Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

wyomingfox wrote:
No I would expect each person to have slightly differnet values as each person has slightly differnet religious beliefs. Again " religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions".

Could you please describe what a 'primary world view' actually entails? Because there is more certainly no such thing in the religious community. Unless of course you are generalizing opinions through labels, but you couldn't be doing that, because that would be ignorant.

wyomingfox wrote:Actually since religion is one's primary worldview that dictates one's thoughts and actions...then yes religion always leads into politics. Modern secularists which is composed of many people with divers religious backgrounds is not only comprised by athiests but also muslim and christian secularists who have differnet religious views than other Christian and Muslim counterparts.

No, not really. Their religious views are largely the same. They believe in the same fundamentals of the church to which they subscribe. Their mode of projecting that religion into the public sphere is drastically different, but that has very little to do with religion.

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Actually commonality with homosexuality in each of these cultures was primarily exhibbited in the ruling class and wealthy elite. It was not a commonly accepted practice amoungst the working class. This is also a common falacy associated with polygammy in which sides often point to a long running history of polygammy across cultures. However, again, polygammy was largely exhibbited only in the ruling class and the wealthy elite. It was not a common occurance amoungst the majority of the population that construed the working class.

Considering our only histories of the time were written by, and spoke only of, the ruling class. You'll pardon me if I don't believe you.

Feel free to believe and vote how you want.

Feel free to concoct evidence for untenable positions. It is your right to delude yourself, just as it is my right deride that action.

wyomingfox wrote:Feel free to believe and vote how you want.

Oh you don't want that. No I mean it, everything you have said shows that you really do not want that. You want your personnel views to determine the laws of the land, ergo, you don't want others to believe and act how they want (voting being an action), you want them, at least, to act like they believe and act in a way according with your standard, based on one ideological branch of a religion.

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:[Fetuses are legal definition of any unborn child. So lets see they are human, comprised of living cells, possess nueral activity, can feel pain...ect.

Are they human? Can you define human? What makes a human different from any other animal?

Sequences of DNA

wyomingfox wrote:
Nice but not true: "religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions". What you expressed are values that predicate your own religious beliefs.

Religion refers to one's primary means of engaging with the possibility of the supernatural. In so far as the supernatural is simply that which is beyond current understanding. When that method of engagement begins to prevent the acquisition of new knowledge it is no longer religion, but delusion.

That is because you use a very narrow definition of Religion where as socialogists and anthropogists who study such phenomena view it in much broader terms:

"Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[7] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions."

wyomingfox wrote:
It is a Flow chart for Marxist, Socialists, Athiests, Muslims, Liberals, Conservatives, Gentiles, and Jews...and you. Doesn't matter that the majority of the world is or is not "that" religion.

No, it really isn't. The fact that you keep returning to the point simply proves mine.

No it really just shows your own religious worldview.

wyomingfox wrote:
Seriously, where do you think laws come from. They are emposed values derived from a consensus of the majority which again is dictated by religious views.

Sorry, no. Religion is an emergent property of the natural world. We derive it from experience as a way to make abstract predictions about the future. However, when you selectively manipulate experience, as the present tense of future, so as to affirm your religious conclusion you are exercising forced delusion. When this occurs on a societal level it is call oppression.

Again socialogists and anthropologists would disagree with you.

wyomingfox wrote:
We would all be dead...funny... if the magority of religious views truely equaled kill all humans then you would be right...I am glad that you are wrong!

Well, actually, majority of religious views feature some form of evangelism. This is frequently interpreted as a means of justifying coercive tactics, and legislative oppression. And it is only those religions which place themselves into the political sphere in any kind of significant sense.

Oh, like Stalinism

wyomingfox wrote:
Really, I think dense is one who has some notion that somehow ones religion can be divorced from politics and uses that arguement as a means to silence Theocons. The person who says this is clearly excersizing his religious beliefs to suppress the religious beliefs of others in the political realm.

Nope. All such a person would be doing is pointing out that there is a distinct difference between restricting right, because you're religion calls for it, and permitting right, because your religion calls for it. Just because you have institutionalized bigotry does not make it more acceptable.

Ahtman wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:Feel free to believe and vote how you want.

Oh you don't want that. No I mean it, everything you have said shows that you really do not want that. You want your personnel views to determine the laws of the land, ergo, you don't want others to believe and act how they want (voting being an action), you want them, at least, to act like they believe and act in a way according with your standard, based on one ideological branch of a religion.

Actually, I think you are projecting your own personality onto me

Again socialogists and anthropologists would disagree with you.

Since when do you speak for two separate and enormous disciplines? I've heard experts in the field say what Dogma has stated. Is that what you want? Dueling quotes? Besides if you are going to define religion you should look to religious studies for an academic evaluation and theology to know what academic adherents to the specific religion think.

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Actually commonality with homosexuality in each of these cultures was primarily exhibbited in the ruling class and wealthy elite. It was not a commonly accepted practice amoungst the working class. This is also a common falacy associated with polygammy in which sides often point to a long running history of polygammy across cultures. However, again, polygammy was largely exhibbited only in the ruling class and the wealthy elite. It was not a common occurance amoungst the majority of the population that construed the working class.

Considering our only histories of the time were written by, and spoke only of, the ruling class. You'll pardon me if I don't believe you.

Feel free to believe and vote how you want.

Feel free to concoct evidence for untenable positions. It is your right to delude yourself, just as it is my right deride that action.

Oh, like you did about polygamy and incest

Ahtman wrote:

Again socialogists and anthropologists would disagree with you.

Since when do you speak for two separate and enormous disciplines? I've heard experts in the field say what Dogma has stated.

I don't, read it in text books and heard it from my socialogy professors (excerpt was from Wikapedia which agreed with what the professors taught...imagine that....the cranky old bastards were right )...crap ran out of popcorn...oh well time to go home.

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, like you did about polygamy and incest

Concoct what?

Polygamy, as it is nominally practiced, forces multiple women to bind themselves to a single man who is not held by the same constraints. Other kinds of multiplicative relationships can, and do, exist under the nominal marriage code. Indeed, the idea of a balanced polygamist relationship is anathema to the idea of marriage as it is primarily about freedom of action amongst the relevant partners.

My point about incest was directly limited to John's statement about the relationship between a parent and child. You made the rest of the point by bringing up the problem of genetic diversity.

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, like you did about polygamy and incest

Concoct what?

Polygamy, as it is nominally practiced, forces multiple women to bind themselves to a single man who is not held by the same constraints. Other kinds of multiplicative relationships can, and do, exist under the nominal marriage code. Indeed, the idea of a balanced polygamist relationship is anathema to the idea of marriage as it is primarily about freedom of action amongst the relevant partners.

Your point that Polygammy primarily involved relationships with women under the age of consent.

wyomingfox wrote:
Sequences of DNA

Those same sequences of DNA which the religious right does not believe in?

wyomingfox wrote:
That is because you use a very narrow definition of Religion where as socialogists and anthropogists who study such phenomena view it in much broader terms.

Yeah, I know, its call memetics. It was real big in the 90's. The trouble is that memetics relies almost entirely on the scale at which observations are made. Take a large enough sample and diversity begins to undermine the idea of a coherent meme.

wyomingfox wrote:"Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[7] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions."

True, but that definition would only apply in a largely homogeneous sample. Indeed, by that definition you would be completely unable to speak of Catholicism, Protestantism, or even Christianity as distinct religions because there always be outside factors.

wyomingfox wrote:
No it really just shows your own religious worldview.

You're switching definitions. Religion as you have used it here is not the same as you defined above.

wyomingfox wrote:
Again socialogists and anthropologists would disagree with you.

Only because they would be using a different definition of religion, which has little to no bearing in this discussion.

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, like Stalinism

Yep, like Stalinism. Which is similar to the designs of Theocons only in the mode of interaction with the public.

wyomingfox wrote:
Your point that Polygammy primarily involved relationships with women under the age of consent.

The modern age of consent dude. Marriage at the age of 12 would still be considered predatory today.

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, like you did about polygamy and incest

Concoct what?

Polygamy, as it is nominally practiced, forces multiple women to bind themselves to a single man who is not held by the same constraints. Other kinds of multiplicative relationships can, and do, exist under the nominal marriage code. Indeed, the idea of a balanced polygamist relationship is anathema to the idea of marriage as it is primarily about freedom of action amongst the relevant partners.

Your point that Polygammy primarily involved relationships with women under the age of consent.

Also I said that the chance for genetic deviation in cousins was very minor. In fact a 2002 report in the Journal of Genetic Counseling, concluded that cousins can have children together without running much greater risk than a "normal" couple of their children having genetic abnormalities. Again, you misconstrued a statement in saying that incest does lead to abnormally high rates of genetic defects.

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Your point that Polygammy primarily involved relationships with women under the age of consent.

The modern age of consent dude. Marriage at the age of 12 would still be considered predatory today.

And a large # of monogomous relationships that occurred in those days would have been viewed the same way today. Differnet time, differnet standards. Oh and marriage at the age of 12 IS considered predatory and is illegal. And again, underage marriage is prohibitted by a separate law.

Pleasure rapping with you Dogma...been fun but really got to go

Oh and there is a rapidly growing religious group within Christians who do believe in DNA sequenses so sorry for not fitting into your perfect little box .

wyomingfox wrote:
Also I said that the chance for genetic deviation in cousins was very minor. In fact a 2002 report in the Journal of Genetic Counseling, concluded that cousins can have children together without running much greater risk than a "normal" couple of their children having genetic abnormalities. Again, you misconstrued a statement in saying that incest does lead to abnormally high rates of genetic defects.

Incest in a single generation does not lead to abnormally high rates of genetic defects. Over an extended period of time that is not the case. Hence the reason it can not be considered acceptable social practice.

wyomingfox wrote:Pleasure rapping with you Dogma...been fun but really got to go

Oh and there is a rapidly growing religious group within Christians who do believe in DNA sequenses so sorry for not fitting into your perfect little box .

I'm not the one who's been arguing for perfect little boxes.

You know, it's funny but when same-sex marriage, abortion, and other such subjects turn up, the main arguement always seems to involve a possibly non-existent, supposedly benevolent deity, who hasn't had the good grace to pop down and say hello since the human race allegedly nailed his alleged (and self proclaimed) son to a Cross.

You cannot possibly use a Religion as a basis for such laws. The impact of such things goes far beyond this.

Thats a presumption MDG. Rational arguments can be made by parties on the other side for abortion, marriage, and a variety of issues. You're looking at it through a filter because often the strongest arguers on that side also have strong religious beliefs. I can see lots of sides to these arguments, and none of them have anything to do with religion.

Wait a minute, incest can lead to genetic flaws in the babies?

It's too bad I don't have a sister.

Anyway.

Exactly. There are defensible and coherent arguments against particular policies on abortion, and wyomingfox has come close to them.

He's blurred a couple of details, though. A hair left on the ground has the same DNA as I do, but it's not a person. A fetus shares more or fewer characteristics with a person depending on how far it has developed. For me, an abortion is much easier to defend before brain wave activity begins, which occurs roughly between 20-27 weeks into gestation. Considering that about 98.6% of abortions occur before 20 weeks, I think we're doing pretty well.

I think a real big issue (and majorities of US people polled agree) is the other 1.4%. I also think this is a fine example of the moderate nature of the US population vs. pundits, fanboys of both parties, and politicians. We don't like abortion personally but generally want governemnt out of the issue, with minimal limiations: late term abortion being one of them. Its only the hard cores on both sides, that get gelled about it otherwise.

In the UK abortion is permitted up to 24 weeks. This limit was chosen in the 1970s when it was nearly impossible for babies born earlier to survive. (It's not easy for babies born prematurely by nature to survive. There's a reason why pregnancy lasts 9 months.)

Thanks to improving medical techniques the survivable limit has been pushed down to 22 weeks but it doesn't seem to want to move lower. Children born that young often have various medical difficulties in later life even if they survive thanks to post-natal care.

A recent attempt to revise the limit downwards was defeated.

No-one likes abortion, however it is impossible to get rid of so it seems better that it should be done within a sensible medico-legal framework with respect for ethics and the life outlook of the child and parents.

You've pretty much described the real world reasoning for Roe v Wade as well. Should viability start creeping downwards, abortion restrcitions will start creeping downwards as the ruling was tied to viability.

Frazzled wrote:I think a real big issue (and majorities of US people polled agree) is the other 1.4%.

Sure, but what are the reasons in those 1.4% of cases? Generally to the best of my knowledge those are the ones where there's a serious medical problem. Why else would you wait?

Frazzled wrote:I also think this is a fine example of the moderate nature of the US population vs. pundits, fanboys of both parties, and politicians. We don't like abortion personally but generally want governemnt out of the issue, with minimal limiations: late term abortion being one of them. Its only the hard cores on both sides, that get gelled about it otherwise.

I tend to agree. What mystifies me is when the same folks who oppose abortion also oppose comprehensive sex education, which can potentially reduce the need for abortion.

That is because the true issue they have is about control of women, not about abortion and sex.

One old joke on the pro-choice side here is “If men could get pregnant, the right to an abortion would be explicit and up front in the Constitution.”

To me, it's all about how it is presented.

Abortion as a form of contraception is of course wrong. There are ways and means to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, from abstinence (boring) condoms (awkward in the heat of the moment) and the Pill (my favourite).

And *regardless* of what the various lobbyists have to say, it should only ever be the woman in questions choice. Perhaps the baby is severely malformed or disabled (Spind Bifida) and the Mother to Be does not feel she can raise that child. Perhaps a genuine accident has happened (even with multiple forms of contraception, this can happen) and so on.

But it is *her* choice. By having abortions legal, you can actually discourage them being performed through thorough councilling. And it is during this councilling that all the other avenues and routes get explored. Whatever the woman then decides is clearly the correct option.

Criminalise it, and it will still happen in back alleys and other places.

Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. There are defensible and coherent arguments against particular policies on abortion, and wyomingfox has come close to them.

He's blurred a couple of details, though. A hair left on the ground has the same DNA as I do, but it's not a person. A fetus shares more or fewer characteristics with a person depending on how far it has developed. For me, an abortion is much easier to defend before brain wave activity begins, which occurs roughly between 20-27 weeks into gestation. Considering that about 98.6% of abortions occur before 20 weeks, I think we're doing pretty well.

Well that wasn't quite my point. I orginal response was to the following statement:

Fetuses aren't people, so they can't be a minority or a majority of anything. Rocks don't get much say either.

wyomingfox wrote:Fetuses are legal definition of any unborn child. So lets see they are human, comprised of living cells, possess nueral activity, can feel pain...ect.

When I was then asked how I defined human and what differnetiated them from animals, I responded:

DNA sequenses

A hair left on the ground would be human in nature but not a person.

As for brain wave activity, it occurs much earlier with the child with heart beats beginning at week 5, movement at week 9, and actually sucking thier thumb at week 14:

Week Five
First heartbeats begin
Umbilical cord develops
Blood is now pumping - All four heart chambers are now functioning
Most other organs begin to develop - Your infant's lungs start to appear, along with her brain.
Arm and leg buds appear

Week Six
The arms and legs continue to develop -
Brain is growing well
Lenses of the eyes appear
Nostrils are formed - The position of the nose seems to shift into its proper place as well. Soon, the nerves running from the nose to the brain appear.
Intestines grow - Initially these are actually located outside the baby's body within the umbilical cord.
Pancreas - Your baby is now equipped to deal with digestive enzymes and take on processing the insulin and glucagons the body needs to function.
[return to top]


Week Seven
Elbows form
Fingers start to develop
Feet start to appear with tiny notches for the toes
Ears eyes and nose start to appear
Intestines start to form in the umbilical cord
Teeth begin to develop under the gums
[return to top]


Week Eight
Cartilage and bones begin to form
The basic structure of the eye is well underway
The tongue begins to develop
Intestines move out of the umbilical cord into the abdomen.
Body grows and makes room
The fingers and toes have appeared but are webbed and short
Baby's length (crown to rump) is 0.61 inch (1.6cm) and weight is 0.04 ounce (1gm)
[return to top]


Week Nine
Baby has begun movement
Most joints are formed now
Fetus will curve its fingers around an object placed in the palm of its hand
Fingerprints are already evident in the skin
Average size this week -- length 0.9 inch (2.3cm), weight 0.07 ounce (2gm)
[return to top]


Week Ten
Baby is now called a fetus in "medical terms".
Eyelids fuse shut and irises begin to develop - Eye color is also determined by this point.
Placenta begins to function this week or next
Your baby will be about 1.22 inch long (3.1cm) and weigh 0.14 ounce (4gm) at the end of this week
[return to top]


Week Eleven
Nearly all structures and organs are formed and beginning to function.
Fingers and toes have separated
Hair and nails begin to grow
The genitals begin to take on the proper gender characteristics
Amniotic fluid begins to accumulate as the kidneys begin to function
The muscles in the intestinal walls begin to practice contractions that digest food.
Your baby is about 1.61 inches (4.1 cm) long and weighs 0.25 ounce (7gm).
[return to top]


Week Twelve
Vocal cords begin to form
Those eyes begin to move closer together
Ears shift to their normal place on the side of the head
Intestines move farther in to your child's body
His or her liver begins to function
The pancreas begins to produce insulin
Guess what? Your baby's average size is now at a whopping length: 2.13 inches (5.4cm) and weight: 0.49 ounce (14gm)
[return to top]


Week Thirteen
Your infant is about 2.91 inches (7.4cm) and weighs around 0.81 ounce (23gm) - This is about the same weight as 4 quarters.
begins to practice inhaling and exhaling movements
Eyes and ears continue to move and develop
Baby's neck is getting longer, and the chin no longer is resting on his chest
Her hands are becoming more functional
At this point all nourishment is received from the placenta
On your next doctor visit you should be able to hear heartbeat with a Doppler by now - (Don't worry though if you can't, the heartbeat can be confirmed through U/S). Your baby's heartbeat is much rapider than your own and may remind you of the race towards birth that he is running!
[return to top]


Week Fourteen
Thyroid gland has matured and your baby begins producing hormones which will be used throughout his or her life.
In boys, the prostate gland develops
In girls, the ovaries move from the abdomen to the pelvis
Your little one may have learned to suck his thumb by this point!
Your child's bones are getting harder and stronger by the day!
Your baby's skin is very transparent still
Lanugo (very fine hair) covers the baby's body and will continue to grow until 26 weeks gestational age - Generally this will be shed prior to birth. Its purpose is to help protect baby's skin while in all that water!
Your baby is 3.42 inches (8.7cm) long and weighs about 1.52 ounces (43 grams) - approximately the weight of a letter!
[return to top]

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To me, it's all about how it is presented.

Abortion as a form of contraception is of course wrong.

Unfortunately, vast majority of abortions are just that and are not for medical reasons or rape/incest:

"The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html