The pro choice philosophy... (1 Viewer)

[Felicity]

.....And the conversation grinds to a screeching halt....... :whothere:
.
.
.
.
.
.

See Busta? They don't wanna talk substance.:sigh:

 

[jallman]

.....And the conversation grinds to a screeching halt....... :whothere:
.
.
.
.
.
.

See Busta? They don't wanna talk substance.:sigh:

Hardly, but you feeble attempt at further libeling the pro choice camp is duly noted, and quite expected. Besides, I am not quite sure what further substance you need beyond my opening post as this thread got way off track thanks you pro liars and your penchant for tossing red herrings and throwing up smoke screens. I really dont feel like reading back through, so if you will indulge my laziness, please, let me know what you are asking for.

 

[Felicity]

I already reposted it....it's only five posts up on this same page... #73

 

[Busta]

Okay...I'll ignore the rhetoric....so let's get back on topic before Busta bustass...

You're on too me....

 

[Busta]

.....And the conversation grinds to a screeching halt....... :whothere:
.
.
.
.
.
.

See Busta? They don't wanna talk substance.:sigh:

You will need too wait until someone responds, before you assume their intentions. Sometimes it takes me a couple days to get back to a thread.

 

[Busta]

Hardly, but you feeble attempt at further libeling the pro choice camp is duly noted, and quite expected. Besides, I am not quite sure what further substance you need beyond my opening post as this thread got way off track thanks you pro liars and your penchant for tossing red herrings and throwing up smoke screens. I really dont feel like reading back through, so if you will indulge my laziness, please, let me know what you are asking for.

This is increadably frustrating.
I turn my back on Pro. Lifers who distract from the substance of the issue.
Political labels have NOTHING to do with the facts!
Perhaps we should just have this thread placed in the Basement.......

 

[Felicity]

You will need too wait until someone responds, before you assume their intentions. Sometimes it takes me a couple days to get back to a thread.

He was on at the same time I was and exchanging posts when I posted that. I do recognize patience is necessary.

 

[Cloud9]

Does demagoguery help resolve the issue?

I recall an incident in the military that brought the definition of choice to a new level for me.

Like many civilians I was used to choosing between Coke and Pepsi, Chinese or Pizza, etc.

For my very first military meal, the soldier behind the counter serving the food was yelling, "get your chow", "plenty to choose from", "lots of choices", etc.

In reality, all servings were the same, but I couldn't see until I got up to the front of the line. I asked, "What's the choice?"

1st response: You can choose the left or the right plate.
Me: They're the same, that's not a choice.
2nd response: You can eat or not, that's your choice. Your pick.

Given that we're not the ones in the situation facing the need to make the decision of whether to have an abortion or not, and that we're not in a position to know if it's the result of rape, risk to mother, risk to fetus or other medical situations, the decision is up to the woman in question as to whether they abort or not. That's the choice.

That being said, there are plenty of women that see it as a form of birth control and have repeated abortions. There was a woman in the news not too long ago that had her 17th procedure.

And that's the problem with abortion debates, not only the wide range of positions. I've heard pro-life people say it's ok in the case of rape and/or medical conditions that may kill the mother, to pro-choice people that find it unacceptable in the 2nd and 3rd trimester.

Not only is the range of positions quite wide, but otherwise simple concepts that people would readily acknowledge in different discussions, they refuse to acknowledge in abortion debates ie. "time" for one.

An acorn is not an oak tree.

An egg

is not a chicken

The egg may become a chicken if I, or another natural predator doesn't eat it first.

Likewise, a fertilized human egg may become a baby if it's not ejected by the body by miscarriage, a natural abortion process.

Not to mention the total bastardization of the English language and use of demagoguery to inflamme opinion.

The abortion debate is already sufficiently challenging without the need to go down the "pro-murder", "baby killer", etc. path.

Some take the position that choice is automatically abortion, hence, pro-abortion. Others may say that any action that supports the end result of taking a life is murder, hence, pro-murder. Yet we hear, the other side say forcing a woman to give birth against her will is enslavement, hence pro-slavery. I've even hear pro-rapist since a woman that's been raped should take it to full term, hence supporting the birth resulting from rape.

But I ask you, do any of these get us closer to what the goal should be? The goal should be a concerted effort by both sides to ensure a decrease in the number of abortions, should it not?

A more detailed view of my position can be found here for those that might be interested in the debate rather than the demagoguery.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=142960&postcount=761

 

[Felicity]

That being said, there are plenty of women that see it as a form of birth control and have repeated abortions. There was a woman in the news not too long ago that had her 17th procedure.

Do you have a problem with that? why? If it is “nothing”...why isn’t it exactly like a 17th haircut?

An acorn is not an oak tree.

But it is an oak...

It is what it is--and though the shape changes/the complexity changes/the functioning changes--the fundamental nature of what it IS does not change--it does not become a toad, or a skyscraper, or a fetus--it's still OAK.

The egg may become a chicken if I, or another natural predator doesn't eat it first.

Mother as "natural predator".....nice......

Some take the position that choice is automatically abortion, hence, pro-abortion. Others may say that any action that supports the end result of taking a life is murder, hence, pro-murder. Yet we hear, the other side say forcing a woman to give birth against her will is enslavement, hence pro-slavery. I've even hear pro-rapist since a woman that's been raped should take it to full term, hence supporting the birth resulting from rape.

But I ask you, do any of these get us closer to what the goal should be? The goal should be a concerted effort by both sides to ensure a decrease in the number of abortions, should it not?

Are you just saying what Busta already said--only with a LOT more words?

 

[Busta]

Posted by Cloud9;
"Given that we're not the ones in the situation facing the need to make the decision of whether to have an abortion or not, and that we're not in a position to know if it's the result of rape, risk to mother, risk to fetus or other medical situations, the decision is up to the woman in question as to whether they abort or not. That's the choice."
You may as well be trying to tell me that gay 'marriage should only be decided by gay people, that reparations should only be decided by Black, Chinese, or Irish people, or that gun ownership should only be decided by gun owners, immigration decided only by immigrants, opposition to the war only given by current or veteran members of the military, etc., etc.

Having been the man in the situation (twice), I know first hand that abortion affects more then just the pregnant women...or even just the couple. No action is contained within the individual...everything that you do will effect others.

Given your reasoning we should toss out Roe-v-Wade, since men were involved in that decision (more men then women, I might add). With as much as I would like to see that ruling buried, that's not how this United States works.
Eveyone gets a say in everything.

"And that's the problem with abortion debates, not only the wide range of positions. I've heard pro-life people say it's OK in the case of rape and/or medical conditions that may kill the mother, to pro-choice people that find it unacceptable in the 2nd and 3rd trimester."
So, the problem with abortion debates is that we do not allready agree?
If we were only debating with those who already agreed with us, then the name of this blog would be Democraticunderground.com .

"Not only is the range of positions quite wide, but otherwise simple concepts that people would readily acknowledge in different discussions, they refuse to acknowledge in abortion debates ie. "time" for one."
"Time"? Not sure what your saying here.

"An acorn is not an oak tree."
Totally irrelevant.
Just as the life of every Oak tree starts as an acorn, so does the life of every human start as a ZEF.

"An egg is not a chicken."
Totally irrelevant.
Just as the life of every [chicken] starts as an [egg], so does the life of every Human start as a ZEF.

"The egg may become a chicken if I, or another natural predator doesn't eat it first."
Like Felicity said: Mother as "natural predator".....nice......

Here's a Einstein quote for you:
"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

 

[Cloud9]

Do you have a problem with that? why?

As I stated previously, it's an issue that has more than two simplistic positions. Most Americans draw the line some where between conception in birth - within the 3 trimesters. For some it may be the point of conception, for others the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd trimester.

Personally, I know some religious zealots in my community that draw the line before conception wishing to ban birth control, etc.

If it is “nothing”...why isn’t it exactly like a 17th haircut?

Where did I say that? I don't discount abortion as "nothing", then again, I don't discount "time" as nothing either.

But it is an oak...

It's the same species, but clearly not all acorns become oak trees.

It is what it is--and though the shape changes/the complexity changes/the functioning changes--the fundamental nature of what it IS does not change--it does not become a toad, or a skyscraper, or a fetus--it's still OAK.

I've read enough of your posts to know that you discount "time" as meaningless. That, is an irrational position that's not worthy of debate.

I never said it becomes something else, but given that nature itself aborts all the time through miscarriages, one can't deny the reality that it can become nothing more than a clump of cells on a tampax.

Mother as "natural predator".....nice......

In some species a mother does eat her unborn... though in ours we simply have miscarriages. Unlike much of the opinion on this debate, it's simply a fact of nature. Denial that this is the case does not change that fact.

 

[Cloud9]

Posted by Cloud9;
You may as well be trying to tell me that gay 'marriage should only be decided by gay people, that reparations should only be decided by Black, Chinese, or Irish people, or that gun ownership should only be decided by gun owners, immigration decided only by immigrants, opposition to the war only given by current or veteran members of the military, etc., etc.

Having been the man in the situation (twice), I know first hand that abortion affects more then just the pregnant women...or even just the couple. No action is contained within the individual...everything that you do will effect others.

Given your reasoning we should toss out Roe-v-Wade, since men were involved in that decision (more men then women, I might add). With as much as I would like to see that ruling buried, that's not how this United States works.
Eveyone gets a say in everything.

And the American people already decided to what extent.


"And that's the problem with abortion debates, not only the wide range of positions. I've heard pro-life people say it's OK in the case of rape and/or medical conditions that may kill the mother, to pro-choice people that find it unacceptable in the 2nd and 3rd trimester."

So, the problem with abortion debates is that we do not allready agree?

No, the problem is that you're not even discussing the same issue. I've personally watched "pro-life" and a "pro-choice" friends debate for hours only to find that 90% of their views were the same.

The self proclaimed "pro-lifer" admitted that in the cases of rape, medical conditions and if before the 2nd trimester that they could understand.

The self proclaimed "pro-choice" admitted that they would ban abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester and only allow abortion in cases of rape, and medical conditions.


"Not only is the range of positions quite wide, but otherwise simple concepts that people would readily acknowledge in different discussions, they refuse to acknowledge in abortion debates ie. "time" for one."
"Time"? Not sure what your saying here.

The fact that you call the statement below "irrelevant" is an indication that you discount time. I'm not claiming that we all don't start out the same way. That can be found in a simple biology 101 textbook.

What I'm stating (like the egg and the acorn example), is that even if medical abortions were zero, every conception would not result in a birth as nature aborts naturally all the time, it's called a miscarriage.

"An acorn is not an oak tree."
Totally irrelevant.
Just as the life of every Oak tree starts as an acorn, so does the life of every human start as a ZEF.

"An egg is not a chicken."
Totally irrelevant.
Just as the life of every [chicken] starts as an [egg], so does the life of every Human start as a ZEF.

"The egg may become a chicken if I, or another natural predator doesn't eat it first."
Like Felicity said: Mother as "natural predator".....nice......

See my response to Felicity. Nature is predatory. Natural abortions happen all the time - miscarriage. You may not like that, but it's an undeniable biological fact.

Here's a Einstein quote for you:
"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

Thanks nice quote.

 

[Busta]

Posted by Cloud9;
"And the American people already decided to what extent."
See, that's the legal problem. The People DID decide to what extent abortion was permisable in their own state, but then the Supreme Court (not The People) came in and bulldozed what The People had decided.

(*tangent: just as it was with abortion, so will it also be with 'marriage*)

"No, the problem is that you're not even discussing the same issue."
?????????????
404 not found.
What do you perceive is the issue that I am discussing? How does that issue (not position) differ from that of jallman or others?

"I've personally watched "pro-life" and a "pro-choice" friends debate for hours only to find that 90% of their views were the same."
Before the political-label hijacking, we were having a factual discussion, not even really a debate, about brain waves.

"The self proclaimed "pro-lifer" admitted that in the cases of rape, medical conditions and if before the 2nd trimester that they could understand.
The self proclaimed "pro-choice" admitted that they would ban abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester and only allow abortion in cases of rape, and medical conditions."
One approached the issue from the humanity of the unborn, with concessions regarding the mother's choice; while the other approached the issue from the mother's choice, with consessions regarding the humanity of the unborn...and although their bottom line coincided, since their core priorities, their simple truths, did not coincide, they failed to see it.
Sure, I've seen that also...but, before the hijacking, I don't think that was happening here.

"The fact that you call the statement below "irrelevant" is an indication that you discount time. I'm not claiming that we all don't start out the same way. That can be found in a simple biology 101 textbook."
When debating the plausibility of legislation, biology is irrelevant.
See post #58.

"What I'm stating (like the egg and the acorn example), is that even if medical abortions were zero, every conception would not result in a birth as nature aborts naturally all the time, it's called a miscarriage."
My wife had a misscarage in-between our 2 sons, and almost died from it (complications from previous abortions), so please do not assume that I do not know what a misscarage is.
In my mind, miscarage = s#!t happens. Abortion = intervention.
It is precisely the ability to choose, to controle, that makes all the difference.

Nature never terminates a pregnancy because the mother would be embarrassed, was raped, doesn't want a child, etc. Nature only terminates a pregnancy when their is a terminal, mechanical error in the possess (not to be confused with clinical vacuums and instrument's).

"See my response to Felicity. Nature is predatory. Natural abortions happen all the time - miscarriage. You may not like that, but it's an undeniable biological fact."
Mother's are predatorial....nice premise, but I don't follow.
If all abortions were only natural, with absolutely no human encouragement, then I would chalk up the entire issue to S#!T happens.

It seems that you are trying to equate abortion with misscarage. Having been by my wife's side during both, and have had extensive conversations with her about both, I know the difference.
That difference is controle.
One you can controle, and one you can't.

 

[Felicity]

As I stated previously, it's an issue that has more than two simplistic positions. Most Americans draw the line some where between conception in birth - within the 3 trimesters. For some it may be the point of conception, for others the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd trimester.

Yep....and that just goes to show you the lack of a consensus of opinion on the pro-choice side....much broader and with a wider range of consequences than the minor differences that occur within the pro-life community.

Personally, I know some religious zealots in my community that draw the line before conception wishing to ban birth control, etc.

Hmmmm....I guess I'm a zealot.:2wave: I wouldn't ban all birth control, but all BC that kills, I would.

Where did I say that? I don't discount abortion as "nothing", then again, I don't discount "time" as nothing either.

So what is your threshold?

It's the same species, but clearly not all acorns become oak trees.

All acorns that fall upon fertile ground will become oak trees if allowed to sprout. Minimally, if it falls and sprouts, and you decide you don't want a tree there, you pull an oak tree up by the root and kill it--even if it's a very small oak tree.

I've read enough of your posts to know that you discount "time" as meaningless. That, is an irrational position that's not worthy of debate.

Posit something more reasonable.

I never said it becomes something else, but given that nature itself aborts all the time through miscarriages, one can't deny the reality that it can become nothing more than a clump of cells on a tampax.

Major difference between a "spontaneous abortion" and an "elective abortion"--to justify elective abortion by reason that not all pregnancies are successful ....well....talk about an irrational position!

And if, as you say, "it can become nothing more than a clump of cells," what was it just prior to it "becoming" the clump you so crassly stated are on the Tampax? You unwittingly touch on the very thing that makes this assertion of yours foolish. Your statement reveals that you ARE AWARE that there is a difference between what passes in a woman's menses when there is no fertilization, and what passes when the materials of conception have been fertilized. One is simply the biologic products that are for the purpose of conception, and the other is conceived human matter.

In some species a mother does eat her unborn... though in ours we simply have miscarriages. Unlike much of the opinion on this debate, it's simply a fact of nature. Denial that this is the case does not change that fact.

Even FI agrees that grown humans aren't "animals"--do you think we are? Anyway...again...an elective abortion is not a miscarriage...it terminates a pregnancy by conscious intent.

 

[jallman]

All acorns that fall upon fertile ground will become oak trees if allowed to sprout. Minimally, if it falls and sprouts, and you decide you don't want a tree there, you pull an oak tree up by the root and kill it--even if it's a very small oak tree.

Now that is the biggest misrepresentation I have heard yet. No, not all acorns which fall to the ground will become oak tree. There are many factors that come into play...so many that only about 5 of the acorns that fall from a given tree in a season will even have a chance at becoming a tree. Where do you come up with this junk?

 

[Felicity]

Now that is the biggest misrepresentation I have heard yet. No, not all acorns which fall to the ground will become oak tree. There are many factors that come into play...so many that only about 5 of the acorns that fall from a given tree in a season will even have a chance at becoming a tree. Where do you come up with this junk?

You gonna answer the post I posted and re-posted and then posted directions to the re-post???



BTW:

Besides, I am not quite sure what further substance you need beyond my opening post as this thread got way off track thanks you pro liars and your penchant for tossing red herrings and throwing up smoke screens.

You know what they say about people in glass houses.....

 

[Felicity]

Here....I'll even post it again....for your convenience....

Felicity:
"Would you clarify an example of what level of cognition fits this. Is this what you mean? "Capability for awareness and thought "--what is awareness?--how does one measure it? and for thought--what sort of thought? And secondly, would you explain WHY that criteria is what you consider valid and not any other criteria such as , say, the nature of the species?

I think the conceived human has the capacity for thought and awareness by virtue of the nature of the being. Like a flower has the capacity for blooming even before it is actually able to bloom--it's an inherent quality rather than an external demonstration of functioning. A tulip is stil a "flower" even without a bloom......And why is this "function" what determines the "worth" of the thing?

 

[Felicity]

Here....I'll even post it again....for your convenience....

Felicity:
"Would you clarify an example of what level of cognition fits this. Is this what you mean? "Capability for awareness and thought "--what is awareness?--how does one measure it? and for thought--what sort of thought? And secondly, would you explain WHY that criteria is what you consider valid and not any other criteria such as , say, the nature of the species?

I think the conceived human has the capacity for thought and awareness by virtue of the nature of the being. Like a flower has the capacity for blooming even before it is actually able to bloom--it's an inherent quality rather than an external demonstration of functioning. A tulip is stil a "flower" even without a bloom......And why is this "function" what determines the "worth" of the thing?

Do you need it put more simply?

1. What level of cognition merits the right of protection against threat to life?
2. What is "awareness" by your standards? When I'm sleeping, I'm "unaware." When I'm not given information or don't want to learn it, I'm "unaware." If I were in a temperary coma (and perhaps long term comas) I'm "unaware." I don't remember anything before around 3 or 4, I gues I was "unaware." What constitutes "awareness?"
3. What constitutes thought, and how do you measure it? What is the minimal level you would find adequate?
4. Why are any of these criteria definative and more valid than any other criteria?

 

[Cloud9]

Posted by Cloud9;
"And the American people already decided to what extent."
See, that's the legal problem. The People DID decide to what extent abortion was permisable in their own state, but then the Supreme Court (not The People) came in and bulldozed what The People had decided.

(*tangent: just as it was with abortion, so will it also be with 'marriage*)

I'm no legal scholar, but I believe Roe v. Wade was settled in the '70s. Since then abortion has been legal, so I find it futile to debate on the issue of law and therefore, will leave this point as is.

"No, the problem is that you're not even discussing the same issue."
?????????????
404 not found.
What do you perceive is the issue that I am discussing? How does that issue (not position) differ from that of jallman or others?

People use the terms of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as if they were very well defined terms that everyone agrees upon. Therefore, they debate as if they understood what the opposition truly believes.

"I've personally watched "pro-life" and a "pro-choice" friends debate for hours only to find that 90% of their views were the same."
Before the political-label hijacking, we were having a factual discussion, not even really a debate, about brain waves.

My mistake, if the thread is about brain waves, then I'll leave you guys to your brain wave discussion.

"The self proclaimed "pro-lifer" admitted that in the cases of rape, medical conditions and if before the 2nd trimester that they could understand.
The self proclaimed "pro-choice" admitted that they would ban abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester and only allow abortion in cases of rape, and medical conditions."
One approached the issue from the humanity of the unborn, with concessions regarding the mother's choice; while the other approached the issue from the mother's choice, with consessions regarding the humanity of the unborn...and although their bottom line coincided, since their core priorities, their simple truths, did not coincide, they failed to see it.
Sure, I've seen that also...but, before the hijacking, I don't think that was happening here.

If you say so.

"The fact that you call the statement below "irrelevant" is an indication that you discount time. I'm not claiming that we all don't start out the same way. That can be found in a simple biology 101 textbook."
When debating the plausibility of legislation, biology is irrelevant.
See post #58.

But time is not.

"What I'm stating (like the egg and the acorn example), is that even if medical abortions were zero, every conception would not result in a birth as nature aborts naturally all the time, it's called a miscarriage."
My wife had a misscarage in-between our 2 sons, and almost died from it (complications from previous abortions), so please do not assume that I do not know what a misscarage is.
In my mind, miscarage = s#!t happens. Abortion = intervention.
It is precisely the ability to choose, to controle, that makes all the difference.

Sorry to hear about your loss, but you're not the only one who has been close to miscarriage. We have 3 kids and my wife miscarried between our 2nd and 3rd. My next door neighbor almost died from giving birth, so what? There are no guarantees in life, no assurances.

We choose and control nature all the time ie. open heart surgery, surgery on fetus to save its life, etc.

Nature never terminates a pregnancy because the mother would be embarrassed, was raped, doesn't want a child, etc. Nature only terminates a pregnancy when their is a terminal, mechanical error in the possess (not to be confused with clinical vacuums and instrument's).

Now you're an expert on why nature terminates pregnancies? There are many reasons and we simply don't understand all of the reasons as to why miscarriage happens. Some have to do with the fetus, some with the environment, but before I proceed in debating I'd like you to state unequivocally that miscarriage is a natural abortion that is part of life and it occurs with great frequency in nature.

"See my response to Felicity. Nature is predatory. Natural abortions happen all the time - miscarriage. You may not like that, but it's an undeniable biological fact."
Mother's are predatorial....nice premise, but I don't follow.
If all abortions were only natural, with absolutely no human encouragement, then I would chalk up the entire issue to S#!T happens.

It seems that you are trying to equate abortion with misscarage.

Not at all, but I've discussion abortion with enough people to know that there are some in the pro-life camp that are in full denial of miscarriage and I find that debating with folks like that is a waste of time.

Having been by my wife's side during both, and have had extensive conversations with her about both, I know the difference.
That difference is controle.
One you can controle, and one you can't.

Actually, those are not absolutes, there are circumstances where potential miscarriage can be controlled and prevented.

Even putting aside miscarriage, there is the issue of stillbirth which one of my sisters experienced.

 

[Cloud9]

Yep....and that just goes to show you the lack of a consensus of opinion on the pro-choice side....much broader and with a wider range of consequences than the minor differences that occur within the pro-life community.

That's certainly one view, another can be that there is a lack of consensus among the general population as to when life begins. In any event, so?

Hmmmm....I guess I'm a zealot.:2wave: I wouldn't ban all birth control, but all BC that kills, I would.

So what is your threshold?

I don't know that I have a threshold per se. It depends on the circumstances.

All acorns that fall upon fertile ground will become oak trees if allowed to sprout. Minimally, if it falls and sprouts, and you decide you don't want a tree there, you pull an oak tree up by the root and kill it--even if it's a very small oak tree.

Not too many oak trees by where you live eh?

Posit something more reasonable.

If you'd like, I will, but I don't care for circular debates, I'd like to start by seeing you unequivocally state that miscarriages are in fact a natural abortion and happens naturally all the time.

Major difference between a "spontaneous abortion" and an "elective abortion"--to justify elective abortion by reason that not all pregnancies are successful ....well....talk about an irrational position!

I'm not comparing and contrasting the differences between those two types of abortions (at least not yet), and I've not established a position for you to call irrational (at least not yet). I'm simply stating a fact, miscarriages happen and are a product of nature aborting a fetus naturally.

I'll walk you and Busta step by step, but I won't proceed to the next step until I see an acknowledgement of facts.

And if, as you say, "it can become nothing more than a clump of cells," what was it just prior to it "becoming" the clump you so crassly stated are on the Tampax? You unwittingly touch on the very thing that makes this assertion of yours foolish. Your statement reveals that you ARE AWARE that there is a difference between what passes in a woman's menses when there is no fertilization, and what passes when the materials of conception have been fertilized. One is simply the biologic products that are for the purpose of conception, and the other is conceived human matter.

Feel free to call it what you will, it won't change the steps. If you'd like, we can use your terminology, I'm perfectly comfortable with that, so take your pick: cells, zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, child, teenager, accountant, geriatric.

Even FI agrees that grown humans aren't "animals"--do you think we are? Anyway...again...an elective abortion is not a miscarriage...it terminates a pregnancy by conscious intent.

I made no claim to the semantics of humans v. animals, and I see from previous posts that it's an area that you like to take the discussion in and change the debate to one of whether humans are animals. Perhaps that should be a separate thread.

My opinion of whether we are animals is irrelevant, but if it helps you get your head around my position on the issue of pro choice philosophy and abortion, I'll go ahead and concede this point to any default that you choose.

So for our purposes here in this thread, feel free to pick and I'll agree with you on that particular point.

 

[Busta]

Cloud9,
I'm not grasping what you mien by "time".
Do you mien frequency of occurrence? % of miscarrage? Stages of development? Zero six hundred hours? What?
Oh, and, I don't play games by agreeing with carfully worded premises.
Yes, miscarriages happen. No, a miscarage is not an abortion. Society uses different synonyms to describe a similar action so as to distinguish a defining or relevant difference.
I will not "state unequivocally that miscarriage is a natural abortion" because that begins to blur the line.

 

[Cloud9]

Cloud9,
I'm not grasping what you mien by "time".
Do you mien frequency of occurrence? % of miscarrage? Stages of development? Zero six hundred hours? What?

My apologies Busta, it's not my intent to mislead or confuse although I fear I've already done so.

What I mean simply is an acknowledgement that we perceive time as linear and therefore, even in circumstances where all else is equal, time is a factor (specially in regards to the law).

We can certainly discuss elsewhere space-time and different views of time, but for this discussion, I simply mean that now I'm in my 40s, ten years ago I was in my 30s, and 50 years ago I wasn't even a twinkle in my mother's eye.

It's an important point for my position, but again, I've been in these discussions enough times to know that some folks will not acknowledge the differences in time.

 

[Felicity]

That's certainly one view, another can be that there is a lack of consensus among the general population as to when life begins. In any event, so?

I don't know that I have a threshold per se. It depends on the circumstances.

Not too many oak trees by where you live eh?

If you'd like, I will, but I don't care for circular debates, I'd like to start by seeing you unequivocally state that miscarriages are in fact a natural abortion and happens naturally all the time.

I'm not comparing and contrasting the differences between those two types of abortions (at least not yet), and I've not established a position for you to call irrational (at least not yet). I'm simply stating a fact, miscarriages happen and are a product of nature aborting a fetus naturally.

I'll walk you and Busta step by step, but I won't proceed to the next step until I see an acknowledgement of facts.

Feel free to call it what you will, it won't change the steps. If you'd like, we can use your terminology, I'm perfectly comfortable with that, so take your pick: cells, zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, child, teenager, accountant, geriatric.

I made no claim to the semantics of humans v. animals, and I see from previous posts that it's an area that you like to take the discussion in and change the debate to one of whether humans are animals. Perhaps that should be a separate thread.

My opinion of whether we are animals is irrelevant, but if it helps you get your head around my position on the issue of pro choice philosophy and abortion, I'll go ahead and concede this point to any default that you choose.

So for our purposes here in this thread, feel free to pick and I'll agree with you on that particular point.

What a load of NON answers....you say NOTHING! This is the most interesting evasion...

And if, as you say, "it can become nothing more than a clump of cells," what was it just prior to it "becoming" the clump you so crassly stated are on the Tampax? You unwittingly touch on the very thing that makes this assertion of yours foolish. Your statement reveals that you ARE AWARE that there is a difference between what passes in a woman's menses when there is no fertilization, and what passes when the materials of conception have been fertilized. One is simply the biologic products that are for the purpose of conception, and the other is conceived human matter.

Feel free to call it what you will, it won't change the steps. If you'd like, we can use your terminology, I'm perfectly comfortable with that, so take your pick: cells, zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, child, teenager, accountant, geriatric.

Do you advocate the termination of any of these?

I'm not interested in any "lesson" by a self-appointed expert. Say what you think, or don't. You carry no water with me unless or until you demonstrate some level of reasonableness which, cannot be ascertained by your condescending evasiveness. Bring the facts....or blow!

 

[Busta]

Not sure if this has anything to do with anything, but I thought I'd throw it out there just in case someone sees something in it that explains a question.
From http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/ , Novemer 8th. show.
http://www.meru.org/
http://www.meetingtent.com/

This was said in an Intelligent Design debate by a man who does not believe in Creation nor I.T.
Stan Tenen:
"Homer Smith talked about the fact that when an egg is first fertilized, the only thing that dna does is get the cells to duplicate. It doesn't matter what enzymes, or chemical stew is in the eggsack, all the cells are identical, there is no gradient. It is not until the geometry of the eggsack, and the cells that are dividing, have to divide into 2 categories. Some are all inside and some are between the inside and the egg sack. There are different conditions, that the chemical stew in the egg sack effects what's happening in a different way, and effects different cells differently, because of the geometry; and then you get cell differentiation. And then you get invigoration, a turning inside out. That happens in all cases, and that's what's driving the whole systom. It's the geometry of space-time that is contributing to the evolution of life, of everything that happens that isn't a part of Natural Selection. It's intrinsic.

"This geometry ultimately comes back to the 2 primary God names given in the Abrahamic traditions: The 4 letter name which is translated "Lord" and miens "outer singularity", and the 5 letter name which is translated "God" which miens "all-inclusive wholeness". The contrast between "outer singularity" and "all-inclusive wholeness", is that boundaries are everything; Mind and world.

"Just as we all know that the tones a flute can sound depend on the size and shape of the flute (the boundary conditions), what can sound in our world, in our space and in our consciousness, is dependant on what is logically derived from the boundary conditions we find our selves in: Outer singularity and all-inclusive wholeness.

"When it comes to biblical writings: the religious understanding come from the stories, stories function like the acorn, the vessel, they are essential. With out the acorn the germ of the Oak tree couldn't survive.

"Under the stories, at the letter level of the Hebrew text of, say, Genesis for example, there is a science of consciousness and of cosmology. It is an embryonic systom, an organic systom. The Rabbis' say that "the Torah is a 'tree of life' for all who grasp it". It has all of the properties of a living systom. And it's this living systom which informs everything ells. It's the intrinsic quality of the living systom.

"That's what's missing from Darwin.

"Is life a matter of chance?
No, it's a matter of choice. The first letter in the Hebrew texts, Bath, miening "house", establishes that choice. The Hebrew bible, it's self, starts off with geometry.
There are 900 translations of the first verse allone, depending on how you parse the letters and vowelise the text.
This is a reading of just the raw meaning of the letters.
These are the words, in the beginning, God created:
"The primary distinction between inside and outside initiates everything, by expressing a single choice, and all of it's internal and external reflections. The primary distinction between breathing out, and breathing in, frames a single choice among a plenum of all choices."

 

[Cloud9]

What a load of NON answers....you say NOTHING! This is the most interesting evasion...


Do you advocate the termination of any of these?

As I stated previously, it depends on the circumstances.

I'm not interested in any "lesson" by a self-appointed expert. Say what you think, or don't. You carry no water with me unless or until you demonstrate some level of reasonableness which, cannot be ascertained by your condescending evasiveness. Bring the facts....or blow!

Who said anything about a lesson or expertise? I am saying what I think, you just don't like the approach.

As I stated earlier, ".... I don't care for circular debates, I'd like to start by seeing you unequivocally state that miscarriages are in fact a natural abortion and happens naturally all the time."

This is a fact that otherwise reasonable people would readily agree with. I'm building my position based upon the 'facts' as you state.

There's little need for me to proceed any further if you refuse to acknowledge that miscarriage is in fact a natural abortion and happens in nature all the time. Reasonable people, whether pro-life or pro-choice, readily acknowledge the fact that miscarriage exists.

I noted that you'd like to derail the discussion to human v. animals or definitional debates on semantics instead of addressing the core issue.

I also noted that you didn't choose the terminology that you'd be most comfortable with, nor did you agree that miscarriage is a natural abortion.

There's little to fear, it's just a debate, just words on your computer screen.

So I'll reiterate, first, in order to continue, I'd like us to agree upon a singular fact - that miscarriages are naturally occuring abortions in nature.

Next, I'd like us to agree upon another fact - that in our normal experience as humans (or animals for those that prefer) we experience time as linear, and that linearity exists.

From these concepts of nature and time, I will build upon to explain my pro-choice philosophy.

Ultimately, the goal should be to reduce abortions and eventually eliminate all abortions, do you not agree? Isn't that what you'd like to see?