Author Topic: Texas Catholic Bishops Make It Clear: Abortion The Number One Election Issue  (Read 3953 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64096
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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?




tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
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.

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
It's not our right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64096
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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.


tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
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?

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64096
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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:

Quote
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?   


 

Quote
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.       


liberalismo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1335
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64096
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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?   

liberalismo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1335
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64096
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

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?   

liberalismo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1335
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.

lovemonkey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7750
  • Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate
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.
from incomplete data

liberalismo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1335
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOUL.

Repeat it 10 times before you go to bed each night.





lovemonkey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7750
  • Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate
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.  ::)
from incomplete data

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19201
  • loco like a fox
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64096
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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?   

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64096
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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? 

lovemonkey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7750
  • Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate
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.
from incomplete data

Neurotoxin

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2101

does fvcking little boys make the top 10 ? ;)


NT

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64096
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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:

Quote
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? 

lovemonkey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7750
  • Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate
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.
from incomplete data

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64096
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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.