Pro-Choice Activist Killed by Christo-Fascist Radicals!

POSTED BY: PirateCat
UPDATED: Saturday, June 13, 2009 18:11
VIEWED: 18440
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

PIRATECAT

Monday, June 1, 2009 5:12 AM

George Tiller got popped. Wow somebody finally got him. Well I guess that ends his Kansas attitude about the right to work issue. Doctors what a bunch of creeps. I am always surprised with the so called Christians sitting in Church with the abortionist from hell. I always say Jesus Christ might be your saviour but I don't know that. Ian Punnett on Coast to Coast radio is a pastor who is a big turd burglar lover. And then there is all these retired military dudes who are libs well why did ya stay in being a sweat the load lifer. Poppin a hole in a infant and sucking the baby's brains out with a hoover is just plain wrong. These women who get this done will be cracked the rest of their lives.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

RIGHTEOUS9

Monday, June 1, 2009 6:00 AM

Wow,

you're one crazy mothrfucker.

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, June 1, 2009 11:16 AM

I won't shed any tears for Tiller, but he didn't deserve to be shot dead.

HERO

Monday, June 1, 2009 12:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I won't shed any tears for Tiller, but he didn't deserve to be shot dead.

I think that is the truth of it.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Monday, June 1, 2009 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I think that is the truth of it.

Hear, Hear.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, June 1, 2009 4:54 PM

PC, you have *issues*, you sick bastard, and ever so typical of the type, too.

Simplest way to solve that problem is to address it at the OTHER end by preventin it from coming to that in the first place - but no one never listens to me about that, alas.

You see, I did work a short stint as security for a clinic back in my glory days, acting in defense/escort role to the patients, most of whom were already badly suffering given the horror of the decision they felt they were forced to make, and sure as hell didn't need abuse and violence against them on top of it - something which left me with a REAL dim view of clinic protesters, who were far more vicious at the time, and many of whom seemed to be sadistic pyschopaths looking for a "cause" to morally justify hurting people, something which is still quite true about them.

And back then they didn't always leave it at verbal abuse neither, on most occasions throwing things, and one noteable incident of attempting a physical assault of one of the clients patients, which gave me an excuse to vent a couple months of ire in a blunt trauma fashion on some of those assholes - my only regret about it was that I wasn't allowed to kill em.

Anyone who actively fights to restrict or ban birth control, condoms and sex education, and THEN has the goddamn nerve to attack victims of their "success" on that front, when they resort to the only option they got LEFT at that point, in my firm opinion *deserves* a visit to the trauma ward, and would be best advised not to give me an excuse to make it happen.

Watching those bastards add to the psychological trauma of their de-facto victims fills me with a hatred that borders on psychotic - especially given that with access to birth control, to condoms and proper sexual education, this would become a non-issue, and yet the same folk decrying the clinics, are the same folk RESPONSIBLE for them by fighting to block access to the very means which would reduce if not eliminate the NEED for them.

I generally stay out of this debate, given that I am in no way gonna be rational about it and I know it, but your disgusting commentary there PC deserves the full ire of someone who's gotten to see first hand what monsters people like you really are.

Despite my normally merciful demeanor, if someone offered me the chance to put a bullet in everyone cheering this murderous act, the only two things I would feel about it would be satisfaction, and recoil.

Cause to me, folks like you ain't even human - they've voluntarily surrendered any right to be, and that just makes them an object and an obstacle, naught more a piece of debris blocking the way, to be removed and disposed of.

And since you felt the need to express YOUR madness here, I felt you deserved a taste of mine, cause I *want* you to know how I feel about you.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, June 1, 2009 5:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I generally stay out of this debate, given that I am in no way gonna be rational about it and I know it, but your disgusting commentary there PC deserves the full ire of someone who's gotten to see first hand what monsters people like you really are.

Despite my normally merciful demeanor, if someone offered me the chance to put a bullet in everyone cheering this murderous act, the only two things I would feel about it would be satisfaction, and recoil.

Cause to me, folks like you ain't even human - they've voluntarily surrendered any right to be, and that just makes them an object and an obstacle, naught more a piece of debris blocking the way, to be removed and disposed of.

I think you should have stayed out as you said. I think he's just pulling your leg on this, as no one would write a paragraph like that, or cheer over a murder, no one.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, June 1, 2009 5:36 PM

Quote:
no one would write a paragraph like that, or cheer over a murder, no one.

Oh how I *wish* that were true, Jongstraw.

Unfortunately, I know better.

-F

JKIDDO

Monday, June 1, 2009 5:43 PM

PC is being his real self, Jongsstraw. There really are psychopaths out there.

PIRATENEWS

Monday, June 1, 2009 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
George Tiller got popped. Wow somebody finally got him. Doctors what a bunch of creeps. I am always surprised with the so called Christians sitting in Church with the abortionist from hell.

Yes, getting shot in church is ironic. Too many "christians" go to church to get forgiven of their sins, without first making the mandatory confession to being a sinner and promising to never do it again.

I suspect most "christians" go to church to meet business customers, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHAT THIS DOCTOR WAS DOING. You can find more whores in church than in any bar.

I add that my sister was almost gunned down in church, by a "lone nut ex-soldier on psy meds" at the Communist Unitarian Universalist Church Massacre. My sister is a proud Commie atheist who lived in China and graduated from Yale. The detective who "investigated" the case previously stole my car, so I sued and filed felony charges against him, and he previously killed a woman in a car crash. Cops and prosecutors blocked all evidence from victims proving co-conspirators.
http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2009/02/coincidence-theory-4-assassi
nations-of.html

So who killed this abortionist? Was it a police provocateur or special forces hit team, as required by Operation Northwoods false flag psyops to blame "Christian domestic terrorists"?
www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html
www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miac+report&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

Was it anti-abortionist Alan Keyes, who is suing Hussien Obama Soetoro for being an illegal alien spy, jailed twice by Obama at "Catholic Christian" Notre Dame?

50-million US citizens have been aborted since 1973, to make room for 50-million illegal alien Catholics who are banned from using birth control.

When babies are killed, then an equal number of adults must be killed, to balance the profits of insurance companies, Wall Street pensions and govt pensions.

Quote:
"The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.5) Using Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million multiplied by the 14% fatality rate he used in 1994 produces an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. Using this number instead of Lazorou's 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine 's (IOM) estimated 98,000 annual medical errors would add another 216,000 deaths, for a total of 999,936 deaths annually. Our estimated 10-year total of 7.8 million iatrogenic* deaths is more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the US throughout its entire history. Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day."
—Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; Dorothy Smith, PhD, "Death by Medicine", March 2004 (plus 1-Million annual aborticides in USA)
http://.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

"Harold Shipman, the British family doctor who murdered more than 200 of his patients to become one of the worst serial killers of all time, hanged himself in his prison cell on the eve of his 58th birthday, prison officials said. Shipman was sentenced to life imprisonment in January 2000 for the murder of 15 female patients between 1975 and 1998, and faced no prospect of parole. Two years later an inquiry concluded that he was responsible for the deaths by lethal injection of at least another 200 mostly female and elderly patients at his greater Manchester area practice. Most of Shipman's victims died suddenly without having experienced any life-threatening symptoms. They were, by and large, elderly women who died after being given a lethal injection, usually of morphine, while Shipman visited them in their homes."
—Reuters,

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

HERO

Monday, June 1, 2009 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
...when they resort to the only option they got LEFT at that point, in my firm opinion *deserves* a visit to the trauma ward, and would be best advised not to give me an excuse to make it happen.

Actually, abortion is NOT the ONLY option. They could have the child and raise it themselves or have the child and let someone else raise it.

I'm Pro Life, I believe life begins at conception and the State's interest in that life outweighs the mother's right to privacy. I believe that the health and safety of the mother and baby are about the only exceptions I can accept.

As a Lawyer I support Roe v. Wade, the reasoning of Row is sound and will eventually cause abortion to be eliminated. RvW says that the State's interest outweighs the mothers with viability rather then conception being the standard. If science pushes viability back to conception...then the problem is solved, no more abortions thanks to Roe.

Quote:

...fills me with a hatred that borders on psychotic...see first hand what monsters people like you really are...if someone offered me the chance to put a bullet in everyone...I would feel about it would be satisfaction...folks like you ain't even human...to be removed and disposed of.

Wow, same argument as the fella with the gun...only on the other side.

I feel bad the fella is dead, I also feel bad about all the dead babies, I feel bad for all the young girls who are tormented by this decision whether because they feel abused by the Lifers, or guilty about killing their baby, or stressed out because they decided to have the baby and its a lot of work.

Lots of bad feelings around this issue. I think thats good. Something like this should not be routine or quiet or easy. Life altering decisions should be hard.

My friend works for a Christian Pregnancy Center. They seek to provide alternatives to planned parenthood including medical support, counseling, adoption screening, etc. Don't think that abortion clinics are the only ones that get threats and abuse.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

PIRATENEWS

Monday, June 1, 2009 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Actually, abortion is NOT the ONLY option. They could have the child and raise it themselves or have the child and let someone else raise it.

I agree. Our local newspaper has ads offering to pay all medical and living expenses for mothers to allow their babies to be adopted.

Where's a giant megachurch when a baby needs one?

KWICKO

Monday, June 1, 2009 8:24 PM

Quote:

I'm Pro Life, I believe life begins at conception and the State's interest in that life outweighs the mother's right to privacy.

Odd that you want to hand control over our lives - even BEFORE we're born - to The State, and yet you still somehow manage to consider yourself a Conservative.

You must get dizzy from all the flip-flopping you do...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

KWICKO

Monday, June 1, 2009 8:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Actually, abortion is NOT the ONLY option. They could have the child and raise it themselves or have the child and let someone else raise it.

I agree. Our local newspaper has ads offering to pay all medical and living expenses for mothers to allow their babies to be adopted.

Where's a giant megachurch when a baby needs one?

You know when I'll be willing to outlaw abortion? When I can attach a rider to that bill that says that ALL babies not wanted MUST be adopted by pro-life families, and they can NEVER receive "welfare" or any kind of government assistance to raise those babies.

I'm betting that will happen the day after never.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

ALIASSE

Monday, June 1, 2009 8:47 PM

Broadcasting every day.

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 1, 2009 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Odd that you want to hand control over our lives - even BEFORE we're born - to The State, and yet you still somehow manage to consider yourself a Conservative.

You must get dizzy from all the flip-flopping you do...

Silly Mike. You've been listening to what Conservatives SAY. Watch what the DO to get the real story.

I been saying it a long time now, statist authoritarians come in all flavors, left, right, centrist (Perot much?). We need to quit kidding ourselves that it's the "other guys" who have the capacity for lording it over others.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 1, 2009 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I'm Pro Life, I believe life begins at conception

I believe that life begins at sperm release, and all those anti-God bastards that masturbate should be incarcerated for wasting the elements of people!!!!

Go ahead & end abortion, you authoritarian, it's becoming more widely known that a diet of water & vitamins only for 60 days will end an unwanted pregnancy. Wanna outlaw fasting? Severe weightlifting that drops body fat below 3% will do it also. Wanna try women that "forget" to keep their body fat above that level for murder?

The laughing Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 1, 2009 9:11 PM

The best commentary I've ever seen on the abortion issue was by Joe Bob Briggs (yes, the redneck king of B-movie reviews). He proposed that we have a binding vote on abortion, with all those voting to ban it adding their names to a list that, in the event they "won", would commit them to adopt an unwanted baby. Sort of a put up, or shut up, kind of thing.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

KWICKO

Monday, June 1, 2009 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Aliasse:

Broadcasting every day.

My goodness, that one character sure does look like MST3K's Crow T. Robot!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

WASHNWEAR

Monday, June 1, 2009 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Aliasse:

Broadcasting every day.

My goodness, that one character sure does look like MST3K's Crow T. Robot!

Mike

Roger that...and at first glance the tall humanoid looks sort of Graham Chapman-esque...

donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

RIPWASH

Monday, June 1, 2009 10:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Actually, abortion is NOT the ONLY option. They could have the child and raise it themselves or have the child and let someone else raise it.

I agree. Our local newspaper has ads offering to pay all medical and living expenses for mothers to allow their babies to be adopted.

Where's a giant megachurch when a baby needs one?

You know when I'll be willing to outlaw abortion? When I can attach a rider to that bill that says that ALL babies not wanted MUST be adopted by pro-life families, and they can NEVER receive "welfare" or any kind of government assistance to raise those babies.

I'm betting that will happen the day after never.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

The one thing I'd like for someone to explain to me is how folks can be Anti-torture, yet pro-abortion?

I guess that line of thought could be switched, too, so I'll do it before Kwick can beat me to the punch - How can someone be pro-torture and anti-abortion? But . . . that doesn't . . . make . . . as much sense . . . really . . .

I'm with Hero in that I hate the fact that this guy was killed by a guy professing to be a Christian (because it makes ALL Christians look bad). I hate the guy was killed by ANYONE, for that matter. But I also grieve for the millions of babies that are aborted. I don't know if these babies have nerve ending or if they can feel much, but imagine if they did. THAT, my friends, would be torture beyond imagining. And they've done absolutely nothing to anybody.

Just looked it up and I'll use a "conservative" source, to boot. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166555,00.html

But then this begs another question - even if a human being can not feel pain, would killing him/her in a way that would be considered painful way be inhumane or not? Would it be wrong? I'm no expert, but I hear some abortion techniques can be pretty gruesome.

I think Kwicko's idea about putting pro-lifers on an adopter's list is a pretty good one, actually. I'm fairly certain there are plenty of people out there who would adopt.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

WHOZIT

Monday, June 1, 2009 10:43 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523860,00.html

Do ya think a "Right-Wing" wacko did this? My guess is no.

CITIZEN

Monday, June 1, 2009 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
The one thing I'd like for someone to explain to me is how folks can be Anti-torture, yet pro-abortion?

I don't know, I'd like for someone to explain how it's a relevant comparison.

RIPWASH

Monday, June 1, 2009 10:58 PM

It was a bit of a jump I suppose, but I thought someone could enlighten me - in light of the discussions on other threads about torture being wrong - how people who are against torture can support abortion. That's all. Just curious...

Good to see ya back, Citizen, btw.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

KWICKO

Monday, June 1, 2009 11:08 PM

Quote:
I guess that line of thought could be switched, too, so I'll do it before Kwick can beat me to the punch - How can someone be pro-torture and anti-abortion? But . . . that doesn't . . . make . . . as much sense . . . really . . .

Well, I suppose you have to have the people be born before you can let them grow up to be tortured, so I guess I can kinda see how you can be anti-abortion and pro-torture...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

CITIZEN

Monday, June 1, 2009 11:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
It was a bit of a jump I suppose, but I thought someone could enlighten me - in light of the discussions on other threads about torture being wrong - how people who are against torture can support abortion. That's all. Just curious...

Good to see ya back, Citizen, btw.

Because I've yet to meet someone who supports Abortion, for a start, just those that don't want to make it illegal. When it's legal it's done by a Doctor, when it's illegal, it's done by a guy with a vacuum cleaner and a coat hanger. But it still gets done.

Plus there's a big difference between a human being, and a collection of cells that might one day become a human being.

YINYANG

Monday, June 1, 2009 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Because I've yet to meet someone who supports Abortion, for a start, just those that don't want to make it illegal.

I'm yinyang, and I support abortion. Nice to meet you.

RIVER6213

Monday, June 1, 2009 11:20 PM

People should have the choice to have the child or abort it, and anyone who has a problem with this should go and fuck themselves.

-River

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 1, 2009 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

But I also grieve for the millions of babies that are aborted. I don't know if these babies have nerve ending or if they can feel much, but imagine if they did.

Let's put it in a framework that you might *get*.
Remember what it felt like to be born? No?
When I was 5 I had my thumb slammed by a car door and know what? I cried because, yeah, it hurt, but more because peeps were makin' such a fuss over it, afraid it might be broke (it wasn't).
You grieve for the millions that are killed as small fetuses, yet where is the Christian feeling of wanting your fellow man to experience a better life- as in having health care (You might want that- I don't recall, just makin' the point)?
IF a fetus can feel anything AT ALL, an abortion would feel a bit like being in a storm for a moment- the brain, at such an early stage, would be less able to properly recognize & classify pain than an average insect.
And then either these souls catch the next ride to our world (my belief), or, they visit the Allmighty.
What's with the grieve then?

The laughing Chrisisall

RIGHTEOUS9

Monday, June 1, 2009 11:24 PM

Well Ripwash,

simply for the same reason that we believe we can put satelites in space, cook food in a microwave oven, split the atom, perform open heart surgery, etc. etc.

Scientific consensus seems to have been reliable in the past. Scientific consensus is that the embryo is not a human being. It is a potential human being, and so is sperm and so are eggs. It is not thought to have any sentience at that point.

It can not be an easy decision for anybody who makes the choice to perform an abortion, because at that point, the baby is an idea, and killing the idea of a person that could be is a sad and weighty decision, but from our perspective, it is not killing a person.

There is no mental twister going on here either. This is not merely rationalization by us because we LIKE the idea of aborting embryos, or because we're so strongly lured by the idea that a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body that we are willing to sacrifice the life of innocent little baby cells.

I mean, I'm an agnostic, so for me its easy. I don't think a spirit is plopped in there right after you knock a girl up. I think it takes time for the process to create a human.

for a christian, maybe a pro-choice christian could chime up and explain whether they think the spirit comes to the body later in the process, or whether there's some other way to rationalize it.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 1, 2009 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
People should have the choice to have the child or abort it, and anyone who has a problem with this should go and fuck themselves.

That certainly would not result in an unwanted pregnancy, at any rate.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Monday, June 1, 2009 11:32 PM

Also, while we're worrying over all this, and while we're attaching riders to proposed legislation, can I add another?

Can I add a rider that every father of an unwanted baby will have child support taken straight out of his wages before he gets paid? I mean, if "the State" is so interested in the fates of these babies, it shouldn't be too much of a burden for the state to take the money from the fathers to help care for them, right?

'Course, I'm thinkin' that if MEN were forced to be responsible for the children that WOMEN were forced to give birth to, then there'd never even be a question again of whether abortion should be a legal and safe alternative. I mean hell, if men could get pregnant, nobody would have ever even made an issue of this - abortion would be as accepted and normal as pills for erectile dysfunction.

On the other hand, being a man, maybe I should attach an amendment to that bill that says that the only people who are allowed to vote on whether or not abortion remains legal are those who are physically able to undergo such a procedure. In other words, sorry, men, but you don't get to vote. :)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 1, 2009 11:47 PM

I will simply undo the pregnancies with the spell of making!

The laughing Chrisisall

RIPWASH

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 12:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
People should have the choice to have the child or abort it, and anyone who has a problem with this should go and fuck themselves.

-River

Ah yes, River . . . always with the thoughtful, caring and loving responses.

Oh wait! Lemme guess . . . you're gonna tell me, unprovoked, to go and . . . you know. What you said above.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

RIPWASH

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 12:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I will simply undo the pregnancies with the spell of making!

The laughing Chrisisall

No fair. Can't use the same obscure reference in two different threads, Chris.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

RIPWASH

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Plus there's a big difference between a human being, and a collection of cells that might one day become a human being.

Only thing is . . . a collection of cells, formed in a uterus by the combining of a human sperm and a human egg WILL grow into a human being. No "might" about it, my friend.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 1:10 AM

Quote:
I'm fairly certain there are plenty of people out there who would adopt.

Oh indeed, many of whom CAN'T.

See, that was the final coffin nail for the relationship between myself and the now ex-Fremgirl.

She wanted kids, which thanks to battle damage I am unable to provide, and due to 'bad seed' propaganda she was unwilling to foster or adopt a potentially emotionally damaged child, something I had no issue with cause I deal with far worse (the emotionally destroyed adults they grow into) just about every day.

And so it came to the whole adoption issue, when the folks in charge of it took issue with our income for one - which mind you, combined to damn near $70k/year - as being "insufficient" for their requirements, and then the real deal killer...

The very INSTANT they learned neither one of us was a mainstream Christian, and hell *YES* they asked, rather pointedly, we were in no uncertain terms informed that we didn't have a chance in hell, pun intended.

At which point the already unstable relationship prettymuch starting coming apart in pieces.

Folks act like adoption is a 1-2-3 easy process, and the only reason I can fathom that ANYONE would think so, is never having actually investigated what a nightmare it can be, especially dealing with MARE and their damn heavy religious biases.

I'm still seriously pissed about that, cause whenever someone brings up adoption as a solution it's a slap in my face, and that of everyone who's ever tried and been rejected, whether they mean it to be or not - and since it was unintended, I choose to share with you why it's so hurtful for me to hear, rather than bring out the flamethrower.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

YINYANG

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 1:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Ah yes, River . . . always with the thoughtful, caring and loving responses.

Oh wait! Lemme guess . . . you're gonna tell me, unprovoked, to go and . . . you know. What you said above.

What's unloving about masturbation?

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 1:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
It was a bit of a jump I suppose, but I thought someone could enlighten me - in light of the discussions on other threads about torture being wrong - how people who are against torture can support abortion. That's all. Just curious...

It's not much of a jump, really.

Anti-torture: Against violating another person's body by force, even to save the life of other people.

Pro-choice: Against taking away a woman's rights over her own body, even to save the life of a person biologically dependent on her.

It's all about the sanctity of the human body. You do not mess with that. You don't steal someone's kidney because someone else might need it to survive, so you don't tell a woman she has to carry someone in her belly for 9 months and go through a painful birth process even if that's what it takes for that someone to survive.

I don't play the "It's not a human being" game. It's a human being at a very early stage of development. It's tragic when this development has to be stopped, every time it's tragic. But that doesn't trump the rights of the "donor" a.k.a. pregnant woman to decide whether she wants to donate or not. It HAS to be voluntary, everything else is a violation.

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 2:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I believe that life begins at sperm release, and all those anti-God bastards that masturbate should be incarcerated for wasting the elements of people!!!!

DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

MEN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN:
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.

PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!

NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KPO

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 3:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
It was a bit of a jump I suppose, but I thought someone could enlighten me - in light of the discussions on other threads about torture being wrong - how people who are against torture can support abortion. That's all. Just curious...

It's not much of a jump, really.

Anti-torture: Against violating another person's body by force, even to save the life of other people.

Pro-choice: Against taking away a woman's rights over her own body, even to save the life of a person biologically dependent on her.

It's all about the sanctity of the human body. You do not mess with that. You don't steal someone's kidney because someone else might need it to survive, so you don't tell a woman she has to carry someone in her belly for 9 months and go through a painful birth process even if that's what it takes for that someone to survive.

I don't play the "It's not a human being" game. It's a human being at a very early stage of development. It's tragic when this development has to be stopped, every time it's tragic. But that doesn't trump the rights of the "donor" a.k.a. pregnant woman to decide whether she wants to donate or not. It HAS to be voluntary, everything else is a violation.

Hmm, good argument.

Heads should roll

JKIDDO

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 3:20 AM

Quote:
Only thing is . . . a collection of cells, formed in a uterus by the combining of a human sperm and a human egg WILL grow into a human being. No "might" about it, my friend.

Except... it doesn't.

First you have a little blob of cells, which forms.... wait for it.... a placenta!. Yep! A placenta. Sometimes that's ALL that forms. Sometimes you get half a baby. Sometimes a fetus with no head. Sometimes you get two jumbled up together, or... just a disorganized mess. Scientists estimate that about 30% of all fertilized eggs are aborted, often before the woman knows she is pregnant, because of a fatal defect.
Reasons to have a late-term abortion

http://www.gendergappers.org/lizinfo.htm

Just a big mess.

No head (anencephaly)

brain outside of body

BADKARMA00

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
I'm fairly certain there are plenty of people out there who would adopt.

Oh indeed, many of whom CAN'T.

See, that was the final coffin nail for the relationship between myself and the now ex-Fremgirl.

She wanted kids, which thanks to battle damage I am unable to provide, and due to 'bad seed' propaganda she was unwilling to foster or adopt a potentially emotionally damaged child, something I had no issue with cause I deal with far worse (the emotionally destroyed adults they grow into) just about every day.

And so it came to the whole adoption issue, when the folks in charge of it took issue with our income for one - which mind you, combined to damn near $70k/year - as being "insufficient" for their requirements, and then the real deal killer...

The very INSTANT they learned neither one of us was a mainstream Christian, and hell *YES* they asked, rather pointedly, we were in no uncertain terms informed that we didn't have a chance in hell, pun intended.

At which point the already unstable relationship prettymuch starting coming apart in pieces.

Folks act like adoption is a 1-2-3 easy process, and the only reason I can fathom that ANYONE would think so, is never having actually investigated what a nightmare it can be, especially dealing with MARE and their damn heavy religious biases.

I'm still seriously pissed about that, cause whenever someone brings up adoption as a solution it's a slap in my face, and that of everyone who's ever tried and been rejected, whether they mean it to be or not - and since it was unintended, I choose to share with you why it's so hurtful for me to hear, rather than bring out the flamethrower.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

---------------

I've always found it odd that no one has to 'be approved' to HAVE children, yet must jump through numerous hoops to adopt one, Frem. It makes no sense to me. By the standards you just described, a goodly number of women who give birth are apparently 'unfit' for parenting, but because they can 'have' children, it's ok.

If a couple, or even a single person, who can provide a stable environment and good upbringing want to adopt an unwanted child, I can't for the life of me understand why they wouldn't be allowed to.

But, there's a lot of things I don't 'get', so maybe it's just me.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:

I'm yinyang, and I support abortion. Nice to meet you.

Isuspect you don't understand what I said

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 7:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Only thing is . . . a collection of cells, formed in a uterus by the combining of a human sperm and a human egg WILL grow into a human being. No "might" about it, my friend.

Not really. In fact I believe most, or at least a very large minority of developing embryos self abort for one reason or another. Add in that pregnancy in humans is the most dangerous to mother and child of any in the animal kingdom, and it starts to paint a different picture.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 11:52 AM

Of course, if we were to ever make real-world sex-ed available, and if we were to stop stigmatizing sex and let people know that it's natural, it's good, but there are responsibilities that go along with it, if we were to encourage condom use, if we were to make RU-486 and the "morning after" pill widely available, if we were to make adoption a better and easier option... in short, if we were to stop blocking all the ALTERNATIVES to abortion, the actual need for abortion and the sheer number of abortions would drop quite dramatically.

You know why the anti-choicers don't want any of the above to come to pass? Because it takes away their power. It takes their main issue out of the clinics and puts it in the hands of the people it will directly affect, and we certainly can't have THAT, now can we?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

RIPWASH

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 11:59 AM

On a side note . . .

I've always thought it funny that they named the RU-486 drug the way they did. Sounds more like a question about your willingness to kill if you ask me

Are you for 86ing someone/thing? To "86" - slang for killing something.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 12:26 PM

Tiller has already been arrested and on trial for 1,000s of 1st degree murders.

Dr Tiller the Killer killed babies AFTER they were born, when they could survive on their own.

So cops, prosecutors and judges agree Dr Tiller deserved the death penalty. But one juror hung himself.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Of course, if we were to ever make real-world sex-ed available, and if we were to stop stigmatizing sex and let people know that it's natural, it's good, but there are responsibilities that go along with it, if we were to encourage condom use, if we were to make RU-486 and the "morning after" pill widely available, if we were to make adoption a better and easier option... in short, if we were to stop blocking all the ALTERNATIVES to abortion, the actual need for abortion and the sheer number of abortions would drop quite dramatically.

You know why the anti-choicers don't want any of the above to come to pass? Because it takes away their power. It takes their main issue out of the clinics and puts it in the hands of the people it will directly affect, and we certainly can't have THAT, now can we?

Yeah, it does seem strange that the people who are against legalised abortion, also tend to be those that want to prevent people from having the education required to make intelligent choices. Of course moral indignation and faux superiority is so much of a substitute.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 2:07 PM

Quote:
I've always found it odd that no one has to 'be approved' to HAVE children, yet must jump through numerous hoops to adopt one, Frem. It makes no sense to me. By the standards you just described, a goodly number of women who give birth are apparently 'unfit' for parenting, but because they can 'have' children, it's ok.

If a couple, or even a single person, who can provide a stable environment and good upbringing want to adopt an unwanted child, I can't for the life of me understand why they wouldn't be allowed to.

But, there's a lot of things I don't 'get', so maybe it's just me.

Oh it's not just you...

There's half a hundred stupid and ridiculous things within the way our society deals with kids that make me wanna (pardon, i'm in something of a mood) choke a bitch.

Case in point: what we call the incest-exception loophole.

Some pervo molests a neighbors kid, they go to jail, right ?
(only, you'd be shocked, if you pull up USDOJ-BOS Statistics, cause most freaks get house arrest the first time, and only wind up actually doing TIME on the third or fourth offense, averaging a dozen plus victims before getting caught each time, despite being a greater danger to the community than any other form of criminal AND having a recidivism rate SEVEN TIMES higher than any other crime...)

So, you'd think that a freak who do so to their own kid, being an even more horrific act and a breach of sacred trust would be severely penalized, right ?

Nope, thanks to the legal maneuverings of certain groups, one of which funded by, I kid you not, freakin Disney/Infoseek (and they did this to get Patrick Naughton off the hook, up to and including buying off a judge to shred the entire protection act he was busted under one day before sentencing) a freak who victimised his OWN kid most often gets charged with incest, a crime which rates below misdemeanor theft in many states, and qualifies for probation and family counselling rather than a prison sentence - which is hard ENOUGH to prosecute in light of the Sembler-Lichfield propaganda that "all children are lying manipulators", and has to face what I call the "bigfoot effect", that being peoples response when faced with something so horrific they don't WANT to believe it, if you give them ANY WAY NOT TO, any excuse whatever to disbelieve it, they'll take it cause it's easier than facing up to a reality so horrible.

As you can imagine that burns a lot of folk, especially me, since it goes right back and crosses over with my ire at our society treating children like property.

We've been trying to close that loophole for YEARS now, with only moderate success, and part of it was having to build a political action committee from scratch to protect the rights of children, which have neither a voice nor a vote, and no resources with which to bend politicians, ergo said politicians don't give a shit about them, especially since they're all about stuff they can get the benefit of THIS election cycle, instead of 18-20 years down the road, the shortsighted greedy bastards.

But we did it, and Protect.org was born, our "big stick" with which to threaten politicians, and we're making progress on this, finally.
http://www.protect.org/Success-Stories/California/What-the-Passage-of-
the-Circle-of-Trust-Bill-Means-to-Children-in-America.html

Current target: Minnesota.
They're still having trouble with the website, having moved to a new host and obviously because of the nature of the organisation and those who dislike it, there's serious security issues which are slowing the process.

And that's only ONE thing, there's plenty more.

Like, say, how being verbally and emotionally abusive to your spouse is finally frowned upon, and beating your wife is right out - yet we meekly accept the SAME idiotic justifications which have finally proven invalid when we fail to protect kids in the same manner ?

Or how that kind of abuse in the school environment magically becomes "just words" and "kids being kid

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I've always thought it funny that they named the RU-486 drug the way they did.

Oh indeed, but few folks are willing to SAY that, cause it takes a pretty heavy dose of gallows humor to appreciate the irony there.

Considering some of the crap I deal with on a daily basis though, often enough gallows humor is all we got.

-F

HERO

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Odd that you want to hand control over our lives - even BEFORE we're born - to The State, and yet you still somehow manage to consider yourself a Conservative.

The State has an interest in preserving life. Otherwise murder would not be illegal.

Your kneejerk response to the argument is stunning. Taking the position that the State has no interest in life is crazy. Our whole founding principal is that "Governments are instituted among Men" "to secure these rights" of which "Life" seems to be the first of many.

Your neighbor can't just kill you for no reason. Why not? Because the people of Ohio wanted to have a society where your neighbor could not kill you so they got together and formed a government for the express purpose of preserving your right to life...among other things none of which really matter if your neighbor can kill you for no reason.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

HERO

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You know when I'll be willing to outlaw abortion? When I can attach a rider to that bill that says that ALL babies not wanted MUST be adopted by pro-life families, and they can NEVER receive "welfare" or any kind of government assistance to raise those babies.

So your pro life. You clearly don't see this as a privacy issue. Your statement indicates that its an issue of who will care for the child and how much will it cost.

So your willing to kill babies if it saves you money...(Edited to add: This is a harsh statement about your views...but thats your fault for reducing matters of life and privacy to a simple economic argument. Do you also favor killing the elderly or disabled who can't pay for their medical treatments?)

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

The State has an interest in preserving life. Otherwise parking & speeding ticket revenues would be lower, not to mention the loss of taxes.

Fixed that for ya, H.

The "State" gives a rats ass about life, individually speaking. It's interest is in the institution, that fosters a good working environment for the Fortune 500...hmmmm, sounds a bit Communist, eh?

You need to watch Judge Dredd again.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

So your willing to kill babies if it saves you money...

The strawman cometh.

The laughing Chrisisall

HERO

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can I add a rider that every father of an unwanted baby will have child support taken straight out of his wages before he gets paid? I mean, if "the State" is so interested in the fates of these babies, it shouldn't be too much of a burden for the state to take the money from the fathers to help care for them, right?

'Course, I'm thinkin' that if MEN were forced to be responsible for the children

Kinda happens already. Child support enforcement has come a long way in the last ten years. As a Prosecutor I tell you it has a way to go, but most folks are paying these days.

From an equal protection standpoint this is unfair. The mother gets all the power. The father has no choice in the matter. To be fair a father should either get an abortion veto reflecting his interest in the child, or an opt out period for support.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The mother gets all the power. The father has no choice in the matter.

Talk to the Intelligent Designer.

The laughing Chrisisall

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
From an equal protection standpoint this is unfair. The mother gets all the power. The father has no choice in the matter. To be fair a father should either get an abortion veto reflecting his interest in the child, or an opt out period for support.

Way I figure it, both men and women have an absolutely equal chance to prevent pregnancy by acting responsibly. Men, weirdly, do sometimes not take this chance and right as seriously as they should.

Once pregancy has happened, it falls to the person with the entirety of the biological burden to make a choice about the next 9 months of her life and undergo a risky procedure, be that birth or be that abortion.

If birth is chosen, the father should have rights again from the exact same moment that the child is physically independent from the mother (for real, not hypothetically, meaning birth). ETA: And I mean equal rights.

That's one of those cases where yes, it's sort of unfair, but only because it is, indeed, entirely unfair. I bet many women would like to share the burden along with the equal rights. Once that is medically possible, laws should be adjusted.

Until then, men need to take advantage of the only rights they can fairly have.

RUE

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 9:00 PM

"Only thing is . . . a collection of cells, formed in a uterus by the combining of a human sperm and a human egg WILL grow into a human being. No "might" about it, my friend."

"Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before a woman finds out she's pregnant ... (added to that) About 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage."

And then there are the ones that are born ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 9:03 PM

Nothing seems to have changed here - still the usual fact-free opinions masquerading as discussion.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 9:20 PM

Quote:

The State has an interest in preserving life. Otherwise murder would not be illegal.

Even *before* it's "life" as we know it. You want to "preserve life"? Fine - suck that 1-hour-old blob of cells out of the womb and see how "alive" it is on its own. This isn't about "preserving" or "protecting" life - it's about controlling it. That's *supposed* to be something that you're against.

Quote:

Your kneejerk response to the argument is stunning. Taking the position that the State has no interest in life is crazy. Our whole founding principal is that "Governments are instituted among Men" "to secure these rights" of which "Life" seems to be the first of many.

Actually, I find YOUR knee-jerk reaction stunning. You're willing to throw out any and all provisions of privacy and the right to self-determination in your effort to control whether and when women are forced to become incubators.

Quote:

Your neighbor can't just kill you for no reason. Why not? Because the people of Ohio wanted to have a society where your neighbor could not kill you so they got together and formed a government for the express purpose of preserving your right to life...among other things none of which really matter if your neighbor can kill you for no reason.

Your neighbor isn't supposed to be able to torture you for no reason, either, but that apparently hasn't stopped it from happening with a frightening frequency, all while you not only endorse it, but actively cheerlead it and try to give it cutesy names like "Fisher-Price's My First Waterboard™".

So while you're real big on keeping government small, and keeping it out of our hair and out of our bedrooms, it turns out you're really NOT that big on any of those things - you'd rather have the government large and in charge, in the bedroom if not in the boardroom.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You know when I'll be willing to outlaw abortion? When I can attach a rider to that bill that says that ALL babies not wanted MUST be adopted by pro-life families, and they can NEVER receive "welfare" or any kind of government assistance to raise those babies.

So your pro life. You clearly don't see this as a privacy issue. Your statement indicates that its an issue of who will care for the child and how much will it cost.

Actually, I proposed that in a tongue-in-cheek put-your-money-where-your-big-fat-mouth-is kind of way - a kind of "poisoning the well" proposition that will force the hard right to either put up or shut up... I *am* pro-life. I'm also pro-choice. Those are not mutually exclusive positions.

You seem to be the kind of "pro life" person who is insistent on doing everything possible to save every fetus and every baby, right up until the moment they're actually born into this world, at which you want nothing more to do with them. You don't care what happens to them after they're born, or where they go or what they do, so long as it doesn't cost you any more money in taxes. So I guess the extent of your "caring" about life tends to revolve around money, wouldn't you say?

Quote:
So your willing to kill babies if it saves you money...(Edited to add: This is a harsh statement about your views...but thats your fault for reducing matters of life and privacy to a simple economic argument. Do you also favor killing the elderly or disabled who can't pay for their medical treatments?)

Actually, I'm more in favor of torturing them to see what they know, and THEN killing them if they can't pay for their medical treatments. (That's sarcasm. I'm sure you don't get it.)

What's YOUR solution for people who can't pay for their medical treatment? I *KNOW* it's not to let the government take care of it, right?

By the way, on the whole "killing babies if it saves you money" thing? That's actually something that MANY families have to deal with in one way or another. Most couples have to decide (a) IF they're going to have children, (b) WHEN they're going to have them, (c) HOW MANY they're going to have, (d) WHEN they're going to quit having them, and (e) HOW to do all that. A great many of those couples will have to choose between vasectomies, hysterectomies, birth control, the rhythm method, withdrawal, abstinence, etc. Any of those methods can be construed as "killing babies" if you really want to get right down into the Biblical muck of it. So I'm sure you have no issues with "killing babies if it saves you money" when it gets right down to it.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
the rhythm method

My Wife & I have successfully pre-emptively killed many potential peeps that way, numbering into the hundreds by now...

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Nothing seems to have changed here - still the usual fact-free opinions masquerading as discussion.

What thread have you been reading, I see a fact-filled and reasonably civil (as RWED goes) discussion going on here.

The laughing Chrisisall

KPO

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 11:56 PM

Quote:
By the way, on the whole "killing babies if it saves you money" thing? That's actually something that MANY families have to deal with in one way or another. Most couples have to decide (a) IF they're going to have children, (b) WHEN they're going to have them, (c) HOW MANY they're going to have, (d) WHEN they're going to quit having them, and (e) HOW to do all that. A great many of those couples will have to choose between vasectomies, hysterectomies, birth control, the rhythm method, withdrawal, abstinence, etc. Any of those methods can be construed as "killing babies" if you really want to get right down into the Biblical muck of it. So I'm sure you have no issues with "killing babies if it saves you money" when it gets right down to it.

Hmm, I would have to suggest that hypothetical life is not equivalent to real, existing life; and hypothetical personhood not equivalent to potential personhood.

Heads should roll

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

Hmm, I would have to suggest that hypothetical life is not equivalent to real, existing life; and hypothetical personhood not equivalent to potential personhood.

Typical linear thinking in a non-linear existence. It's a corporeal-consciousness thing.
Not judging, just sayin'.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:12 AM

Quote:
Hmm, I would have to suggest that hypothetical life is not equivalent to real, existing life; and hypothetical personhood not equivalent to potential personhood.

And therefore, potential personhood is not equivalent to real personhood. Which is the balance I reach when I compare a blob of cells (which might one day become a person) to a real person: the mother.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:49 AM

Quote:
And therefore, potential personhood is not equivalent to real personhood.

That doesn't directly follow from what I said, but nonetheless, I agree.

Quote:
Which is the balance I reach when I compare a blob of cells (which might one day become a person) to a real person: the mother.

Don't compare a 'blob of cells' - you could be talking about a tumour: maybe talk about 'a unique human life with the potential for personhood'. Also bear in mind you are weighing the death of one, against only stress and inconvenience to the other.

Heads should roll

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:58 AM

Quote:
Typical linear thinking in a non-linear existence. It's a corporeal-consciousness thing.
Not judging, just sayin'.

I'm speaking from the human perspective; hypothetical life is not equivalent to real, tangible existing life - that's just the way humans feel about things. If you remove yourself from the human perspective then nothing is immoral.

Heads should roll

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:19 AM

Quote:
Don't compare a 'blob of cells' - you could be talking about a tumour

Yes, sometimes it IS a tumor. Or just a blob. Do we talk about the death of a tumor? Do we worry about the death of a placenta?

I had this discussion a long time ago with Finn. In his view, the fertilized egg is like a train at a train station, with a known destination in nine months. But it's not really like that. A fertilized egg is .... well, just a fertilized egg. Roughly 30-50% of the time something goes wrong at the very beginning. The chromosomes didn't pair up. Or the cell starts off on the wrong track, so to speak, and divides badly. At every stage of development, there is always the possibility that something will go horribly wrong. Unlike the idealized, perfect being which we imagine will be born, the reality is much more ambiguous.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

RIPWASH

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:42 AM

I know you guys are trying to make a point but . . . . JEEZ! Enough with the pictures. Please?

But more to the point - and yes, this is emotion talking perhaps more than fact - those pictures, no matter how grotesque, still show a human fetus that were aborted naturally. No direct human interference was involved in a brain forming outside the skull or whatever else happened (and I don't care to revisit the pictures, thankyouverymuch). I don't see anything in those pictures that resembles a cow or a duck. Just humans. How is that not stating a fact? To me, there is a difference between life ending on it's own and life being ended by human hands that might - yes, I'll rephrase that portion of my former post - become a viable human fetus. But I stand by my statement that those cells are human in nature and therefore, unhindered and nature/God willing, will form humans. Those cells would NOT form any other animal. Why is it so wrong to say or think that?

I'll clarify my position by saying, of course, there are going to be times when, unfortunately, a regrettable decision will have to be made when, for whatever reason, a baby has to be terminated for the health of the mother. I can't put into words how I feel about that. You guys will probably blast me for that, but . . . there you go.

Overall, it's a very sad thing to think about IMHO and I'm sorry if I can't be as distant and cold about it as some of you seem to be. That's not an insult or a slam, so please don't take it that way. My nature doesn't allow me to sway too much on this subject.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:03 AM

Quote:
Yes, sometimes it IS a tumor.

Sometimes it isn't. If it were only the lives of tumours and malformed babies that have been cut short this wouldn't be such an issue. You ought to weigh the most serious consequences of abortion (and it isn't a wild and freakish exception for an embryo to actually develop into a healthy newborn infant), when you make a moral argument for it.

Heads should roll

JKIDDO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:47 AM

But now you're in a realm of what might be. not what is. Yes, it MIGHT become a perfect baby who will grow up to save the world. Or it MIGHT become a tumor.

People put a lot of expectations on this little blob of cells. They imagine all kinds of wonderful things... nobody imagines it will become a baby with two bodies and one head.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Also bear in mind you are weighing the death of one, against only stress and inconvenience to the other.

But you say that like the stress and inconvenience of the other person doesn't count.

Why shouldn't it count?

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Also bear in mind you are weighing the death of one, against only stress and inconvenience to the other.

But you say that like the stress and inconvenience of the other person doesn't count.

Why shouldn't it count?

No, of course it counts. Just pointing out that in terms of rights, the foetus's rights are transgressed more.

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
No, of course it counts. Just pointing out that in terms of rights, the foetus's rights are transgressed more.

Why would a blob of non-differentiated cells have any rights to be transgressed exactly?

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
But now you're in a realm of what might be. not what is. Yes, it MIGHT become a perfect baby who will grow up to save the world. Or it MIGHT become a tumor.

People put a lot of expectations on this little blob of cells. They imagine all kinds of wonderful things... nobody imagines it will become a baby with two bodies and one head.

If we were talking about just one abortion then we would be in the 'realm of what might be'. But since we are talking about many, many abortions (surely - or at least I am) we're in the realm of what definitely is. These are the consequences of abortion.

But I'm not disagreeing with you guys' argument of probability regarding the embryo. Does the very real chance of miscarriage/deformation diminish its weight in this moral calculation? I would have to say yes. Just like an injured person in a hospital who has only a 50% of surviving without brain damage or something. Such a life that already hangs in the balance is automatically worth less than an intact, equivalent one (if you had to choose).

Quote:
little blob of cells

So we're sticking with this definition then are we?

Heads should roll

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:38 AM

Quote:
Why would a blob of non-differentiated cells...

Oh, no, we've adapted it.

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Oh, no, we've adapted it.

It appears we don't have an answer to our question.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
But now you're in a realm of what might be. not what is. Yes, it MIGHT become a perfect baby who will grow up to save the world. Or it MIGHT become a tumor.

People put a lot of expectations on this little blob of cells. They imagine all kinds of wonderful things... nobody imagines it will become a baby with two bodies and one head.

But I don't THINK a "blob of cells" formed in a uterus by the combining of human sperm and a human egg becomes a tumor. Does it? And if so, I wouldn't think a "tumor" would cause a positive result on a pregnancy test and thus cause someone to seek an abortion.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Oh, no, we've adapted it.

It appears we don't have an answer to our question.

I'm sure I do. But if you termed your question in a more honest way I reckon you might get there yourself.

Edited to add:

Quote:
Why would a blob of non-differentiated cells have any rights to be transgressed exactly?

I wasn't trying to claim full human legal rights for the foetus - perhaps 'rights' was unfortunate wording. But is it wrong to talk about the 'right to life' of a living creature?

I wouldn't kill a bug for no reason - partly because of a little bit of squeamishness, but partly because I have respect for even such small life; go on your way little bug. Not trying to be moralistic about life, just pointing out there's something beautiful and miraculous about it, even on a small scale (though this feeling is probably proportional to how complex the life is).

To me a human foetus is worth much more than a bug even when it's only the same size, and able to function much less: I think this extra worth comes from potential. Me and Signy were talking about weighing things - I'm just trying to give everything its proper weight.

Heads should roll

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

Yes, getting shot in church is ironic. Too many "christians" go to church to get forgiven of their sins, without first making the mandatory confession to being a sinner and promising to never do it again.

I suspect most "christians" go to church to meet business customers, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHAT THIS DOCTOR WAS DOING. You can find more whores in church than in any bar.

PN, I'm amazed you could write something I agree with. I think your description is profound and perfect.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I'm sure I do. But if you termed your question in a more honest way I reckon you might get there yourself.

My question was perfectly honest. If you were prepared to discuss this honestly maybe you'd see that.

HERO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're willing to throw out any and all provisions of privacy and the right to self-determination in your effort to control whether and when women are forced to become incubators.

I'm not throwing out the right to privacy. It still exists. The Court has always recognized that rights, even fundamental express rights like speech, can be limited by the Govt if there is a compelling govt interest and the intrusion is as limited as possible to protect that interest.

The State has an interest in preserving order, in safety, and in preventing panic. Thus while you cannot yell "fire" in a theater, you can yell fire outside a theater.

My argument acknowledges the right to privacy. I agree that while the Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights, it also creates a "penumbra" in which we find a variety of implied rights.

However, I feel that there are two competing interests with the mother's privacy rights. One is the child's right to life. If life begins at conception then the child has certain civil rights we must define and protect. That is the Christian argument and this argument was ultimately rejected by the Court in Roe.

Second, is the State's interest in life. If life begins at viability, then the child has civil rights which the State must protect (including the most basic right of being born). The State's interest trumps the privacy interest at the point of viability. This is the legal argument and the one adopted by the Court by Roe.

The two positions are not incompatable. If conception and viability occured at the same time, then both arguments would be valid.

Roe says the State can interfere at conception. If medical science pushes viability back to conception then the whole abortion debate will simple die a natural death (no pun intended).

As a Christian Lawyer I can understand and accept the legal reasoning of Roe AND the moral reasoning of the Pro Life position.

As for privacy, its still there waiting to reassert itself the minute the govt's interest is satisfied.

Should a woman who is pregnant be allowed to abort the baby because of its race (she does not want a baby that's half black, so I'm talking about a purely race based reason)? Should she be allowed to abort the baby because of its gender? Genetic predisposition? Etc. Are there any reasonable limits? What about mental capacity (of the mother), can an insane person make this decision, can the decision be forced on her (Octamom's next baby for example)? What about age, can a 12 year old make this decision without the parent (no other medical treatment can be performed without parental consent unless there is a danger to the child's life)? What about a 12 year old who WANTS the baby, can a parent force an abortion on their child who does not want it (we already know that medical treatments can be performed without the child's consent)?

Quote:

Your neighbor isn't supposed to be able to torture you for no reason, either, but that apparently hasn't stopped it from happening with a frightening frequency, all while you not only endorse it, but actively cheerlead it and try to give it cutesy names like "Fisher-Price's My First Waterboard™".

So while you're real big on keeping government small, and keeping it out of our hair and out of our bedrooms, it turns out you're really NOT that big on any of those things - you'd rather have the government large and in charge, in the bedroom if not in the boardroom.

I am in favor of removing the govt from the bedroom. Most abortions don't happen in the bedroom, so we can leave the govt outside.

Is your other argument that its ok to murder your neighbor because the govt has used aggressive interrogation at Gitmo?

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

HERO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Why would a blob of non-differentiated cells have any rights to be transgressed exactly?

In most states causing the premature death of a fetus (aside from a legal abortion) is murder.

There are also laws regarding child endangering that have been extended to a fetus. For example, a woman doing crack while pregant...will lose her parental rights in a number of states.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
In most states causing the premature death of a fetus (aside from a legal abortion) is murder.

There are also laws regarding child endangering that have been extended to a fetus. For example, a woman doing crack while pregant...will lose her parental rights in a number of states.

It's my understanding that a number of backwards states ban alcohol from being sold on a Sunday. That's no argument for why Alcohol should not be banned on a Sunday, and it's certainly no argument for the why or wherefores of rights to buy alcohol on a Sunday.

I fail to see how stating the status quo, legal or not, constitutes an argument here, especially when abortion is legal and so arguing against it is arguing against the status quo.

Kpo's and your own argument seems to hinge on stating that the foetuses 'rights' are more infringed than the Mothers, yet your only argument as for why the foetus should have rights is just an assumption that it does with no seeming argument to back that assumption. Not to mention trying to portray anyone who doesn't share your assumptions as dishonest.

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:01 PM

Quote:
My question was perfectly honest.

Hmm.

Quote:
If you were prepared to discuss this honestly...

I've edited my above post to actually respond to the question (or a slightly different version of it).

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I wasn't trying to claim full human legal rights for the foetus - perhaps 'rights' was unfortunate wording. But is it wrong to talk about the 'right to life' of a living creature?

No, but there's a leap being made that an early stage foetus is a 'living creature'. We can say it's alive, but in a very real sense it's nothing but a growth of mother, with no ability to remain alive away from the host.

Quote:

To me a human foetus is worth much more than a bug even when it's only the same size, and able to function much less: I think this extra worth comes from potential. Me and Signy were talking about weighing things - I'm just trying to give everything its proper weight.

Perhaps, but those are your assumptions and yours alone. Those who hold different assumptions, or wish to make decisions on what things are rather than what they might be, are not being dishonest in doing so. Your assumptions may lead you to apportion more weight to the foetus than something that IS alive. My own thoughts on the matter may not.

KPO

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:36 PM

Quote:
No, but there's a leap being made that an early stage foetus is a 'living creature'. We can say it's alive, but in a very real sense it's nothing but a growth of mother, with no ability to remain alive away from the host.

It's a unique, individual, human life; however frail and inviable. Even parasites are living creatures, and human beings remain parasitic in nature long after birth. I don't think this line of argument/terminology really diminishes human beings at any stage - it's just the way things are.

Quote:
Perhaps, but those are your assumptions and yours alone. Those who hold different assumptions...

Feel free to challenge my 'assumptions' and weigh things differently. I'm trying to arrive at a truth that is common to us all (general morality of the human soul), and learning as I go.

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
It's a unique, individual, human life; however frail and inviable. Even parasites are living creatures, and human beings remain parasitic in nature long after birth. I don't think this line of argument/terminology really diminishes human beings at any stage - it's just the way things are.

Of course not, your going in assumptions are different to mine. I think we have to look at what is, you want to look at what could be.

To say "it's just the way things are" though, that's your assumption being pushed into fact.

Babies can't survive on their own, requiring the provision of food from adults, but a foetus isn't capable of even the basics of life without having those functions performed by another individual. People get switched off of life support all the time, with nothing like the moral hand wringing.

You say it's a unique human life, I say it isn't. It may one day become that, but right now it is not.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Also bear in mind you are weighing the death of one, against only stress and inconvenience to the other.

But you say that like the stress and inconvenience of the other person doesn't count.

Why shouldn't it count?

No, of course it counts. Just pointing out that in terms of rights, the foetus's rights are transgressed more.

Heads should roll

Which is what I disagree with. No person has a right to live based on using another person as a biological host. Be that through organ harvestation, forced blood/bone marrow donation... or pregnancy. The fetus is not an independently viable individual, whose right to being left in peace is being transgressed. The fetus's very existence transgresses the woman's right to be left in peace. Only her voluntary agreement makes this a beautiful and non-damaging (mentally, morally) process.

Taking away termination options unfairly favors the biologically dependent over the "host" they need to survive, by wrongfully equating needs with rights.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Which is what I disagree with. No person has a right to live based on using another person as a biological host. Be that through organ harvestation, forced blood/bone marrow donation... or pregnancy. The fetus is not an independently viable individual, whose right to being left in peace is being transgressed. The fetus's very existence transgresses the woman's right to be left in peace. Only her voluntary agreement makes this a beautiful and non-damaging (mentally, morally) process.

That's an interesting perspective. If abortions are made illegal, shouldn't certain transplants and donation be made mandatory. If a Foetuses "right to life" goes beyond the Mothers no to be an incubator, does a crash victims right to life outstrip yours not to be a blood donor?

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Which is what I disagree with. No person has a right to live based on using another person as a biological host. Be that through organ harvestation, forced blood/bone marrow donation... or pregnancy. The fetus is not an independently viable individual, whose right to being left in peace is being transgressed. The fetus's very existence transgresses the woman's right to be left in peace. Only her voluntary agreement makes this a beautiful and non-damaging (mentally, morally) process.

That's an interesting perspective. If abortions are made illegal, shouldn't certain transplants and donation be made mandatory. If a Foetuses "right to life" goes beyond the Mothers no to be an incubator, does a crash victims right to life outstrip yours not to be a blood donor?

That's sort of the logic I see in it. If you run over someone with your car and they need blood and an extra kidney, provided you are a compatible donor, should you be forced to donate? You brought them into the situation to be biologically dependent on it to survive (though, technically, with pregnancy women are only 50% at fault) so if biolocical needs trump self-determination, you theoretically should be forced to donate against your will. It's only stress and inconvenience for you, after all, whereas their right to life is at stake.

Obviously, I vehemently disagree with that concept.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:17 PM

Quote:
But I don't THINK a "blob of cells" formed in a uterus by the combining of human sperm and a human egg becomes a tumor. Does it? And if so, I wouldn't think a "tumor" would cause a positive result on a pregnancy test and thus cause someone to seek an abortion.

Despite the many posted pictures of fetal development gone awry... which- yes- DID cause a positive pregnancy test.... you still think that every fertilized egg resulting in testable pregnancy becomes recognizably human?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, RIP.

Quote:
So we're sticking with this definition then are we?

Yes, because at an early stage of development that's exactly what it is... a little blob of cell. Full of hope, expectation, and promise, but still just a blob of cells.

After much deep thought I came to a realization many years ago. "Nature" does not conform to our definitions. We think we know what it is to be alive. We think we know what it means to be dead. But what about a deep coma? What is brain dead? What about the lady who started developing rigor, was tested as brain dead, and woke up again? We think we know what it means to be human. We think we know what is non-human? But what about the fertilized egg that only develops as far as a placenta? Or develops a headless baby? We think we know what a particle is. We think we know what a wave is. But what about light? It's both. Or neither.

Nature doesn't fit into the boxes we create. Complex phenomena: life, human-ness, subatomic interactions- often exist on a spectrum. There are areas where they are neither fully one nor the other. Not alive and not dead. Not human but not inhuman. Not a wave but not a particle. Not past but not future. It's a fallacy to mistake our ideas... which are conceptually bright and clear.... for reality.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

RIPWASH

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:23 PM

What I'm trying to say is that despite the "gone awry" pictures, they're still recognizably human and can logically result in a positive pregnancy test. At least to me. Just because they are mal-formed doesn't or shouldn't designate them a "tumor". The cells were attempting to form a human fetus, not a tumor. Does that make sense?

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:34 PM

I'm like Kpo in my "not killing insects" mentality; on the other hand, I read a statistic in an article on the abortion debate in Discover magazine that somewhere around 60% of all fertilized embryos are miscarried before the first trimester, seemingly for no reason.

So I am decidedly in the "can't make up their mind" camp of this issue. Ethically I can't accept either option, and think a different solution is needed. And while abstinence only sex education needs to be ended, and a more comprehensive curriculum introduced, I suspect that the reason most of these women are getting pregnant isn't because they haven't heard of birth control or their partners haven't heard of condoms.

I do lean more pro-choice, not just because it's not feasible to stop abortions, but also because it's a choice about life, the life of the mother and the life of the child. I may not approve of killing the child, but that's not for me to judge, I think. I think that's the choice of the mother, who the child is dependent upon until it can live independently of the mother's vital systems.

I can't really put what my opinion is well into words, but I can say that I agree mostly with Agent Rouka's arguments. However, I also want to add that the particular analogy of a crash victim and organ donation brings up a dangerous moral question. A person shouldn't have to submit to the violation of their bodies because of a mistake, but if it impacts someone else to the point of their lives being in danger, and a choice is made to not help them, is that ethical?

RUE

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:41 PM

RIPWash

The point I was making was this: is this a person - with all the rights of one ? (BTW - it completely lacks a brain and upper spinal chord. The eyeballs, which are extentions of the brain, have also not formed, though the eye sockets - which are bones - have. That is why you see empty eye sockets.)

You argue that a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a person. If this is not a person - and I would argue that it is not - at what point between being a fertilized egg with all the rights of personhood and this result do you believe it lost its personhood ?

Furthermore, how many people do you see here ?

Or here ?

Or here ?

And, if you do not see a person in those partially formed twins, does it help you understand the difference between a lump of cells which is only a POTENTIAL person, and an actual one ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:44 PM

Quote:
The cells were attempting to form a human fetus, not a tumor. Does that make sense?

I think what you're saying is.... in IDEAL circumstances it would have formed a baby. I think the answer is... no, not always. Sometimes the error is at the genetic level. Goes all the way back to fertilization and the very first cell division.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I think you still have the concept of the train at the train station trying to get to the next stop. But genes... they just do what they do. They turn on. They turn off. The human genetic code is actually much simpler than rice, it's not a "blueprint" by any stretch of the imagination, although that is how DNA is popularly taught. each step depends on the successful completion of the previous step, which itself depends on a number of "epigenetic" and extrinsic factors: temperature, hormones, vitamins, metals, mitochondria etc. (But maybe you should as Rue, because I'm not a biologist.) It's hard to imagine something so stochastic resulting in a human, which is why it goes awry so often.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

RIPWASH

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:51 PM

Firstly, and I say this with all due respect. PLEASE no more pictures.

Secondly - I don't know if argue is the write word. Perhaps it is. Just stating my opinion, is all. My sad, lonely opinion

Thirdly - doesn't it LOOK like the cells were attempting to form a human being? Not a tumor? Not anything else? That's all I'm trying to say.

And as such, IMHO, up until the point that it "goes awry" naturally, the cells should be treated as a human life. And I know I'm probably all alone on this issue. And if so, so be it.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:54 PM

The abortion issue always dances around a core issue that's yet to resolve into any consensus among philosophers and scientists: When does "personhood" start, which is to say, when is a "soul" present. And then of course, what is a soul?

One school of thought, the one I favor, holds that a person is that thing we talk about when we say "I". It's the self aware being that inhabits a human body. It depends on self-awareness, something that isn't present until a brain state complex enough to produce it exists. And that certainly isn't present at conception, likely not even in the womb. By some accounts it doesn't occur until a few years afterwards.

Of course this view doesn't gel with religious accounts which generally imbue that first lump of cells with a fully formed soul. Dualist magic abounds in such a description, so I don't try to make much sense of it. But it seems to fit majority intuition, thus remaining a popular view.

The legal issue seems an entirely separate matter to me, however. Law can't right all wrongs. Sometimes, stopping an injustice creates greater injustice. So, even if you do see killing an unborn child as murder, what does it take to stop it?

If it requires declaring a woman's womb to be public property, if it supersedes her own will over what goes on in her own body, then it creates a greater injustice in my view.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE