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.

 Luco wrote:
Except that the egg by itself is incapable of producing a human being, as is a sperm cell. Only once they are together is there potential.

And a fetus is incapable of producing a human being without a mother. Only once they are together is there potential. Again, the potential argument fails utterly: if the fetus is a "person" despite lacking the potential to become a full human being on its own, so is the egg, and every woman goes to prison for murder. Or do you ironically favor the death penalty?

a miscarriage is different from willingly ending a life.

You're right. A miscarriage usually just ends a blob of cells that isn't a person. Willingly ending a life usually kills a person.

However, fortunately for us, abortion is much more like a miscarriage or squishing a cockroach than willingly ending a life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
No they couldn't. No matter how intensely you cast your vote, that will never end up being on the Federal agenda. The issue is absolutely stalemated at the Federal level.

I didn't say it was likely, I said it was possible.

And yes, it's stalemated, but only because the elements of the republican part that want to end the stalemate are kept out of power. It's unfortunate that stalemate is the best we can do, but that doesn't make it any less of an issue.

No, please just read what I'm saying. Yes, for an individual who might have got an abortion, but is instead raising a child it's a bigger deal than tax reform. But abortion doesn't change based on who wins the presidency, but income tax schemes do.

And you're wrong about that. Abortion CAN change based on who wins the presidency (at least as much as any issue can change based on who wins the presidency), and there's a major push from the religious right to do exactly that.

If there is no sperm its irrelevant whether its with the mother or not. I'm not talking about when the cells are without the ability to grow, i'm talking about when all the conditions are met and the fetus will become a baby.

There is no choice with a miscarriage, there is a choice with an abortion.

 Peregrine wrote:

Err, what exactly do you mean by this?

I mean that issues are defined by people. The economy is an issue precisely because people believe that it is an issue.

 Peregrine wrote:

Why not? That's a pretty accurate description of the opposing sides here.

Because it isn't accurate at all. While there are theocrats in the US there aren't many of them.

Advocating something due to a religious belief does not make a person a theocrat.

 Peregrine wrote:

How exactly did I misrepresent them?

You claimed that the US is skewed to the right relative to the rest of the West, but it really isn't.

Didn't we just have an abortion thread recently?

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't we just have an abortion thread recently?

Yeah... that Atkin dude...

He's now leading McCaskill...

*shakes head muttering craziness*

 Luco wrote:

There is no choice with a miscarriage, there is a choice with an abortion.

Ever seen a ~100 lb girl take 37 shots because she knew she was pregnant?

 Luco wrote:
If there is no sperm its irrelevant whether its with the mother or not. I'm not talking about when the cells are without the ability to grow, i'm talking about when all the conditions are met and the fetus will become a baby.

And one of the conditions is "the mother doesn't get an abortion or suffer a miscarriage". Just like one of the conditions for an egg to reach its full potential is "must have a man provide the other half of its DNA". If you're going to consider an entity a "person" because it has the potential to become one if certain conditions are met, then you need to apply the same reasoning to ALL entities with the potential to become a "person" if certain conditions are met.

Of course we all know the real reason for the inconsistency is that the "potential" argument is just a excuse to avoid admitting that it's really about the fact that your imaginary friend told you that the fetus has a "soul".

There is no choice with a miscarriage, there is a choice with an abortion.

So? There's a choice with squishing a cockroach. If you think that abortion is wrong, then you'd better not choose to kill any bugs in your house.


And, like sebster said, I don't really see the pro-life crowd insisting that we spend everything we can on trying to prevent miscarriages. After all, even if it's not a choice, it still ends a "life", so wouldn't you want to raise taxes, cancel all other medical research, and try to do something about the staggering number of "deaths" from miscarriages? Oh wait, you don't, because on some level you don't actually believe your own propaganda.

 dogma wrote:

 Luco wrote:

There is no choice with a miscarriage, there is a choice with an abortion.

Ever seen a ~100 lb girl take 37 shots because she knew she was pregnant?

Forcing oneself to miscarriage brings it into the same view as abortion.

 Luco wrote:

Forcing oneself to miscarriage brings it into the same view as abortion.

It does?

Here I was thinking it was much more dangerous.

 dogma wrote:
Because it isn't accurate at all. While there are theocrats in the US there aren't many of them.

Advocating something due to a religious belief does not make a person a theocrat.

It does when you move into using the power of the state to enforce your religion on other people. If religious conservatives want to put up a sign saying "abortion is murder", they have a right to do so. If they want to decline to get an abortion themselves, they have a right to do so. However, they do NOT have the right to ban abortion for people who don't share their belief in a soul or whatever, in complete opposition to secular knowledge and ethics.

It's the same thing over and over again: abortion, gay marriage, obscenity laws, etc, one case after another of attempting to use the power of the state to make everyone follow a specific religious doctrine. In other words, the textbook definition of a theocracy.

 Peregrine wrote:
You claimed that the US is skewed to the right relative to the rest of the West, but it really isn't.

Sure it is. Our mainstream is to the right of most "western" countries, and we don't really have a significant left-wing party like other countries do. I can't even count the number of times I've seen people living elsewhere laugh at our idea of "liberal", and our conservative party far too often sounds like the raving lunatic party (with no real power) in other countries.

Luco wrote:Forcing oneself to miscarriage brings it into the same view as abortion.

..and since people always have, and always will, tried/try to terminate pregnancies, it's for the best that they have access to safe, professional abortion care when it becomes necessary. Rather than doing things like ingesting alcohol-poisoning levels of spirits. Or, you know, getting back-alley procedures using things like coat hangers.

Of course, the best way to avoid abortions is for women to have free and easy access to birth control medication.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Luco wrote:Forcing oneself to miscarriage brings it into the same view as abortion.

..and since people always have, and always will, tried/try to terminate pregnancies, it's for the best that they have access to safe, professional abortion care when it becomes necessary. Rather than doing things like ingesting alcohol-poisoning levels of spirits. Or, you know, getting back-alley procedures using things like coat hangers.

Of course, the best way to avoid abortions is for women to have free and easy access to birth control medication.

My core beliefs demand that I forgive them for such an act, but in my weakness I cannot find any amount of sympathy for a being that goes out of its way to murder its own child. If they want to off themselves in the process, fine by me.

 Luco wrote:
My core beliefs demand that I forgive them for such an act, but in my weakness I cannot find any amount of sympathy for a being that goes out of its way to murder its own child. If they want to off themselves in the process, fine by me.

Do you also lack sympathy for the person who tries to squish a cockroach, slips and breaks their neck? After all, the cockroach had a lot more capacity to feel pain than the "child", so surely trying to kill it makes a person deserve death much more than getting an abortion.

Also, I'm glad you're finally able to openly admit your lack of empathy for other people. I guess once they're born their suffering doesn't matter?

 Peregrine wrote:

It does when you move into using the power of the state to enforce your religion on other people.

I don't many people in the US calling for the state to enforce Christianity on other people.

 Peregrine wrote:
...in complete opposition to secular knowledge and ethics.

20 bucks says I can justify any argument made by a religious conservative in secular terms.

 Peregrine wrote:

I can't even count the number of times I've seen people living elsewhere laugh at our idea of "liberal", and our conservative party far too often sounds like the raving lunatic party (with no real power) in other countries.

I'll bet most of them also don't know the platform of any political party in their nations of origin.

cockroaches are not people.

I'm open to suffering, but suffering does not excuse actions. Whining and saying 'poor me, poor me' does not excuse criminal behavior. What about a rapist? What if they have mommy or daddy issues? what if they were bullied? Does that make rape an ok action because they had childhood problems? I'm sympathetic up to the point they commit a grievous act.

What about seriel killers? Hell, what about Hitler who was beaten into a coma by his father? Did that make the attempted genocide of the Jews an ok course of action? (I know, I know, that law thingy about Hitler, don't care)

 dogma wrote:
I don't many people in the US calling for the state to enforce Christianity on other people.

They might not (yet) want to enforce church attendance, but they certainly want to force other people to follow the commands of their god. They aren't (yet) trying to create a theocracy as bad as the theocracies elsewhere in the world, but they still want a theocracy.

 Peregrine wrote:
...in complete opposition to secular knowledge and ethics.

20 bucks says I can justify any argument made by a religious conservative in secular terms.

Sure, you can pretend to justify it, but those justifications are rarely more than a weak attempt to disguise the religious intent. And they're almost inevitably poor justifications (if not outright lies) that fail miserably under the slightest analysis.

And of course whether or not you can come up with a secular argument (regardless of how good it is), the people advocating those positions aren't doing it for secular reasons. Playing devil's advocate won't change the fact that they wish to use the power of the state to enforce their religious doctrine on other people.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'll bet most of them also don't know the platform of any political party in their nations of origin.

Given that I can't bring them all here to discuss it, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

Luco wrote:cockroaches are not people.

I'm open to suffering, but suffering does not excuse actions. Whining and saying 'poor me, poor me' does not excuse criminal behavior.

A) Abortion is legal.

B) A blastocyst is not a person. It could potentially one day become one, if conditions are right, but it has no thoughts or feelings.

C) If you believe the life of a blastocyst is vitally important to preserve, then it logically follows that you personally support medical research to prevent naturally occuring spontaneous abortions. As they happen a lot more often than artificial ones. Do you, in fact support such research? Do you donate to it, and/or lobby your representatives to enact legislation to provide funding for such research?

D) If the answer to that last question is no, then it seems indicative that preserving life is not actually your primary motivation.

 Luco wrote:
cockroaches are not people.

Neither is a fetus. It has no capacity to feel pain, it has no sense of self, it has no intelligence, it has no memories. In short, it has none of the things that define you as a person and not just a dead lump of flesh with human DNA.

I'm open to suffering, but suffering does not excuse actions. Whining and saying 'poor me, poor me' does not excuse criminal behavior. What about a rapist? What if they have mommy or daddy issues? what if they were bullied? Does that make rape an ok action because they had childhood problems? I'm sympathetic up to the point they commit a grievous act.

What about seriel killers? Hell, what about Hitler who was beaten into a coma by his father? Did that make the attempted genocide of the Jews an ok course of action? (I know, I know, that law thingy about Hitler, don't care)

All of those people committed harm against other people. Getting an abortion does not cause harm to other people.

 Peregrine wrote:

They might not (yet) want to enforce church attendance, but they certainly want to force other people to follow the commands of their god. They aren't (yet) trying to create a theocracy as bad as the theocracies elsewhere in the world, but they still want a theocracy.

Of course they do, the moral commands of a God are no different from any other set of moral commands. The vast majority if the American religious right isn't trying to force you to be Christian, they're just acting politically in a way that is consistent with their own morality.

That doesn't mean their choices are correct, but it does mean that they aren't trying to erect a theocracy.

Some of them make statements which certainly sound as if they are. I'm personally acutely aware that my not being Christian is a functional barrier to any elected office beyond maybe the local level.

 Luco wrote:

I'm open to suffering, but suffering does not excuse actions.

What excuse does the fetus have for imposing upon its mother?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Some of them make statements which certainly sound as if they are. I'm personally acutely aware that my not being Christian is a functional barrier to any elected office beyond maybe the local level.

That's certainly true, but in my experience American religious conservatives tend to be like GeneralGrog. I don't agree with them on much of anything, but they're not going to do much to me beyond elbow me in the side and say "Yeah, you atheist bastard."

Regardless, when you go out and create the appropriate conditions for a child to be born and then willingly terminate it you've committed a wrong. Its the principle of not murdering others, whatever stage they happen to be in. I have difficulty in seeing the deliberate harming of another human as an ok course of action, with the exception of defense. I also have difficulty in seeing such a course of action going without consequences.

 dogma wrote:
Of course they do, the moral commands of a God are no different from any other set of moral commands. The vast majority if the American religious right isn't trying to force you to be Christian, they're just acting politically in a way that is consistent with their own morality.

Moral commands from god are different, because they're not open to debate. If we have a debate on secular ethics we can do research, consider alternatives, etc. On the other hand, if we're dealing with moral commands from god it's just a question of what god said. No matter how much it conflicts with the facts (such as evolution, abortion, etc), the word of god is absolute and not open to negotiation.

And whether or not it's consistent with their morality, it's restricting my freedom.

 Luco wrote:
I have difficulty in seeing the deliberate harming of another human as an ok course of action, with the exception of defense.

The mother, and maybe the father, are defending themselves against that malicious bastard gestating in the mother's womb.

 dogma wrote:
That's certainly true, but in my experience American religious conservatives tend to be like GeneralGrog. I don't agree with them on much of anything, but they're not going to do much to me beyond elbow me in the side and say "Yeah, you atheist bastard."

Then you are incredibly fortunate. For many people, the experience is much worse.

 dogma wrote:

 Luco wrote:
I have difficulty in seeing the deliberate harming of another human as an ok course of action, with the exception of defense.

The mother, and maybe the father, are defending themselves against that malicious bastard gestating in the mother's womb.

The one that they created?

 Peregrine wrote:

Moral commands from god are different, because they're not open to debate.

I'll make sure to tell all of my friends that study theology about that.

 Peregrine wrote:

And whether or not it's consistent with their morality, it's restricting my freedom.

Of course it is, that's what happens when you live in a world with other people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luco wrote:

The one that they created?

Unintentionally. They just had sex, the kid popped up because he was feeling frisky.

The one that they created?

Is this where dogma equates the fetus to Osama Bin Laden, and the parents to the US in the 1980s?

If they're planning to terminate, the parents most likely didn't mean to create this new life/potential human who is now in a position to wreck or at least derail their lives.

 Luco wrote:
Regardless, when you go out and create the appropriate conditions for a child to be born and then willingly terminate it you've committed a wrong.

The conditions for a child to be born include "the mother does not want to get an abortion", therefore no wrong is committed.

Also, you have yet to explain WHY it is a wrong. Is it also a wrong if I create the conditions for a cockroach to be born (by keeping a messy house) and then kill it?

Its the principle of not murdering others, whatever stage they happen to be in.

Murder is the act of killing a person. Abortion does not kill a person any more than squishing a cockroach kills a person, or shedding dead skin cells kills a person, or having a little private time with a porn movie kills a few billion people.

Also, you have yet to address the argument that a fetus (before at least 20-25 weeks) is not a person. Simply calling it a person over and over again is just dodging the question.

I have difficulty in seeing the deliberate harming of another human as an ok course of action, with the exception of defense. I also have difficulty in seeing such a course of action going without consequences

Fortunately abortion does not harm another human, so I guess we don't have to worry about consequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
I'll make sure to tell all of my friends that study theology about that.

Whether or not theology students agree, religious conservatives have an unfortunate habit of treating commands from their god and/or church (as they see it) as absolute law.

 Peregrine wrote:

And whether or not it's consistent with their morality, it's restricting my freedom.

Of course it is, that's what happens when you live in a world with other people.

Yes, but one of those nice rules for how to live with other people is that you don't restrict the freedom of others unnecessarily. Religious conservatives want to restrict freedom even when the actions of other people have no impact on them. This is entirely different from things like restricting the freedom of murderers to kill anyone they want.

I don't really know how to respond to the equating of your own child to that of a terrorist.

i could of sworn that the potential results of screwing and ways to avoid the results were reviewed in middle school and again in high school

Peregrine: One condition for life is that someone doesn't want to kill you? Really?


Time to rehash some things.
Some time alone with porn cannot kill people because the sperm cells are not capable of making life on their own.

Dead skin cells do not and cannot become people.

It ends the life of the beginnings of another person.