuse of terminology only proves that pro-forced birthers are dishonest.
How is that relevant? It has nothing to do with what hes trying to argue. You arguements are so full of arbitrary double standards. You always say "irrelevant" to refute my analogies and comparisons (its a cop out), but you always compare totally different things.
no doubt you believe all of the above and that is your right .. the reality is that your wash, rinse, dry, re-use routine has become boring and irrelevant ... but. Requesting to prove a negative is a fallacy in debate, the onus is on you to produce a case that shows pregnancy IS a unique situation . .your claim, up to you to prove it. You don't have an argument that has not been answered numerous times before . .you are all about, wash, rinse, dry and repeat. You wouldn't know a good argument if it bit you on the ass .. just as you have no idea what a strawman really is .. just as you have no idea how the legal system works .. just as you have no idea about pretty much everything.
Very relevant when the poster is trying to equate abortion to killing a born person and in the process ignoring the relevant differences between the two .. but I guess you don't understand that. Your analogies usually are irrelevant, you have proven numerous times that you don't have the level of knowledge to debate this issue instead you rely on the wash, rinse, dry and repeat mantra.
By that logic, your analogies about consent are irrelevant , because you are trying to equivocate a little baby living in its mothers womb, to totally different issues.
Yes you are. Use the search engine. you did it multiple times. if you want me to, i can quote your posts where you did it.
