If you follow the discussion and click on the "Proceed to the next article" link at the bottom of the page linked in #1 you will be able to continue to read text that is similar (but not the full) of what is presented in the interview. It is a very good interview with some very constructive criticism of "pro-life" individuals and how they should and should not behave.

Sorry, I did not catch the erroneous code caused by the punctuation before submitting the last post.

That fundamental and unanswerable question is the reason why arguing over abortion is pointless. Everyone has their own definition of what life is and by association, what status a fetus enjoys. Scientists on both sides offer evidence supporting both sides of the argument so nothing is ever resolved.

#5 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2012-01-11 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think that is the case. The cells of the fetus are biologically human in their dna. Dna is specific to the individual. Dna signifies the fetus as human.

Regardless of what your position is, this is worth a listen to reason through the issue with far more accuracy rather than counting on ignorance one way or the other.

The abortion question is not really about whether or not fetuses are human, about when life begins or any of that stuff. Most peope do not like abortions that is a given. The question is whether or not a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term against her will and who should make that decision. Pro-choice people just don't believe the state should make that decision, we believe the individual woman with the advice of her doctor should make that decision and most importantly that women always have made that decision independently of the state whether or not the procedure is legal. Those who believe that women should be prevented from making that decision and instead outlaw abortion are really just saying that if she chooses to break the law then death is an acceptable risk for them to take with her life.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-11 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Listen to the interview.

Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings?

They already do.

You have to be 16 to drive a car.

You have to be a certain age to work.

You have to be 18 to vote and serve in the military.

A minor cannot enter into a contract.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2012-01-11 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you think that is what is in view... you might be a fool. So under 16... no issue huh?

"The abortion question is not really about whether or not fetuses are human, about when life begins or any of that stuff."

That's not really for you to say. For you that's not what its about. For some people, it clearly is about whether a life is being taken. If you honestly believe a fetus is a human being, then the only ethical stance to take is anti-abortion. The notion of "choice" is absurd in that context.

Now, I do think there are certain people who claim to believe that a just-fertilized egg is a person dishonestly. They are reverse engineering their "beliefs" to fit with their abortion stance.

But undoubtedly there are people for which their opinion is based on whether or not they believe a human being is being killed or not. I don't know why anyone would deny this other than because its hard demonize people for being against what they believe to be murder.

To some extent, my opinion is based on whether I think a life is being taken. I'm not anti-abortion because I don't believe a glob of cells or a tadpole is a person. But I'm also not one of these pro-abortion lunatics who defends abortion in any and all forms including late term abortions that basically amount to murdering a baby that could survive outside the womb. IMO, certain types of abortions are infanticide.

If you think that is what is in view... you might be a fool. So under 16... no issue huh?
#10 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION AT 2012-01-11 03:00 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

No, there is plenty of "issues" with.

But the fact is that older children have more rights than younger children.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2012-01-11 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you think that is what is in view... you might be a fool.
#10 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

....you asked a question, 726 answered in a way that showed you to be incorrect, and you call him a fool.....

.......everytime your logic fails, you resort to name-calling........

"
"The abortion question is not really about whether or not fetuses are human, about when life begins or any of that stuff."

That's not really for you to say. For you that's not what its about."

IT is for individual women to say, they WILL make the decision all society can really do is decide whether or not that decision is a legal one but it cannot, did not prevent abortions when women, themselves, have decided that they were going to have one.
All of the moralistic rationalizations for outlawing a medical procedure are only society's effort to justify it's decision though it knows that it's decision won't actually control the actions of many women.
In other simpler terms, abortions will always continue to happen, society needs to decide whether or not they will be done safely in a clinical environment or if they will be done in a back alley.

I've always thought this, and I've always thought that limiting abortion to a procedure to be completed prior to the end of the first trimester would be the best-case compromise scenario possible. I have also always thought that neither side in this issue would accept a compromise.

That fundamental and unanswerable question is the reason why arguing over abortion is pointless. Everyone has their own definition of what life is and by association, what status a fetus enjoys. Scientists on both sides offer evidence supporting both sides of the argument so nothing is ever resolved.

If this is the case, then abortion should not be allowed.

If we as a people cannot be certain about what it is, then should we not err in favor of the real possibility that it is a human life, rather than say what the hell, let's kill it?

Let's hope abortion doctors don't take up hunting. They may not be likely to care if they are uncertain about what crosses their line of fire. Deer or human? Who cares? Shoot! Ah,the Dick Cheney approach to abortion.

The truth is that abortion is legal not because it is grounded in some certain universal accepted truth about the nature of personhood and basic rights; it is legal because our society wants it to be legal--because it solves difficult often emotional problems--instantly, permanently and if need be--secretly.

In our society the desire and emotional need for abortion trumps any philosophical argument against it. Indeed, the justification for it grows from the desire for it. (A rather frightening way to formulate one's ethics.) Thus any argument that can be constructed, presented and applied to relieve the pain and nagging itch of guilt over abortion is just what the doctor ordered.

"If we as a people cannot be certain about what it is, then should we not err in favor of the real possibility that it is a human life, rather than say what the hell, let's kill it?

If we as a people cannot be 100% certain about about the absolute guilt of a murderer, with no doubt whatsoever, then should we not err in favor of the real possibility that the justice system was wrong in that case and not execute the condemned, rather than say what the hell, let's kill it?

Dna signifies the fetus as human.

#6 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Yeas, as a human fetus.

"...there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today."

Well, a few tiny ones. Fetuses can't think. Fetuses don't breathe. They cannot move outside the womb. herm

"...some certain universal accepted truth about the nature of personhood and basic rights"

The only universally accepted truth about the "nature of personhood" is the period between the first breath of air until the last.

That's always been the universally accepted truth when it comes to counting populations.

That's always been the universally accepted truth when it comes to the Bible ("And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7; see also, Job 33:4 and Ezekiel 37:5&6).

As to "basic rights," please tell of a basic right, any basic right, which as been recognized and honored, by every single government to have ever existed. In other words, to use your words, a universally accepted truth about basic rights.

"I've always thought that limiting abortion to a procedure to be completed prior to the end of the first trimester would be the best-case compromise scenario possible. I ... always thought that neither side ... would accept a compromise."

Progressives might not buy that. We Stoopid Libruls will see the rigid right draw the line at three months and ten minutes, and scream of "murdering babies" if you cannot pinpoint the moment of fertilization. Three months and 15 minutes? herm

-Well, a few tiny ones. Fetuses can't think. Fetuses don't breathe. They cannot move outside the womb. herm

well, he "morally" significant differences.

-I have also always thought that neither side in this issue would accept a compromise.

Our elected leaders do not want a compromise on this isssue at all. Neither side.

It would cease to be a wedge issue at that point.

no way we can have that......

Then, our method of enforcement would require the direct and complete control and supervision of the mother's body. It is dissimilar to cases of child abuse, where an independent child can be removed from irresponsible parents. In the case of pregnancy, the control of the mother's body must occur for the fetus to be protected, simply because the two are biologically inseparable.

In other words because we cannot enforce the protection of a life, the termination of a life should be allowed.

That is a non sequitur. I disagree then with the title of the essay: "Abortion: A logical pro-choice argument, amazing!"

This non sequitur, of course, is still not an argument against it being unethical. In fact it would still be the termination of a life--save that it would be legally allowed!

Perhaps all who passionately speak out for innocent people who are helpless victims of governments and corporations who "legally" oppress and abuse them, should likewise passionately implore mothers not to have their legal but unethical abortions. Perhaps they should occupy an abortion clinic.

The fetus may be life, but it is certainly not independent life, and for that reason the right of termination justly belongs to the mother.

If you believe this, then I can assume that you also believe abortion should be allowed unfettered by any law until the umbilical cord is cut.

If we as a people cannot be 100% certain about about the absolute guilt of a murderer, with no doubt whatsoever, then should we not err in favor of the real possibility that the justice system was wrong in that case and not execute the condemned, rather than say what the hell, let's kill it?

I am completely against capital punishment. What's your point?

That's always been the universally accepted truth when it comes to counting populations.
That's always been the universally accepted truth when it comes to the Bible ("And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7; see also, Job 33:4 and Ezekiel 37:5&6).

It is best to leave religious arguments out of the argument against abortion.

It is a human issue, a philosophical one, an ethical one. Religion can influence individual beliefs, but they should not be used as the foundation for legal cases--not in the US anyway.

If you wish to admit such evidence, then perhaps you wish to admit biblical authority in other legal questions.

I don't think it is advisable.

Sorry, have to go for now. Take care.

Cheers!

"This non sequitur, of course, is still not an argument against it being unethical."

Any more than your non sequitur is, of course, an argument for it being ethical.

"If you believe this, then I can assume that you also believe abortion should be allowed unfettered by any law until the umbilical cord is cut."

I believe that the decision on whether to have an abortion or not is best left up to the woman and her doctor, unfettered by anyone else, as that woman and her doctor are the only people on the face of the earth who know the exact circumstances of that woman and her pregnancy.

The only people who are not hypocritical about being pro-life are Buddhists, who believe all life is sacred and nothing should ever be killed.

If you're pro-life, but you've killed a spider or rat, you're a hypocrite, because those animals are far more developed, complex, and self sustaining than a 2 week old fetus.

Therefore your pro-life stance comes from your CHRISTIAN belief that human DNA is somehow more nobel than the DNA from other creatures which took different paths on the evolutionary ladder.

We won, they lost, so it's ok to kill them. In the bible i guess it's something like god giving man dominion over the creatures.

We feel special, so we want to think that we are special. We say we have souls and animals don't. But no one can prove that. It's just something we tell ourselves so we don't feel guilty eating a burger.

Abortion should always be avoided. But if you're going to call it murder, then so is eating a chicken mcnugget.

But if you're going to call it murder, then so is eating a chicken mcnugget.

assuming there is any chicken in it in the first place......

unfettered by anyone else,

so no restrictions on what an MD can do to a 8.5 month fetus? right?

"It is best to leave religious arguments out of the argument against abortion."

Just pointing out that from both the secular point-of-view ("counting populations") and the Judeo-Christian religious point of view ("the Bible") the "universally accepted truth" is that life begins when one takes their first breath, and it ends at their last breath. Nothing more, nothing less.

"It is a human issue..."

Agreed.

"... a philosophical one, an ethical one."

Disagree.

"Religion can influence individual beliefs, but they should not be used as the foundation for legal cases--not in the US anyway."

Religion has been the foundation for many "legal cases" here in the US. For example:

But if you're going to call it murder, then so is eating a chicken mcnugget.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2012-01-11 05:27 PM

Hilarious.

"so no restrictions on what an MD can do to a 8.5 month fetus? right?"

And if that 8.5 month fetus' continuation to term threatens the life of the mother?

As I said, the decision on whether to have an abortion or not is best left up to the woman and her doctor, unfettered by anyone else, as that woman and her doctor are the only people on the face of the earth who know the exact circumstances of that woman and her pregnancy.

It's just an egg.
It's just sperm.
It's a fertilized egg.
It's a zygote.
It's not a human.
It's not life.

Why do we fine people for the destruction of an American Bald Eagle egg?

It's not an eagle. It's an egg.

-And if that 8.5 month fetus' continuation to term threatens the life of the mother?

then I think the MD should be able to abort.

But for me to say that would represent interference.

you said "unfettered by anyone" so my opinion does not count (neither does your's) so why deflect with that?

don't bother repeating what you posted Hans. I read it and understand, and I agree.

You are dodging the question. We can agree that the mother and the MD are the only ones who know the circumstances but I am asking if there should be no legal restrictions or not.

yes or no.

I'm not gonna call you a monster if you believe there should be no restrictions.

"The abortion question is not really about whether or not fetuses are human, about when life begins or any of that stuff. Most people do not like abortions that is a given. The question is whether or not a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term against her will and who should make that decision. "

IMO, men and women have rights. Does the fetus have a right to live?
An American Bald Eagle's egg has a right to live for we will punish anyone that destroys the egg. It's not an eagle. It is an egg and no different than a fetus. They are both living organisms.

"Pro-choice people just don't believe the state should make that decision, we believe the individual woman with the advice of her doctor should make that decision and most importantly that women always have made that decision independently of the state whether or not the procedure is legal."

This isn't true. The woman does not go into a doctor's office and ask, "Should I abort my baby?" She goes to the doctor and tells the doctor she doesn't want it.

The Supreme Court agreed with pro-choice in one fact. The State cannot interfere when the woman's physician bases the abortion on medical judgment.

"I don't want it. It makes me look fat. My friends will tease me. My family will disown me. I can't afford it."

These are not medical judgments. The State, based on Roe V Wade, has a right to interfere with these excuses for abortion.

"Those who believe that women should be prevented from making that decision and instead outlaw abortion are really just saying that if she chooses to break the law then death is an acceptable risk for them to take with her life."

I have no problem with a woman making a choice to seek her physician's opinion about abortion. The discussion should be honest.

If abortion is really based on medical judgment, the health of woman in the US is extremely horrible considering the number of abortions. Women are suffering in great numbers and yet there is no State studies being done to discover the serious medical complications women are facing that is requiring so many babies to be terminated.

"you said "unfettered by anyone" so my opinion does not count (neither does your's) so why deflect with that?"

That's correct.

Neither you nor I know the exact circumstances of a woman and her pregnancy.

A pregnant woman and her doctor do.

"then I think the MD should be able to abort."

In the case of the hypothetical woman, 8.5 months pregnant, it is discovered that continuing her pregnancy carries with it the possibility of her death, then that woman, with the advice of her doctor, are the only people equipped with the knowledge and information necessary to make that decision.

And if that decision is abortion, then, yes, the doctor should be able to do so... to save her life.

In the case of the hypothetical woman, 8.5 months pregnant, it is discovered that continuing her pregnancy carries with it the possibility of her death, then that woman, with the advice of her doctor, are the only people equipped with the knowledge and information necessary to make that decision.

what if there is no medical justification for the abortion? She wants one and the MD is willing to perform it.

no restrictions? the MD is allowed? No "fetterance" LOL...right?

Why do we fine people for the destruction of an American Bald Eagle egg?
It's not an eagle. It's an egg.
#37 | Posted by Petrous

"but I am asking if there should be no legal restrictions or not."

Not in the hypothetical case of the woman, 8.5 pregnant, when it is discovered that carrying the fetus to term threatens her life.

The very rare circumstances described in this hypothetical situation involve tragic, gut-wrenching and devastating decisions. They are not easily made and, in some cases, the woman decides against an abortion and dies as a result.

But, once again, that woman and her doctor are the only people on the face of the earth who know the exact circumstances of that woman and her pregnancy.

And no law should interfere with that.

"what if there is no medical justification for the abortion?"

Who decides "no medical justification"? You want government bureaucrats standing watch in every doctor's office, "reviewing" that doctor's decisions?

"LOL...right?"

Laughing out loud.

Loud and clear, eb.

My lol was referencing my butchering of the word "fettered". Not anything else

So no restrictions at all. None.

Ok

1. Who actually listened to the whole interview?

2. I really think it is important to ask the person making the "choice" what "choice" is being considered (as stated in the interview).

One will also notice that the fetus is never just a "lump of cells". Scientifically it is a living organism, which is much different than just a lump of cells. That living organism contains DNA. That DNA signifies that organism as a human. That DNA contains all the information of the eventual fully developed human that is a potential from the less matured form.

At any point in an abortion the individual is making the choice to either preserve or take a living, human life.

For me, abortion is the taking of a life. It's probably the largest moral/ethical issue ever faced by a society; the largest civil rights issue ever faced by a society---one that will never be fought for (ironically) by many that fought for past civil rights causes. It's an issue that strikes at man's basic selfishness and uncovers man's basic weakness. It's the great contradiction; the great dichotomy for many in our society. It ultimately is what defines a society.

"abortion is the taking of a life."

1. What should the penalty be for a woman getting an abortion?

2. When does that "life" begin?

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-11 08:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

1. It is legal. There is no penalty beside the fact that person knows that they chose to end human life.

2. As soon as the organism has it's identifying DNA that marks it as a specific individual organism... it is alive. The fetus is never just a "clump of cells". It is always a living organism with individual specific DNA. In this case, human DNA. It is a living human organism. When one makes the "choice" they are making the choice to end living, human life.

Science is pretty clear on that. The organism will have the same DNA when it gets bigger and can talk, drive, etc. No matter when you kill that living human organism, you are ending the life of a living, human life.

"As soon as the organism has it's identifying DNA that marks it as a specific individual organism... it is alive."

Well, actually:

"There is no penalty beside the fact that person knows that they chose to end human life."

"It is legal."

Read the question again, and see if you find the word "should" this time.

"As soon as the organism has it's identifying DNA that marks it as a specific individual organism... it is alive.'

So does that mean conception, implantation, end of 1st trimester...when?

#51 | Posted by Hans at 2012-01-11 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

It doesn't have to be independent. Young children are not independent from their parent. If they make it that far, they are still the same living, human organism as when they were just beginning in the womb (just more matured and bigger in size).

I am not quite sure why people keep talking about independent as if it changes the fact that abortion deals with living, human organisms being eliminated.

52 | Posted by Hans at 2012-01-11 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

1. It is not a video - Fail #1
2. It was not supposed to be a "eureka" event rather just an interesting discussion (one which it seems you are not aware of since you thought you were watching a "video") - Fail #2
3. Of course they will not be "bridged". Some people don't have a problem killing a living, human organism. - Fail #3

"abortion deals with living, human organisms being eliminated. "

Doesn't Onanism as well?

"As soon as the organism has it's identifying DNA that marks it as a specific individual organism... it is alive.'

As soon as the cell has it's identifying DNA that marks it as a unique cell ... it is unique.

FTFY imbecile.

It isn't alive until it's conscious.
Outside of beer, you don't even exist.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-11 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

From your statements it seems that you don't really grasp certain concepts

1. Killing as the unjustified taking of life. In this case, a living, human organism.
2. (from #56) Individual and unique DNA that distinguishes the organism from other organisms. Sperm has the DNA of the male involved. The Egg has the DNA of the female involved. Once they come together and successfully join... they have a unique and individual DNA that marks them as a unique, living, human organism.

I find it strange that you have to obfuscate away from the fact that abortion (an intentional act) deals with the eliminating of living, human life.

"Some people don't have a problem killing a living, human organism."

Which is why no one wasted their time watching a video, or listening to an .MP3 which was nothing more than a rehash of the same old "arguments."

So much for your "It brings about some good thoughts to consider...", which was bullshit when you posted that at 1:52pm today.

It is no different now.

#57 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-01-11 08:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who's cell? Now the fathers cell, not the mothers cell. Zat, do you know the difference between a cell and an organism? It is unique, human, and alive. (Unless of course life comes from non life every single time a child is born).

#59 | Posted by Hans at 2012-01-11 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well in fact it is different. But you wouldn't know that. You didn't have the integrity to listen to it (at least that is what you seem to continue to implicate).

"I find it strange that you have to obfuscate away from the fact that abortion (an intentional act) deals with the eliminating of living, human life."

So much for your "It brings about some good thoughts to consider...", which was bullshit when you posted that at 1:52pm today.

It is no different now.

.
......don't know why the religious get their shorts in a knot over abortion.......
.
.....after all, two out of five pregnancies end in miscarriages.....
.
.......and we all know that a miscarriage is an abortion done by God.....
.
........making God the most prolific abortionist of all.......
.
........He must approve of them if He commits so many......

"Well in fact it is different."

No, it isn't.

You didn't have the integrity to accept the fact that your "It brings about some good thoughts to consider...", was bullshit when you posted that at 1:52pm today.

And it is still bullshit.

You're anti-abortion.

We get that.

Some of us are pro-choice.

Accept that.

Your bullshit "MP3s" will not change that.

In spite of (and, actually, enforced by) your "It brings about some good thoughts to consider...", nothing changes.

#63 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-11 09:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

And yet... this still doesn't remove that fact that individuals in an alleged civilized, moral society have no qualms about elimination living, human organisms.

It isn't even a question about being religious. It is about people knowing the choice they are making. Most people probably don't even know what they are eliminating with their choice is living and human.

#64 | Posted by Hans at 2012-01-11 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't know too much about my position on abortion. You seem to thrive on ignorance in this situation.

"Once they come together and successfully join... they have a unique and individual DNA that marks them as a unique, living, human organism. "

I'll take that as the moment of conception.

That determined, how do you propose the authorities tell the difference between a menstrual period and a murder?

"You don't know too much about my position on abortion. "

"...the eliminating of living, human life.

"No matter when you kill that living human organism, you are ending the life of a living, human life."

"...At any point in an abortion the individual is making the choice to either preserve or take a living, human life."

...but it wasn't last night.

Abortion is a choice both legally and morally. The law of the land allows abortion and then it becomes a moral choice. That's the ultimate difficult choice; a choice to end or sustain life.

In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature. "

#3 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION AT 2012-01-11 01:59 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Your premise is not reflected by any norm in our society. We do not give equal control of personal decisions to those who can't make them. We make decisions for our children, spouses, parents, when they are unable to do so. We also give the state the right to kill citizens and non-citizens. We hand judges the ability to decide whether the state kills citizens. As a whole we accept that people have the ability to choose to kill another. That much is established.

An interesting one is that in Florida, you can kill someone if you "feel" threatened by them. Righties jizz themselves over that one.

"Most peope do not like abortions that is a given. The question is whether or not a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term against her will and who should make that decision. Pro-choice people just don't believe the state should make that decision, we believe the individual woman with the advice of her doctor should make that decision..."
#7 | Posted by danni

Danni, most people don't have a problem in an early abortion. Most people draw the line when the baby is half delivered and the abortionist purees the baby's brain. And Danni, a visit to the abortion clinic and the advice they give is not really a decision between the woman and "her" doctor. Why do you kid yourself and candy coat it by calling it "pro-choice" and not what it really is - abortion. Most bikers are "pro-choice" on helmet laws but they have no "choice". It's their body after all.

Most people probably don't even know what they are eliminating with their choice is living and human.
#65 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

......they know what a pregnancy leads to.......that's why they have an abortion.......

.......the real point is that pro-lifers should actually be called forced-birthers........no one wants to commit an abortion on a pro-life woman, its her choice to give birth, but forced-birthers betray their intrusive, big government, nanny-state,socialist streak.... by trying wrest control of a person's uterus away from them......small wonder that the Supreme Court decided that this was an unconstitutional over-reach.......

........forced birthing is wrong...........

the pro-life/choice position.

Um, yeah, no.

That's a misnomer.

Everyone is pro-life.

The only question is are you also pro-choice or anti-choice.

In the case of those like Rick Santorum who would make all abortion illegal even if it leads to the death of women with ectopic pregnancies and the like then the question is "are you are forced birther?".

As Skizziks just pointed out...

........forced birthing is wrong...........

M'kay?

Be Well.

/Swear to God the GOP read Margaret Atwood's classic dystopean novel "The Handmaid's Tale" and wear their wrists out fapping to it.

That determined, how do you propose the authorities tell the difference between a menstrual period and a murder?

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-11 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well danforth, murder is a legal term. Since abortion is legal, it would not be "murder" in the legal sense, it could only be unjustified killing.

As long as abortion is legal, it will not be murder in the legal sense.

If you can't tell the difference between a period and an intentional action taken to kill a living organism... there are deeper problems.

Just like any legal situation it will come down to motive involved with the action taken if inappropriate action is suspected.

A tampon will not become a crime scene. Someone who knows they are pregnant and intentionally takes action to destroy the living, human organism might be brought up on some kind of charges.

Again, obfuscation to try and avoid the fact that no matter what, whether legal or illegal, a living, human organism is being killed.

Also what Hans seems incapable of doing is saying "so what are your views on abortion?". I don't have a problem with abortion in the event of ectopic pregnancies. As in this case, both the mother and the child will ultimately die. Due to that fact, that the child is not going to live, it is better to save the mother since her life is about 98% likely to be taken if the child is attempted to come to term.

Spud also seems to be under a false position. Very few, if any, pro-life supporters are against abortion in ectopic pregnancy situations.

#72 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 05:21 AM | Reply | Flag

If you listened to the interview, you would quickly find that this is not about "forced birth". This is about letting people be aware of the true state of the choice. They can still make whatever choice they want... but they should be aware of what they are actually choosing between.

That choice is to either attempt to preserve the life of a living, human organism, or to end the life of a living, human organism.

Most people get pregnancies under the impression that either:

1. The thing inside them is not really living
2. The thing inside them is a thing and not really human
3. The thing inside them is just a lump of cells (and that is scientifically incorrect. An organism is a far cry from "a lump of cells".

Genetically and in terms of nature, that child is the same in the womb as outside the womb.

_____________

In regard to the assertions of Brucebanner... from what you say, it sounds like you support the death penalty, capital punishment, etc. Of course you also fail to distinguish that a living, human organism in the womb is completely innocent in regard to the law. Now capital punishment is dependent on finding someone guilty or a crime. Self-Defense is dependent upon someone being found to be justified in their action based on the one killed being guilty of some dangerous action toward the person who killed them.

You cannot kill a 2 year old because you choose to. (you can, but you would face a penalty for that as it is not a rational or reasonable action). Comparing the living, human organism in the womb to someone convicted of murder and thus killed via capital punishment is quite dishonest.

In society you CANNOT kill whoever inconveniences you. There is something called "context" in regard to the justified killing of human beings. In society, outside of abortion, that involved being guilty of some criminal action.

You have all done an admirable job of proving my initial point. We'll never agree. I did catch a few pearls in here though.

The eagle egg comparison was priceless and, because it was an uncomfortable reminder that favoring a fetal eagle's rights over those of a fetal human means that many people care more for animals than they do people, it was generally ignored.

I noticed an undercurrent in some pro-choice posts that avoided ascribing life to a fetus. That's called "dehumanizing". It's common in military training, where the focus is on destroying a tank, airplane, ship, etc...and avoiding discussion of the people in it. Enemy are defined as adversaries, targets, etc... Dehumanizing makes killing easie: for the military it removes a pesky moral boundary that might cause a hesitation that gets you killed. For pro-choice advocates it is used to justify a position.

Hans and Danni are going probably thinking "pro-lifer!", but in fact I share much the same ground as Sully. I don't know where "life" begins. Is it generation of DNA? Is it respiration? Is it response to external stimuli indicative of brain function? I don't know. This I do know: if NASA put a lander on Europa, drilled a sample of ice and found an alien amoeba frozen in it, it would be hailed as life by damned near everyone on this thread, pro-choice and pro-life, eagle lovers and omelette lovers.

That choice is to either attempt to preserve the life of a living, human organism, or to end the life of a living, human organism.

Uh-huh... and?

Everyone knows the above.

Killing a foetus is what abortion does.

Some people think a woman has the right to make that choice within reasonable limits and currently that's the law of the land.

Others want to work to make abortion and birth control illegal.

Those people are well-intentioned control freaks who are over-stepping themselves.

If you don't like abortion?

Fine, don't have one, but don't think you have the authority to tell a woman hat she can and cannot do with her own body,

Do not try to tell a woman that her reproductive choices are out of her hands.

Not yours.

Can not have.

Be Well.

#77 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-12 08:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

I personally am not trying to tell a woman that her reproductive choices are out of her hands. I do desire that they actually know the choice they are making before they make it.

I think you would be surprised how many women are under the impression that:

1. The living, human organism inside them is not living
2. The living, human organism inside them is not human
2. They are just dispatching a clump of cells and that is all

You would also be surprised how many money would not make the decision for the abortion if they were not under the false impressions presented above.

It is more about their future health than anything else. I would hate to see a woman act on ignorance and later find out that she did in fact kill a living, human organism. That would bring great distress to someone who objected to that action, but was ignorant to that being the case in abortion.

It is about awareness of the actual choice being made.

No, you are not just removing some cells akin to brushing dry skin off the top of your hand.

You are intervening to either preserve or cease the life of a living, human organism. The fact that the organism is living and human should be an important part of the decision for any sane, rational human being.

I think you would be surprised how many women are under the impression that:
1. The living, human organism inside them is not living
2. The living, human organism inside them is not human
2. They are just dispatching a clump of cells and that is all.

Women are not that stupid or ill-informed as a rule.

Interesting that you would think they were.

Be Well.

If the unborn can display human emotion, then the unborn are human by definition.

Say it isn't so.

A two-year-old child isn't "independent life" either. For that matter, neither is my ex-wife.

There are severe criminal penalties for eating a bald eagle egg. Or even disturbing an eagle nest where there's an egg. Why is that?

A two-year-old child isn't "independent life" either. For that matter, neither is my ex-wife.
#81 | Posted by rightisright

Tell the cabana boy to cash last month's check.
~ The First Ex-Mrs. RIR

Oooooh, look at all those zeroes! Ain't they purrty?
~ The Second Ex-Mrs. RIR

Your fixation with me is creepy. Get a life. An "independent" one, if that's possible for a tenured lefty overpaid public sector union member.

this is not about "forced birth".
#75 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

.......wrong......that is what the entire issue in America is about....forced birthing .......

......if you are pregnant, and want to give birth, no one will stop you.....
....... all that anti-abortion, anti-choice movement ....is only about making laws to force the unwilling into a forced birth.....

......forced birthing is wrong....

#79 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-12 09:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

You don't seem to know too much about the American public. Almost every pro-choice individual I have spoken to doesn't think the organism is alive, doesn't think it is human, and doesn't think it is any more than a pile of cells. (At least that is how they verbalize there justification even if they do realize what they are doing to a living, human organism)

#85 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 10:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong. A lot of people desire that, since it is legal for them to have a choice (and that won't change), it is important for them to understand exactly what that choice entails.

I see you refuse to believe that, but that is the case.

It is strange to see so many people desire to live in the "ignorance is bliss" world.

People can have their choice of what to do in regard to abortion. Their choice is whether to preserve the life of a living, human organism or to take away the life (kill) of the living, human organism.

Even though that is the choice being made, they are free to make that choice. I don't see a problem with having individuals be fully aware of what their choice entails.

A two-year-old child isn't "independent life" either.

#81 | Posted by rightisright at 2012-01-12 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

There are tens of thousands of retirement homes with "dependent living" facilities across the country. These elderly individuals are "dependent life" as well. Of course it is irrational to think that we are justified in killing them because their dependence might be inconveniencing to someone. Why? Because they are living, human organisms and we are, allegedly, a civilized, moral society.

Yep.

Even though that is the choice being made, they are free to make that choice.
#87 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

......then you are pro-choice......then there is no debate.......

Then you are just being condescending, pretending that pregnant women don't really know what it is that they are knocked up with, but you do.

If your against abortions... Then don't get any!
If your against gay marriage ...don't marry one!

Now wasn't that easy...and its called freedom too...

If your against punctuation and grammar dont use it

Then you are just being condescending, pretending that pregnant women don't really know what it is that they are knocked up with, but you do.

#90 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, it is not condescending at all. As I said to someone else on this thread, you would be surprised the number of women who do not know what the choice they are making actually involved.

I would think a scientific society such as this one would be interested to know exactly what the choice entails, whether it is a living being, whether that being is human, etc.

Those are all important things to inform an important choice.

It is strange to see so many people fight against knowing exactly what choice is being made.

If your against abortions... Then don't get any!

You are dismissing the central crux--the one I believe prompted expsredemption to start this thread--that is whether the unborn is a human life or not.

That is what needs to be debated, otherwise depending upon your understanding of personhood, your statement could possibly be read like this:

If you are against terminating a human life, then don't terminate a human life.

I would assume you believe it is not a human life--unless you are some kind of monster--thus enabling you to accept abortion.

The crux then is how do you know it is not a human life?

How can you be so certain?
What is your exacting, universally acceptable, criteria for determining human life that allows you to distinguish humanity at some point in the timeline of gestation?

We all agree that the being that emerges at the end of the process is a human being, protected and granted rights. Specifically, then, when and by what precise mechanism is personhood conveyed?

Since a human life potentially weighs in the balance, those who wish to terminate whatever that "thing" is growing in the womb better be damn certain, beyond any reasonable doubt, what it is they are terminating. Otherwise, wisdom would dictate that human life and death decisions should not based on ignorance, ambiguity and uncertainty. (We expect no less from our politicians, police officers and soldiers.)

Thus the onus on those greenlighting abortion choice is not simply to have an argument about what it is being killed during the procedure; rather they should know with the greatest degree of certainty.

No, it is not easy, but it is your moral imperative to have the answers.

Nice work Grendel. Gotta say.

Since a human life potentially weighs in the balance

Operative word "potentially"

That is the rub!

you say potentially a human life, I say not until it has left the womb and is living breathing on its own.

Potentially I have the chance to be a billionaire, the likely hood of that not!!!!

Well, If God is the world's biggest abortionist, he's also the world's biggest proponent of euthanasia, considering how many go out from old age. Do we want to sign up for that too?

So money, are the millions of people who need a machine to breathe human, or not?

Do we want to sign up for that too?

Posted by rightisright at 2012-01-12 01:05 PM |

Before I answer: how old are you?

=P

Potentially I have the chance to be a billionaire, the likely hood of that not!!!!

#97 | POSTED BY MONEYWAR

With that grammar and spelling, it does seem unlikely.

The infant mortality rate is 6.7 so even coming to term leaves the notion that there is a small chance life won't exist.

you say potentially a human life, I say not until it has left the womb and is living breathing on its own.

#96 | Posted by moneywar at 2012-01-12 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course science regards it as living tissue of a living organism.

That living organism is thus alive. That living organism that is surely alive is also human.

Thus it is most definitely a living, human organism. That is the rub.

I cannot understand why, even if we were unsure of whether it is living, and human or not, someone would say "well... since we don't know if it really is a living human or not... it is alright to remove it"...

Not the best course of action.

The infant mortality rate is 6.7 so even coming to term leaves the notion that there is a small chance life won't exist.

#102 | Posted by moneywar at 2012-01-12 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gee... an infant might potentially die... better kill it before it does? Nope... doesn't make much sense.

Take a listen to the MP3 interview. This kind of thing is discussed.

Wouldn't the ambiguity of the answers and the room for debate make the argument moot? If everyone has a different answer, then everyone has a different answer. If you try to use coercion to stop people from procuring abortion services, all you do is make the whole process an underground operation and put a lot more lives both born and unborn in danger.

That being said, no one should be coerced in any manner to pay for anyone's abortion. Period.

There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every year.

900,000 to 1 million of those end in pregnancy losses EVERY year.

More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage (occurring during the first 20 weeks).

Approximately 26,000 end in stillbirth(considered stillbirth after 20 weeks)

Approximately 19,000 end in infant death during the first month.

Approximately 39,000 end in infant death during the first year.

Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; some estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss.

Approximately 75% of all miscarriages occur in the first trimester.

Sad, but it kind of puts perspective to the reason of the word potentially.

Gee... an infant might potentially die... better kill it before it does?

Gee...lets force the potential life upon someone that doesn't believe...sounds about the same!

And one isn't able to kill POTENTIAL and why might that be?

Gee... an infant might potentially die... better kill it before it does? Nope... doesn't make much sense.

#104 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-12 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny you mention that. That's what the do to premies in many socialized medicine countries, makes the infant mortality rate and the government look more "compassionate".

I know of many babies born and immediately put on respirators. In moneywarworld, they're still fetuses.

Since a human life potentially weighs in the balance
Operative word "potentially"
That is the rub!
you say potentially a human life, I say not until it has left the womb and is living breathing on its own.

Don't misdirect or equivocate.

The use of potential in my post does not refer to the life itself.

But to the potential answer to the ethical dilemma posed--what precisely is the nature of that life.

Perhaps a rephrase is called for:

Since a human life possibly weighs in the balance. . .

#107 | Posted by moneywar at 2012-01-12 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is scientifically known that the organism in the womb is living.

Dead cells and tissue do not grow and continue to develop into more mature organisms.

So:

1. The tissue is alive
2. The tissue is not just a lump of cells, but an organism
3. The living organism is human
4. By the state of existing that living organism that is human is a "being
5. Thus the "thing" in the womb is a living, human being.

It is not up for debate really. Some people are just ignorant of that fact, which is sad.

Since a human life possibly weighs in the balance. . .

#110 | Posted by Grendel at 2012-01-12 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

What Grendel is saying is not that it is possible that the being in the womb is living. It is living (dead cells don't grow and develop)

He is not saying that it is possible that the being in the womb is human. Tt is human (check the DNA).

What Grendel IS saying is that your may POSSIBLY choose to eliminate the life of that living, human being in the womb.

1. The tissue is alive
2. The tissue is not just a lump of cells, but an organism
3. The living organism is human
4. By the state of existing that living organism that is human is a "being
5. Thus the "thing" in the womb is a living, human being.
6. Until it has achieved viability it is a potentially life threatening parasite inside a woman's body that she has the right to do with as she chooses.

/Fixt.

Be Well.

/You forgot one for some reason.

The tissue is living only in so far as the person manufacturing that tissue is living.

FIX

6. Until it has achieved viability it is a potentially life threatening parasite inside a woman's body that she has the right to do with as she chooses.

#113 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-12 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting take on living, human beings. I guess the dependent living elderly are the same thing... just out of body. Strange take... but what would you know... you are a potato.

#114 | Posted by moneywar at 2012-01-12 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well that is the rub isn't it... the mother is not "manufacturing" the tissue. It is not her "tissue". It is an organism. Separate and unique. It is a separate and unique, living, human being with it's own blueprint for development.

As long as the women getting abortions are aware of that, then they are making well informed choices to kill a unique, living, human being. That is their choice.

I guess the dependent living elderly are the same thing... just out of body.

Yes, those two situation are EXACTLY the same.

Take a cookie and go pat yerself on the head for an hour.

*rolls eyes*

Be Well.

As long as the women getting abortions are aware of that, then they are making well informed choices to kill a unique, living, human being. That is their choice.

Pretty sure most chicks are aware of "how babby is formed".

Some of them painfully aware, in fact.

Sure they appreciate the heads up though.

*rolls eyes*

Be Well.

I am so pro-choice I have started hunting storks just in case....

How many people will take me seriously?

#117 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-12 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well... no... we've been through this.

There are an appalling number of women who are not aware that:

1. The "thing" in their womb is living
2. The "thing" in their womb is human
3. The "thing" in their womb is not just a simple clump of cells.

I do find it curious that the so many people today are so focused on "responsibility" in regard to tax burden, etc... and yet they are lax when it comes to the biggest question in regard to the responsibility of a living, human being.

Shouldn't one know as much as possible before making such a decision?

The fact that so many people say "it's just a clump of cells", or, "it's just a parasite"... shows that many people don't know that much before they make such a big decision. Pretty irresponsible. If you cant be responsible when it comes to living, human beings... you probably won't be too responsible when it comes to anything else.

More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage (occurring during the first 20 weeks).
Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; some estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss.
#106 | Posted by moneywar

.......as I said before.......those who believe in God.........

Must also believe that He approves of abortion, as He uses abortion to weed out whom He deems to be unwanted.....the just the same as a pregnant woman does.

There are an appalling number of women who are not aware that:

1. The "thing" in their womb is living
2. The "thing" in their womb is human
3. The "thing" in their womb is not just a simple clump of cells.

......but God knows.....and He kills them anyways......

#121 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag: Pony needs to learn a new trick

#121 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is a very strange comment coming from someone claiming to be a civilized, moral atheist. I would imagine what God does or does not do (being imaginary) wouldn't effect your reasoning all that much.

That doesn't work given that those who believe in G-d believe he has access to information we don't and therefore makes more informed decisions on when to abort. They will claim that man determining the value of life is his attempt to infringe upon the domain of G-d and are making choices they have no way to know the consequences of.

Personally, I believe in G-d and choice. I believe we are made in his image and the things we do, he would do. I don't believe in a good G-d. I don't believe in a bad G-d just as I don't believe in good or bad people. G-d just is as we are.

Must also believe that He approves of abortion, as He uses abortion to weed out whom He deems to be unwanted.....the just the same as a pregnant woman does.

#120 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Also, on this poorly formed argument platform, because God takes the life of human beings at will... that must meant hat he supports us taking the lives of human beings at will... and thus we should take the lives of human being at will...

No. That would be a retarded reasoning process.

Well... no... we've been through this.

There are an appalling number of women who are not aware that:
1. The "thing" in their womb is living
2. The "thing" in their womb is human
3. The "thing" in their womb is not just a simple clump of cells.

What appalling number of times will Spud have to repeat...

6. Until it has achieved viability it is a potentially life threatening parasite inside a woman's body that she has the right to do with as she chooses.

Until you become aware of this?

Be Well.

#124 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-01-12 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny thing. I believe in God and choice as well. I also believe that choices have consequences and people are responsible for the choice they make. Thus they should make as well and reasoned a choice as possible... especially when it comes to living, human beings.

#127

Apparently you think women are not bright enough to accomplish this on their own or thru medical/family advice.

You do realize that if men could have abortions, they would have been legal 5,000 years ago, right?

#126 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-12 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny stuff potato. Using the "it is just a parasite in the woman's womb" argument.

Regardless of its dependence on the woman, it is still a unique, living, human being with an intrinsic blueprint in the DNA to be what it becomes once outside the womb.

The same person out of the womb is in the womb, just compacted a little bit. Sort of like a singularity of the universe, all the info is in there.

A unique, living, human being.

Thus they should make as well and reasoned a choice as possible... especially when it comes to living, human beings.

I agree up to the except. A person who knows they will be a horrible parent should not have kids. A person with 10 they can't take care of should not have the 11th. Mistakes happen all the time and unless we will take the Santorum approach of "sex only for reproduction," we should have a means to help.

That is why I support choice up to about 23 weeks which is the youngest to survive outside a womb. As science gets better, then that number gets smaller.

I would never choose abortion, but I am very happy that I get to make that choice for myself and not anyone else.

6. Until it has achieved viability it is a potentially life threatening parasite inside a woman's body that she has the right to do with as she chooses.
Until you become aware of this?.

The popetato is speaking ex friarlator? ;-)

Perhaps one simply needs to accept your statement as a matter of revealed truth.

You do know my dear friend, that these statements require arguments.

They are based on a sets of assumptions which can be easily challenged, thus bringing the whole action of what is occurring during an abortion back in to the murkiness of ambiguity and uncertainty.

#128 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am sure they can do this... so long as people don't give them misleading information like "it is just a lump of cells", or, "it is just a parasite".

I have no problem with choice. The woman is going to be the one to have to live with it. I just hope people make well informed choices. I expect that you hope for the same.

because God takes the life of human beings at will... that must meant hat he supports us taking the lives of human beings at will... and thus we should take the lives of human being at will...
#125 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

.......at will ?......not at will......you missed the salient part of the text........

........God aborts the unwanted........therefore He must approve of aborting the unwanted, otherwise He would not do it.........

........believers are compelled by their belief to agree that God is the greatest abortionist of all.......He would not commit an act by the billions, that He does not approve of.......

I do hope for the same. I just don't think that women need yours or my advice on what to do with their bodies while the fetus is not viable.

I agreed with Bubba that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

#133 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course you are not a "believe" and you are showing your sophomoric understanding of the situation. Two strikes.

Also, based on your reasoning... whatever God does... he apparently approves of... if he approves of it... it seems we can do it.

That is what you are trying to say with abortion right? So why not taking the lives of human beings at will?

Ah... probably because you realize you are working from a flawed position.

When Cuz Skiz farts, God made him do it..... is the logical extension of his nonsense.

I am sure they can do this... so long as people don't give them misleading information like "it is just a lump of cells", or, "it is just a parasite".

I have no problem with choice. The woman is going to be the one to have to live with it. I just hope people make well informed choices. I expect that you hope for the same.

#134 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting.

If someone was abusing their children would you share your thoughts on that subject with the individual?

With me, if someone is potentially going to mistreat living, human beings... it is wise to share another side just in case they didn't consider it.

It also does not have to be me. I don't tell someone unless they ask, or there is a conversation about it and I share my views. It should be the doctor who shares the information about the "thing" actually being a unique, living, human being.

Information is so important in making responsible decisions. Stating that the "thing" is in fact a unique, living, human being is not advice, it is information necessary to make a serious and responsible decision that will live with an individual for the rest of their lives.

I would prefer them hear it before they do something they might (not necessarily) regret rather than being ignorant, making the decision, and regretting it all the more after it is too late.

"chooses"

*smacks self in head with rubber tennis shoe*

Ow.

Be Well.

#137 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-12 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

I said "choice" thank you very much. Dirt in the eyes again? Seriously you need to get a better "vegetable" (as a potato is a legume and is not often considered an technical vegetable) wash.

-With me, if someone is potentially going to mistreat living, human beings

Abortion prior to known viability is illegal, so call a cop.

The idea that there isn't enough information available in this country on the subject is ludicrous... it's just as excuse for the self-rightious to pontificate.

#141 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong. Just because there is a lot of information does not necessitate that people 1) are aware of it 2) pay attention to it 3) know it.

Just think about Zat and the Jesus never even existed crowd. That is a sorry old claim with much out there to show it's nonsense... and yet... some people are completely ignorant of it.

It is not about pontification, it is not about making the other person feel bad... it is about making sure the choice is as painless as reasonable and painless as possible, both before and after the choice is made and carried out.

Also, based on your reasoning... whatever God does... he apparently approves of... #135 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

.....and you maintain that God does things that He does not approve of ?.......

.....and you maintain that God causes you to fart? or a fetus to abort? or Willard to run for President?

Busy dude this guy you call imaginary.

.......at will ?......not at will......you missed the salient part of the text........
........God aborts the unwanted........therefore He must approve of aborting the unwanted, otherwise He would not do it.........
........believers are compelled by their belief to agree that God is the greatest abortionist of all.......He would not commit an act by the billions, that He does not approve of.......

Okay, Skizz, I'll play.

There are huge gaps of logic here..

Since you wish to bring a deity in to this, show me how you know that ALL the the rights and power that the creator possesses over his creation are always conferred to individuals that he has created.

If anything the Judeo Christian's first story is about how God limited human beings' choices and power. The first sin was humanity trying to claim God like knowledge and authority which was not granted them. Obviously, according to that tradition, there are actions reserved for God alone. Tell me how you know that abortion is not one of them. Was it revealed to you?

A call to act like God in terms of imitating selfless love and compassion is not a call to be God in every circumstance.

Wrong. Just because there is a lot of information does not necessitate that people 1) are aware of it 2) pay attention to it 3) know it.4) agree with me on it

ftfy

"much out there to show it's nonsense"

[citation seriously fucking needed, liar]

The popetato is speaking ex friarlator? ;-)

LOL.

Ever wonder if Jesus liked puns?

There's that whole "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." thing.

Disciples spoke Koine greek.

Peter took the new name Petros meaning small rock or pebble.

Koine Greek word for rock is Petra.

Was Jesus making a small joke there while he was making the guy the head of the whole she-bang here on earth?

There is exactly zero evidence that Jesus ever existed. No contemporary history exists at all, the Josephus account (He was born in 70 CE so isn't contemporaneous with the alleged events) is a known forgery.
Lie some more, I'm laughing at you scooter.

#146 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

You fixed nothing. It doesn't matter if they agree with me.

Unless of course you don't think that:

1. The "thing" is living
2. The "thing" is and thus being
3. The "thing" is human
4. The "thing" is unique from it's mother and it's father.

Not sure why you added your 4. They don't have to agree with me. It is nice that they don't make important decisions like this out of ignorance.

Since you wish to bring a deity in to this, show me how you know that ALL the the rights and power that the creator possesses over his creation are always conferred to individuals that he has created.
#145 | Posted by Grendel

.........so you are agreeing that God is the Master Abortionist.......

.....then answer, would God do something that he does not approve of ?......

#148 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-12 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Spud,

From what we have in the scripture, Jesus used puns and "play on words" a lot.

Paul also makes much use of these things.

would God do something that he does not approve of ?......

Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 02:53 PM

Yes, as do all parents. Why do you think the phrase "do as I say, not as I do" was created?

"much out there to show it's nonsense"
[citation seriously fucking needed, liar]

Hey, Zat! How are you doing? Long time no tussle.

Have you gotten Jesus to kiss your ass yet?

I am not sure why he would want to. Or why you even want him to.

Perhaps you know.

Best keep all of that private, I guess. Consenting adults and deities and all that.

I hope you and the goddess are doing well. (honestly)

-Disciples spoke Koine greek

True, in the marketplace and in public dealings. At home they spoke Aramaic, and Hebrew in the temple.

A pun? Yep.

"Though B.F. Meyer (pp. 186-87) insists that Jesus gave the name Cephas to Simon at this point, Jesus merely made a pun on the name (4:18; 10:2; Mark 3:16; John 1:42)."

.....and you maintain that God causes you to fart? or a fetus to abort? or Willard to run for President?
Busy dude this guy you call imaginary.
#144 | Posted by Corky

......just an academic debate Corky.....if this, then that.......

......while the logic can be reduced to absurdity, these excercises are valuable, because there are people making life or death decisions around the world, based on just such facile premises.......

......Ex here seems to believe that he has a better understanding of what it means to be pregnant, than a pregnant woman.....he has a kind of Santorum logic that needs to be aired...

There is exactly zero evidence that Jesus ever existed. No contemporary history exists at all, the Josephus account (He was born in 70 CE so isn't contemporaneous with the alleged events) is a known forgery.
Lie some more, I'm laughing at you scooter.

#149 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-01-12 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't seem to know too much about the Josephus account, or the other history surrounding that time.

You also don't seem to be aware of what the the scholars (Atheist, Agnostic, Theistic, or Christian) say about the matter (you know... the people who study it much more thoroughly than you).

#149 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-01-12 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know you love books, here is one for you:

-It doesn't matter if they agree with me.

You seem to think, adamantly, that it does.

.........so you are agreeing that God is the Master Abortionist.......
.....then answer, would God do something that he does not approve of ?......

God has the authority, the power the right to abort, terminate, eradicate, end, eliminate whatever he creates from zygote to centenarian (from Big Bang to the Big Freeze, the Big Crunch or whatever) according to his own will and plan which he approves of and which by necessity is good--beyond human reckoning and understanding.

Do you have a real point?

-such facile premises as mine

We need an editor around here to make corrections.

......Ex here seems to believe that he has a better understanding of what it means to be pregnant, than a pregnant woman.....he has a kind of Santorum logic that needs to be aired...

That I won't argue with.

#159 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

No. I think the information is important. After they have information (which they would have to ask for, or be in a conversation about, to get in the first place) they don't have to agree with me at all.

I can't change science for them. They get the information, and they make their decision. If they don't want the information from me that is fine.

Ex here seems to believe that he has a better understanding of what it means to be pregnant, than a pregnant woman.....he has a kind of Santorum logic that needs to be aired...

More logical gaps.

Having a specific condition automatically makes one an expert on that condition?

I assume you never go to a doctor when you have an ailment.

.....Ex here seems to believe that he has a better understanding of what it means to be pregnant, than a pregnant woman.....he has a kind of Santorum logic that needs to be aired...

That I won't argue with.

#161 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

You should argue with that, namely because it is wrong. This must be one of those times you know because you know (Corky fundamentalism).

God has the authority, the power the right to abort, terminate, eradicate, end, eliminate whatever he creates from zygote to centenarian
#160 | Posted by Grendel

........and whatever God does is good.........therefore abortion is good.......

......thank you Grendel.....

"Though B.F. Meyer (pp. 186-87) insists that Jesus gave the name Cephas to Simon at this point, Jesus merely made a pun on the name (4:18; 10:2; Mark 3:16; John 1:42)."

Neato. TY fer linkage. ^_^

Just found another one after a quick google.

Matt 23:23-24

Woe to you scribes and Pharasees, hypocrites! You give God a tenth of the spices from your garden, such as mint, dill, and cumin. Yet you neglect the more important matters of the Law, such as justice, mercy, and faith. These are the important things you should have done, though you should not have left the others undone either. 24 You blind leaders! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Apparently, Arameic for "gnat" and "camel" are "galma" and "gamla".

So if you imagine that as an epic battle rap against the Pharisees it would end on "You strain out a galma but swallow a gamla."

That's a throwdown.

Pretty pimp.

Pretty fly for a God guy.

Be Well.

.....Ex here seems to believe that he has a better understanding of what it means to be pregnant, than a pregnant woman.....he has a kind of Santorum logic that needs to be aired...

That I won't argue with.

#161 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Also, one does not need to know what it is like to be pregnant to know that the "thing" in the womb is not a "thing" but rather:

1. Existent (thus being)
2. Living (thus a living being)
3. Human (thus a living human being)
4. Distinct from it's mother and father (thus a unique, living, human being).

I don't see how being pregnant or not being pregnant changes those things.

This must be one of those times you know because you know...
#164 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

You're projecting again.

Boy, this kind of self-reflective shit just seems to write itself.

Jesus exists. He cuts the grass where I work.

Dunno why he's so important to this thread though... Didn't know he was famous.

........and whatever God does is good.........therefore abortion is good.......

......thank you Grendel.....

#165 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag: simplistic mind.

whatever God does is good

Hardly. G-d does good and G-d does evil. G-d just is. Anything man CAN do, G-d HAS done and WILL do again. The flaws of man are passed down from G-d (jealousy, over reacting, petty rage, spite).

Zat makes a 10 percent commission on all the Bart Ehrman books he can sell.... and as Bart appears to be in it for the money, not the scholarship, he doesn't mind at all.

........and whatever God does is good.........therefore abortion is good......

Can you elaborate what you mean specifically by:

"therefore abortion is good......"?

Do you conclude that human practiced abortion is good from that? If so, I would love to see the logic.

Thank you.

#166 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-12 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think there is an epic rap battle of history with Jesus yet. That would be interesting.

-This must be one of those times you know because you know (Corky fundamentalism).

This is one of those times, unfortunately, that I have read enough of your posts on the subject to know what they mean.

I don't think there is an epic rap battle of history with Jesus yet.

Jesus tried entering a beatbox competition, but the holes in his hands really messed up the accoustics of his beat.

Having a specific condition automatically makes one an expert on that condition?
#163 | Posted by Grendel

.......in the case of pregnancy......

.....a pregnant woman will have more insight into the physical and social consequences of pregnancy.......than a celibate male octogenarian.......

#172 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is funny because he only reads Ehrman's popular work. If he read any of Ehrman's scholarly work he would quickly realize that Ehrman is quite inconsistent in his two positions.

One might even posit that Ehrman's writings are forged because the scholarly and the popular have two distinct styles, vocabularies, and idiosyncrasies.

Let's not forget the fact that even Ehrman readily attests to the fact that Jesus did really exist as a person and did make some of the claims he is said to have made.

This is one of those times, unfortunately, that I have read enough of your posts on the subject to know what they mean.

#175 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, either you are not very good at reading, or you are not very good at knowing.

Because you are quite incorrect in most of what you have said about what you think I mean.

Do you conclude that human practiced abortion is good from that?
#173 | Posted by Grendel

.......yes.......it's a God-Approved activity......must be good.....

.......it's like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.......

.....a pregnant woman will have more insight into the physical and social consequences of pregnancy.......than a celibate male octogenarian.......

#177 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Most likely not. The woman would be in a biased position. The male octogenarian would be in a more objective position to evaluate the accuracy of the perceived physical and social consequences.

-Pretty fly for a God guy.

You would enjoy the root translations of Jesus' descriptions of hypocritical Pharasees.....

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like to white washed sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."

"all uncleanness" That's the clean version.

.......yes.......it's a God-Approved activity......must be good.....

Um, Skizz, in order to come to that conclusion you must answer this, which I posted earlier. Show me how a God approved activity for himself automatically equate to a god approved activity for his creation.

Show me how you know that ALL the the rights and power that the creator possesses over his creation are always conferred to individuals that he has created.

Please be patient and spell it our for my simplistic mind. It should be easy for you.

-The woman would be in a biased position. The male octogenarian would be in a more objective position to evaluate the accuracy of the perceived physical and social consequences.

As has been said, we know what you mean

.....a pregnant woman will have more insight into the physical and social consequences of pregnancy.......than a celibate male octogenarian.......
#177 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:
Most likely not. The woman would be in a biased position. The male octogenarian would be in a more objective position to evaluate the accuracy of the perceived physical and social consequences.
#181 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

......your answer is nonsense.......

#185 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

That does not meant that I know more, or any specific person. Rather it means that just because one is a woman does not mean that they know more about the process.

I can't understand how this is so hard for you. You must have fundamentalists block.

"all uncleanness" That's the clean version.

"You are full of shit!" is the more vernacular version.

......your answer is nonsense.......

#186 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pick an average woman. Does the male doctor know more about pregnancy than that woman? Probably.

Thus, women do not necessarily know more about pregnancy than other people.

-Rather it means that just because one is a woman does not mean that they know more about the process.

Would you like a shovel?

C: "all uncleanness" That's the clean version.

Well, even 2LiveCrew released "As Clean As We Wanna Be"

That's the radio edit version.

Ex: I don't think there is an epic rap battle of history with Jesus yet. That would be interesting.

Wonder if someone could possibly pull off a rap version of like Godspell or JCS and not be torn to pieces by a ravening mob.

Not reboots of those productions just a retelling of the tale with high speed staccato words flowing at ya a mile a minute.

Done right it could be very good.

Done wrong it could get very very bad indeed.

Meh, couldn't be worse than that BDSM version by that anti-semetic. drunk driving, wife abusing opus dei supporting guy.

"Sugartits", was that his name?

Spud can't remember.

Be Well.

/'The Last Temptation of Christ' by Martin Scorsese FTW.
//Bonus: Soundtrack by Peter Gabriel.

So, all us guys agree then, safe, legal, and rare, right?

Good for us!

So, all us guys agree then, safe, legal, and rare, right?

Good for us!

#192 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree, given that they are aware that the being in question is a unique, living, human being. (which I think any rational human being would think should be known before making the decision)

Show me how a God approved activity for himself automatically equate to a god approved activity for his creation.

......
..first, God only does good.....
..second, he commits billions of abortions....
.therefore abortions are good....
..third, He gave people the power to commit abortions....
..it follows that this is an approved and much valued activity that mirrors the Face of God, our Master Abortionist.......

Please be patient and spell it our for my simplistic mind.
#184 |
.....it is simple, but I can't guarantee that you'll understand it....

So, all us guys agree then, safe, legal, and rare, right?

Corky,

With all due respect what initiatives do you propose to make it rare?

Consider other behaviors: unhealthy eating, drug use, smoking, etc.

When our society wants a certain behavior to be rare but legal, we spend a great deal of time trying to convince people not to do them.

We establish programs in schools pointing to how such behavior should be curbed by emphasizing why it should be rare. Do you believe we should have programs in school explaining in detail what an abortion is and why it should be rare?

Or we tax the behavior excessively or put up other kinds of obstacles in order to make doing it difficult. (Even if the behavior is about our own bodies--smoking for example.)

What course of action do you think we should employ--beyond promoting contraception--because that has been promoted and it is not really stemming the tide much.

the being in question is a unique, living, human being.

Twins are not unique =P. ABORT TWINS!

..first, God only does good.....
..second, he commits billions of abortions....
.therefore abortions are good....
..third, He gave people the power to commit abortions....
..it follows that this is an approved and much valued activity that mirrors the Face of God, our Master Abortionist.....

Oh, I agree, it's simple. Not valid, but simple.

Hint, you run into huge problems with "third."

Thus, women do not necessarily know more about pregnancy than other people.
#189 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

....first......you are no doctor....

....second, your answer remains distorted gibberish.......

...no one understands the physical and social repercussions of a pregnancy, the way a pregnant woman does.....and this entire discussion just proves that you understand least of all........

a unique, living, fetus

A fetus (pronounced /ˈfiːtÉ™s/; also spelled foetus, fÅ"tus, faetus, or fætus, see below) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth.

In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization.[

A developing, potential human being.

Or are we saying that embryos are full fledged human beings?

women do not necessarily know more about pregnancy than other people.
#189 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

retarded.

Hint, you run into huge problems with "third."
#197 | Posted by Grendel

.....we have the power......

......this discussion resides in a God-given universe........

......therefore it's a God-given power........

retarded.

#200 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2012-01-12 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, not retarded. especially when it is just women rather than "pregnant women".

Do you know what "necessarily" means?

#196 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-01-12 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

they sure are unique from their mother and father (they are also unique from one another in different ways).

(they are also unique from one another in different ways).

Not identical. They are exact copies of one another.

Do you know what "necessarily" means?
#202 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

......you lost all credibility when you tried to maintain that you understood the physical & social repercussions of pregnancy better than a pregnant woman......you are spewing utter nonsense.......

.....we have the power......
......this discussion resides in a God-given universe........
......therefore it's a God-given power........

By your argument everything that we do, because we can do it, is good.

Tell me which actions that humans have the power to do is not good based on your (ahem) logic.

The universe apparently gives human beings the power to prohibit women from having abortions too.

Let's use your logic.

The universe is good.
If the universe is created by god, then that power must be good also!

Prohibiting women from getting abortions must be good, by your logic.

Thanks Skizz, for clarifying this for me.

It is a truly difficult subject, Grendel, on which I am no expert.

Contraception and education alone have not worked as well as I would like, but neither has the strategy "to make the procedure harder to obtain by enacting ever more legal barriers to services"

#199 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Whether a fetus or an infant... it is still a being.

Is an infant less of a human being than a toddler? Is a toddler less of a human being than an adolescent? Is an adolescent less of a human being than a teenager? Of course not.

Fetus is a descriptive term in regard to the stage of development, just like infant, toddler, adolescent, teen, etc.

What resides in the womb of a woman is a unique, living, human being.

Unique by being different genetically than its mother or father
Living by developing and maturing
Human by it's identifiable DNA
A Being by the state of existing

If you want, you can say it is a unique, living, human being that happens to be in the developmental stage labeled as fetus as opposed to infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager, etc.

......you lost all credibility when you tried to maintain that you understood the physical & social repercussions of pregnancy better than a pregnant woman......you are spewing utter nonsense.......

#205 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I never claimed that I understood the physical and social repercussions of pregnancy better than a pregnant woman.

Looks like you are seeing things again (that must be why you are talking about what God makes you do so much).

#209

My question was about embryos.

"Yes, it's also a baby in the making, a human life being created."

#208 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

This statement by this mom shows that women don't have all that clear and understanding of the life that is inside a pregnant woman.

It is not a human life being created. It already is a created human life. A unique, living, human being in the developmental stage known as a fetus as opposed to infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager etc.

According to Exp, our sperm should have equal protection under the law, as it is part of the creation/development stage of a human being.

He might be right about mine, I'm no so sure about his.

With all due respect what initiatives do you propose to make it rare?

Better Education and better access to contracption and better options for contraception.

How else would you do it?

Consider other behaviors: unhealthy eating, drug use, smoking, etc.
When our society wants a certain behavior to be rare but legal, we spend a great deal of time trying to convince people not to do them.
We establish programs in schools pointing to how such behavior should be curbed by emphasizing why it should be rare. Do you believe we should have programs in school explaining in detail what an abortion is and why it should be rare?

With all due respect...

Inapt analogy is inapt.

Having recreational sex =/= drug/alcohol/tobacco use or unhealthy eating.

In that it is not inherently harmful the way those things are.

That noted, yes women need to be fully informed as to all of the potential repercussions of an abortion because they include some serious stuff like death and depression and potential infertility.

Spud's a big believer in people going into situations with eyes wide open.

Or we tax the behavior excessively or put up other kinds of obstacles in order to make doing it difficult. (Even if the behavior is about our own bodies--smoking for example.)

Tax condoms as heavily as cigareetes?

No, that only leads to less use and thus more abortions.

What course of action do you think we should employ--beyond promoting contraception--because that has been promoted and it is not really stemming the tide much.

Yeah,about that.

Spud's encountered that talking point before.

That is based on this...

Or are we saying that embryos are full fledged human beings? - From 199

#211 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is still the same issue.

The organism in the embryonic stage of development is still:

1. Unique from it's parents
2. Living
3. Human
4. A being (existing thing)

It is simply in the embryonic stage of development rather than the fetal, infant, toddler, adolescent, teenage, etc. stage of development.

According to Exp, our sperm should have equal protection under the law, as it is part of the creation/development stage of a human being.

He might be right about mine, I'm no so sure about his.

#213 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

That would be an incorrect assertion. The sperm cell has the same genetic information as the person from which it came.

A new, unique being is not existent until the sperm and the egg meet, join, and begin to develop.

#213 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

More Corky fundamentalism. He knows because he knows (but even then he is still wrong)

Corky,

I appreciate your response, and I know for many pro choice people abortion is something terrible, but it seems like the expressed desire to make it rare comes off more like empty rhetoric from pro choice people. Where is the ground swell of support for trying to convince a pregnant woman from having an abortion or to come up with an educational initiative (PSAs for example) to encourage woman to choose adoption if they become pregnant.

The choice is none of our business and we should not influence it because it is another's body?

Then, so are all the anti smoking, anti obesity campaigns.

-That said, after an initial surge the numbers have been declining steadily since the 90s* and now they are nearing the point they were at when abortion was illegal in a lot of places.

That is progress.

Good to know that there has been some progress, and how it came about... and how it did not.

#214 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-12 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think Grendel intended to allude to any of those republican ideas.

I think he was really asking about classes specifically on pregnancy and abortion, the actual decision that is being made (to end the life of a unique, living, human being), how an abortion effect future mental states, the sociological impacts that might accompany and abortion (regardless of whether there should be, there is, and thus it might be wise to address) etc.

So that they have as much correct information in the event that they ever have to make that decision. Contraception etc. should be talked about, and this informative information on abortion added in order to create more responsibility toward to action of sexual intercourse in hopes to stave off the unfortunate potential for an abortion in the event of an "accident" that might have been avoided.

#218 | Posted by Grendel

Spud's response was more apropos than mine in that it shows real progress being made in turning the numbers back towards more rarity of abortions.

And we seem to know what works, education and contraception, not restriction and legal threats or even unrealistic abstinence.

If we know what works, I agree we should be emphasizing it more.

In the last Dem primary when Obama and Hil were quoting Bill on legal, safe and rare, I and others said we should make it, rare, safe and legal instead.

#221 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

When you say "make it" it seems to imply that right now it isn't necessarily that way. Grendel want to know what you would to do better "make it" that way.

So far you haven't offered much. Spud didn't say anything every different than what is already going on either.

"The organism in the embryonic stage of development is still: 1. Unique from it's parents2. Living3. Human 4. A being (existing thing)"

Had me a couple of chickens for breakfast this morning.

With all due respect...
Inapt analogy is inapt.
Having recreational sex =/= drug/alcohol/tobacco use or unhealthy eating..

With all due respect, your objection is not fully true.

Eating, like sex is not inherently unhealthy. In fact it is the means to good health.

Now, no analogy is perfect. None. They may be useful in explaining, but they never prove anything.

I think the eating analogy is useful to a degree.

Both eating and sex are natural human functions which promote life, health and happiness. Both can create wanted and unwanted results--even so both results are part of the natural process of being human.

So, we promote good choices in eating by suggesting that people should have restraint, not over indulge, and when obesity happens we lay the responsibility on the people who made the choices. We don't label their fat as some kind of alien substance which they don't deserve to have because when they ate they didn't intend to get fat and they honestly tried not to get fat.

We don't suggest they have expensive surgical operations, except in the most extreme situations to remove the fat. This is rare. Instead, they are encouraged not to get overweight, and when it happens to deal with the reality--which often includes debilitating social stigmas.

Often dealing with reality requires, sacrifice, hard work, extreme discomfort, unhealthy physical conditions and difficult choices. It often takes a long time, sometimes longer than nine months, to remove the unwanted weight, but we tell them there are no quick fixes.

And we have nothing but applause and affirmations for the person when they go through this and succeed. They become heroes on talk shows. We have reality shows promoting their courage and hard work.

It is a strange world, is it not?

-Had me a couple of chickens for breakfast this morning.

rofl!

Scrambled or poached?

"make it" refers, most obviously, to changing the quoted saying.

If Spud's chart is correct, what we have been doing in education and contraception is working, and we should do more of it.

Rather than threatening women with legal remedies and making contraception/services more difficult to obtain.

-Had me a couple of chickens for breakfast this morning.
rofl!
Scrambled or poached?

Damnit, now Spud is all hungry and stuff.

Off to hunt fer chilly bevs and various comestibles.

Wonder if Spud has any chickens left in the fridge door?

Omlette? French toast? 2 chickens over easy?

*wanders off*

Be Well.

"Scrambled or poached?"

Deviled seems appropriate, considering the superstitious idiocy here.

#223 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-12 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you really this dumb?

Chicken eggs that you buy at the supermarket have not been fertilized. There is no embryo growing in there. Danni you can take eggs from the store and sit on them for a year and they wouldn't hatch because there is nothing to hatch.

You didn't eat a chicken. You at the egg of a female chicken.

There is no growth or division inside an unfertilized egg. So:

1. The egg you ate for breakfast is not genetically unique from it's mother
2. The egg you ate for breakfast has no living material, developing and maturing

That was a poor analogy to what happens in an abortion of a unique, living, human being at the growth stage of embryo rather than fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager, etc.

#227 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-12 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought the potato might have been smart enough to call Danni out on that one (not corky) but I was incorrect. Don't tell me you were under the impression that there was a little chicken in the eggs you bought at the store...

"Scrambled or poached?"
Deviled seems appropriate, considering the superstitious idiocy here.

#229 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-12 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Literalist. No sense of humor. Ignored as a child.

#232 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess you don't realize that Danni probably does really believe that the chicken egg she had for breakfast this morning is the same thing as a human embryo being aborted.

No, dummy. I've known Danni here for years and she knew exactly what she was saying.

You, otoh, are a different matter.

Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-12 05:03 PM | Reply

Only if they were scrambled.

Prohibiting women from getting abortions must be good, by your logic.
#207 | Posted by Grendel

......not by my logic........since God does not prohibit abortions, indeed He indulges in them, and encourages them.......

......God has not made any barriers to abortion, indeed He has instructed the Supreme Court to protect abortions at all costs......

......my side of the debate works because God is a torrid abortionist.....yours does not, because He does not discourage them in the least........

#236 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-12 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Listen to the interview... there is a little discussion of that as well. You'll find that you are quite wrong.

#234 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-12 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

If she knew what she was saying, I'm glad. She usually doesn't even remember what she said yesterday and that she contradicted it today.

A fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken. The embryo inside a fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken. Can you make a guess as to what the embryo inside a fertilized chicken egg is? Hint: the first three letters are EMB, and the last three letters are RYO.

A fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken. The embryo inside a fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken. Can you make a guess as to what the embryo inside a fertilized chicken egg is? Hint: the first three letters are EMB, and the last three letters are RYO.

#239 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

What? Never eaten Balut? There's a chicken in them eggs, I'll tell you what.

#240 i think it's duck. either way barf.

This looks like a duck to you? If it doesn't walk like a duck and it doesn't quack like a duck and it doesn't look like a duck----it isn't a duck.

Warning: It doesn't look like a duck.

#242 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-01-13 02:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Funny,

Genetically it is a duck it just happens to be in the ducks developmental stage known as either embryo or fetus. It doesn't change the fact that it is a duck.

I am sure if we found a fetal being from outerspace you would:

1. Call it alien
2. Call it living
3. Say it is alien life.

It is interesting that you don't seem willing to claim that a human being in the growth stage known as embryonic or fetal is:

1. Unique (separate DNA from either of it's parents)
2. Living (dead cells don't grow and develop)
3. Human (DNA signature denotes it as human as opposed to any other animal)
4. a Being (it exist, so it is a being)

5. Thus a unique, living, human being.

#239 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

Bob, if the embryo of a chicken inside the egg is not a chicken, whey do we protect bald eagle eggs in the same manner we protect bald eagles? And if afford eagle egg 'embryos' (and many other eggs, as it turns out) legal protection, why are not human embryos afforded that same protection? What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander, no?

But, once again, that woman and her doctor are the only people on the face of the earth who know the exact circumstances of that woman and her pregnancy.

And no law should interfere with that.

#44 | Posted by Hans at 2012-01-11 06:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

HandJob keeps harping this line because he thinks it makes him look thoughtful and intelligent. But of course nothing could accomplish that feat.

The "exact circumstances " as if there were thousands of tiny nuances to being pregnant, and an accumulation of them might lead someone to possibly think about considering an abortion.

But lets give the clown the benefit of the doubt. Let's allow 3 percent of abortions because of health risk to the mother, rape, incest, etc.

Now, the real topic is the 97 percent of abortions that are recreational.

This is where the discussion should be focused. Not on the tiny sliver of abortions that have medical necessity.

well done expsredemption - i love science threads and you've sifted through the retorts quite well.

i too wish people would remove the noise (eg. abortion, roe v wade, rights) when asked the simple question about what makes humans human.

when one either doesn't know or doesn't care it is very easy to distract with bible quoting or wire hangars which just confuses people.

abortion is the law of the land - we get it!

so now illustrate in your own thoughts and reasoning why that is so. and don't waste our time w/ religion or legal arguments.

that is unless one thinks 5-4 rulings are mandates...

if it is to correct a mistake then be proud of that decision.

want to know what the number one deterrent is for women seeking abortion?

Bob, if the embryo of a chicken inside the egg is not a chicken, whey do we protect bald eagle eggs in the same manner we protect bald eagles?

An eagle egg has the POTENTIAL to be an eagle, but is no more an eagle than an acorn is an oak tree. A six year old has the POTENTIAL to be a PHD, but is not a PHD at six. The potential is not the finished entity.

And if afford eagle egg 'embryos' (and many other eggs, as it turns out) legal protection, why are not human embryos afforded that same protection?

It has been that way for all of human history. No society has ever recognized a fetus as a member. No church. No science calls a zygote a human being. That is because a fetus is only potential, and may not live to be a member of society.

The phrase--Don't count your chickens before they hatch---means that until the eggs hatch, you don't have any chickens. Same with eagles. Same with human a fetus------since the beginning of humanity.

What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander, no?

A human fetus is protected from the point of what is generally considered to be earliest viability, in most states---22-24 weeks.

#244 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2012-01-13 09:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is interesting that you don't seem willing to claim that a human being in the growth stage known as embryonic or fetal is:

1. Unique (separate DNA from either of it's parents)
2. Living (dead cells don't grow and develop)
3. Human (DNA signature denotes it as human as opposed to any other animal)
4. a Being (it exist, so it is a being)

5. Thus a unique, living, human being.

Listen, and listen closely.
Get out your dictionary if necessary.
A zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus still isn't a person.
No matter how much you want it to be.

#243 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

The fetus is also completely dependent upon the mother (i.e. if you remove the fetus from the mother's womb, it would cease all functions immediately). This is not true for a baby out of the womb or even a fetus 7 months old (i.e. late term abortion). There a fetus cannot be considered a "separate entity" because of its absolute dependency on the mother's biological system.

It's the mother's body - the mother's temple. What she wants to do with her body is her choice - and that includes anything that is biologically dependent upon her body (i.e. fetus). The state should not have a say in what a woman, or a man, is allowed to do with her/his body. This includes abortion, drug use, prostitution, and euthanasia. Libertarian creed.

I don't know if you have ever given birth Exps, but from what I have been told of its pain and discomfort, no on should be forced through such a situation if they don't wish to.

#243 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

The fetus is also completely dependent upon the mother (i.e. if you remove the fetus from the mother's womb, it would cease all functions immediately). This is not true for a baby out of the womb or even a fetus 7 months old (i.e. late term abortion). There a fetus cannot be considered a "separate entity" because of its absolute dependency on the mother's biological system.

It's the mother's body - the mother's temple. What she wants to do with her body is her choice - and that includes anything that is biologically dependent upon her body (i.e. fetus). The state should not have a say in what a woman, or a man, is allowed to do with her/his body. This includes abortion, drug use, prostitution, and euthanasia. Libertarian creed.

I don't know if you have ever given birth Exps, but from what I have been told of its pain and discomfort, no on should be forced through such a situation if they don't wish to.

#250 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

CPU crap out, sorry for double post.

I don't know if you have ever given birth Exps, but from what I have been told of its pain and discomfort, no on should be forced through such a situation if they don't wish to.

that's a lousy excuse. They can make it relatively pain free and safe.

you know.....like an abortion.

There are plenty of better reasons to justify abortion.

That isn't one of them.

There are plenty of better reasons to justify abortion.

#252 | Posted by eberly at 2012-01-13 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Having a bad hair day is justification for an abortion. It is no business of any judgemental prick what a woman decides to do with her own life and her own body. It is called human freedom.

-Having a bad hair day is justification for an abortion.

I'm sure you believe that.

legally you are correct, of course and perhaps you've justifed your abortions for less. I won't speculate.

you've justifed your abortions for less. I won't speculate.

#254 | Posted by eberly at 2012-01-13 05:48 PM | Reply | Flag

Do you get saddle sores from sitting on your high horse you judgemental, sanctimonious, pompous, ass? Just curious.

;-)

-Do you get saddle sores from sitting on your high horse you judgemental, sanctimonious, pompous, ass? Just curious.

I have a special saddle. Very soft and comfy. All of us "judgemental, sancimonious, pompous, assholes got one.

Hey Knob,
No one cares what the woman does with her 'own' body. It's what she does to her kid that is a issue. No one cares if a woman drinks but if she drinks during pregnancy who gets fetal alcohol syndrome, her or someone else?

The facts are so elementary. The only thing that keeps this argument going is that the pro-abort crowd doesn't want to withstand the consequences of acknowledging the truth.

257 comments on yet another boring abortion debate.

*Yawn"

Without abortion and gay issues threads, this blog would shut down.

doesn't want to withstand the consequences of acknowledging the truth.
#257 | POSTED BY HUGUENOT

Which would be?

this blog would shut down.
#258 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

No...Plenty of anti-Obama rhetoric to feed the need of even the most bitter.

Having a bad hair day is justification for an abortion.

#253 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-01-13 05:39 PM | Reply

The KKK probably thought the same thing when they hung a black from some tree.

@259
More paternity

#249 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-13 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Listen to the interview. These situation are addressed. Are you saying a child out of the womb on life support can be killed simply because it cannot sustain life on it's own at that point? Of course not. That would be insane. Same goes for any person on life support. Life support is not justification to just kill them because they are an inconvenience.

I am fine with choice as long as women are aware of the choice they are making, that they are willfully ending the life of a unique, living, human being... due to their convenience.

Listen, and listen closely.
Get out your dictionary if necessary.
A zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus still isn't a person.
No matter how much you want it to be.

#248 | Posted by snoofy at 2012-01-13 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

And yet that does not take away the fact that the being in a womans uterus is:

Unique (separate DNA from both mother and father)
Living (dead things do not grown and develop)
Human (DNA signature is human as opposed to other animal types)
A being (by the simple state of existing)

Thus a unique, living, human being that is in the growth stage known as either zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus and then, infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager or etc.

Once you cross that line and say... "but it ain't a person" it get's tricky as certain people on life support are not "people" etc.

The KKK probably thought the same thing when they hung a black from some tree.

#261 | Posted by matsop at 2012-01-13 07:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Someone like you would have been the one to bring the rope. Someone against human freedom. Someone just like you.

I am fine with choice as long as women are aware of the choice they are making, that they are willfully ending the life of a unique, living, human being... due to their convenience.

You are lying.

Your attempt to parley this into an educational issue is effrontery of the highest order.

People who get abortions understand that if they don't have an abortion, they'll have a child.

Once you cross that line and say... "but it ain't a person" it get's tricky as certain people on life support are not "people" etc.

You've already crossed that line.
Your entire argument boils down to "but it is a person."
When, in fact, human life in that form is called a fetus, or embryo, or blastocyst, or zygote.
And a person on life support is still called a person.

Why isn't sperm human life? It's life created by a human. So is an egg.

Your entire argument boils down to "but it is a person."
When, in fact, human life in that form is called a fetus, or embryo, or blastocyst, or zygote.
And a person on life support is still called a person.

Why isn't sperm human life? It's life created by a human. So is an egg.

#267 | Posted by snoofy at 2012-01-14 03:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

A sperm and an egg alone are not human life because they have the same DNA signature as the one from which they originate. They are cells of that originating person.

Once the a sperm and egg unite and develop... they are no longer the cells of those two individual people... they are their own interdependent sustaining organism. Thus no matter what stage of development, zygote, blastocyst, fetus, there is never "just a clump of cells" but it is always a unique, living organism with the DNA signature of human and since it exists, the property of being.

Unfortunately for you, that organism is not just a zygote, blastocyst, fetus in the womb. That is it's developmental stage descriptor but that is not what the organism is. What an organism is, is determined by it's DNA signature.

Thus the organism in a woman's womb is a unique, living, human being in the human developmental stage of either zygot, blastocyst, fetus, etc.

There are also developmental stages once the child is outside the womb. You move from fetus to newborn, to infant, to toddler, to adolescent, to teenager etc.

When a child is an infant, it is still a human being, and it is still a person even though it is in the developmental stage known described as "infant".

Thus the same logic should be applied in regard to a unique, living, human being inside the womb. It is a human being which just happens to be in the human developmental stage of zygote, blastocyst, fetus, etc.

It does not alter that it is human, it does not alter that it is living, it does not alter that it is a being, a unique organism, has all the traits of a human being encoded in it's DNA.

It is a unique, living, human being, with personhood in the early developmental stages.

I know many people like to pretend this is not the case, however if one is to be logical and rational... this IS the case.

Now I still believe people should have a choice. They can choose to abort a child. I just think they should be fully aware that the "thing" in their womb is not:

1. Just a lump of cells (as it is not, it is an organism)
2. It is not living (living cells do not grown and develop)
3. It is not human (It's DNA is human and that DNA includes the coding of what that human being will be like when they are 21 if they make it to that point)

If people understand these as scientific fact and still want to eliminate the life of a unique, living, human being, with encoded personal properties that is their choice and they will have to live with whatever that choice brings.

Choice is fine... however often times many women do not really understand what the "choice" they may be making entails. They are put under false impressions that what is in them is not living, just a lump of tissue, not human, etc.

#268 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-14 07:19 AM | Reply | Flag: IQ of a DNA molecule

Make up some more nonsense, liar.
Laughing at your malignant bullshit is fun.
It ain't human until it's conscious, which means you don't qualify yet, retard.

It ain't human until it's conscious, which means you don't qualify yet, retard.

#269 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-01-14 07:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

It isn't human until it is conscious? Interesting statement.

The DNA signature would disagree with you. All the qualities of the conscious person who will one day be able to walk, talk, and pay for your social security burden are programmed in that DNA. The whole person is there, they are just in an early developmental stage.

"The DNA signature would disagree with you."

Let us know when a molecule posts a comment.
Lie some more.
Laughing at retards is fun.

In excrementretentions's retarded fantasy land Terry Schiavo can vote.

"The DNA signature would disagree with you."

Let us know when a molecule posts a comment.
Lie some more.
Laughing at retards is fun.

#271 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-01-16 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

In excrementretentions's retarded fantasy land Terry Schiavo can vote.

#272 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-01-16 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag

If you can't vote you aren't a person? If you can't post on the drudge retort you aren't a person? If you can't do these things you aren't a human being? Interesting statement... stupid... but interesting.