My take on the abortion issue.

[jallman]

Thank you for the non-answer. It's always easier to skip the challenge and substitute one of your own, isn't it?It is obvious by your answer that your knowledge of the subject is limited to the hype pushed by the pro-death crowd. You have never bothered to learn anything by your own investigation.

If you had, you would never have made so ridiculous a statementThat's right. Drown them just like a litter of unwanted kittens.

What do you know about inter-utero surgery? Nothing, I venture.

Oh fantasea...pray tell me what you know of the successes of curing fetal cancer with inter-utero surgery? And you are hardly what I would consider informed in the medical disciplines, so dont throw stones through your glass house of cards (yes, I know I jumbled two sayings together, so please dont just focus on that). So lets talk about hype for a minute...oh nevermind I dont have to...hype is what you pro lifer's are all about...that and fact phobia (thanks for that term steen, has a nice ring to it.

But I digress...do tell me what you know about the successes of inter-utero surgery in curing fetal cancers...or anything about the success of inter-utero surgery for that matter. I havent read any good science fiction since sebastian's last few posts about genetic engineering.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Did I miss your response to post #309?

fantasea...I cant tell what you missed, what you dismissed, and what you simply dont comprehend. Its not my responsibility to keep up with what responses you have read or not.

I was simply trying to be diplomatic. I searched repeatedly and didn't find anything.

Since you are being so snotty, perhaps you do not wish to respond to it.

 

[jallman]

I was simply trying to be diplomatic. I searched repeatedly and didn't find anything.

Since you are being so snotty, perhaps you do not wish to respond to it.

sorry, I probably just took my angst on that jimmyjack nutcase out on you. check out the last couple posts in Problem thread and you will see where I am coming from. That was rude of me to turn your diplomacy aside, especially considering how much I actually enjoy debating with you. Let me go back and read 309 and I will respond in kind. No harm no foul?

 

[Fantasea]

Oh fantasea...pray tell me what you know of the successes of curing fetal cancer with inter-utero surgery? And you are hardly what I would consider informed in the medical disciplines, so dont throw stones through your glass house of cards (yes, I know I jumbled two sayings together, so please dont just focus on that). So lets talk about hype for a minute...oh nevermind I dont have to...hype is what you pro lifer's are all about...that and fact phobia (thanks for that term steen, has a nice ring to it.

But I digress...do tell me what you know about the successes of inter-utero surgery in curing fetal cancers...or anything about the success of inter-utero surgery for that matter. I havent read any good science fiction since sebastian's last few posts about genetic engineering.

I'm not aware that children are born with cancer. My remark concerned inter-utero surgery in general.

However, thousands of inter-utero procedures have been performed to correct defects. Spina-bifida is one of the most popular targets.

Perhaps the most famous of these who was a tiny, pre-born patient is Samuel Armas.

But you knew that, didn't you?

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012548/posts

Be sure to scroll to the bottom.

 

[jallman]

ok, post 309...well all I can really say about that is...we can both throw out textbook cases that make an argument either way...in fact I did with the source I tossed out a few posts back...but, the fact remains, it boils down to semantics...and recognizing the different stages of development...a fetus just isnt developed enough to warrant giving it any protection under the constitution. it does not have awareness, it does not feel pain, it does not have intellect until the latter stages...and we both are in agreement about partial birth abortions...they are wrong.

 

[jallman]

I'm not aware that children are born with cancer. However, thousands of inter-utero procedures have been performed to correct defects. Spina-bifida is one of the most popular targets.

Perhaps the most famous of these who was a tiny, pre-born patient is Samuel Armas.

But you knew that, didn't you?

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012548/posts

Be sure to scroll to the bottom.

Yes I do know the case you are talking about. And yes, cancer can strike anywhere there is living tissue...cancer is such a broad term. I did not however, realize that spina bifida was taken care of with inter-utero procedures as often as it is. You force me to concede that point with no further debate.

 

[Busta]

Fantasia....your a fellow Freeper?
Oh man are we in for it now!!

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Personal, subjective emotional impressions are not facts. MY wife callls our dog her "baby." Is it a baby? Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.

Then to her, it is a baby. And she may seek (justifiably) compensation and or penalty if it were intentionally murdered. Same rules apply.

However, when discussing developmental stages, misrepresentations through descritors outside of the current stage is simply dishonest. Yes, I know that such revisionist linguistics is an integral part of the prolife hyperbole, that there is very little prolife reasoning without such distortions, but that is the fault of prolife, not of the rest of us.

I think you give too much credit to your own argument. It is not a lie for a woman to suggest that it is a baby in her womb. And regardless of your lack of passion, if it is considered to some a child, then why kill it?

Sex is not consent to pregnancy anymore than smoking is consent to lung cancer. Are you saying that we should stop treatment for lung cancer, the unwanted outcome of smoking?

If treatment for lung cancer caused the death of a child to be, then yes, I would say yes, end the treatment of lung cancer. But treatment for lung cancer is a method of curing an ailment, a fetus in a womb is not an ailment, it is a gift.

Ah, so you see unwanted pregnancy as the PUNISHMENT for her having sex when you disaprove. Yes, the imposing state determining minute details of a person's private lives.

I have said nor implied any such thing. I only suggest that people should be held completely responsible for the actions they choose to make. To have sex is join reproductive organs together. If you can't figure out that that leads to pregnancy, you need to return to sixth grade health class.

What should be the consequense of your own actions? Should you be taught a lesson by withholding medical treatment for unwanted outcomes? Ban surgery for lung cancer? Ban treatment for chest pain and heart attacks? ban trauma surgery from traffic accidents?

If the only way to treat a condition results in death, then it is not really a treatment, but rather an act of killing.

You are trying to impose your will onto another person's body and control how that body is being used. That very much is enslavement. That you are duplicitous about it is simply indication that you are not straightforward with us.

In other words, I believe that laws should exist. That people should face consequences for wrongful actions. That if you choose to commit murder, or theif, or drive drunk, or even smoke crack that you should face legal consequences. I do not believe in anarchy nor libertarianism. Your choices effect everyone. Don't be so naive that you are blind to that fundamental principle.

"human life"? A non-sentient bit of tissue. So when we remove atumor, we should be held responsible for the deletion of human life? That's just moralistic, imposing clap-trap

.

You friend, are nothing but flesh and bones and blood. But you don't deserve to be killed either. You want to speek scientifically? We can go into all the things that you are made up of... 96% water for instance. Why do you, as some walking organism have any more right to live than a bit of tissue inside a womb? Because you can think? Don't flatter yourself. The idea of criminal murder is that human life means more than what it is organically composed of or physically capable of. A human life is considered precious because it is a life, and that applies to the life when it is a small particle of tissue or whether it is a 6' 185lbs mass of water, bones, and tissue walking around. If you take morality out of the picture, then there is no reason why murder is wrong in any situation. Murder is an issue of morality, not of science. Sorry.

 

[Fantasea]

ok, post 309...well all I can really say about that is...we can both throw out textbook cases that make an argument either way...in fact I did with the source I tossed out a few posts back...but, the fact remains, it boils down to semantics...and recognizing the different stages of development...a fetus just isnt developed enough to warrant giving it any protection under the constitution. it does not have awareness, it does not feel pain, it does not have intellect until the latter stages...and we both are in agreement about partial birth abortions...they are wrong.

I do not agree that semantics has anything to do with the question, except as it may help the pro-death crowd as they struggle to improve their position through obfuscation.

Perhaps an analogy would be a large onion. If one begins removing the layers, one by one, is a point reached at which what remains is no longer an onion? The size changes, the shape changes, the appearance changes. However, right down to the final tiny strand, the remainder is identifiable as an onion, nothing else but an onion.

A child in the womb is an exact parallel. Working back from birth, each day, the child was smaller, smaller, smaller. However, there was never point at which the child was not alive. There was never a point at which the child was not growing and developing. Most importantly, there was never a point at which the child was not identifiable as human.

There is no threshold which must be crossed in order for a child in the womb to become a living human being. That event occurs at conception.

A popular position within the pro-death crowd is to say that, while yes, it's alive, it's human, and it's growing and developing; but it just hasn't achieved (some arbitrary criterion) yet, so therefore, it's OK to kill it.

No one can change the truth of conception. One can, if one wishes, deny truth and invent fairy tales with whatever kind of ending makes them happy.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

WHOA! Never once did I advocate for genetic manipulation of the populace so just check that argument at the door with the rest of your paranoia. However, I do see nothing wrong with taking note of the characteristics of a child when it comes to genetic disorder and the like. And as I said, if you had a clue how genetic manipulation works, then you would know that to mess with the genome in the womb is more likely to create a catastrophe than to help.

Firstly, don't talk down to me. I am neither foolish nor a child. You have not earned the right to act as my superior, so don't play the role. Now, regardless of you what have decided I know about genetic manipulation (running purely on ego instead of fact) my point was not to suggest what we can do now, but what the goal is. And you (and more importantly the other person I was discussing this issue with, which you apparently didn't take the time to read) have seemed to suggest is an unlimited forward march for science regardless of cost. And if one continues to look at your arguments in a forward linear pattern, this is the results that may eventually be reached. And even if they were not, they at least give a good contrast to show you how absurd your argument sounds against the backdrop of the modern debate (which of course seems beyond your understanding).

I happen to believe in the advancement of science and that it is one of the truly great wonders of humanity.

Then you are far too easily impressed. It is not a great wonder, it is merely a tool. If you attempt to make it more than it is, you fall victim to letting it control you, and that reverses the role of science doesn't it?

And have you ever heard of the Bioethics Committee? They are a group who decide policies of ethics concerning any kind of research...and they are pretty damned strict. Why dont you try reading up on topic before you start spewing this junk about morality and ethics in science.

You don't say? Golly, your just full of obvoius facts tonight. I'm aware of the Bioethics committee. Yes, I'm aware that they are in some areas very "strict." However, this is nothing more than a panel of men and women who are just as likely at some point to hold one view regarding the future of science as any other (conservative or liberal) and it can change in the matter of years. Don't presume to tell me what I should do when you don't have the first clue of what I am and am not informed about. That is simply pompous.

And please, dont start blurring your science fiction with scientific fact in a debate...it just undermines your credibility.

Firstly, if it is being debatated in Med school tomorrow morning and the morning following in a bioethics course, it is not merely science fiction, so enough with your superiority complex. And so you are never again mistaken, I couldn't possibly care less how much credit a pompous old man like yourself gave me.

 

[Busta]

Well, "child" is a developmental stage beginning after birth. So emotinally ladden revisionist linguistic hyperbole doesn't do much to further debate, does it now. It makes no more sense to call the embryo a "child" than calling you a senior citizen or a corpse. The developmental stage is wrong.

And the real question is whether the woman herself want to be pregnant or not. That's the only thing that matters.

You don't have the right to make that decision for her. It is her body, and anybody taking the control away from her is enslaving her.

Steen, I must address some of your terminology.

Unborn child:
Msn/Hotmail dictionary:
child n
1. a young human being between birth and puberty
2. a son or daughter of human parents
3. somebody under a legally specified age who is considered not to be legally responsible for his or her actions
4. a baby or infant
5. an unborn baby
6. an adult who behaves in a childish or childlike way
7. somebody or something considered to be either produced or strongly influenced by a particular environment, period, or historical figure
8. a descendant of somebody, or a member of a people founded by somebody (often used in the plural)

Putting "unborn" before "child" is only meant to specify which version of "child" is intended. It is no less valid than saying "young child" or "older children". As you can see, the term "unborn child" is perfectly legitimate. To deny this is to use your own "revisionist linguistic hyperbole" and to be no less a propagandist than you accuse PL of being.

Pre-dead corps: Is that not exactly what many argued Terri Schiavo of being? Sure, she had a heart beat, she was breathing and she had a pulse; but the primary argument was that she was already brain dead, and thus, was no longer a person.
(I am well aware of the "right to die" argument, and I do not mien to dismiss it here, but it is irrelevant to the term "pre-dead corps", and so I did not reference it)
Additionally, if someone dies and their body is kept on life support for organ harvesting, is that not a "pre-dead corps"?

hyperbole: I am open to the possability that I, or anyone els, could exaggerate the truth. A current understanding is not necessarily intend as hyperbole. If you could please illustrait your observation, with quotation, when ever anyone comits what you see as hyperbole, it would help me understand exactly what you mien.

As it is currently, you are simply dismissing almost all opposing views as hyperbole and....

Wishful thinking: In a legal debate, proposing new law, advocating for a new Amendment or advocating agents an existing law or Amendment is precisely...
1. a desire or strong yearning for something
2. an expression of a desire or longing for something
3. something that is desired
4. a hope for somebody's welfare or health (usually plural)
5. a polite request (formal) (often plural)....
However, you use the term "wishful thinking" in a derogatory manner with the obvious intent to devalue an opposing view.

In a legal respect, you force me to catagorise your USE of the term "wishful thinking" as nothing more than your own "revisionist linguistic hyperbole".

In a medical respect, the known facts are the known facts. Anyone who
engages in a scientific medical discusion and insists that a scientific term (embryo, fetus, zygote, etc..) is something other than what the literal definition actually is, is committing their own "revisionist linguistic hyperbole". Such a person would force this Pro. Lifer to take your side.

We need to be aware that not every one who objects to abortion is doing so scientifically nor are they speaking in scientific terms. I myself use allot of common, laymans American English (ie; unborn child) even when I attempt to discuss something scientifically. It is not intended as propaganda, so it would be helpfull if you would not automatically assume so.

As it is, I am preparing to bring my philosophical, faith-based observations to the scientific microscope with the intent of furthering both my knowledge of science and, perhaps, even proving the existence of the Human sole.

I will, please, require from you a generous amount of linguistic patience and explanation as I attempt to scientifically define the supernatural.

I hope that you are game.

 

[jallman]

Firstly, don't talk down to me. I am neither foolish nor a child. You have not earned the right to act as my superior, so don't play the role.

Then it is my suggestion that you dont invent fairy tales of science fiction as a child would.

Now, regardless of you what have decided I know about genetic manipulation (running purely on ego instead of fact) my point was not to suggest what we can do now, but what the goal is.

I did not need to decide (on ego or fact), you illustrated your lack of knowledge quite well for everyone to read.

And you (and more importantly the other person I was discussing this issue with, which you apparently didn't take the time to read) have seemed to suggest is an unlimited forward march for science regardless of cost.

And obviously, pompous discourse seems to be a trait you exhibit quite well... if you would take the time to read, you would have noted that my post was directed at both of you in response to both your nonsensical babblings.

And if one continues to look at your arguments in a forward linear pattern, this is the results that may eventually be reached. And even if they were not, they at least give a good contrast to show you how absurd your argument sounds against the backdrop of the modern debate (which of course seems beyond your understanding).

Hmm, this began with me pointing out the irrelevance of how far off topic you both were going. And an irrelevant contrast hardly does much to promote useful debate. Seems that your arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.

Then you are far too easily impressed. It is not a great wonder, it is merely a tool. If you attempt to make it more than it is, you fall victim to letting it control you, and that reverses the role of science doesn't it?

And you seem to have no sense of wonderment of the acheivements of modern man...which after reading this last oh so enriching post, I am not surprised in the least. The if I am easily impressed, then your skill at building an argument falls way below par, because I am far from impressed with your emotional outburst here.

You don't say? Golly, your just full of obvoius facts tonight. I'm aware of the Bioethics committee. Yes, I'm aware that they are in some areas very "strict." However, this is nothing more than a panel of men and women who are just as likely at some point to hold one view regarding the future of science as any other (conservative or liberal) and it can change in the matter of years. Don't presume to tell me what I should do when you don't have the first clue of what I am and am not informed about. That is simply pompous.

And isnt it amazing that these people are respected enough to be appointed to these positions, where they help decide policy concerning research while you get to simply complain and belly ache about it? It is also noteworthy that these men and women of brilliant mind also didnt get there by indulging in fairy tales but rather by dedicating themselves to the study of fact. You are right though, I dont have a clue what you are informed about, because as of yet you have proven yourself to be informed of nothing.

Firstly, if it is being debatated in Med school tomorrow morning and the morning following in a bioethics course, it is not merely science fiction, so enough with your superiority complex. And so you are never again mistaken, I couldn't possibly care less how much credit a pompous old man like yourself gave me.

Old man you call me? Well that simply proves either you throw out random descriptors of me which are just as misinformed as your "knowledge" of genetics (I am banking on that one) or you do know my age and you are in your adolesence and havent a clue about age and maturity. Either way, it brings us back to the conclusion that you havent a clue. Debating the philosophical virtues of a constant forward march of science is nothing new... it has been a common theme since we organized the disciplines of science and began to see a need to apply ethics more rigorously.

And as a published writer myself, I should let you know, your talents would be best served writing children's fiction books; you should leave more erudite writing to those who have skill, and more importantly, a dedication to the truth.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Then it is my suggestion that you dont invent fairy tales of science fiction as a child would.

Again I say, if a matter is discussed for two days in a lecture in a bioethics class in Med school, it is not science fiction nor childish. Perhaps you are the one who hasn't done his research?

I did not need to decide (on ego or fact), you illustrated your lack of knowledge quite well for everyone to read.

Lack of knowledge regarding what? What have I shown that I do not know based on what I have said?

Hmm, this began with me pointing out the irrelevance of how far off topic you both were going. And an irrelevant contrast hardly does much to promote useful debate. Seems that your arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.

I apologize, but line of reason is a relevent point of argument, in my own opinion. And while I am no doctor, I am not incapable of discussing the philosophy of intentions.

And you seem to have no sense of wonderment of the acheivements of modern man...which after reading this last oh so enriching post, I am not surprised in the least.

No, I do appreciate an marvel at what we have come to. Although, in many ways we are not a great deal better off, just more spoiled. We still die of sickness. We just do so a little later in life. How great of an accomplishment is that in terms of humanity?

The if I am easily impressed, then your skill at building an argument falls way below par, because I am far from impressed with your emotional outburst here.

I wouldn't expect a person who seems to lack any indication of emotion to be impressed by an argument based on anything but strictly calloused science.

And isnt it amazing that these people are respected enough to be appointed to these positions, where they help decide policy concerning research while you get to simply complain and belly ache about it?

I don't bellyache. Simply vocaly dissagree. There is a difference.

It is also noteworthy that these men and women of brilliant mind also didnt get there by indulging in fairy tales but rather by dedicating themselves to the study of fact.

It does not take a brilliant mind to get on a committee nor be a doctor. In many cases, only a large pocketbook.

You are right though, I dont have a clue what you are informed about, because as of yet you have proven yourself to be informed of nothing.

But I could say the same of you, because you haven't shown any facts. You've only been spurting off insults.

Old man you call me? Well that simply proves either you throw out random descriptors of me which are just as misinformed as your "knowledge" of genetics (I am banking on that one) or you do know my age and you are in your adolesence and havent a clue about age and maturity. Either way, it brings us back to the conclusion that you havent a clue.

You are married and you are published: those are indication clues. Bur moreover, you have the arrogance of a man that has been around for a while. While this may be nothing more than just a stance of young foolish pride, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you're not old, then you should be less arrogant.

Debating the philosophical virtues of a constant forward march of science is nothing new... it has been a common theme since we organized the disciplines of science and began to see a need to apply ethics more rigorously.

Thanks. Doesn't really fit in the argument nor really called for at all. But I'm glad you know the above information.

And as a published writer myself, I should let you know, your talents would be best served writing children's fiction books; you should leave more erudite writing to those who have skill, and more importantly, a dedication to the truth.

As a published writer myself, STOP ACTING AS MY SUPERIOR

 

[steen]

What do you know about inter-utero surgery? Nothing, I venture.

From the context, you seem to claim that cancer can be cured through interuterine surgery. Could you elaborate? (Yes, **I** know something about it).

 

[steen]

Then to her, it is a baby. And she may seek (justifiably) compensation and or penalty if it were intentionally murdered. Same rules apply.

And what does that have to do with the issue under discussion?

I think you give too much credit to your own argument. It is not a lie for a woman to suggest that it is a baby in her womb.

But then, that wasn't the point either, though you dishonestly seek to portray it as such. The issue is PL dishonestly claiming that the embryo or fetus in general are babies, deliberately trying to extinguish the borders between different developmental stages for the purpose of emotional appeal and for the then following dishonest claim about the status of a baby then also applying to an embryo or a fetus. Yes, I have seen the prolife outright lies and stark dishonesty for years, and you are simply not good enough to camouflage it. Yes, the PL claim is an outright lie; it is deliberate deception. Your declared support for deliberate lies and deceptions is duly noted.

Next time try without the trickery, without the revisionist linguistics and hyperbole. I detest dishonesty, and I will call you on it every time.

And regardless of your lack of passion, if it is considered to some a child, then why kill it?

If you consider it a child, don't kill it. If you are against abortions, don't have one.

But the gist of this AGAIN DISHONEST claim is that if it to some is seen as a "child," then it should be legally seen as a "child" as well, you pushing your wishful thinking and deceptions as a "fact." I would advice you against that; I get testy and very confrontational with outright liars.

If treatment for lung cancer caused the death of a child to be,

Are you deliberately trying to distort my point or are you illiterate. Please go back and look at what I actually wrote instead of misrepresenting it. Misrepresenting my posts is also dishonesty, it is lying about my posts. Once again, I strongly advice you to NOT go that route.

Scumbag liars generally end up regretting their dishonesty, as I tend to pick over every lie they say.

And, of course, you could not have missed that what I actually stated was: Are you saying that we should stop treatment for lung cancer, the unwanted outcome of smoking?

And that question still stands. If an unwanted bodily outcome is a person's "fault," should we then deny them treatment? I noticed you ran from THAT point plenty fast.:waiting:

then yes, I would say yes, end the treatment of lung cancer. But treatment for lung cancer is a method of curing an ailment, a fetus in a womb is not an ailment, it is a gift.

Not to the woman who faces an unwanted pregnancy. It is HER body, and if to her it looks more like a parasite, then she has the same right to remove it as she has the right to remove a parasite.

I find it astonishing that you find your personal, subjective beliefs, your wishful thinking to be relevant in a woman's life. To claim it a gift to HER is simply stupid, mot to mention dishonest.
[/quote]I have said nor implied any such thing.[/quote]You implied that forced pregnancy was to teach her a lesson. You see the unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for her not living up to your unique, punitive moral code.

I only suggest that people should be held completely responsible for the actions they choose to make.

So smokers should be denied treatment for lung cancer!

To have sex is join reproductive organs together.

And that is all it is.

If you can't figure out that that leads to pregnancy, you need to return to sixth grade health class.

And if it results in an unwanted medical condition, then there is a medical cure, such as an abortion to fix the unwanted outcome.

If the only way to treat a condition results in death, then it is not really a treatment, but rather an act of killing.

So you would outlaw treatments that kill non-sentient human tissue, then?

In other words, I believe that laws should exist. That people should face consequences for wrongful actions.

And the consequence is to withhold treatment. Yes, you are saying that sex is a "wrongful action." The agenda of the rightwing theocratic misogynists is being splendidly exposed here.

That if you choose to commit murder, or theif, or drive drunk, or even smoke crack that you should face legal consequences.

But then, abortions have nothing to do with your examples. It is simply a safe, medical procedure to restore bodily functions to its state before the unwanted outcome.

I do not believe in anarchy nor libertarianism. Your choices effect everyone.

An abortion affects you as much as somebody deciding to have steak for dinner, namely not at all.

Don't be so naive that you are blind to that fundamental principle.

I know exactly how enslaving your view is on pregnant women, so no I am not at all blind to your views.

You friend, are nothing but flesh and bones and blood. But you don't deserve to be killed either. You want to speek scientifically? We can go into all the things that you are made up of... 96% water for instance. Why do you, as some walking organism have any more right to live than a bit of tissue inside a womb? Because you can think? Don't flatter yourself.

It is an issue of sentience. You obviously have no clue in this area. You are essentially saying that there is no difference between a person and a tumor. Yes, it is a stupid view, but yet you are indeed expressing it.

The idea of criminal murder is that human life means more than what it is organically composed of or physically capable of.

Actually, it is based on sentience. The "i think, therefore I am" idea. Funny how the fetus doesn't fit in there. But then, perhaps you didn't know and merely needs another civics lesson?

A human life is considered precious because it is a life,

An individual, sentient life, rather.

and that applies to the life when it is a small particle of tissue or whether it is a 6' 185lbs mass of water, bones, and tissue walking around.

Nope.

If you take morality out of the picture, then there is no reason why murder is wrong in any situation.

Sure there is. It is imposing yourself on another person, and the potential for that person or family to then impose on you and your family. To keep a reasonably ordered society, we have outlawed that part of natural selection

Murder is an issue of morality, not of science. Sorry.

It is an issue of societal cohesiveness. Murder is the illegal killing of a person.

Incidentally, the fetus is not a person and abortion is legal, so please don't try for that hyperbolic lie that PL so often spew.

 

[steen]

Hyperbole and Revisionist prolife Linguistics

I do not agree that semantics has anything to do with the question, except as it may help the pro-death crowd as they struggle to improve their position through obfuscation.

And yet you spew deceptive semantics, per obviously not having an argument without it. How hypocritical.

A child in the womb is an exact parallel.

There is no such thing. "Child" is a developmental stage beginning AFTER birth. It is no more appropriate to claim an embryo to be a "child" than to claim a toddler to be a "Senior Citizen." It is pure obfuscation, deliberate deception and manipulation. It is an attempt at outright dishonesty.

Working back from birth, each day, the child was smaller, smaller, smaller.

There was no child before birth, your hyperbole none withstanding.

There is no threshold which must be crossed in order for a child in the womb

"child in the womb"? That must be something similar to an "alive corpse."

to become a living human being. That event occurs at conception.

A "being" is an individual entity. That individuality doesn't happen until birth. Your claim is wrong. At conception, the merging of live cells into another live cell happen, that's all.

A popular position within the pro-death crowd is to say that, while yes, it's alive, it's human, and it's growing and developing; but it just hasn't achieved (some arbitrary criterion) yet, so therefore, it's OK to kill it.

Really? And who is the pro-death crowd who makes such weird claims? Certainly the PRO-CHOICE position has nothing to do with the silly fable you just presented.

So there are only two options. Either, there is a different, "pro-death" group separate from pro-choice, who makes that very argument, or you are somehow dishonestly trying to claim the prochoice to be this group. I hope not, as that would be an outright lie. And you are not dishonest; you are not a liar, are you? Nah. Therefore there is, somewhere, a unique "pro-death group. Can you enlighten us about who they are?

No one can change the truth of conception.

So I am sure you are not going to try, right?

One can, if one wishes, deny truth and invent fairy tales with whatever kind of ending makes them happy.

Well, I have seen prolifers do that aplenty through the lies, distortions, revisionist linguistics and hyperbole. Is that what you were talking about?

 

[Busta]

Steen posted;
"But the gist of this AGAIN DISHONEST claim is that if it to some is seen as a "child," then it should be legally seen as a "child" as well...."

Not "some"....but just enough votes to make it law will do.

Proposing desired legislation is not dishonest.

Wishful thinking: In a legal debate, proposing new law or advocating agents an existing law is precisely...
1. a desire or strong yearning for something
2. an expression of a desire or longing for something
3. something that is desired
4. a hope for somebody's welfare or health (usually plural)
5. a polite request (formal) (often plural)....

However, you use the term "wishful thinking" in a derogatory manner with the obvious intent to devalue an opposing view.

In a legal respect, you force me to catagorise your USE of the term "wishful thinking" as nothing more than your own "revisionist linguistic hyperbole".

 

[steen]

Steen, I must address some of your terminology.
Unborn child:
Msn/Hotmail dictionary:

ETC. When we are discussing developmental stages and their differences (Pr the PL irrelevantly raised issues), then specifics do matter. The use of "child" in connectiong with abortion is directly a deception away from factual descriptors of developmental stages. As I have pointed out previously (and as we saw in a recent post), the PL dishonest propensity to blend developmental stages and then trying to pretend that the rights and privileges of later stages also apply to earlier stages, that is a dishonesty that simply is not tolerated.

child n
1. a young human being between birth and puberty
2. a son or daughter of human parents
3. somebody under a legally specified age who is considered not to be legally responsible for his or her actions
4. a baby or infant
5. an unborn baby

Which raises the issue of "baby" thus clearly by itself meaning a stage beginnign after birth.

And yes, PL also uses "unborn" child, fully well thus knowing that "child" applies to the stage after birth. You are digging yourself into big hole here. CREDIBILITY means an honest discussion on the issues. A CREDIBLE discussion is not based on pretending that the embryo is a "child." THAT is what all this comes down to. Are PL misleading or not, THAT is the question.

Putting "unborn" before "child" is only meant to specify which version of "child" is intended. It is no less valid than saying "young child" or "older children". As you can see, the term "unborn child" is perfectly legitimate.

Just like putting "pre-dead" before corpse clarifies what kind of corpse we are talking about, right? I disagree with your reasoning. It is a cop-out, a lame excuse for PL, especially the PL who deliberately are dishonest, based on such sophistry.

To deny this is to use your own "revisionist linguistic hyperbole" and to be no less a propagandist than you accuse PL of being.

Nope. Do we have to reveiw the developmental stages again? Are PL so incredibly ignorant that they don't even know them, when being so busy discussing the issue of abortions? I don't buy it. Using "child" or "baby" is a deliberate attempt at deception and obfuscation because the PL argument can't stand on the facts, and PL knows it. That is, per my longtime observation, why they are so adamate about the use of the revisionist linguistics and hyperbole; because otherwise they had no argument to begin with.

And that, of course, is not an honest foundation for their argument.

Pre-dead corps: Is that not exactly what many argued Terri Schiavo of being?

Perhaps. But you are as well, You are a corpse that just haven't died yet, right? After all, specific and accurate developmental stage descriptors don't matter! That's what you have been trying to tell me here. You are a corpse, the fetus is really a version of a senior citizen etc. Because that way, you can't be pinned down of false claims regarding rights per developmental stages. It all comes back to the PL NEEDING to be dishonest about developmental stages in order to make their argument

Additionally, if someone dies and their body is kept on life support for organ harvesting, is that not a "pre-dead corps"?

They are pre-dead even before birth. On your first birthday you are pre-dead.

hyperbole: I am open to the possability that I, or anyone els, could exaggerate the truth. A current understanding is not necessarily intend as hyperbole. If you could please illustrait your observation, with quotation, when ever anyone comits what you see as hyperbole, it would help me understand exactly what you mien.

ASs what I have described above, the deliberate and necessary-for-argument of PL claim s and false assertions about developmental stages, mebryonic development, impact of abottion and whatnot. Again, a frank and accurate discussion of the facts is not possible for PL.

As it is currently, you are simply dismissing almost all opposing views as hyperbole and....

Nope. I have no objection to opposing views. I have a lot against deceptions and misrepresentations, not to mention outright lies. And sorry to say, I see A LOT of each of these coming from PL all the time.

Wishful thinking: In a legal debate, proposing new law, advocating for a new Amendment or advocating agents an existing law or Amendment is precisely...
1. a desire or strong yearning for something
2. an expression of a desire or longing for something
3. something that is desired
4. a hope for somebody's welfare or health (usually plural)
5. a polite request (formal) (often plural)....
However, you use the term "wishful thinking" in a derogatory manner with the obvious intent to devalue an opposing view.

Nope. I again have nothing agains opposing views. I have something against somebody pretending a view, a desire a belief as a "fact."

I sincerely hope that you agree that deliberately present something as a fact when it is not is very dishonest. You do agree, right?

In a legal respect, you force me to catagorise your USE of the term "wishful thinking" as nothing more than your own "revisionist linguistic hyperbole".

In what manner? In a lega; respect, the law is what the law is. What revisionism is present in that fact?

In a medical respect, the known facts are the known facts. Anyone who engages in a scientific medical discusion and insists that a scientific term (embryo, fetus, zygote, etc..) is something other than what the literal definition actually is, is committing their own "revisionist linguistic hyperbole". Such a person would force this Pro. Lifer to take your side.

Good. Do you want me topoint it out to you when that happens (It happens a lot. You might be busy if you want to participate in the exposure of such flagrant dishonesty).

We need to be aware that not every one who objects to abortion is doing so scientifically nor are they speaking in scientific terms.

Certainly. The problem comes when PL makes specifically scientific/medical claims that are proven false even before they are uttered. I am sure you can see a problem with that?

I myself use allot of common, laymans American English (ie; unborn child) even when I attempt to discuss something scientifically. It is not intended as propaganda, so it would be helpfull if you would not automatically assume so.

But I am sure you will take heed when a possible error is pointed out to you, right?

As it is, I am preparing to bring my philosophical, faith-based observations to the scientific microscope with the intent of furthering both my knowledge of science and, perhaps, even proving the existence of the Human sole.

I will, please, require from you a generous amount of linguistic patience and explanation as I attempt to scientifically define the supernatural.

I hope that you are game.

You have shown yourself trustworthy, so yes I am.

 

[Busta]

Re: post #376
In that case, disregard #375.
Perhaps I do need to refine my linguistical distinction between science and morality. I do have one important question though: If I, or anyone ells, wish to express a philosophical idea or morale position with out using scientific terms, what would you tolerate as an acceptable common English, non-scientific word for the (forgive me) unborn child. It would be helpfull not to be colorfully labled as a propagandist just for not using a scientific vocabulary while not speaking scientifically.

 

[jallman]

Again I say, if a matter is discussed for two days in a lecture in a bioethics class in Med school, it is not science fiction nor childish. Perhaps you are the one who hasn't done his research?
Lack of knowledge regarding what? What have I shown that I do not know based on what I have said?
I apologize, but line of reason is a relevent point of argument, in my own opinion. And while I am no doctor, I am not incapable of discussing the philosophy of intentions.
No, I do appreciate an marvel at what we have come to. Although, in many ways we are not a great deal better off, just more spoiled. We still die of sickness. We just do so a little later in life. How great of an accomplishment is that in terms of humanity?
I wouldn't expect a person who seems to lack any indication of emotion to be impressed by an argument based on anything but strictly calloused science.
I don't bellyache. Simply vocaly dissagree. There is a difference.
It does not take a brilliant mind to get on a committee nor be a doctor. In many cases, only a large pocketbook.
But I could say the same of you, because you haven't shown any facts. You've only been spurting off insults.
You are married and you are published: those are indication clues. Bur moreover, you have the arrogance of a man that has been around for a while. While this may be nothing more than just a stance of young foolish pride, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you're not old, then you should be less arrogant.
Thanks. Doesn't really fit in the argument nor really called for at all. But I'm glad you know the above information.
As a published writer myself, STOP ACTING AS MY SUPERIOR

I haven't the time nor the inclination to take part in this intellectual posturing anymore, so I will simply state my case, list my references, and allow facts to speak for themselves. Any further indulgence of you would also find me guilty of the same offense for which I originally posted against. This is getting way off topic and if you would like to continue the discussion further, perhaps we can begin a thread in a more appropriate place.

First, to give you a basic understanding of genetic engineering and manipulation, I offer you a most basic source and will follow up with a listing of papers from the laboratory of molecular carcenogenity at the National Institute of Environmental Health Science. These papers, some of which I worked on as technical editor, were authored by Dr. Minoru Koi of the Gene Mapping/Gene Cloning Group. Co-authoring these papers were Dr. Yoh Watanabe, Dr. C Burkhart, and Dr. Anton Jetten. I am not sure you are aware of their work, but this particular group was respnsible for discovering the
MMR1 gene (the mismatch repair gene, loss of which increases likelihood of breast cancer in women by over 600%) and for developing a gene therapy to fight colon cancer (this is the project I was assigned to as an intern after leaving the ICCVAM project). I did not serve as a lab tech on these two projects, I simply served as a technical writer, my job being to compile data and translate that data into whatever media was needed for Dr. Koi, PhD, MD and as a committee coordinator for Capt. William Stokes, DVM, PhD.

For a basic overview of where genetic research has come from and where it is headed, here is a little light reading on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

There are an abundance of links for your perusal, but I would ask that you pay special attention to the section on transhumanist genetics and take special note of how ridiculous the claims are. I will not insult your intelligence by breaking the article down for you any further.

Now, in their research on the MMR1 gene, the LMC made the following findings in 2003:

"...marking of the specific gene sequence is a simple process, requiring little time and minimal technical skill. Radioisotope markers attach to the sequence and protein splicers attach to the the nucleotide...facilitating removal of the sequence through use of MIDI prep...and finally cloning of the gene using the PCR procedure."

Dr. Yoh Watanabe, NIEHS
LMC lab meeting, minutes February 12, 2001

Now you can find these and other minutes of lab meeting for NIEHS at their .gov website if you should care to research further. I also took the liberty of cutting out some of the more technical jargon, as such thick language does not serve to illuminate my point. The jist of what I am stating is that marking, removal, and sequencing of a gene series is not difficult. The problem with such genetic manipulation as you described is seen in the following excerpt from the final report as published in the NIH annual findings report for 2003.

"...is that the biggest obstacle is time. While removal of the gene is a simple task, reintroduction of the gene into the eukaryote is a much more complex endeavor, requiring many sequencings and attempts at presenting the protein strands to the nucleus. As most of the process is concerned with the reactions of proteins, and we have yet to conclude the specific functions of each protein sample, it is difficult to predict the catastrophic nature of cross contaminating nucleotide sequences with the wrong chromosome."

Dr. Minoru Koi, PhD, MD
NIEHS, LMC Gene Mapping/Gene Cloning Division
NIH Annual Findings Update, 2003

Later, that year, in his speech to the National Cancer Conference, Dr. Anton Jetten states,

"It has long been an obstacle of the research community to allay public fears of mass tampering and contamination of the human genome. It is widely held public belief that we can take a diploid cell mass in the womb and clone it, change its physical characteristics, its sex, its mental acumen through genetic engineering, distortion, tampering, however you like to state it. We are in a constant struggle against the dissemination of false information by religious groups, myths poliferated by Hollywood for good story telling, and a general fear of "playing god" if you will. Our research has once again proven that this is pure fantasy and will remain so for decades. The enormous cost, the high rate of failure, and the unpredictability of protein behaviors within the complex cell create a long road ahead for such science fiction to be made a reality. Genetic manipulation's utitlity still lies in medicine, therapy, and botany....the time investment and cost of genetic manipulation....leaves us with no choice but to close the book on the debate of commercial genetic engineering for the convenience of aesthetics...the absurdity of picking and choosing characteristics...no fear of altering the genome to calamitous effect...rigorous guidelines governing genetic research...prohibition of manipulation for reasons other than medicine or research..."

Dr. Anton Jetten
Progressions in Genetic Therapy: Exposing the public myth
CDC Cancer Partners Summit, Washington DC, 2003

Again, I have taken liberty with cutting out portions of the quote to save room and you a whole lot of unnecessary reading, but you can see that Dr. Jetten is very decisive and clear on both the practical and ethical limitations of genetic manipulation. If you would like to view a full transcript of Dr. Jetten's speech, you may request an electronic copy or you can possibly find a synopsis by doing some research into the CDC archives.

Well, I trust this closes the matter of our little digression. If you would like to discuss this further, I would be happy to assist in your re-education on the topic. Also, one more side note...where did you ever get the idea that I am married? Is it common for you to juxtapose your fairy tales over real life with such frequency? they do make medication for such symptoms...

 

[Fantasea]

From the context, you seem to claim that cancer can be cured through interuterine surgery. Could you elaborate? (Yes, **I** know something about it).

This is the exchange to which you are referring.

Quote:Originally posted by Fantasea
Suffering may be terrible, but it can and should be alleviated. We don't kill cancer patients, do we?

Quote:Originally posted by Steen
No, they pretty much die themselves, as bad as it sounds, our medicine is still rather primitive, If a woman Knew that she was to give birth to a cancerous child, isn't rather intelligent to abort the baby? Or would you rather it go through life with cancer. We don't have a cure for it, among other ills. When we can cure most illnesses, I would say it is wrong to have an abortion. But for now, we can't, so I won't.

Quote:Originally posted by Fantasea
That's right. Drown them just like a litter of unwanted kittens.

What do you know about inter-utero surgery? Nothing, I venture.

After re-reading the exchange, I trust that you see that you are mistaken about the context. The reference to your lack of knowledge of inter-utero surgery was an unrelated statement.

I'd be interested in understanding what you do know about inter-utero surgery.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Hyperbole and Revisionist prolife Linguistics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
I do not agree that semantics has anything to do with the question, except as it may help the pro-death crowd as they struggle to improve their position through obfuscation.

And yet you spew deceptive semantics, per obviously not having an argument without it. How hypocritical.

I simply state fact which you must reject else reject abortion.

Quote:
A child in the womb is an exact parallel.

There is no such thing. "Child" is a developmental stage beginning AFTER birth. It is no more appropriate to claim an embryo to be a "child" than to claim a toddler to be a "Senior Citizen." It is pure obfuscation, deliberate deception and manipulation. It is an attempt at outright dishonesty.

You now cite the semantic dishonesty which seeks to substitute a euphemism for the word which cannot withstand the disgust engendered by abortion.

Quote:
Working back from birth, each day, the child was smaller, smaller, smaller.

There was no child before birth, your hyperbole none withstanding.

See the previous response.

Quote:
There is no threshold which must be crossed in order for a child in the womb

"child in the womb"? That must be something similar to an "alive corpse."

A feeble attempt at humor changes nothing. For all of recorded time, a pregnant mother was said to be “with child”, “carrying a child”, expecting a child”. There has never been a “fetus shower”. After Roe v. Wade, the medical term for a child in the womb was euphemistically introduced into the vernacular as a means of masking the truth from the unknowing populace – that a child dies in every abortion procedure. De-humanizing a victim makes its extermination palatable to those who don’t know any better.

Quote:
to become a living human being. That event occurs at conception.

A "being" is an individual entity. That individuality doesn't happen until birth. Your claim is wrong. At conception, the merging of live cells into another live cell happen, that's all.

A “live” what, pray tell. Everything must be something.

Quote:
A popular position within the pro-death crowd is to say that, while yes, it's alive, it's human, and it's growing and developing; but it just hasn't achieved (some arbitrary criterion) yet, so therefore, it's OK to kill it.

Really? And who is the pro-death crowd who makes such weird claims? Certainly the PRO-CHOICE position has nothing to do with the silly fable you just presented.

So there are only two options. Either, there is a different, "pro-death" group separate from pro-choice, who makes that very argument, or you are somehow dishonestly trying to claim the prochoice to be this group. I hope not, as that would be an outright lie. And you are not dishonest; you are not a liar, are you? Nah. Therefore there is, somewhere, a unique "pro-death group. Can you enlighten us about who they are?

Early in the game, in the Roe v. Wade era, the two sides were proud to be known as Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion. Since the outcome of abortion can only be death, the soubriquet Pro-Death was fairly applied. As the debates began to heat up, it became obvious to the Pro-Death crowd that the label Pro-Abortion cast too negative a light upon those who were attempting to elevate the deliberate killing of children in the womb to the level of a legitimate medical procedure. Hence the adoption of the euphemism, Pro-Choice. However, the Pro-Death crowd never mentions what the choices are, do they? Why are they hesitant to name the choices, which are simply that the child lives, or the child dies? We all know why, don't we?

So now you know. Because of the ugliness and shame it engendered, your modern Pro-Choice crowd hides its origin.

Quote:
No one can change the truth of conception.

So I am sure you are not going to try, right?

As I said, no one can change the truth. The plain, simple, biological truth is that human life begins at conception. No one has ever proven otherwise. Can you?

Quote:
One can, if one wishes, deny truth and invent fairy tales with whatever kind of ending makes them happy.

Well, I have seen prolifers do that aplenty through the lies, distortions, revisionist linguistics and hyperbole. Is that what you were talking about?

You know, full well, what I’m talking about.

I’ve left you with quite a few question marks. Will you answer them in a serious manner?

 

[jallman]

A fetus (alternatively foetus or fœtus) is an unborn vertebrate offspring after the embryonary stage.

In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Fetus, in Latin, literally means 'young one'. When speaking in the most rational of terms, a fetus is an organism, as yet undeveloped, in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species.

Here is the definition of fetus. Nowhere does it include in the etimology of this word that it was introduced as a euphemism for baby. There is a clear distinction between a fetus and a baby. Deal with it and build your arguments with acknowledgement of the facts, not on the card house of your own emotions and opining over some ethereal double meaning of words which only you seem to know.

And this was directed at fantasea, post #380

 

[battleax86]

Here is the definition of fetus. Nowhere does it include in the etimology of this word that it was introduced as a euphemism for baby. There is a clear distinction between a fetus and a baby. Deal with it and build your arguments with acknowledgement of the facts, not on the card house of your own emotions and opining over some ethereal double meaning of words which only you seem to know.

And this was directed at fantasea, post #380

You seem to share Pro-Choice Danielle's affinity for selective definitions.

From Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary:

Main Entry:1 ba*by
Pronunciation:*b*-b*
Function:noun
Inflected Formlural babies
Etymology:Middle English, from babe
Date:14th century

1 a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group
2 a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest
3 slang a : GIRL, WOMAN — often used in address b : BOY, MAN — often used in address
4 : PERSON, THING *is one tough baby*
–ba£by£hood \-b*-*h*d\ noun
–ba£by£ish \-ish\ adjective

Here we see that "baby" is most commonly used to denote an infant, but is also correctly used to refer to any extremely young child. Since an unborn child (whether a fetus, embryo, or zygote) is even younger than an infant, it would be correct to refer to the child as a "baby." The word is not restricted to infants and is commonly used to refer to children younger than two. In the future, it might help you to have a better grasp of the facts before taking an arrogant and condescending tone with someone who can easily be proven right.

 

[Fantasea]

Here is the definition of fetus. Nowhere does it include in the etimology of this word that it was introduced as a euphemism for baby. There is a clear distinction between a fetus and a baby. Deal with it and build your arguments with acknowledgement of the facts, not on the card house of your own emotions and opining over some ethereal double meaning of words which only you seem to know.

And this was directed at fantasea, post #380

You may slice and dice the words any which way that suits your purposes. However, human life is a continuum which begins at conception and continues without interruption through a number of stages, first inside the womb, and later outside the womb until, barring abortion, accident, illness, or some other cause of premature death, natural death occurs in the final stage of life, advanced old age. There is no point along this continuum prior to which the occupant of a womb is not a fully human being that is progressing toward advanced old age.

In order for abortion advocates to remain faithful to their code of death before birth, they must first deny the truth which of this well understood, simple secular biological process.

The only hope they have of doing this is to promulgate the idea that all understanding of fetal knowledge for the time prior to Roe v. Wade, as well as the published findings of scientists, obstetricians, fetologists, and geneticists since then, are false and that 'their' fabricated dogma that a fetus is not a human being worthy of life, is true.

Can you say revisionism?