Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on October 21, 2008, 12:28:50 PM
-
Haven't heard much about the "Catholic vote" this election.
Texas Catholic Bishops Make It Clear: Abortion The Number One Election Issue
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 14, 2008
Dallas, TX (LifeNews.com) -- Two Catholic bishops in Texas have released what pro-life advocates there are saying is one of the most direct statements about the upcoming elections. The bishop make it clear that voters should make abortion the number one issue in the elections because it has destroyed and injured tens of millions of lives.
Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell and Fort Worth Bishop Kevin Vann issued a joint statement to "provide clear guidance on the proper formation of conscience concerning voting as faithful Catholics and to articulate."
They hope to clear up some of the misconception surrounding the Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship that backers of pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama have used to justify voting for him.
"Not all issues have the same moral equivalence," the bishops state -- singling out abortion and destructive practices like euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research. “We cannot make more clear the seriousness of the overriding issue of abortion – while not the 'only issue' – it is the defining moral issue, not only today, but of the last 35 years.”
The bishops call those practices "intrinsic evils" and say, "They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned."
While some pro-life advocates who back Obama cite other political issues or claim that Obama will somehow reduce abortions despite opposing every law that limits abortions, the bishops say otherwise.
"It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop," they write.
"There are no ‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year," they write to rebuke those who find such reasons to support Obama.
“To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or ‘abortion rights’ when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible," they added.
The bishops conclude: "As Catholics, we must treat our political choices with appropriate moral gravity and in doing so, realize our continuing and unavoidable obligation to be a voice for the voiceless unborn, whose destruction by legal abortion is the preeminent intrinsic evil of our day."
"With knowledge of the Church's teaching on these grave matters, it is incumbent upon each of us as Catholics to educate ourselves on where the candidates running for office stand on these issues, particularly those involving intrinsic evils."
-
maybe for him but not for most people
-
War in Iraq,
Erosion of our Freedom,
Economy,
Yep Abortion should be the number one issue... haha
-
Haven't heard much about the "Catholic vote" this election.
55 percent to 35 percent for Obama...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008289848_opin21dionne.html?syndication=rss
-
55 percent to 35 percent for Obama...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008289848_opin21dionne.html?syndication=rss
From another portion of the link:
"Washington Post surveys over the same period have found more modest Catholic gains for Obama. A Post tracking poll released Monday showed Obama and McCain splitting the Catholic vote at 48 percent each. Obama's Catholic share probably stands somewhere between the Pew and Post numbers. But even a split among Catholics could mark a sufficient improvement over Kerry's performance to tip key states the Democrat's way."
-
Haven't heard much about the "Catholic vote" this election.
Texas Catholic Bishops Make It Clear: Abortion The Number One Election Issue
does fvcking little boys make the top 10 ?
NT
-
From another portion of the link:
"Washington Post surveys over the same period have found more modest Catholic gains for Obama. A Post tracking poll released Monday showed Obama and McCain splitting the Catholic vote at 48 percent each. Obama's Catholic share probably stands somewhere between the Pew and Post numbers. But even a split among Catholics could mark a sufficient improvement over Kerry's performance to tip key states the Democrat's way."
didn't see that.
-
Abortion is a non-issue.
Sort of like gay marriage. It's a waste of time to debate it.
The only issue concerning abortion is WHERE we should draw the line on how late into the pregnancy women can have abortions. Anytime before the 2nd trimester seems fine to me, unless the woman's life is at risk.
There is no such thing as a soul and nothing but a cell begins at conception.
-
Abortion is a non-issue.
Sort of like gay marriage. It's a waste of time to debate it.
The only issue concerning abortion is WHERE we should draw the line on how late into the pregnancy women can have abortions. Anytime before the 2nd trimester seems fine to me, unless the woman's life is at risk.
There is no such thing as a soul and nothing but a cell begins at conception.
Is it a non-issue or do we need to draw lines? Which is it?
Also, abortion is the biggest issue that isn't discussed in the campaign. It is the single most important issue when it comes to supreme court appointments. For those who are pro life, and there are millions, few things are more important. It's equally as important to millions of pro choice voters.
-
Is it a non-issue or do we need to draw lines? Which is it?
Also, abortion is the biggest issue that isn't discussed in the campaign. It is the single most important issue when it comes to supreme court appointments. For those who are pro life, and there are millions, few things are more important. It's equally as important to millions of pro choice voters.
I think it is completely a non-issue.
Just leave it the way it is... You don't want a kid?
Get rid of it.
Too many other issues that really matter.
-
Is it a non-issue or do we need to draw lines? Which is it?
Also, abortion is the biggest issue that isn't discussed in the campaign. It is the single most important issue when it comes to supreme court appointments. For those who are pro life, and there are millions, few things are more important. It's equally as important to millions of pro choice voters.
Whether or not to abolish abortion in general is a non-issue. People tend to poison the debate with religious nonsense and make it impossible to have a rational discussion about where to draw lines when it comes to abortion.
There are a lot of valid reasons to prohibit abortion late in the 3rd trimester.....The baby having a soul is NOT one of them.
There is no reason to prohibit abortion early in the 1st trimester.
I'm also pro-life. I just know that prohibiting abortion in the 1st trimester is ignorant.
-
Bum -where does abortion rank on your list of issues? I assume taxes are first on the list so what comes second, third, etc..
-
I think it is completely a non-issue.
Just leave it the way it is... You don't want a kid?
Get rid of it.
Too many other issues that really matter.
What about the people who believe life begins in the womb? It can't be a non-issue to those folks.
-
Whether or not to abolish abortion in general is a non-issue. People tend to poison the debate with religious nonsense and make it impossible to have a rational discussion about where to draw lines when it comes to abortion.
There are a lot of valid reasons to prohibit abortion late in the 3rd trimester.....The baby having a soul is NOT one of them.
There is no reason to prohibit abortion early in the 1st trimester.
I'm also pro-life. I just know that prohibiting abortion in the 1st trimester is ignorant.
You can't rationally discuss religion? You should check out the religion board. There are rational discussions all the time. (Some irrational ones too. :))
What are the valid reasons to prohibit a third trimester abortion, but not a first or second trimester abortion?
What is ignorant about prohibiting a first trimester abortion?
-
What about the people who believe life begins in the womb? It can't be a non-issue to those folks.
It's a play on words. "Life" begins in the womb and "life" begins at conception, but is this the life of a human being? It doesn't make sense to define a tiny fetus that can't think or feel as a human being.
There are plenty of non-human beings that can think and can feel which are being abused and experience cruelty daily including countless animals. Why can't the people who care so much about fetuses that can't think or feel start caring about animals that can think and can feel?
They can stop acting like crazies in the street telling me that abortion is murder and can instead adopt a cat or a dog from their local pound!!!
-
What about the people who believe life begins in the womb? It can't be a non-issue to those folks.
Those people need to worry more about things that affect THEM.
See, if someone has an abortion and it's not YOUR pregnancy... then it's none of your business.
If you believe that life begins in YOUR womb, then don't have an abortion... I won't have anything bad to say about it.
-
It's a play on words. "Life" begins in the womb and "life" begins at conception, but is this the life of a human being? It doesn't make sense to define a tiny fetus that can't think or feel as a human being.
There are plenty of non-human beings that can think and can feel which are being abused and experience cruelty daily including countless animals. Why can't the people who care so much about fetuses that can't think or feel start caring about animals that can think and can feel?
They can stop acting like crazies in the street telling me that abortion is murder and can instead adopt a cat or a dog from their local pound!!!
A play on words? I don't see it that way. It's not difficult to determine that a baby in the womb is actually a person. And for those pro life people who believe life begins at conception, that the unborn baby should be afforded the same rights as a baby that comes through the womb (or abs if it's a c-section), and that abortion is murder, it's a huge issue.
I really don't see a relationship between animal cruelty and abortion. It's certainly possible for a person to care about an unborn child and abused animals. Not adopting an animal doesn’t say anything about a person’s views on abortion.
I adopted two cats from the Humane Society and I have lived to regret it. But that's a subject for the pet board. :-\
-
Those people need to worry more about things that affect THEM.
See, if someone has an abortion and it's not YOUR pregnancy... then it's none of your business.
If you believe that life begins in YOUR womb, then don't have an abortion... I won't have anything bad to say about it.
Do you have the same opinion about a person accused of a crime punishable by the death penalty? How about people who are mentally disabled and cannot care for themselves? We shouldn't worry about them either? That's sort of how I see the pro life argument. We do "worry" about those who cannot protect themselves.
But it's a very difficult issue. Impossible to completely segregate the unborn baby from the woman's bodily integrity.
-
Do you have the same opinion about a person accused of a crime punishable by the death penalty? How about people who are mentally disabled and cannot care for themselves? We shouldn't worry about them either? That's sort of how I see the pro life argument. We do "worry" about those who cannot protect themselves.
But it's a very difficult issue. Impossible to completely segregate the unborn baby from the woman's bodily integrity.
Bum, are you willing to admit that your stance as pro-life-above-all comes from being a christian?
-
Do you have the same opinion about a person accused of a crime punishable by the death penalty? How about people who are mentally disabled and cannot care for themselves? We shouldn't worry about them either? That's sort of how I see the pro life argument. We do "worry" about those who cannot protect themselves.
But it's a very difficult issue. Impossible to completely segregate the unborn baby from the woman's bodily integrity.
I don't see it that way... Are you a Healthcare for all advocate?
If not, then why are you worried about babies being born to those who can't afford healthcare for them... or perhaps those who don't want them?
It's a statistical fact, that those who are born to parents who do not want, or are unable to take care of them, will have a much higher chance of becoming criminals.
I personally, attribute the lower crime rates of today verses the late 80s to the fact that those aborted fetuses didn't grow up to become criminals.
There's a direct 30 year correlation between Roe v. Wade and the crime drop in the 90s.
-
Bum, are you willing to admit that your stance as pro-life-above-all comes from being a christian?
lol. :)
-
I don't see it that way... Are you a Healthcare for all advocate?
If not, then why are you worried about babies being born to those who can't afford healthcare for them... or perhaps those who don't want them?
It's a statistical fact, that those who are born to parents who do not want, or are unable to take care of them, will have a much higher chance of becoming criminals.
I personally, attribute the lower crime rates of today verses the late 80s to the fact that those aborted fetuses didn't grow up to become criminals.
There's a direct 30 year correlation between Roe v. Wade and the crime drop in the 90s.
If by “healthcare for all advocate” you mean socialized healthcare, then no I don't support that.
We're not talking about what I'm worried about. It's what people who place great emphasis on unborn babies are worried about.
I'd like to see the statistics showing a direct correlation between abortion and lower crime rates. I doubt it exists.
How about all of the aborted babies who could have done great things? How do we know the man or woman who could have found a cure for cancer was not aborted 30 years ago? In any event, I don't really think that's the issue.
-
If by “healthcare for all advocate” you mean socialized healthcare, then no I don't support that.
We're not talking about what I'm worried about. It's what people who place great emphasis on unborn babies are worried about.
I'd like to see the statistics showing a direct correlation between abortion and lower crime rates. I doubt it exists.
How about all of the aborted babies who could have done great things? How do we know the man or woman who could have found a cure for cancer was not aborted 30 years ago? In any event, I don't really think that's the issue.
Haha, the man or woman who could have found the cure for cancer might have just died in Iraq. Grown up people with feelings, families and a potential productive role in society are murdering each other for a bullshit cause. But I guess it's much more important to step into other people's private life and tell them if they shall keep a unconscious underdeveloped fetus or not.
You need to set your priorities straight.
-
lol. :)
Do believe that a just conceived 10 cell organism has a soul then?
-
Do believe that a just conceived 10 cell organism has a soul then?
What on earth are you talking about?
-
What on earth are you talking about?
Sorry, mistook you for a pro-life nut. My bad.
-
A play on words? I don't see it that way. It's not difficult to determine that a baby in the womb is actually a person. And for those pro life people who believe life begins at conception, that the unborn baby should be afforded the same rights as a baby that comes through the womb (or abs if it's a c-section), and that abortion is murder, it's a huge issue.
I really don't see a relationship between animal cruelty and abortion. It's certainly possible for a person to care about an unborn child and abused animals. Not adopting an animal doesn’t say anything about a person’s views on abortion.
I adopted two cats from the Humane Society and I have lived to regret it. But that's a subject for the pet board. :-\
I'm saying that the definition of "human life" is not concrete. EVEN if a fetus is a "human life", does this mean that it is wrong to abort it because it is a human life? This is a play on words. You define something in a term which people consider valuable and then defend it based on that definition.
Example:
Life is valuable.
Streptococcal pharyngitis are living organisms.
It's immoral to treat strep throat.
Human life is valuable.
Fetus' are human lives.
It's immoral to abort a fetus.
-
This "issue" is so simple
If you're against abortion then don't get one
problem solved
Too bad we can't find such a simple answer to the economic problems
-
Sorry, mistook you for a pro-life nut. My bad.
No problem, but I don't believe people who are pro life are nuts.
-
I'm saying that the definition of "human life" is not concrete. EVEN if a fetus is a "human life", does this mean that it is wrong to abort it because it is a human life? This is a play on words. You define something in a term which people consider valuable and then defend it based on that definition.
Example:
Life is valuable.
Streptococcal pharyngitis are living organisms.
It's immoral to treat strep throat.
Human life is valuable.
Fetus' are human lives.
It's immoral to abort a fetus.
Do you have kids? Ever gone through pregnancy with your wife? It really does bring home the fact that an unborn baby is a baby IMO. Seeing a life develop in the womb is an amazing thing.
Not really a good comparison between babies and bacteria, viruses, etc. It's apples and oranges. I think a better comparison is a baby at 37 weeks in the womb versus a baby that is one hour old. There really isn't any difference. Still a completely helpless, dependent baby. The complicating factor is the baby being in the mother's womb. I doubt we ever see an acceptable political/legal solution to this.
And why did you say there is a difference between a third trimester abortion and a first or second trimester abortion?
-
Someday, a person will come up with a reasonable explanation why what's going on in some chicks cooter is any of my business. They will also have to come up with an explanation as to why very late term abortions in the Middle East are OK with God.
-
Do you have kids? Ever gone through pregnancy with your wife? It really does bring home the fact that an unborn baby is a baby IMO. Seeing a life develop in the womb is an amazing thing.
Not really a good comparison between babies and bacteria, viruses, etc. It's apples and oranges. I think a better comparison is a baby at 37 weeks in the womb versus a baby that is one hour old. There really isn't any difference. Still a completely helpless, dependent baby. The complicating factor is the baby being in the mother's womb. I doubt we ever see an acceptable political/legal solution to this.
And why did you say there is a difference between a third trimester abortion and a first or second trimester abortion?
By that logic you could almost stretch it to that jerking off kills millions of unborn babies. Or that a woman's period is murder because it wastes a egg for a potential baby.
I think you like the idea that a one hour old fetus is a baby because it is a POTENTIAL baby. Remember you still have to factor in miscarriage which happens by the odds of nature.
So it is a POTENTIAL baby because I can't really see the difference in a sperm cell/egg or a newly conceived organism with human dna consisting of a few cells. A sperm cell contains half the chromosomes for a baby!
You and billions of people have the ability to create potential babies right here, right now! Go impregnate a woman instead of jerking off! Think of all the potential babies you are killing if you're not!
-
As long as the fetus depends on its mothers bodily systems for life I think it should be her decision.
-
By that logic you could almost stretch it to that jerking off kills millions of unborn babies. Or that a woman's period is murder because it wastes a egg for a potential baby.
I think you like the idea that a one hour old fetus is a baby because it is a POTENTIAL baby. Remember you still have to factor in miscarriage which happens by the odds of nature.
So it is a POTENTIAL baby because I can't really see the difference in a sperm cell/egg or a newly conceived organism with human dna consisting of a few cells. A sperm cell contains half the chromosomes for a baby!
You and billions of people have the ability to create potential babies right here, right now! Go impregnate a woman instead of jerking off! Think of all the potential babies you are killing if you're not!
Absurd.
-
Absurd.
Awesome rebuttal I must say.
-
dude lovemonkey save your breath bro me and beach had this same arguement i almost the exact same way with different examples he doesnt get it. I like you beach i think your a good dude but your logic is flawed in this instance bro.
-
Awesome rebuttal I must say.
More than it deserved. :)
-
dude lovemonkey save your breath bro me and beach had this same arguement i almost the exact same way with different examples he doesnt get it. I like you beach i think your a good dude but your logic is flawed in this instance bro.
You'll have to refresh my memory. Link? I don't remember. If I did debate whether sperm was equivalent to a baby then I should smack myself. :)
Also, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they don't "get it." Sometimes that's true, sometimes they simply have a different opinion. And much of what is discussed on the board is a matter of opinion.
-
You'll have to refresh my memory. Link? I don't remember. If I did debate whether sperm was equivalent to a baby then I should smack myself. :)
Also, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they don't "get it." Sometimes that's true, sometimes they simply have a different opinion. And much of what is discussed on the board is a matter of opinion.
i dont have a link and it would take to long to dig it up, we argued about abortion/infantcide and what the difference between killing a human and a plant where in which you said b/c we can think. but the problem with that is that animals can think so to kill an animal is the same logically as killing a human. Which i then said you would have to qualify the phrase "think" with a cognitive ability minimum which would justify not killing humans but allowing the killing of other animals but that also open the door to killing humans with mental retardation or even babies as they dont have the same cognitive abilities as adults and if they dont meet the cut off then they are fare game.
-
You'll have to refresh my memory. Link? I don't remember. If I did debate whether sperm was equivalent to a baby then I should smack myself. :)
Also, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they don't "get it." Sometimes that's true, sometimes they simply have a different opinion. And much of what is discussed on the board is a matter of opinion.
Epic misreading my arguments. Never said a sperm was a baby, in fact I argued for the very opposite. Read again what I wrote and we could have a insightful discussion.
Alright, sperm is not a baby. Is the one cell organism that is the result of sperm and egg mixing, a baby? Or would you venture to say that the later stages of development of that one cell organism is a baby when it has developed an consciousness and ability to live? The traits most people consider to be the foundation of a human? Not just strings of DNA?
-
i dont have a link and it would take to long to dig it up, we argued about abortion/infantcide and what the difference between killing a human and a plant where in which you said b/c we can think. but the problem with that is that animals can think so to kill an animal is the same logically as killing a human. Which i then said you would have to qualify the phrase "think" with a cognitive ability minimum which would justify not killing humans but allowing the killing of other animals but that also open the door to killing humans with mental retardation or even babies as they dont have the same cognitive abilities as adults and if they dont meet the cut off then they are fare game.
O.K. I remember. Different subject. It was in the context of the guy who chairs an ethics department and believes in murdering the disabled, including babies. I do remember spending far too much time discussing the distinction between murdering a baby and stepping on an acorn. lol . . . You don't see a logical distinction between the two. I think there is a serious question about which one of us didn't get it. :D Not going to rehash that one.
-
Epic misreading my arguments. Never said a sperm was a baby, in fact I argued for the very opposite. Read again what I wrote and we could have a insightful discussion.
Alright, sperm is not a baby. Is the one cell organism that is the result of sperm and egg mixing, a baby? Or would you venture to say that the later stages of development of that one cell organism is a baby when it has developed an consciousness and ability to live? The traits most people consider to be the foundation of a human? Not just strings of DNA?
Quit making outlandish comments and we can have an insightful discussion. Extreme overstatements are often used by people who aren't smart enough to have a rational discussion. Not saying that applies to you.
I believe life begins at conception. I have heard others say life could begin when there is brain activity, which I think is at least a plausible argument. But in my view, the logical starting point is when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Most other attempts to determine when live begins are pretty arbitrary.
-
O.K. I remember. Different subject. It was in the context of the guy who chairs an ethics department and believes in murdering the disabled, including babies. I do remember spending far too much time discussing the distinction between murdering a baby and stepping on an acorn. lol . . . You don't see a logical distinction between the two. I think there is a serious question about which one of us didn't get it. :D Not going to rehash that one.
what would be the logical distinction?
-
Quit making outlandish comments and we can have an insightful discussion. Extreme overstatements are often used by people who aren't smart enough to have a rational discussion. Not saying that applies to you.
I believe life begins at conception. I have heard others say life could begin when there is brain activity, which I think is at least a plausible argument. But in my view, the logical starting point is when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Most other attempts to determine when live begins are pretty arbitrary.
Arguing with irony is the key here.
I dare to say that the idea of life at conception is a extreme overstatement. What exactly is it about that one cell organism that is anymore special than say, a cell in your body hair?
If you held that one cell organism in your hand, would it mean anything to you? Does it scream like a baby? Does it smile when played with?
No. It is again, the POTENTIAL it represents. The potential to become that wonderful child of yours.
If you can't separate between a one cell organism that exists at conception and a developed baby with feelings and ability to live you are surely passionate about bringing life to earth, but your logic is flawed.
And it is definitely not a strong enough logic to use trying to invade people's private business when dealing with abortions. Not saying that you are trying that, but many people with your argument are.
Therefore my ironic sperm argument. A sperm and an egg also represents potential in that sense. Not to mention the potential for making babies that basically all adult human beings have.
-
what would be the logical distinction?
let me move the discussion along a little bit
BB: b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant
Tony: that is an arbitratry distinction and makes no difference by that logic i could say its ok to kill dogs but not cats b/c one is a cat and one is a dog. There is no reasoning behind b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant.
BB: b/c humans can think
Tony: animals can think but you believe its wrong to kill certain animals dont you?
BB: of course not but humans think on a different level then animals
Tony: Ok so its cognitive ability?
BB: ya
Tony: well lets just say for shits sake that we will take the average cognitive ability of humans as the cut off point for congnitive ability b/c it affords us some reasoning for the number and isnt just an arbitrary number and still allows us to kill animals b/c they fall below this line but not ok to kill humans b/c they fall above the line but what about those humans that fall below the line? logically it would be ok to kill these ppl b/c by your standard the only difference between killing a human and a plant is the ability to think and the difference between killing a human and another animal is the amount of cognitive ability which these ppl fall below and thus making it ok to kill them.
Now explain the flawed logic there beach...lovemonkey please look over my logic for me and see if you agree or disagree please.
-
let me move the discussion along a little bit
BB: b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant
Tony: that is an arbitratry distinction and makes no difference by that logic i could say its ok to kill dogs but not cats b/c one is a cat and one is a dog. There is no reasoning behind b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant.
BB: b/c humans can think
Tony: animals can think but you believe its wrong to kill certain animals dont you?
BB: of course but humans think on a different level then animals
Tony: Ok so its cognitive ability?
BB: ya
Tony: well lets just say for shits sake that we will take the average cognitive ability of humans as the cut off point for congnitive ability b/c it affords us some reasoning for the number and isnt just an arbitrary number and still allows us to kill animals b/c they fall below this line but not ok to kill humans b/c they fall above the line but what about those humans that fall below the line? logically it would be ok to kill these ppl b/c by your standard the only difference between killing a human and a plant is the ability to think and the difference between killing a human and another animal is the amount of cognitive ability which these ppl fall below and thus making it ok to kill them.
Now explain the flawed logic there beach...lovemonkey please look over my logic for me and see if you agree or disagree please.
I certainly agree with your logic, although it gives the impression of being a moral trap. But maybe it's the flawed logic of Bum that makes this trap unavoidable.
-
By that logic you could almost stretch it to that jerking off kills millions of unborn babies. Or that a woman's period is murder because it wastes a egg for a potential baby.
I think you like the idea that a one hour old fetus is a baby because it is a POTENTIAL baby. Remember you still have to factor in miscarriage which happens by the odds of nature.
So it is a POTENTIAL baby because I can't really see the difference in a sperm cell/egg or a newly conceived organism with human dna consisting of a few cells. A sperm cell contains half the chromosomes for a baby!
You and billions of people have the ability to create potential babies right here, right now! Go impregnate a woman instead of jerking off! Think of all the potential babies you are killing if you're not!
This idea that sex is for only procreation is very much at the heart of this idea... Pro-Choice is an extension of that idea.
-
This idea that sex is for only procreation is very much at the heart of this idea... Pro-Choice is an extension of that idea.
interesting point holmes, are you saying though that pro lifers believe that sex is only for procreation and that pro choice believe that sex can just be for pleasure? or did i confuse that?
-
what would be the logical distinction?
Here is the link to our prior discussion. I really don't have anything to add. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=238266.25
-
Here is the link to our prior discussion. I really don't have anything to add. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=238266.25
let me move the discussion along a little bit
BB: b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant
Tony: that is an arbitratry distinction and makes no difference by that logic i could say its ok to kill dogs but not cats b/c one is a cat and one is a dog. There is no reasoning behind b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant.
BB: b/c humans can think
Tony: animals can think but you believe its wrong to kill certain animals dont you?
BB: of course not but humans think on a different level then animals
Tony: Ok so its cognitive ability?
BB: ya
Tony: well lets just say for shits sake that we will take the average cognitive ability of humans as the cut off point for congnitive ability b/c it affords us some reasoning for the number and isnt just an arbitrary number and still allows us to kill animals b/c they fall below this line but not ok to kill humans b/c they fall above the line but what about those humans that fall below the line? logically it would be ok to kill these ppl b/c by your standard the only difference between killing a human and a plant is the ability to think and the difference between killing a human and another animal is the amount of cognitive ability which these ppl fall below and thus making it ok to kill them.
Now explain the flawed logic there beach...lovemonkey please look over my logic for me and see if you agree or disagree please.
me either that pretty much sums it up
-
Arguing with irony is the key here.
I dare to say that the idea of life at conception is a extreme overstatement. What exactly is it about that one cell organism that is anymore special than say, a cell in your body hair?
If you held that one cell organism in your hand, would it mean anything to you? Does it scream like a baby? Does it smile when played with?
No. It is again, the POTENTIAL it represents. The potential to become that wonderful child of yours.
If you can't separate between a one cell organism that exists at conception and a developed baby with feelings and ability to live you are surely passionate about bringing life to earth, but your logic is flawed.
And it is definitely not a strong enough logic to use trying to invade people's private business when dealing with abortions. Not saying that you are trying that, but many people with your argument are.
Therefore my ironic sperm argument. A sperm and an egg also represents potential in that sense. Not to mention the potential for making babies that basically all adult human beings have.
What's the difference between a fertilized egg and a cell in my hair?? In matter of weeks, a fertilized egg results in a beating heart and a human body. For the life of a cell in a human hair, it's still a cell in a human hair.
When talking about conception, it's also important to keep in mind that most of the time women don't discover they are pregnant until at least week four. I'm not even sure pregnancy tests can detect pregnancy before about the third week? Cannot remember.
Gender is determined at conception. By the fourth week, the nervous system has developed and the heart and circulatory system have formed.
At what point to you think life begins?
-
What's the difference between a fertilized egg and a cell in my hair?? In matter of weeks, a fertilized egg results in a beating heart and a human body. For the life of a cell in a human hair, it's still a cell in a human hair.
When talking about conception, it's also important to keep in mind that most of the time women don't discover they are pregnant until at least week four. I'm not even sure pregnancy tests can detect pregnancy before about the third week? Cannot remember.
Gender is determined at conception. By the fourth week, the nervous system has developed and the heart and circulatory system have formed.
At what point to you think life begins?
what does that have to do with anything?
as far as the when i believe life begins again thats a tough question, most positions are arbitrary and have no logical basis. Like i said in the other thread death is defined as when electrical activity stops in the brain so i guess life could be defined as when it starts but again its a tough subject.
-
It's not our right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.
-
It's not our right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.
i agree but i also think that if the man wants an abortion and the women wont get it then they should only pay a portion of child support.
-
what does that have to do with anything?
as far as the when i believe life begins again thats a tough question, most positions are arbitrary and have no logical basis. Like i said in the other thread death is defined as when electrical activity stops in the brain so i guess life could be defined as when it starts but again its a tough subject.
If you're asking what my comments about the difference between things like a fertilized egg and a hair cell, I was responding to lovemonkey's comments.
If you're talking about my comments regarding when life begins, the development of a baby after conception is relevant to that determination.
-
If you're asking what my comments about the difference between things like a fertilized egg and a hair cell, I was responding to lovemonkey's comments.
If you're talking about my comments regarding when life begins, the development of a baby after conception is relevant to that determination.
ahhh ic sorry i thought the whole post was addressed to me...when does life begin for you beach and why?
-
i agree but i also think that if the man wants an abortion and the women wont get it then they should only pay a portion of child support.
I agree... It should not be whatever "she" wants.
-
interesting point holmes, are you saying though that pro lifers believe that sex is only for procreation and that pro choice believe that sex can just be for pleasure? or did i confuse that?
I'm not saying they "believe it", but I believe it is where the premise starts... Are there those that don't agree on both sides?
Yes.
However, I believe the "base" and "fundamental idea" of the pro-lifers are of the mindset that sex is not for pleasure... It is for procreation.
Once you've procreated, your body isn't yours, it's "God's" to do what he sees fit.
-
ahhh ic sorry i thought the whole post was addressed to me...when does life begin for you beach and why?
No biggie. You asked me this question in another thread and I'll give you the same answer:
Because I've read about how life begins and shared the pregnancy experience with my wife. I've seen life develop in the womb.
It's the logical starting point for me.
When do you believe life begins and why?
My view that life begins at conception has nothing to do with my religious views. Again, why do you keep bringing up religion?
Why do you assume I'm against the morning after pill?
A person is created when the sperm and egg unite. That's when sex is determined. That's when the baby starts developing. I'm not sure what else to tell you. I could see an argument for saying life begins when the heart starts beating, but that happens a few weeks after conception anyway. I learned this stuff in biology class many moons ago. I read this again when I was going through child birth classes with my wife.
I don't think there is anything I read (religious or secular) that told me life begins at conception. It's a conclusion I reached on my own for all of the reasons I've given.
-
Do you have kids? Ever gone through pregnancy with your wife? It really does bring home the fact that an unborn baby is a baby IMO. Seeing a life develop in the womb is an amazing thing.
Not really a good comparison between babies and bacteria, viruses, etc. It's apples and oranges. I think a better comparison is a baby at 37 weeks in the womb versus a baby that is one hour old. There really isn't any difference. Still a completely helpless, dependent baby. The complicating factor is the baby being in the mother's womb. I doubt we ever see an acceptable political/legal solution to this.
And why did you say there is a difference between a third trimester abortion and a first or second trimester abortion?
I'm not comparing babies and bacteria.
But you need to stop confusing babies with non-babies. A Baby is an organism that can live independent from the mother (meaning outside).
A Zygote is not a baby.
An Embryo is not a baby.
A Fetus is only a baby later in the pregnancy.
Using emotionally loaded words doesn't work. Zygotes and Embryos are "body parts", not separate living humans.
I oppose abortion in the third trimester, unless the mothers life is threatened. But Opposing abortion in the 1st trimester is B.S.
-
I'm not comparing babies and bacteria.
But you need to stop confusing babies with non-babies. A Baby is an organism that can live independent from the mother (meaning outside).
A Zygote is not a baby.
An Embryo is not a baby.
A Fetus is only a baby later in the pregnancy.
Using emotionally loaded words doesn't work. Zygotes and Embryos are "body parts", not separate living humans.
I oppose abortion in the third trimester, unless the mothers life is threatened. But Opposing abortion in the 1st trimester is B.S.
I had no idea "baby" was an "emotionally loaded word." IMO, life begins at conception, so I have no problem calling a baby in the womb a baby.
Your definition of baby is contradictory. According to you, "A Baby is an organism that can live independent from the mother (meaning outside)." A newborn baby cannot survive on its own. He or she is completely dependent on others for survival. No logical distinction between a baby in the womb and a newborn.
Why do you oppose third trimester abortions, but not first trimester abortions?
Do you oppose second trimester abortions?
-
I had no idea "baby" was an "emotionally loaded word." IMO, life begins at conception, so I have no problem calling a baby in the womb a baby.
Your definition of baby is contradictory. According to you, "A Baby is an organism that can live independent from the mother (meaning outside)." A newborn baby cannot survive on its own. He or she is completely dependent on others for survival. No logical distinction between a baby in the womb and a newborn.
Why do you oppose third trimester abortions, but not first trimester abortions?
Do you oppose second trimester abortions?
No one with any sense would call a microscopic zygote a "baby". ::)
You need to read better. I specifically said "outside" of the mother to separate it from saying that a baby can live independent from the mother in every way. I simply mean that it can live as a separate entity.
I oppose 3rd trimester abortions because of 2 reasons: 1. Pain perception. 2. Thought processes.
Zygotes can't feel pain or think. Scientific studies have established that fetal pain doesn't really arise until at least the 25th week.
-
No one with any sense would call a microscopic zygote a "baby". ::)
You need to read better. I specifically said "outside" of the mother to separate it from saying that a baby can live independent from the mother in every way. I simply mean that it can live as a separate entity.
I oppose 3rd trimester abortions because of 2 reasons: 1. Pain perception. 2. Thought processes.
Zygotes can't feel pain or think. Scientific studies have established that fetal pain doesn't really arise until at least the 25th week.
So you're calling most pregnant women stupid? Have you ever heard a pregnant refer to her baby as anything other than a baby? I've been around quite a few and I have never heard them call their baby anything but a baby. What you're attempting to do is dehumanize the baby. Also, as I said earlier, women most often don't know that they're pregnant till about the fourth week of pregnancy.
The 25th week is the second trimester. Do you oppose second trimester abortions?
-
So you're calling most pregnant women stupid? Have you ever heard a pregnant refer to her baby as anything other than a baby? I've been around quite a few and I have never heard them call their baby anything but a baby. What you're attempting to do is dehumanize the baby. Also, as I said earlier, women most often don't know that they're pregnant till about the fourth week of pregnancy.
The 25th week is the second trimester. Do you oppose second trimester abortions?
I'm not going to argue about what parents should call the things in their bellies.
As far as abortion goes, I think that curbing off on allowing abortion after the 25-27th week makes sense, unless in extreme circumstances. If a woman wants an abortion, she should get one earlier. If she is too stupid and waits until the last minute, too bad for her. Exceptions obviously allowed.
-
So you're calling most pregnant women stupid? Have you ever heard a pregnant refer to her baby as anything other than a baby? I've been around quite a few and I have never heard them call their baby anything but a baby. What you're attempting to do is dehumanize the baby. Also, as I said earlier, women most often don't know that they're pregnant till about the fourth week of pregnancy.
The 25th week is the second trimester. Do you oppose second trimester abortions?
No, what YOU are doing is trying to humanize something that is not human.
Women are not stupid but they are surely beyond doubt very emotional and passionate about their FUTURE baby. But that doesn't even represent the slightest argument for why a non feeling, unconsciousness, non human organism is in fact a baby.
-
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOUL.
Repeat it 10 times before you go to bed each night.
-
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOUL.
Repeat it 10 times before you go to bed each night.
Soon you are also going to claim that the literal truth of the bible is a comically illogical assumption, that there's no such thing as a 24/7 all knowing surveillance cam in the skies watching and judging our every move, that a guy named jesus did not die for our sins (which we never asked for nor had the chance to deny) and that the earth was created 4 billion years ago.
Such nonsense. ::)
-
War in Iraq,
Erosion of our Freedom,
Economy,
Yep Abortion should be the number one issue... haha
Abortion is a non-issue.
Sort of like gay marriage. It's a waste of time to debate it.
Yes, it all comes down to the economy. Conservative, "fundie nut cases" may have something here. The economy may not be the reason why they oppose legal abortion and gay marriage, but the economy might be a good reason why liberals and secular people should start taking abortion and gay marriage more seriously, especially since they are such good friends of welfare states and socialism. Why? Because of population decline. Developed countries are not having enough babies anymore, and they are legally killing unborn babies. And if people like Peter Singer, professor of Ethics at Princeton University continue to influence the future leaders, children already born will be killed too.
One result: Fewer children
"Among the most striking consequences of the decline of religion has been fewer children. The birth rate throughout much of Western Europe has fallen so drastically that the population in many countries is shrinking, indicating that women throughout Europe now routinely use artificial birth control, in defiance of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings.
"The biggest single consequence of the declining role of the church is the huge decline in fertility rates," Inglehart says. With fewer people entering the workforce, countries like Italy, Germany and France won't be able to maintain the generous welfare programs that have given most workers a lifetime of economic security.
The waning influence of religion also has brought a change in attitudes and laws on issues such as divorce, abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research."...
..."Europeans debate whether these changes are positive or negative for society."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-10-europe-religion-cover_x.htm
"Most people think overpopulation is one of the worst dangers facing the globe. In fact, the opposite is true. As countries get richer, their populations age and their birthrates plummet. And this is not just a problem of rich countries: the developing world is also getting older fast. Falling birthrates might seem beneficial, but the economic and social price is too steep to pay. The right policies could help turn the tide, but only if enacted before it's too late."
"In his 1968 bestseller "The Population Bomb," Paul Ehrlich warned, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines -- hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Fortunately, Ehrlich's prediction proved wrong. But having averted the danger of overpopulation, the world now faces the opposite problem: an aging and declining population. We are, in one sense, lucky to have this problem and not its opposite. But that doesn't make the problem any less serious, or the solutions any less necessary."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83307-p60/phillip-longman/the-global-baby-bust.html
"Russia is one of the few countries in the world where life expectancy has decreased in comparison to 1960s levels.
Not enough babies being born, too many unnecessary deaths (especially among younger men), 'social' illnesses killing off millions of people each year.
The authors propose various measures aimed at changing policies and attitudes but seemingly do not hold out much hope that a significant difference can be made.
Above all there seem to be simply too few young men and women around in Russia now to have children on the scale needed to change birth rates for the better, even if those young people were minded to have families and children on a notably higher scale than now.
Thus Russia appears to be on track to have something like 'only' 100 million people in forty years' time.
Not that Europe has anything to be smug about:
Unfortunately, the assumption of family duties by the state allows people to free ride on the fertility of others—which they seem to be trying to do in massive numbers. As we've mentioned before, a society where everyone tries to free ride on everyone else is headed for disaster. Europe's safety nets, or at least the pension systems, may contain the seeds of their own destruction.
Fascinating to see how Cause and Effect relentlessly work their way down the decades."
http://charlescrawford.biz/category-c
Monday, January 07, 2008
Not enough babies? Robots are the answer
TOKYO -- With a surfeit of the old and a shortage of the young, Japan is on course for a population collapse unlike any in human history.
What ails this prosperous nation could be treated with babies and immigrants. Yet many young women here do not want children, and the Japanese will not tolerate a lot of immigrants. So government and industry are marching into the depopulated future with the help of robots -- some with wheels, some with legs, some that you can wear like an overcoat with muscles.
A small army of these machines, which has attracted huge and appreciative crowds, is on display this winter at the Great Robot Exhibition in Tokyo's National Museum of Nature and Science.
http://taxingtennessee.blogspot.com/2008/01/not-enough-babies-robots-are-answer.html
-
I'm not going to argue about what parents should call the things in their bellies.
As far as abortion goes, I think that curbing off on allowing abortion after the 25-27th week makes sense, unless in extreme circumstances. If a woman wants an abortion, she should get one earlier. If she is too stupid and waits until the last minute, too bad for her. Exceptions obviously allowed.
No, you're just arguing that women who call their unborn babies a "baby" are using emotionally charged words and are stupid.
On what basis do you conclude abortions should be prohibited in the third trimester but not the second trimester? Or is that your position?
-
No, what YOU are doing is trying to humanize something that is not human.
Women are not stupid but they are surely beyond doubt very emotional and passionate about their FUTURE baby. But that doesn't even represent the slightest argument for why a non feeling, unconsciousness, non human organism is in fact a baby.
At what point does an unborn baby become a human?
-
At what point does an unborn baby become a human?
Nice selection of suggestive words there. ::)
I would say the fetus becomes human when it gets the full ability to think and feel which is in a pretty late stage. A mere underdeveloped nervous system in the early stages doesn't really qualify.
-
does fvcking little boys make the top 10 ? ;)
NT
-
Nice selection of suggestive words there. ::)
I would say the fetus becomes human when it gets the full ability to think and feel which is in a pretty late stage. A mere underdeveloped nervous system in the early stages doesn't really qualify.
What? lol. I guess I should have just quoted you:
No, what YOU are doing is trying to humanize something that is not human.
You said in the preceding quote that I'm trying to "humanize something that is not human." That's why I asked at what point an unborn baby becomes human.
Can you be more specific? What week are we talking about? Twenty-four weeks? Thirty-six? Do you actually draw the "human" line that point?
-
What? lol. I guess I should have just quoted you:
You said in the preceding quote that I'm trying to "humanize something that is not human." That's why I asked at what point an unborn baby becomes human.
Can you be more specific? What week are we talking about? Twenty-four weeks? Thirty-six? Do you actually draw the "human" line that point?
Oh lol. I guess you never thought of it that much. You insist on that it is a "baby" even at the moment of conception. So I thought it was pretty biased/suggestive of you to formulate the question the way you did.
"At what point does an unborn baby become a human?"
Could have said fetus instead. The word baby basically means small young human.
But never mind.
In my country the legal limit for abortion is 18 weeks and 22 in some rare specially approved cases. I think that is a pretty good reference point. Fetuses at that age have a VERY LOW probability to survive but are able to develop fully outside the womb if lucky. So that would be my minimum requirement for something to be human.
Note that I've should have added "ability to live" to my criteria for human.
But at conception? No way.
-
Oh lol. I guess you never thought of it that much. You insist on that it is a "baby" even at the moment of conception. So I thought it was pretty biased/suggestive of you to formulate the question the way you did.
"At what point does an unborn baby become a human?"
Could have said fetus instead. The word baby basically means small young human.
But never mind.
In my country the legal limit for abortion is 18 weeks and 22 in some rare specially approved cases. I think that is a pretty good reference point. Fetuses at that age have a VERY LOW probability to survive but are able to develop fully outside the womb if lucky. So that would be my minimum requirement for something to be human.
Note that I've should have added "ability to live" to my criteria for human.
But at conception? No way.
I'll leave the word usage alone. Not that important (although I have no problem calling a baby a "baby").
What country are you from? I appreciate the information about what your country outlaws, but I'm asking specifically about where you draw the line and why. At what point (specifically) do you consider a baby (fetus, whatever) a human and why?
Not trying to set you up or anything. The reason I'm asking is I find it very difficult to draw a bright line about when human life begins (unless we're talking about conception) and want to know your thought process.
-
I'll leave the word usage alone. Not that important (although I have no problem calling a baby a "baby").
What country are you from? I appreciate the information about what your country outlaws, but I'm asking specifically about where you draw the line and why. At what point (specifically) do you consider a baby (fetus, whatever) a human and why?
Not trying to set you up or anything. The reason I'm asking is I find it very difficult to draw a bright line about when human life begins (unless we're talking about conception) and want to know your thought process.
I come from Sweden. I mentioned the laws of my country as a reference point for my belief, so I basically answered your question. If the fetus has a chance of living and growing up outside the womb then I would it call it human/baby. Because ONLY then are you stealing the life of a living thing if you would abort. Everything before that is just mere potential.
Drawing the line at the conception is a gross oversimplification in my mind. As I've said before, the single cell fertilized egg is purely a potential baby at that point and it wouldn't be fair to say that you're "murdering" a baby if you choose to abort at that stage. The same way you would murder a baby if you simply chose not to have sex.