Quote :

"You can talk about Iraqis, but don't bring them into an answer to this question. I want a straightforward line before which a person can be killed with a clean conscience."

I GAVE YOU A CLEAR CUT LINE ALREADY. according to you, it's being in a Kosovar hospital during operation Allied Force.

HERES ANOTHER ONE: it's okay to kill a fetus when it's still attached to its host in the womb, when its host is responsible for it and makes all the decisions regarding it.

Quote :

"Didn't I specifically say, "Don't talk about Kosovo in your response?" Christ. Nothing but shit between the ears."

NO, you never specifically said anything about bringing Kosovars into because i looked at all of your posts, and guess what, you can't remember what you said. fucking moron.

i just want you to know that you are completely fine with killing Kosovars and Iraqis as long as NATO says so, but you are against killing an insentient, unsapient fetus. you know... i guess that makes sense.

Quote :

"But you implied it with regards to the senile, who lack the mental faculties to do something like consenting to suicide."

INFERENCE, STILL. if a person is still functioning mentally and can clearly show its capacity for comprehending the gravity of the situation, then yes, if they want to die, help them. BE HUMANE.

Quote :

"You also don't know the definition of genocide. More than one thing Saddam did counted. Even if it didn't, wars of aggression against your neighbors is in the same ballpark."

guess what, Iraqis /= Iraqi government. oh my god you are trolling. the civilians that were killed in iraq were not the soldiers and gov't officials that committed these acts of "genocide".

when have i ever defended Saddam? yeah never. so, who's got shit for brains? yeah, still you fuckface.

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2005 4:04:28 PM

I love it when people make nazi comments.

8/21/2005 4:07:07 PM

seriously

8/21/2005 4:07:53 PM

Too bad it's accurate. Your intellectual dishonesty is cute in a way, although wholly pathetic.

8/21/2005 4:13:58 PM

Baby killers. Woman whats to kill her baby - make her do it herself. It's Bullshit having the "doctor" do the murder.

8/21/2005 7:47:05 PM

Quote :

"The nazis referred to their genocide of the Jewish people as "the final solution" and referred to their gassing facilities as "showers." Slatin referred to his death camp gulags as "work camps." People who engage and support despotic means of death continuously rely on doubletalk and dishonesty to cover up their actions. These pro-aborts aren't any different."

Yes, you're right. Everyone who uses a euphemism is a Hitler or Stalin. When I say pro-choice what I really mean is: Every woman who gets pregnant will be forced to have an abortion, followed by ten more forced impregnations and abortions. After this the woman will be sent to Serbia for forced labor in a mine. At some random point after arriving in Serbia, she will be gassed. Also, I support the extermination of the Jews as well as a political and social purge of all who I arbitrarily decide are unfit to continue breathing my air.

Holy crap, have you ever looked in the dictionary? Turns out, it's full of words with <gasp> multiple meanings. You have to use <gasp> context to figure out how the word is being used. That way you don't get confused and perform surgery on a computer when it asks you if you want to abort.

Quote :

"You can have choice without action."

The dictionary defines the verb choose as:

Quote :

"To select from a number of possible alternatives; decide on and pick out."

Pro-life is about restricting choice; you desire to remove the possible alternative of abortion.

Quote :

"Measurement of age is a social construct. For example, I am 25 years old, according to the definitions that society has set up in which a "year" equals 365 days. Now, assume that I lived in a society that, for the purposes of having everything be nice round numbers, said "a year is equal to 1,000 days." I would not be 25 years old, I would only be 9 years old."

All you've done is change the units that time is measured in. It's still the interval from birth to the present.

Quote :

"the only question of consequence in the abortion debate is whether the child is a life."

When does life begin? I don't know--there is no formal definition for the beginning of life. I do know that the begining of life is different things to different people. If you believe that life begins at conception, then don't have an abortion. If you believe that life begins at birth, then have an abortion.

What makes me pro-choice is that I believe that the people involved are best able to make the correct decision for themselves. I don't presume to have the knowledge to make others' decisions for them.

[Edited on August 21, 2005 at 8:25 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2005 8:23:10 PM

Quote :

"You mean to get rid of the choice, by attempting to make the act illegal."

Go back and re-read about Professor O'Smelley. You need to get your head around the concept of choice versus action - it is not even that difficult of a concept. Choice is mental, action is physical. Choice is a mental thought, action is the physical manifestation of that thought. This is not a hard concept at all - what do you still not get about it?

Quote :

"So that means that right now, since it's not illegal to have an abortion, you're all for having people choose to have abortions?"

Go back and re-read. Is my line of argumentation in the vein of providing a synopsis of the law as it exists now? Or is my line of argumentation more in the vein of disproving the non-arguments of opponents of changing the law?

Quote :

"No, it didn't. It was just a stupid statement. Because on the other hand, what does "life" mean? You're going to be hard pressed to say someone isn't pro-life if you interpret life to mean "being alive"."

Isn't that what I have been saying all along, that this very question is the only question that is to be addressed in the abortion debate? I have not begun to answer that question yet, all I have intended to do to this point is show how that is the one and only question that is relevant to the abortion debate and thus all other questions are irrelevant non-arguments.

Think of it in two stages - you first reach the question, then you answer it. The major part of the abortion debate is at the first stage - that is, getting rid of all these other "my body" and privacy and choice non-arguments and getting down to the one and only question that matters.

8/21/2005 8:27:47 PM

Quote :

"Yes, you're right. Everyone who uses a euphemism is a Hitler or Stalin. When I say pro-choice what I really mean is: Every woman who gets pregnant will be forced to have an abortion, followed by ten more forced impregnations and abortions. After this the woman will be sent to Serbia for forced labor in a mine. At some random point after arriving in Serbia, she will be gassed. Also, I support the extermination of the Jews as well as a political and social purge of all who I arbitrarily decide are unfit to continue breathing my air."

What in the world are you talking about, you are not making any sense. Are you unfamiliar with the use of historical allegory? You are certainly familiar with a number of fallacies related to that means of argumentation, for you have displayed them. But displaying fallacies does not seem to be a wise thing to do, unless you are trying to disprove them.

Quote :

"Holy crap, have you ever looked in the dictionary? Turns out, it's full of words with <gasp> multiple meanings. You have to use <gasp> context to figure out how the word is being used. That way you don't get confused and perform surgery on a computer when it asks you if you want to abort."

But to use those meanings in a way that is designed to cover up your true intentions is dishonesty. Just like I would be dishonest if I proposed a bill to finance "fight homelessness" but what I really mean is build prisons. There is no doubt that such a phrasing on my part is accurate - by taking people from the street and putting them into prison they are no longer homeless (at least temporarily). But there is also no doubt that I am using the terminology in an intellectually dishonest way, to put up a smoke screen.

Quote :

"Pro-life is about restricting choice; you desire to remove the possible alternative of abortion."

No, abortion is still a possible alternative. Just that you will be punished if you do it. The law never takes away choice - someone can choose to rob a bank or beat up Professor O'Smelley or what not, it's just that the law attaches consequences to that action.

Quote :

"All you've done is change the units that time is measured in. It's still the interval from birth to the present."

Again you have missed the point. The whole idea of measuring age is a social construct. If I measured my age from the time I was born versus the time I was conceived, there would be nothing scientifically different about me. The fallacy you have fallen into here is failing to see the illustration as an illustration but rather as a factual comparison.

Quote :

"When does life begin? I don't know--there is no formal definition for the beginning of life. I do know that the begining of life is different things to different people."

"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in this context. However the rest of your statement is not correct. The beginning of life is an objective matter, and objective matters are not relative to the person. For example, say there are two people in my room. Now, in kind of a weird bout of existentialism, one of them turns to the other and says "There is a roof above our heads" and the other says "No, there might be a roof to you, but there is not a roof to me." The roof is the same for both, it does not depend upon the person. The fallacy you have fallen into here is relativism. It's like me saying "The earth is round" and you saying "No, the earth might be round for you, but it's not round for me." The earth is round as an objective matter and it does not give a damn what you or I think about it.

I think that even basic biology texts provide the objective criteria for the beginning of life. I think it is a scientific matter.

Quote :

"If you believe that life begins at conception, then don't have an abortion. If you believe that life begins at birth, then have an abortion."

The fallacy you have fallen into here is the fallacy of relativism imported into a context of law, where the fallacy becomes even more glaring. Consider a Ku Klux Klansman who goes out and murders a black man. He is arrested and charged, and his defense is "I don't believe it is a human being." Would that be an acceptable defense? Under your line of argumentation yes, because he did not believe that what he killed was alive and since life is relative, he cannot be held accountable. But that is not the way the legal system, or any society for that matter, works. It is an objective matter, scientifically speaking, that the black person he killed was a human being. So it doesn't make any difference what the defendant thought - the law manifests the objective truth declared by science, that the victim was a human being and thus the defense of "I don't believe it was a human being" is void.

Quote :

"What makes me pro-choice is that I believe that the people involved are best able to make the correct decision for themselves. I don't presume to have the knowledge to make others' decisions for them."

You made a great deal of assumptions here. First, you have assumed that the unborn baby is not a life. As I will get to in a moment, that assumption is inconsistent with what you have said in the past. You assume that abortion is her decision to make - but if that were true, then going by your line of argumentatino you would not allow any criminal law whatsoever. Let's say I choose to rob a bank. Should that action be legal? If not, then you are making my decision for me! It's my decision to make whether I want to rob the bank or not, and if you attach criminal consequences to the act of bank robbery then you are trying to make my decision for me! Isn't it my decision?

Which gets back to your first assumption, you assume that the unborn baby is not a life. Take the "Daddy can I kill this" illustration again. If the "this" in question is a spider, then the appropriate response would be "Sure, kill it if you want, it's your decision." IF, however, the "this' in question is a neighbor's kid, then "Sure, kill it if you want, it's your decision" is not an appropriate response. So you have assumed that the "this' in question here is not a human life.

But I submit that this is an assumption inconsistent with what you have said earlier. You said that you do not know when life begins. Assuming that is true, and accepting "I don't know" as an ok answer for the time being, then I submit it is unreasonable to make the assumption that the child is not a life. Consider a situation in which I come in to my house one day and see my roommate fast asleep. He is not snoring, not moving a muscle, he is a VERY sound sleeper. By appearances, I can come to one of two conclusions. 1) He is sleeping, leave him alone, or 2) He is dead, call the funeral home and break out the embalming equipment. The latter would be an unreasonable conclusion, yes?

In other words, in cases where we don't know, we should err on the side of life. The only situation in which I would be justified in assuming that he is not alive is if I had objective knowledge, like by feeling his pulse or whatever, that he is not. In cases where there is the slightest ambiguity, it is not reasonable to err on teh side of death and assume that he is not alive. The only reasonable course of action is to err on the side of life and assume that he is alive, unless there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. So if, as you stated, you "don't know" whether the unborn child is a life or not, then the only philosophically reasonable course is to err on the side of life. But instead, you erred on the side of death and made the assumption that he is not alive - which is inconsistent with your statement of "I don't know".

8/21/2005 8:54:02 PM

Quote :

"it's okay to kill a fetus when it's still attached to its host in the womb, when its host is responsible for it and makes all the decisions regarding it."

Mom's still responsible for all decisions regarding it when it's a kid.

Quote :

"i just want you to know that you are completely fine with killing Kosovars and Iraqis as long as NATO says so"

No, I'm fine with killing someone to stop them killing other people.

Quote :

"the civilians that were killed in iraq were not the soldiers and gov't officials that committed these acts of "genocide"."

Which is precisely why we don't aim to blow up civilians, and in fact try very hard not to kill them.

8/22/2005 2:46:07 AM

Quote :

" No, I'm fine with killing someone to stop them killing other people. "

How does that extend to the significant civilian causalities?

8/22/2005 2:51:00 AM

When the possible innocents killed don't outnumber the innocents who would have been killed, or when the rate of their death is lower than it was under the target people, then their death is lamentable but, ultimately, acceptable.

If Crazy Dictator Man kills 1,000 of his own civilians every day, we come in to take him out, and in the process we kill 500 civilians a day, we're set. Of if Crazy Dictator Man is clearly going to do something that will kill 1,000 civilians and we stop him at the cost of fewer than that, then OK.

It bears repeating that the deaths are lamentable, so if there's a way for us in our operations to only kill 499, or 100, or none, obviously that route should be taken.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 3:01 AM. Reason : ]

8/22/2005 3:00:49 AM

That is precisely my stance on stem cell. Take into account the fertilized eggs sacrificed as compared to the amount of life that would be saved. And i'm not just talking about all the parapalegic, parkinson, blind, death, paralyzed people of today; i'm talking about the future babies that will be born doomed to these fates. Not only that take in account all the eggs wasted due to menustration and over filled egg donor clinics. Dont we deserve to give this cellular organisms a chance of meaning when they will enevably be recycled to the earth anyway. I consider it an honor.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 3:43 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 3:44 AM. Reason : .]

8/22/2005 3:41:09 AM

At the end of the day, unfertilized egg cells are fair game.

But as to fertilized ones, or just killing people to save others from disease...I'm not all about that.

8/22/2005 3:53:12 AM

Oh yeah, btw grumpygop if you are talking about Iraq you should know it is estimated to be 50,000 or more dead civilians
due to the war you consider lamentable

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 3:57 AM. Reason : .]

8/22/2005 3:54:26 AM

I know the estimates, and I know most of them aren't terribly reliable. That said, those numbers are still permissible to acheive the ends we're talking about, which is saving what I maintain would have been countless more lives later.

8/22/2005 3:57:52 AM

That is your logic, and frankly I think it's wrong. We could have sought diplomatic solution. We could have sought covert assasination with a favorable controllable ruler to take his place. We could have waited till we had a comfortable allegiance of nations. Thereby policing the chaotic aftermath with much more security. One doesn't understand the critical error in the invasion of Iraq was the uncontrolled looting after the regime was disinagrated.

8/22/2005 4:01:08 AM

Now we are in more danger of more 911's than ever before, why cant you see that

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 4:02 AM. Reason : la]

8/22/2005 4:01:38 AM

Quote :

"We could have sought diplomatic solution."

To what? The existence of a crazy dictator and his crazier sons? And how do you get rid of a leader of a country diplomatically, pretell?

Quote :

"We could have sought covert assasination with a favorable controllable ruler to take his place."

So you want us to

a) Violate US law
b) Violate international law in a fashion even more clear-cut than anything we've done in Iraq might be
c) Install a puppet dictatorship

And you think I'm an idiot/asshole?

Quote :

"We could have waited till we had a comfortable allegiance of nations."

Wouldn't have done a thing to limit civilian casualties. Who else would you want over there? The NATO bunch? A fat lot of good they've done protecting people in Kosovo, let me tell you. Russia? Ahahahahahaha.

Quote :

"Now we are is more danger of more 911's than ever before, why cant you see that"

wtf?

I need to stick to my guns when it comes to not arguing with people who can't speak the fucking English language.

We are not in substantially more danger than we were. The bad guys might be more numerous but their resources are more limited. Al Qaeda might be swelling with new members who are more pissed off than ever, but at the end of the day if they can't so much as spend two nights in the same cave without getting blown to kingdom come, they can't do shit.

Yes, they're still planning and carrying out attacks. They were doing that already, if it had escaped your notice. The only two ways to get in less danger are either:

1) Kill all the terrorists, or
2) Give them literally everything they ask for.

8/22/2005 4:08:29 AM

First off I never called you and idiot/asshole, you make that very clear yourself.
You wanna know how to be diplomatic. Its called you scratch my back I scratch yours. You stop killing people and we can be friends. You think such an idea is weak and ridiculous, I think its the first step of starting an understanding between nation. Declaring to the world this guy has 3 or how many days to leave bagdad is not a good representation of civility. You find it ok to kill civilians defending there homeland from occupiers that start pre-emptive war, yet you find covert action in the interest of the US a criminal act? Thats must be why we haven't caught bin laden. We got too many guys in Washington who think with their ass. You believe a construtive invading force would not have help anymore then what we did. You dont think extra troops from France, Germany, Russia would not have saved anymore lives. You think Al Qaeda is hiding in some cave clutching each other in fear. Dont you even feel that the further ideological support and underground spreading of Al Qaeda means something. My friend i'm here to tell you it is a detramental blow to the war on terror. One thing that is certain terrorist are patient, and if you think you are safe i pity you.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 4:24 AM. Reason : spelling all fucked up, but you get my drift]

8/22/2005 4:22:28 AM

Quote :

"1) Kill all the terrorists, or 2) Give them literally everything they ask for."

If that is the limits to your intelligence then you need to find something else to debate. There are more ways to get rid of a fox then burn the whole forest or feed it till it's full. This country has not used the cia to the best of its ability. Navy seals have infact complained about not enough action and some have took up being hired mercenaries for other countries. Thats a fact. If you could truly talk to any officer in the war i'm sure you get a response contradicting all of bush's statements. The only way in my opion to fight terror is with terror. You infiltrate and sabotage, and when they come out into the open you take them out. I'm not an expert on military operation but I can tell you there's more to it then fighting off afghani mountain men and iraqi insurgents. It takes planning which is something President Bush OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T DO

8/22/2005 4:37:44 AM

I think this thread is funny because Grumpy called Noen a hippy.

8/22/2005 7:01:07 AM

hey isn't this about abortion?

8/22/2005 7:42:20 AM

this will steer things back

8/22/2005 10:05:45 AM

Yes, it is all in the woman's hands. However, I retain my ability to kick pregnant women in the stomach.

8/22/2005 2:42:56 PM

Where did the photos go? Every woman should see exactly how it goes down.

8/22/2005 2:56:24 PM

If I posted photos of open heart surgery you'd be just as disgusted.

8/22/2005 2:57:58 PM

Open heart surgery is not the same as murdering a baby. Hate to tell ya.

8/22/2005 3:01:44 PM

Murdering a baby is not the same as abortion. Hate to tell ya.

Rinse and fucking repeat.

8/22/2005 3:03:07 PM

Quote :

"First off I never called you and idiot/asshole, you make that very clear yourself. "

Ooooooh, burn.

Quote :

"You wanna know how to be diplomatic. Its called you scratch my back I scratch yours. You stop killing people and we can be friends. You think such an idea is weak and ridiculous, I think its the first step of starting an understanding between nation."

I don't think it's "weak" in the sense of not displaying our resolve, I think it's "weak" in the sense of not accomplishing anything. It was clear to the world that if Saddam stopped doing the bad things that he did, we would be cool, even if he did remain in power as a dictator. And what's the flipside to your "you stop killing and we are friends" coin? What do you say will happen if he doesn't stop killing people?

Quote :

"Declaring to the world this guy has 3 or how many days to leave bagdad is not a good representation of civility."

Compared to the alternative (not giving him a three day chance and just rolling on him unannounced), it's pretty damn civil.

Quote :

"You find it ok to kill civilians defending there homeland from occupiers that start pre-emptive war, yet you find covert action in the interest of the US a criminal act?"

This has nothing to do with what I think and everything to do with what the law says, which is that you don't assassinate world leaders.

Quote :

"You find it ok to kill civilians defending there homeland from occupiers that start pre-emptive war, yet you find covert action in the interest of the US a criminal act?"

Not enough to spend months dicking around asking for help that we would almost certainly never have gotten. How would you have made France and Germany and Russia support a military endeavor to which they were adamantly opposed? Having their troops would allow us to kill insurgents faster and keep our already worrisome stranglehold on the country stronger. It's not like adding troops to the equation leaves fewer dead on the other side.

Quote :

"Dont you even feel that the further ideological support and underground spreading of Al Qaeda means something."

It means something, just not something worth getting all hot and bothered about. Besides, if we manage to establish a couple of passable democracies over there and get out in a timely fashion, it'll take the wind out of their sails.

Quote :

"This country has not used the cia to the best of its ability."

The CIA's track record is not exactly reassuring. How many governments have they tried to set up only to fail miserably? How many times have they tried to kill Castro only to fail miserably? They can't kill a very public old man over the course of half a century and you think they're gonna decapitate Iraq and Afghanistan quietly and cleanly?

Quote :

"You infiltrate and sabotage, and when they come out into the open you take them out."

This would seem to fall into the "kill all the terrorists" category. Notice that I didn't say, "Invade all the countries and bomb shit," I said, "Kill all the terrorists," which leaves a lot of wiggle room.

Quote :

"I'm not an expert on military operation "

Trust me, we could tell.

8/22/2005 3:04:02 PM

Quote :

"Murdering a baby is not the same as abortion. Hate to tell ya. "

How not? Science or philosophy supporting your position, please?

8/22/2005 4:05:02 PM

Yes - explain how jamming a needle into something with a heartbeat is "different".

8/22/2005 6:30:41 PM

id reply but this argument has already been done too many times

i might cut and paste my paper on men's rights again

8/22/2005 6:37:45 PM

Quote :

"Mom's still responsible for all decisions regarding it when it's a kid."

the child is no longer physically apart of the mother. it's connection is severed and it is an independent creature which is sustained by the mother's actions to feed the child, not the secondary effect of the mother ingesting food herself. it is a separate being in it's own right.

Quote :

"Yes - explain how jamming a needle into something with a heartbeat is "different"."

i had to get a tetanus shot the other month and i don't consider myself being murdered.

8/22/2005 6:43:15 PM

I'd love to see that actually, PM it to me.

But as far as responding to the question - you would not have posted if you were not interested in debating. So the reason is not that you are not interested in debating, otherwise you would have not even bothered to post. So the reason you are not answering the question must be that you are unable to. Is that a fair strand of logic?

Quote :

"the child is no longer physically apart of the mother. it's connection is severed and it is an independent creature which is sustained by the mother's actions to feed the child, not the secondary effect of the mother ingesting food herself. it is a separate being in it's own right."

And when he is in the womb he is a separate being too. Scientifically speaking, he is completely unique from the mother. He has completely separate DNA, blood type, et cetera. He is as much sustained by the mother's actions in feeding the child as he is when outside the womb - she just feeds him in a different way. Still, there is nothing innately different about the child in either case. So what is the scientific reasoning behind your position?

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 6:46 PM. Reason : add]

8/22/2005 6:43:26 PM

no

you're a goddamned troll.

8/22/2005 6:44:16 PM

Quote :

"I'd love to see that actually, PM it to me. But as far as responding to the question - you would not have posted if you were not interested in debating. So the reason is not that you are not interested in debating, otherwise you would have not even bothered to post."

id actually really enjoy debating this issue because im still not sure how i fall on the issue and debating is my favorite way for learning more about an issue. however i debated this for the better part of a semester in a phi class so i could take 10 or 15 minutes writing but after that work i would just be saying something that has already been said on this forum many many times

i'll find the paper

8/22/2005 6:51:39 PM

^^ Ah, so in the face of scientific reasoning opposing your position, you resort to name calling. Now, why would you do this? There can only be one of two explanations.. either 1) you do not truly know the reasoning behind your position (for if you did you would certainly explain it instead of resorting to name calling), or 2) you know that there IS no reasoning behind your position (for if there were you would certainly explain it rather than resort to name calling). Either way is not really good for you.

^ But is it not true that only by going over the issues and questioning the other side and making the other side prove its position can the discussion be furthered toward a conclusion? The fact that we are still discussing the issue seems to suggest that the previous times it has been gone over here have not been fruitful - why not try again?

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 6:53 PM. Reason : add]

8/22/2005 6:52:08 PM

or 3, you're a troll that runs around and instigates people, and i just called you out on it.

all you're doing is egging people on NOT so you can have a discussion, but rather SO you can go on and on and on about what you think is right and wrong.

8/22/2005 6:56:21 PM

Quote :

"^ But is it not true that only by going over the issues and questioning the other side and making the other side prove its position can the discussion be furthered toward a conclusion?"

yes

Quote :

" The fact that we are still discussing the issue seems to suggest that the previous times it has been gone over here have not been fruitful - why not try again?"

because its just the same arguments, there have been no new insight on this issue
also most of the people still arguing are set on there opinion and arent going to change

8/22/2005 6:56:59 PM

I was set in my opinion on abortion and I changed it. Admittedly it was not really as a result of this forum, but it was a result of thinking carefully about the very same issues we discuss in this forum. The only way there can be new insight is if we keep the discussion always before us and keep thinking about it.

8/22/2005 6:59:42 PM

well i bttt'd the thread where i posted the draft of my paper

8/22/2005 7:00:09 PM

Quote :

"^^ Ah, so in the face of scientific reasoning opposing your position, you resort to name calling"

don't be stupid.
my post :8/22/2005 6:44:16 PM;
your post [Edited on August 22, 2005 at 6:46 PM. Reason : add]

now how is that possible?

Quote :

"And when he is in the womb he is a separate being too. Scientifically speaking, he is completely unique from the mother. He has completely separate DNA, blood type, et cetera. He is as much sustained by the mother's actions in feeding the child as he is when outside the womb - she just feeds him in a different way. Still, there is nothing innately different about the child in either case. So what is the scientific reasoning behind your position?"

for one, he is physically attached to his host, through the placenta (im sure you know). Secondly, the mother processes the food for the fetus directly.

a child is capable of being fed from the mother's breast, but also capable of being nourished without breast milk, ie apart from the mother.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 7:07 PM. Reason : add (its fun)]

8/22/2005 7:02:59 PM

And my question is, so what? How you receive food does not determine whether you are a human being or not. Some people receive food intravenously; they are not more or less human than you or I.

And the things that you are capable of do not make you a human being or not either. I am capable of doing things that you cannot, and I presume that you are capable of doing things that I cannot. Yet we are still human beings. I am not asking about what the baby can do - I am asking what the baby is. As I see it there is only one thing that determines scientifically what the baby is. Here's a hint - it also determines what you and I are.

8/22/2005 7:16:06 PM

a fetus has neither sentience nor sapience.

8/22/2005 7:18:23 PM

cue volinist anology
cue giant baby in small room analogy
cue open window analogy

8/22/2005 7:20:17 PM

Quote :

"Yes - explain how jamming a needle into something with a heartbeat is "different". "

What about if it doesn't have a heartbeat? What if its taking a pill...?

8/22/2005 7:22:10 PM

Quote :

"a fetus has neither sentience nor sapience."

Again, you're not addressing the issue. You are talking about things that he has, I am talking about what he is. You are talking about various traits that he has or things he can do - I am interested in what he is, not what he has or can do.

8/22/2005 7:26:28 PM

so chuck, what do you say to people who abort fetuses who have developed without a head or a vital organ? Are you against that because they are somehow "alive?"

8/22/2005 7:29:29 PM

Interesting question - I have never had occasion to think about that issue before. What you are basically asking is about whether a child should be killed because he is disabled, is that correct?

8/22/2005 7:52:57 PM

IF the leg shavers just followed my plan:

ry469

problem solved - everybody wins.

8/22/2005 8:13:59 PM