How Bush Won

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 3, 2004, 6:26 pm

Atokal wrote:
Animalor wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Without the fags, african-americans,dope smokers, and kids (under 24), Kerry wouldn't have gotten 5% of the vote.
Spoken like a true white supremacist. Why didn't you just use the N word. African-American just looks out of place in that bigoted post.
ROFL yep but Bible Thumper and Jesus Crispie is ok in your book. Or the signature Christians Suck???

Bible Thumper I have no problem with. Jesus Crispie I hadn't even heard about till today.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » November 3, 2004, 6:27 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Without the fags, african-americans,dope smokers, and kids (under 24), Kerry wouldn't have gotten 5% of the vote.

I seriously hope you get your ass kicked tonight by a few "african american fags" you racist, white trash pathetic bigot

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » November 3, 2004, 6:28 pm

Who was the man who got elected that believes that pregnact unwed mothers should be teaching?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 3, 2004, 6:28 pm

You guys are arguing on a level removed from the core contention. The definition of life. Resolve that first, and extend from it.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 3, 2004, 6:30 pm

Rekaar. wrote:I disagree with you on several counts. First, stereotyping "the religious right" as somehow more oppressive or passionate about ther views than any other group isn't real.

Did you even read my post? I didn't say 'than any other group'. I'm not stupid. I specifically said:

...the religious right is perhaps the most oppressive, backward-thinking, narrow-minded, special interest group in the United States with the disctinction of being widely accepted.

There are passionate people on all sides of every issue and each one, if able, would impose their views on the masses. Pro-choice people are just as passionate about their perspective as the pro-life people are, as example.

The main difference... the Pro-life people are trying to impose their morality on others, and the pro-choice people are trying to protect their personal freedoms. Thanks for proving my point.

The entire purpose of democracy is for this to be the case, so that when the majority of its people feel a certain way it be made applicable to all in the interest of furthering society.

Provided it passes (if necessary) a judicial review.

And for the love of God stop with the blanket labels. It's like you're calling every muslim a terrorist. It's offensive and unfounded.

I'm speaking in general terms to make a point. I AM a Christian you fucking tool. I just don't assume that because I am, my views are more right than someone elses.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 3, 2004, 6:32 pm

Ok Lhorno, as I've said before on this subject, while I am in favor of the death penalty, I think that it should require 100% proof, damning evidence, and DNA testing. Before you say it, yes, I know that DNA testing is not perfect, but it IS evolving as a science. I beleive that we need to go into all of the death row cases and perform mandatory DNA testing on each. If DNA testing comes up false, then retry; if there is no evidence left to allow for DNA testing, then commute the sentance to life in prison.

As for why potential dictates the morality, I guess we're shouting at each other from different rooms on this. Rekaar summed i t up fairly well: by killing the fetus, you ar epreventing it from doing anything, making any choices, et al. You are in fact killing a developing human life.

Do you agree that a fetus is human while it is still growing in the womb?

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 3, 2004, 6:33 pm

My own arguements about abortion have nothing to do with the definition of life, so I don't see the point in resolving that. If one very much alive and sentient and intellegent 25 y.o. (Person A) completely relied on another (Person B) for his or her life, I would completely support Person B's right to cease providing for Person A regardless of the obviously fatal consequence of that action to Person B. The "definition of life" has nothing to do with it.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 3, 2004, 6:35 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Noel, I agree with you. However I take exception, and will continue to take exception, to having my religion insulted, slamed, or refered to in a derogatory fashion. Calling us 'crispies' and insinuating that it is 'all of our fault' is offensive to me as a person. I'm pretty sure you would take exception if someone called out that all white bycilists are the root of all problems and then come up with an insulting nickname.

People can slam my religion as much as they like. Sticks and stones and whatnot. You're being overly sensitive. The people who are being referred to as 'crispies', etc. are not you or your friends specifically. They're the people who are trying to force their morality on others. If you subscribe, as I do to the 'live and let live' concept, you aren't who people like Aaeamdar is talking about. The number of people in my lifetime who have stood up claiming to be Christians and then done something NOT Christian at all is appalling. The people you SHOULD be pissed at are the people who falsely represent themselves as Christians and pervert the meaning of the religion for their own goals.

Neost · Post by **Neost** » November 3, 2004, 6:35 pm

Now see, here we go again.

It's quite ok for certain groups to be reviled on this board (hint: christians, republicans, etc. etc.) but woe be unto he who makes anything close to being a disparaging remark against all the groups who make up the liberal demographic.

I've watched people on this board be skewered for their beliefs and called bigot, racist, hatemonger, etc. etc. and usually the people calling names have the exact same fucking type of hatred for groups that they don't agree with.

Don't you think before you start throwing out terms like bigot you should make sure you aren't of the same ilk?

big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

There's a shit ton of intolerance on this board towards a lot of different groups. How is one type of intolerance more justifiable than others?

Cracc · Post by **Cracc** » November 3, 2004, 6:35 pm

How about posting some answers instead of spewing out the usual mouthpoop that you continue to clutter these boards with mr Atokal?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 3, 2004, 6:35 pm

If you fail to see it then you have a barrier to resolving the issue with the other guy.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 3, 2004, 6:36 pm

Noel, grab me later on IM - think we're having a slight miscom here.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 3, 2004, 6:36 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Do you agree that a fetus is human while it is still growing in the womb?

Not until it's thinking on it's own.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 3, 2004, 6:40 pm

Ok. Then while it is IN the womb, what is it? A parasite? A cancerous growth (it meets the requirements for a tumor)? How can you even make the distinction that it isn't 'alive' until it can do whatever on its own? You bring a baby out of the womb, it lives or it dies. If it dies, then what was it, exactly? By your reasoning, it never was human, and therfor, could never BE alive if it couldn't survive on its own. If it lives, it's automatically human because what? What important aspect of it changes between in the womb and out?

And let's further the aspect of it. And what stage does a baby become viable to survive on its own? 4months? 6? So unless you take it out of the womb you DONT really know if it COULD survive or not, do you?

noel · Post by **noel** » November 3, 2004, 6:42 pm

Xzion wrote:For the first time in my life, I am embarrassed as well as ashamed to call myself an American. Today is truly a sad day in American history, emotions of anger, sadness, and even fear filled me today as I saw the results this morning.
What’s even scarier is some of the senators that were elected…a few of them make bush look like Michael Moore...it is a sad, and frightening day in American history when GW now has complete power (with an even greater majority of asskissing senators) to do what ever the hell he wants for four more years. Its also very, very disappointing to see practically everything and everyone I voted for and supported in this race defeated. We are living in the decline of American greatness, and Jimmy Carter may have been wrong, before, but I now honestly believe “America’s best days are over”

Aside from the point, China’s economic, military and influential power is rising, and in less then 10 years they will be the world superpower.

AND ANOTHER THING...

This post is pathetic. Embarassed to be an American? WHY? The process did exactly what it was supposed to. We have a democratically elected president. What more could you want? The bottom line is that Kerry's campaign did not get the job done. That's not a failure of America, that's on him. I'm disappointed that more people didn't vote against Bush, because I think he's bad for the country, but I'm damn proud to be an American.

Cracc · Post by **Cracc** » November 3, 2004, 6:43 pm

In the words of the almighty Bill Hicks.

"You're not a human until your in my fucking phonebook"

=P

Read whatever you want into that.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 3, 2004, 6:43 pm

Abortion is a necessary evil.

Yes, I think that abortion is wrong, and I would oppose my girlfriend getting one if I'd knocked her up. That being said, until we have universal, 100% effective birth control, abortion must continue to be legal. Going back to the days of back alley butchers and coat hangers up the hoo ha is not going to help any of the "murdered babies."

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 3, 2004, 6:45 pm

Ok. Then while it is IN the womb, what is it? A parasite? A cancerous growth (it meets the requirements for a tumor)?

Its a human being that is completely reliant on another human being for its existance.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 3, 2004, 6:46 pm

Cracc wrote:How about posting some answers instead of spewing out the usual mouthpoop

Mouthpoop! good word but I'd split it into mouth poop.

Compound nouns:

Compound nouns are nouns which are built up by combining two or more words into a single unit. Often this is simply two nouns, as in football, sunlight, bedroom, bookcase. Sometimes, however, it is a more complex construction, such as father-in-law or right-of-way.

Historically, many compound nouns were used as two separate nouns, eg book case but frequent usage has made the two words into one. When compounds are coined, a hyphen is often used to indicate the coinage (eg micro-computer) but as the word becomes more familiar the hyphen is usually dropped (eg microcomputer)

Mouth poop should gradually progress into mouth-poop and then finally mouthpoop if VVers use it frequently enough.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 3, 2004, 6:47 pm

But an infant can't feed / clothe / change / bathe itself either. Yes, it can input food - if someone gives it to him or her. Yes, it can input water - if someone gives it to him or her.

So, without being completely reliant on another human being, it would die. Correct?

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 3, 2004, 6:51 pm

Not really. An infant is reliant on others (generally) to prevent it from dying, but no, an infant (Person A) is not completely reliant on any one Person B such that Person B cannot be freed from that reliance. In this regard, an infant is much like any "helpless" human. It cannot provide for itself and it cannot survive alone, but it has no one to one relationship with another individual that cannot be severed without the infant dying.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 3, 2004, 6:53 pm

In my mind Akaran, there is a world of difference between reliance on a parent's care and reliance on mom's continued pumping of blood. I think a good acid test is if you shoot the mother in the head, can it survive? In the 3rd trimester, the answer is yes, and that is why I am against late term abortions except in the most drastic of cases.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 3, 2004, 6:54 pm

masteen wrote:Abortion is a necessary evil.

Yes, I think that abortion is wrong, and I would oppose my girlfriend getting one if I'd knocked her up. That being said, until we have universal, 100% effective birth control, abortion must continue to be legal. Going back to the days of back alley butchers and coat hangers up the hoo ha is not going to help any of the "murdered babies."

That's the best argument I've seen made here today. Specifically the: without 100% effective birth control. Hint: abstinence is not birth control.

Akaran I'll talk to you when I can.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 3, 2004, 6:54 pm

Ok, I can accept that argument for that.
However, I think the fundamental difference here is where all of us believes that life begins. I believe that the spark of life begins at conception, and you beleive it is at the point where the baby can survive on its own, correct?

That being said:
At what point do you beleive that is it too late in a pregnancy to have the abortion? IE: At what point in a pregnancy do you beleive a fetus gains life?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 3, 2004, 6:55 pm

I guess you could even back the issue off one level from the definition of life.

When does a human lose their right to live?
If they kill another?
If their presence is an inconvenience to others?

Should a mother be allowed to kill her child (post birth) when the mother's life is at risk?

If we agree that a person who has committed no crime deserves the right to live. When do we apply these rights upon that person?

A Zygote?
100 Cells
100000 Cells?
5 minutes before birth?
Only after ALL of their body has cleared the birth canal. (Partial birth abortion leaves the head inside before vacuuming the kids brains out)

Clarify these issues, and you'll have a reasonable foundation to allow or deny the death penalty against convicted murderers for example.

Clarify these issues and you'll be in a position to make a law that dutifully protects the rights of humanity onto a child at an agreed upon state of development.

Build consensus on these issues first. Everything else, including laws follow from it.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 3, 2004, 6:56 pm

Masteen does have a good couple of points.
I think that abortion should only be considered as a last option of any kind. Legal action should follow any abortion to determine IF it was necessary or not. I also think that there is a GREAT necessity for teaching more about safe sex and educating people about it to help cut down on the number of abortions we currently face...

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 3, 2004, 7:00 pm

Education is the key. Scare tactics are not "education."

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 3, 2004, 7:01 pm

I believe that the spark of life begins at conception, and you beleive it is at the point where the baby can survive on its own, correct?

No. I also think, frankly, that the "life begins" argument is a diversionary tactic in the debate that has worked out brilliantly for the religious right. I suppose for someone completely void of scientific knowledge the idea that "life" begins at viability is excusable, but anyone with even a reasonable high-school knowled of biology must be aware that a fertalized agg is "life."

What you Christians really mean when you say "life begins at conception" is that "ensoulment occurs at conception." The word "ensoulment" however is an obviously religious term (something that in today's politics should be just fine). In order to lend scientific credibility to a religous concept, the religous right does not talk about ensoulment, it talks about life.

Life, however, has nothing to do with it. I am perfectly willing to agree with you that life begins at conception and it does not effect my arguments at all.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » November 3, 2004, 7:01 pm

should a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant be forced to have the child?

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 3, 2004, 7:04 pm

should a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant be forced to have the child?

IMO, by using these sorts of extreem examples you are playing the game that the religious right wants you to play. I guarantee you they would all be very happy if all abortions in the US were banned except those resulting from rape or incest. If that is where you also want to end up, feel free to continue using these terrible examples as teh starting point for your arguments.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 3, 2004, 7:11 pm

To me, life = soul. To you, it doesn't. There is no 'ensoulment' because, in my view, a soul develop as person does. It is still a life argument to me and never has been nor ever will be about a soul. I fear you're giving me more credit than I'm due in that regard. By ending life you're ending any chance for development - spiritual or otherwise.

Xyun: No, she shouldn't. We've developed morning after pills and medical techniques that allow for the purging of the uterus after such an event. Now, if she DOESNT seek medical attention, that's another bundle of worms and not one that is going to be easy to enter into, regardless of what side you're on in the issue.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 3, 2004, 7:13 pm

I don't have an answer Aaemadar and I'm not trying to trap you.

I'm simply trying to define the problem. If you define it clearly then you stand a better chance at forming a reasonable solution.

We have laws that seem to be logically inconsistant. This is due to the fact that there has been no strong consensus on when life begins.

If we play around with the laws without constructing an agreed definition of life, we're trap ourselves into endless arguement.

We have enough problems to deal with in this world. We need to fix our group morality on this issue, pass laws that reflect our group consensus and move on.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 3, 2004, 7:15 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:My own arguements about abortion have nothing to do with the definition of life, so I don't see the point in resolving that. If one very much alive and sentient and intellegent 25 y.o. (Person A) completely relied on another (Person B) for his or her life, I would completely support Person B's right to cease providing for Person A regardless of the obviously fatal consequence of that action to Person B. The "definition of life" has nothing to do with it.

Why should anyone be considerate of your so important issues when you cannot even respect the sanctity of life.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » November 3, 2004, 7:17 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Ok. Then while it is IN the womb, what is it? A parasite? A cancerous growth (it meets the requirements for a tumor)? How can you even make the distinction that it isn't 'alive' until it can do whatever on its own? You bring a baby out of the womb, it lives or it dies. If it dies, then what was it, exactly? By your reasoning, it never was human, and therfor, could never BE alive if it couldn't survive on its own. If it lives, it's automatically human because what? What important aspect of it changes between in the womb and out?

And let's further the aspect of it. And what stage does a baby become viable to survive on its own? 4months? 6? So unless you take it out of the womb you DONT really know if it COULD survive or not, do you?

Il tell you what it is essentially, a fetus is the equivalent to a vegetable, sure it is "alive" just as a palm tree in the front of my house is alive, but it does not think, feel, or have any true emotions of its own, it is still a part of the women that holds it, and without that mother it cannot exist on its own, so hence just like any other body part, a fetus is a part of the women, and a women should have the freedom to have control over her own body...that’s my interpretation anyways

About the "im ashamed and embarrassed to be an American" post, im just ashamed to be associated with a demographic that (fairly) elected a man that would laughed out of the voting booth in any other civilized country on earth. So i better meant to say that "for the next four years i will be ashamed to be associated with other Americans"

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 3, 2004, 7:22 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:
Ok. Then while it is IN the womb, what is it? A parasite? A cancerous growth (it meets the requirements for a tumor)?
Its a human being that is completely reliant on another human being for its existance.

So until a child is what 4 or 5. Stupidist thing you have said to date.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » November 3, 2004, 7:33 pm

Akaran_D wrote:To me, life = soul. To you, it doesn't. There is no 'ensoulment' because, in my view, a soul develop as person does. It is still a life argument to me and never has been nor ever will be about a soul. I fear you're giving me more credit than I'm due in that regard. By ending life you're ending any chance for development - spiritual or otherwise.

Xyun: No, she shouldn't. We've developed morning after pills and medical techniques that allow for the purging of the uterus after such an event. Now, if she DOESNT seek medical attention, that's another bundle of worms and not one that is going to be easy to enter into, regardless of what side you're on in the issue.

Logically there is no “base” or “standard” to what or what does not have a soul. I understand you hold a religious faith that defines what or what does not have a soul, and to my understanding I don’t think a fetus, or an chicken egg (which is an animal equivalent to a fetus) has a soul… I have a cat, it feels…it feels love, anger, happiness, fear, and almost every other noticeable human emotion. We kill and eat cows, fish and other animals, do they not have a soul despite showing emotion?

I appreciate and respect everyone that is for banning abortion on a government level, if that person is also is a true vegetarian and morally against killing animals, including eggs, caviar etc, also that person also has to be strongly against the death penalty and any war with the sole intention to remove a non threatening dictator at the expense of over 100thousand civilian casualties and 1 thousand of our own soldiers, then and only then is an anti-abortion rights person not seen as a fraud and a hypocrite in my eyes.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 3, 2004, 7:40 pm

To me, abortion is a last-resort medical procedure. I've never met a girl who's claimed to have an abortion, and claimed to have been happy about it. I don't think anyone will disagree that having a doctor perform an abortion is better than a coat hanger, or worse.

Personally, I'd like to see laws that only allow abortion in the first trimester. This is as close to acknowledgement of the life/murder issue that you'll get from me. As far as I'm concerned it has no place in the discussion, but given that fetuses start to show brain activity AFTER the first trimester, this is when I believe there is life, and I think it's highly desirable to perform an abortion before this time. I also think there should be a limit on the number of abortions an individual can have. Abortion should not be used as birth control.

For myself, I've never gotten a girl pregnant, and I'd argue strongly against abortion even if a girl I was with did not want to keep the baby. I'd probably try to raise it myself. I realize though, that I can say that because of where I am in the socio-economic structure, and because I have a wonderful family that would help and support me. Not everyone is so lucky.

When all the people against abortion are sitting at home, working themselves into a frenzy about how horrible abortion is, and passing judgement on people they've never met and who's lives they'd never understand, I think it's wrong. Be anti-abortion for yourself, but let a man and a woman decide when is right for them to raise a family. Let a woman who is raped decide if she wants to carry a baby created by such a horrific act. Let a family decide if they want to have a baby that has a serious birth defect or other issue. Let a young girl decide if she wants to go through the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption. But making that decision for someone is wrong IMHO.

Masteen's point is excellent. There is currently no form of birth control that is 100%. Abstinence is not birth control. Abstinence is not having sex at all, and if people weren't having sex at all, there'd be no need for birth control in the first place. Until there is birth control that is 100% effective, and until a couple can truly plan when they want to have a child abortion is a last resort.

People need to stop placing their own morality on others and try to empathize more. If something isn't hurting you, your family or your interests, leave it alone.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » November 3, 2004, 7:45 pm

Bush did not so much win as Kerry lost.

Funny thing is that 2 elections in a roll, the person the DNC says is a moron has beaten their best choice for President. Maybe the DNC is the problem.

Instead of making "I have a scream" jokes about Dean the dems should have embraced him, he was the ONLY person running as a dem or republican I would have voted for, and guess what, I am not the only one that feels that way. But Howard Dean was honest, and Kerry was a politician. Too many of you fail to realize that because to steal a line from Jon Stewart, you are all victims of political hackery.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 3, 2004, 7:46 pm

Akaran_D wrote:To me, life = soul. To you, it doesn't. There is no 'ensoulment' because, in my view, a soul develop as person does. It is still a life argument to me and never has been nor ever will be about a soul. I fear you're giving me more credit than I'm due in that regard. By ending life you're ending any chance for development - spiritual or otherwise.

Please, no religious arguments. You can't prove a life has a soul one way or the other. So, can you prove that a fetus has a personality or self-determination? If you take the last argument you made, you could make the case that every sperm has the potential to create life, therefore masturbation is wrong. So let's not go down that road too far, as that is a ridiculous argument. I would argue that a human lifeform is not valuable until it has personality/consciousness. Otherwise we are heading down the road of killing sperm and eggs is wrong. A fetus is a step up from sperm and eggs but it is not a baby.

I would agree with you about the death penalty if it was 100% accurate, in determining if said person did it, and in determining that there was no chance for recovery. Until then I am against it. Maybe it will be possible, but I doubt that will be soon.

-=Lohrno

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 3, 2004, 7:51 pm

Lohrno, I said that to pull away from the religious aspect of it that Dar brought to the field. It isn't a religious issue for me.

Once you have an egg fertalized, that is where life itself begins, right at the very instant conception happens. I'm not goign to disagree that sperm cells are alive, and that eggs are alive too. But until they are combined, they are devoid of any potential to evolve further.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 3, 2004, 7:55 pm

noel wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:I disagree with you on several counts. First, stereotyping "the religious right" as somehow more oppressive or passionate about ther views than any other group isn't real.
Did you even read my post? I didn't say 'than any other group'. I'm not stupid. I specifically said:
...the religious right is perhaps the most oppressive, backward-thinking, narrow-minded, special interest group in the United States with the disctinction of being widely accepted.

There are passionate people on all sides of every issue and each one, if able, would impose their views on the masses. Pro-choice people are just as passionate about their perspective as the pro-life people are, as example.
The main difference... the Pro-life people are trying to impose their morality on others, and the pro-choice people are trying to protect their personal freedoms. Thanks for proving my point.
The entire purpose of democracy is for this to be the case, so that when the majority of its people feel a certain way it be made applicable to all in the interest of furthering society.
Provided it passes (if necessary) a judicial review.
And for the love of God stop with the blanket labels. It's like you're calling every muslim a terrorist. It's offensive and unfounded.
I'm speaking in general terms to make a point. I AM a Christian you fucking tool. I just don't assume that because I am, my views are more right than someone elses.

"most" is a comparison, your unqualified statement that it is widely accepted stands as testament to your stereotypical view of what that demographic entails. Just who are you lopping into that pile and how are you justifying your blanket accusations? The term "Christian" tells me nothing about your character or your beliefs other than that you watched The Passion and believed it really happened. And if you'll kindly read the post further down from the one you quoted you'll see I addressed the ridiculous idea that the method for the imposition of morality is somehow relevant. Impose or deny - the outcome is the same in that something is established as the norm.

So I'll ask you, did you even read the rest of the thread? =p

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 3, 2004, 8:03 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I don't have an answer Aaemadar and I'm not trying to trap you.

I'm simply trying to define the problem. If you define it clearly then you stand a better chance at forming a reasonable solution.

We have laws that seem to be logically inconsistant. This is due to the fact that there has been no strong consensus on when life begins.

If we play around with the laws without constructing an agreed definition of life, we're trap ourselves into endless arguement.

We have enough problems to deal with in this world. We need to fix our group morality on this issue, pass laws that reflect our group consensus and move on.

It's a religious preconception that the question is even "when life begins", and it's a tool you use to frame the question in a way that suits your rabid agenda. IE, even people that have no problem with abortion w/in the first two trimesters will say that life begins at conception.

The question should be, "When is it acceptable to most of our society", but that would give you a result of 6 months gestation so you're not going to ask that.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 3, 2004, 8:04 pm

Think whatever you want Rekaar.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 3, 2004, 8:16 pm

Akaran_D wrote: Once you have an egg fertalized, that is where life itself begins, right at the very instant conception happens. I'm not goign to disagree that sperm cells are alive, and that eggs are alive too. But until they are combined, they are devoid of any potential to evolve further.

But not all life is equal. The life that is created is not yet a self-counscious human being until several months later. The life at that moment is akin to cancerous tumors, mold and fungii, worms, etc. It doesn't know what's happening to it, and thus is not quite our equal yet.

-=Lohrno

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 3, 2004, 8:17 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:I don't have an answer Aaemadar and I'm not trying to trap you.

I'm simply trying to define the problem. If you define it clearly then you stand a better chance at forming a reasonable solution.

We have laws that seem to be logically inconsistant. This is due to the fact that there has been no strong consensus on when life begins.

If we play around with the laws without constructing an agreed definition of life, we're trap ourselves into endless arguement.

We have enough problems to deal with in this world. We need to fix our group morality on this issue, pass laws that reflect our group consensus and move on.
It's a religious preconception that the question is even "when life begins", and it's a tool you use to frame the question in a way that suits your rabid agenda. IE, even people that have no problem with abortion w/in the first two trimesters will say that life begins at conception.

The question should be, "When is it acceptable to most of our society", but that would give you a result of 6 months gestation so you're not going to ask that.

You take much liberty in assuming what I believe.

Frankly, I don't know how this issue should be resolved. I think about it a lot.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 3, 2004, 8:18 pm

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

How you frame the question reflects your beliefs.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 3, 2004, 8:21 pm

Zaelath wrote:Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

How you frame the question reflects your beliefs.

Mu.

-=Lohrno

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 3, 2004, 8:28 pm

Yes, I suppose it does reflect my beliefs that I search for a consistant foundation for a moral stance.

Of course I frame the question. How else do you approach the problem but to define it, or break it down into manageable elements? The problem is not my framing the question. The problem is my efforts approach upon something that is purposely left vague. Abortion is easier if you don't try to define it.

But you know what? Dodging the problem doesn't make the formation of law that we all can live with any easier. It is worthwhile for us to pursue consensus.

Cracc · Post by **Cracc** » November 3, 2004, 8:35 pm

Come back and criticise my english when you speak understandable swedish Winnow, otherwise.. fuck off.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 3, 2004, 8:57 pm

So then "life" (e.g. a soul) begins at conception. How does that help at all? I'll tell you how it helps you (e.g. your position as anti-abortion). By framing the question to be about life, you then get to procede with the rather natural, and unarguable for most people, possition that life is good, it is worth protecting. No one is going to disagree with that. Then, since life begins at conception, we need laws that protect that life before it is capable of protecting itself.

Nice, but imo, all irrelevant to the real question. Abortion is not about life, it is about liberty. By making the question about life, you get to ignore the effect that life is having on another living being. LIfe has nothing to do with it, however.

Here is a good exmaple. No one, I would hope, would disagree that a 19 y.o. female human is "life." Nor would anyone disagree that that life is worth protecting. But, if "life" is all we are concerned with, it makes perfectly good sense that if that 19 y.o. female human is dying and the only thing that can save her is one of my Kidneys (and we accept that I only need one of my two to live), then our laws should insist that I surrender one of my kidneys. They don't. Nor should they. Nor do our laws require a lesser surrender of my body - such as blood. If a 19 y.o. female human is going to die without a transfusion from my blood, I am completely free under our laws to refuse to provide that transfusion. Our laws do not even require that if I see that 19 y.o. female human in mortal peril - say dangling by one hand off a bridge - that I do anything to prevent her death. This even extends to me after I die! If my organs from my dead corpse are what is needed to prevent another human from dying - I can refuse to help even though I am dead.

Why? Because "its life" has nothing to do with it. My liberty to not surrender my person or to act in a particular manner trumps all your notions of "life" and its value under the laws, customs and social norms of our society. You Christains are not out there on a crusade to reguire organ donation upon death - something that would clearly save lives AND effect no other living being. You Christians are not out there trying to pass "good samaratin (sp?)" laws (well actually some of you are, but it does not generate the universal Christian Right fervour that abortion does). You Christains are not out there trying to pass laws that would mandate participation of the general populace in life saving medical procedures.

Yet you are all out there trying to significantly curtail the liberty of women on the basis that a fetus/embryo is "life."