News The World Can't Wait Drive Out the Bush Regime

[TheStatutoryApe]

Also, there is no way adoption would be a viable alternative to abortion, are you aware of the numbers?

I've tried looking. I know that adoption numbers aren't very good in general but from what I have been told the adoption of new borns is very successful. I have yet to see numbers specifically for new born adoptions though.
---edit---
sorry to drag you in Evo.

 

[Townsend]

I've pretty much decided to stay out of this kind of discussion because it goes nowhere, but 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 there is no perfect form of birth control. The most responsible of people may still have an accident. They may not be ready to have a child and I am in full support of first trimester abortions for any reason. I am in full support of abortion in later trimesters for medical & psychological reasons.

I have to ask how many unwanted children you have adopted, or if you're too young, how many you plan to adopt? It's so easy to tell people how to live their lives, not so easy to put your money where your mouth is.

Well said Evo...well said

 

[Evo]

I've tried looking. I know that adoption numbers aren't very good in general but from what I have been told the adoption of new borns is very successful. I have yet to see numbers specifically for new born adoptions though.
---edit---
sorry to drag you in Evo.

It's been discussed here before, if you look at the number of abortions performed annually and add that to the number of babies currently up for adoption, it's impossible. So, we open up orphanages where these unwanted kids can live unwanted without the chance of living in a family, no hope for a normal life, institutionalized until they're old enough to be cut off from support, then thrown into a world they've never lived in. Oh, yeah, that's great. And where is the money going to come from? And what about these millions and millions of unwanted kids? How is society supposed to absorb them? Got any answers? (not directed at you TSA) It's just that people do not think things through.

 

[vanesch]

Ok, then I repeat my question: is it ok to spit ?

Ok, I expected in fact no answer to this question, because it seems to be totally unrelated, and maybe even perceived as something ad hominem. It isn't, it is straight to the point.

1) The difference between a fecondated egg cell and another one is of course the DNA content. All the rest of the cellular machinery is the same. So if it is the DNA content that is "sacred", so be it. Now, this must be a quite specific DNA content, because between a Chimp fecondated egg and a human fecondated egg, there's only about 1% of the base pairs that's different.
So we seem to have a DNA molecule with "human rights" here if it contains a very specific sequencing order.
Again, it cannot be the egg cell, because the egg cell without fecondation is exactly the same as the one with fecondation, except for the DNA.

2) Now, if you spit on the ground, chances are there are several human cells in it ; that's btw how forensic science can find DNA strings from saliva to identify criminals. IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME DNA ! Each cell in your body has exactly the same DNA. So if that molecule is so sacred, you shouldn't be allowed to loose cells. Spitting and abortion are on the same level !

3) you could argue that "an egg cell, given the right circumstances, can grow into a human". Well, EXACTLY THE SAME IS TRUE FOR YOUR OTHER CELLS ! You can (in principle) take its DNA, put it in an egg cell and grow a copy of you ; that's what's called cloning. So if human DNA "has rights" you shouldn't be allowed to loose any of your cells !

So tell me again, when/what exactly has human rights ?

 

[vanesch]

I'm curious Vanesch, what is this suppose to imply? Are you a pro-choice individual as well?

What's pro-choice ? Giving a woman the right, if she absolutely wants to keep her child, not to have abortion ?

 

[vanesch]

Since the pro-lifers are the ones that want to create a law taking away someone's right to undergo a certain medical procedure the burden of proof is on them(in my opinion). Since this proof can not be satisfactorily established then I do not believe a law should be put in place regarding the medical procedure.

I think the point is quite clear. You can discuss about whether a fetus is a human being who can suffer (that's in fact the essential point !) in the last trimester ; in the beginning, the first few months, scientifically it is total bull**** because your goldfish is a more advanced creature at that moment than the fetus. In between, it is a grey zone. So being against abortion in the first few months cannot have any scientific underpinning, and is purely religious. Now, a *religious* view should not be imposed legally upon others. I don't want a law imposing me to respect the Shabat ; in the same way religious arguments should not be used (in an enlightened democracy) to impose these views on OTHER people.

So allowing for abortion until a certain early period in the term seems to me totally impossible to argue against from any scientific point of view. It is only for the later period that there can be different arguments. I find the solution they have in France not so bad: there's possibility of abortion, I think it is something like 12 weeks or so. After that it is illegal, but you can give birth to the child and abandon it immediately.

Personally, I'd have no difficulties shifting that 12 weeks to 6 months, because the fetus is not viable on its own up to that moment. But I can uderstand that people want to set the limit earlier.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's been discussed here before, if you look at the number of abortions performed annually and add that to the number of babies currently up for adoption, it's impossible. So, we open up orphanages where these unwanted kids can live unwanted without the chance of living in a family, no hope for a normal life, institutionalized until they're old enough to be cut off from support, then thrown into a world they've never lived in. Oh, yeah, that's great. And where is the money going to come from? And what about these millions and millions of unwanted kids? How is society supposed to absorb them? Got any answers? (not directed at you TSA) It's just that people do not think things through.

I still can't find the numbers in regards to new borns. The only thing I could find was in this first paragraph here...

Since the end of World War II, interest in adoption primarily has focused on healthy, young infants. By the mid-1950's, the demand for healthy infants grew so significantly that it exceeded the number of children available for adoption, a trend that has accelerated with each passing decade. (Freundlich, 1998)
Adoption.com

Wait I found more...
I can not find actual stats on how many new borns go up for adoption each year though or how many of them are adopted each year. They only give general numbers that I can find.
As far as I understand the vast majority of children that go into foster care aren't infants and the vast majority of infants that go up for adoption are adopted. The idea that opting for adoption over abortion with only put more kids into the system is a fallacy. It's the mothers who keep their children even though they can not properly take care of them that wind up filling the system with unwanted children.
Ofcourse if all the children that get aborted every year were to be placed for adoption instead it could very well clog the system. But if fewer women who are incapable of raising a child were to become pregnant then that would help quite a bit as well, both in the way of fewer abortions and fewer children in the system.

 

[Skyhunter]

I've pretty much decided to stay out of this kind of discussion because it goes nowhere

I agree see post #109. It is also way off topic.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think the point is quite clear. [ect...]

I was being diplomatic by not asserting a stance on direction or the other. I agree with you and I do not agree with making laws based on anything but logic.

 

[outsider]

So allowing for abortion until a certain early period in the term seems to me totally impossible to argue against from any scientific point of view. It is only for the later period that there can be different arguments. I find the solution they have in France not so bad: there's possibility of abortion, I think it is something like 12 weeks or so. After that it is illegal, but you can give birth to the child and abandon it immediately.

somehow i find abandoning a baby after birth is far crueler than killing it before it knows any better. Before you lose, you must gain... and a baby has gained nothing by way of experience or pain until it is born. the psycological duress on the mother is also harmful for the fetus' development. if you (not you vanesch, but pro-lifers) feel that you can judge people for being immoral and cruel, well, I would say that pro-lifers are the cruel ones.

 

[outsider]

I've pretty much decided to stay out of this kind of discussion because it goes nowhere, but 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 there is no perfect form of birth control. The most responsible of people may still have an accident. They may not be ready to have a child and I am in full support of first trimester abortions for any reason. I am in full support of abortion in later trimesters for medical & psychological reasons.

I have to ask how many unwanted children you have adopted, or if you're too young, how many you plan to adopt? It's so easy to tell people how to live their lives, not so easy to put your money where your mouth is.

Also, there is no way adoption would be a viable alternative to abortion, are you aware of the numbers?

wonderfully put... and especially credible since you are a mother too. (aren't you?) you're beautiful!

 

[Skyhunter]

When you have held your babies, fed them, cared for them when they were ill, cried with them, laughed with them, and then had to bury them after they are killed in a war is far worse than having an abortion.

Don't believe me, ask Cindy Sheehan

 

[faust9]

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM

This is an intrepretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself. There are passages that preach the famous "turn the other cheek" philosophy because by doing so you put yourself above the evil and into Gods hands. If you're arguing your pro-life stance from the position of a Christian then you need to do so from the new testiment. The preachings of Jesus supercede the Old Testiment when there is a conflict between the two.

The "Turn the other cheek" philosophy shows itself in many modernday religions.

Talmud: One should choose to be among the persecuted, rather than the persecutors.

Dhammapada: Victory breeds hatred, for the defeated live in pain. Happily live the peaceful, giving up victory and defeat.

Book of Mormon: For behold, they had rather sacrifice their lives than even to take the life of their enemy; and they have buried their weapons of war deep in the earth, because of their love towards their brethren.

Book of Matthew: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

What you're dealing with is an interpretation of God's word. You will not find a passage where Christ advocates self defense---quite the contrary. What you will find is second hand subjective reasoning to support a position allowing Christians to "Defend themselves".

If you look at the reasoning for self defense and juxtapose that with Christ's writings you'll find the self defense may be worse in many instance than turning the other cheek. If you are righteous then your place in heaven and next to God is assured; however, the attacker's(sinner's) place in heaven is not. Self defense may lead to the death of the sinner thus fixing the sinners place in "hell" which is worse than allowing the sinner to live because---and here's the kicker---the sinner may change as Paul did. So, is it better to defend yourself or to 'possible' secure a place in heaven for another? That's a choice you ahve to make but do so knowing that Christ never advocated self defens.

My 2 cents.

 

[DM]

Please describe pro choice, and I am also curious why you ask, or why it is relevant? I'd prefer to answer your question after I know what you mean by "pro choice."

Fom Oxford dictionary:
Pro-choice adj. believing that a pregnant woman should be able to choose to have an abortion if she wants.

I'd like to know your stance in abortion, do you support it or condemn it? I'm unable to identify it from your answers.

 

[vanesch]

This is an intrepretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself.

Yes, but according to the scriptures of the Great Bangaloo (which are unfortunately not available online) a totally different ethical code of conduct is proposed (book XI, phrase 1062.2): "hit those that might one day hit you, and you will receive the Ointment of the Great White Handkerchief" (similar to God's paradise for Christian worshippers - though there are big differences too, especially concerning the choice of golden spoons). I'm (probably the sole) worshipper of the Great Bangaloo, but these scriptures should have similar legal and ethical rights than any other religious code, no ?

 

[DM]

What's pro-choice ? Giving a woman the right, if she absolutely wants to keep her child, not to have abortion ?

The converse, choosing to have an abortion.

Now, if you spit on the ground, chances are there are several human cells in it ; that's btw how forensic science can find DNA strings from saliva to identify criminals. IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME DNA ! Each cell in your body has exactly the same DNA. So if that molecule is so sacred, you shouldn't be allowed to loose cells. Spitting and abortion are on the same level !

From this written statement, I'm able to deduce that you're a pro-choice individual.

I fail to understand why you compare "spit" with an embryo. By spitting you're not killing an organism, one that is being developed into a full human being. Spitting and abortion are not on the same level, your statement actually comes to me as a shock.

You challenge pro-life individuals, like me, to answer "when/what exactly has human rights?"

Are you saying that a full grown person with a mental deficiency; unable to orally communicate, move and think should not have rights? Are you thus saying that this person should be killed?

Abortion is in many levels connected to euthanasia. There are people in this world that choose the fate of others.

 

[faust9]

Yes, but according to the scriptures of the Great Bangaloo (which are unfortunately not available online) a totally different ethical code of conduct is proposed (book XI, phrase 1062.2): "hit those that might one day hit you, and you will receive the Ointment of the Great White Handkerchief" (similar to God's paradise for Christian worshippers - though there are big differences too, especially concerning the choice of golden spoons). I'm (probably the sole) worshipper of the Great Bangaloo, but these scriptures should have similar legal and ethical rights than any other religious code, no ?

This was my popint earlier. Abortion is not explicitly prohibited by many religions but for some reason Christians feel it necessary to force their own brand of righteousness upon the rest of the world. Many religions have "health of the mother" clauses.

The thing that bugs me is when people preach about responsibility. Well, it's hard to be responsible when you're being raped. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050831/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_safrica_rape

It's hard to be responsible when the educating of the poor is stopped because we feel abortion should not be an option so to help prevent abortion we stop educating poor Africans all together.


It's hard to be responsible when your a Thai sex slave.

These poeple who preach responsibility have probably never been to Olongapo City or Padia Beach or Singapore or Oman or Yeman or Dakar or anyone of a number of poor nations were sex is a sole means of income or selling daughters into sexual slavery to feed the rest of the family is an acceptible practice.

 

[faust9]

The converse, choosing to have an abortion.



From this written statement, I'm able to deduce that you're a pro-choice individual.

I fail to understand why you compare "spit" with an embryo. By spitting you're not killing an organism, one that is being developed into a full human being. Spitting and abortion are not on the same level, your statement actually comes to me as a shock.

You challenge pro-life individuals, like me, to answer "when/what exactly has human rights?"

Are you saying that a full grown person with a mental deficiency; unable to orally communicate, move and think should not have rights? Are you thus saying that this person should be killed?

Abortion is in many levels connected to euthanasia. There are people in this world that choose the fate of others.

At what point does a Human become a human and what doctrine are you using to base this upon?

Also, euthanasia is typically the right of individuals to choose when where and how they expire---people choosing their own fate.

How much mental capacity does a zygot have? Can a zygot survive without the mother? If I have a kidney can you force me to give it to you to save your life?

 

[DM]

Abortion is not explicitly prohibited by many religions but for some reason Christians feel it necessary to force their own brand of righteousness upon the rest of the world.

Abortion is also not explicitly prohibited by Christians.

The thing that bugs me is when people preach about responsibility. Well, it's hard to be responsible when you're being raped.

Do you like distorting facts? Responsibility is directed to those that willingly practise sex. Individuals that are raped are adviced to have the baby and if the person does not wish to nurture the child, it's best to give it to an institution.

It's hard to be responsible when the educating of the poor is stopped because we feel abortion should not be an option so to help prevent abortion we stop educating poor Africans all together.

Why should the education of the poor be stopped when we feel abortion should not be an option?

 

[faust9]

Abortion is also not explicitly prohibited by Christians.

Then you need to tell the evangelicals and catholics this.

Do you like distorting facts? Responsibility is directed to those that willingly practise sex. Individuals that are raped are adviced to have the baby and if the person does not wish to nurture the child, it's best to give it to an institution.

Why should a woman be advised to carry a baby to term which would endanger her life---poor women have high labor mortality rates---to support your view that the child should be allowed to live?

Why should the education of the poor be stopped when we feel abortion should not be an option?

Why indeed.

 

[vanesch]

The converse, choosing to have an abortion.

Mymy, if for every joke one needs a smiley !

From this written statement, I'm able to deduce that you're a pro-choice individual.

Great deduction

I fail to understand why you compare "spit" with an embryo. By spitting you're not killing an organism, one that is being developed into a full human being. Spitting and abortion are not on the same level, your statement actually comes to me as a shock.

But you ARE. I was responding to what's its series' name, who claimed that a SINGLE EGGCELL was a human being with rights. My argument was a "reductio ad absurdum" in that if we take that as a point of departure, you arrive at the crazy conclusion that each human cell has those rights !

You challenge pro-life individuals, like me, to answer "when/what exactly has human rights?"

Are you saying that a full grown person with a mental deficiency; unable to orally communicate, move and think should not have rights? Are you thus saying that this person should be killed?

A grown person, no matter how deficient, is NOT biologically dependent on the body of someone else. Imagine that a totally deficient person has no liver, and that YOU must stay biologically connected to that person in order for him to live. Imagine him almost brain dead. Wouldn't you think about arguing that, hey, it is YOUR liver, and you have the right to "disconnect" from that other person. If that would make him die, too bad.

Also, I think that yes indeed, beyond a certain level of "brain deadness" you loose your "human rights to live". But it is a much more difficult question to answer because one doesn't know about the irreversibility in many cases.

Imagine that my left leg got ripped off in an accident, but is still "alive", while I got crushed under a truck. Should one keep my leg alive with artificial blood irrigation and so on ?

Abortion is in many levels connected to euthanasia. There are people in this world that choose the fate of others.

As I said, there's the difference of biological dependence. I'm however pro euthanasia in 2 cases: 1) if it is clearly the DEMAND of the person in question and 2) if the person is totally and irreversibly brain-damaged to the point where every form of "human life" is impossible.
But this is another discussion, because I fully realize the dangers of abuse.

 

[DM]

At what point does a Human become a human and what doctrine are you using to base this upon?

Since it becomes a Zigote. That simple.

Also, euthanasia is typically the right of individuals to choose when where and how they expire---people choosing their own fate.

There are many types of euthanasia. Allow me to introduce you to:

"Involuntary euthanasia is when a patient's life is ended without the patient's knowledge and consent. This may mean that the patient is kicking and screaming and begging for life, but in practice today it usually means that the patient is unconscious, unable to communicate, or is too sick and weak to be aware of what is happening or to take any action on his own behalf."

Involuntary Euthanasia
http://www.hospicepatients.org/actual-hosp-euth-cases.html

How much mental capacity does a zygot have? Can a zygot survive without the mother? If I have a kidney can you force me to give it to you to save your life?

Your comparison is not valid. Notice your "How much mental capacity does a zygot have?" comment. Exactly the same as involuntary euthanasia. Sickening.

 

[vanesch]

Since it becomes a Zigote. That simple.

And the other part of the question: on what doctrine do you base yourself to say that this is a human being ?

I tried to argue that such a zigote is about the same thing as just any OTHER cell of a human being. So what differentiates a zigote from that other cell ?

 

[DM]

Why should a woman be advised to carry a baby to term which would endanger her life---

Why would it endanger her life?

Why indeed.

Would you like to tell me how does the education of the poor stop when abortion is not an option?

 

[faust9]

Since it becomes a Zigote. That simple.



There are many types of euthanasia. Allow me to introduce you to:

"Involuntary euthanasia is when a patient's life is ended without the patient's knowledge and consent. This may mean that the patient is kicking and screaming and begging for life, but in practice today it usually means that the patient is unconscious, unable to communicate, or is too sick and weak to be aware of what is happening or to take any action on his own behalf."

You mean like the Schaivo case huh?

Involuntary Euthanasia
http://www.hospicepatients.org/actual-hosp-euth-cases.html

Unsubstianted e-mails. Let me clue you in on a little secret---people lie on the internet sometimes. People do not always tell the truth when they feel passionately about a subject.

Your comparison is not valid. Notice your "How much mental capacity does a zygot have?" comment. Exactly the same as involuntary euthanasia. Sickening.

Ok your opinion. You conveniently avoided the free will to choose your kidney aspect but that's because you feel a zygot is a human while I feel a living breathing child is a human.

 

[faust9]

Why would it endanger her life?

What part of high labor mortality rates in poor nations did you miss?

Would you like to tell me how does the education of the poor stop when abortion is not an option?

When President Bush changes rules to make this so. You should read the news from time to time. I know this was published in european papers because I was there in 2001 when this first started to appear:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1837283.stm

 

[DM]

And the other part of the question: on what doctrine do you base yourself to say that this is a human being ?

Involuntary euthanasia and religion. You may ignore the latter, religion, since I'm becoming aware that you are not a religious person.

I tried to argue that such a zigote is about the same thing as just any OTHER cell of a human being. So what differentiates a zigote from that other cell ?

You argued that "spitting" is the same as a zygote. Has it crossed your mind that spitting is twofold?

A) People choose to spit in dependence of bad habits.

B) To extract or get rid of impurities.

The difference is clear. The creation of a zygote is the result of cells between two parties being formed into one life form.

 

[faust9]

Involuntary euthanasia and religion. You may ignore the latter, religion, since I'm becoming aware that you are not a religious person.



You argued that "spitting" is the same as a zygote. Has it crossed your mind that spitting is twofold?

A) People choose to spit in dependence of bad habits.

B) To extract or get rid of impurities.

The difference is clear. The creation of a zygote is the result of cells between two parties being formed into one life form.

Again, we come back to this idea of a lifeform. What doctrine tells you the zygot is a life form? What guarantee is there that this zygot will mature to a living beathing human being?

 

[DM]

What part of high labor mortality rates in poor nations did you miss?

A clear excuse. You completely concentrate on the poor, is that your strategy to forget the rest of the world? In addition, instead of pointing your finger on women that live in parts of Africa, you ought to focus on the absence and lack of aid.

When President Bush changes rules to make this so. You should read the news from time to time. I know this was published in european papers because I was there in 2001 when this first started to appear

From your given reference:

"This dream is unlikely to be realized if Alice gets pregnant again, as she cannot afford another child."

It's not all about abortion, or is it?

 

[DM]

Again, we come back to this idea of a lifeform. What doctrine tells you the zygot is a life form?

What doctrine?! I don't even need to use religion to argue your question. A zygot is a life form, there are no doctrines, it's a pure biological fact.

What guarantee is there that this zygot will mature to a living beathing human being?

The guarantee is on permitting the life form to develop and to be delivered.

 

[faust9]

A clear excuse. You completely concentrate on the poor, is that your strategy to forget the rest of the world? In addition, instead of pointing your finger on women that live in parts of Africa, you ought to focus on the absence and lack of aid.

Ok, what right do you have to force your ideology upon Japanese women?

From your given reference:

"This dream is unlikely to be realized if Alice gets pregnant again, as she cannot afford another child."

It's not all about abortion, or is it?

This makes no sense. You need to do some investigation on your own; moreover, you should have added the following to your quote because by presenting the small tid-bit that you did you changed the meaning of the article to suit your argument which is a very disingenuous thing to do. I'll help you by including the follow on paragraphs from my source

Once a month, she receives a contraceptive injection at this clinic. But a decision taken far away in America is about to have an impact on Alice's life.

"I'm sorry to tell you", says the nurse, as Alice rolls up her sleeve for the injection, "This is the last time you will be here."

"From the end of the month, we are closing down."

The clinic is one of five across Kenya to be shut because of a decision taken by George W Bush shortly after he became President last year.

He announced that the US Government would not fund international agencies which support abortion.

The move was seen as an attempt to appease the powerful anti-abortion lobby in the United States.

But the clinics run by pro-choice organisations in Kenya, mainly offer family planning services, not abortion.

 

[faust9]

What doctrine?! I don't even need to use religion to argue your question. A zygot is a life form, there are no doctrines, it's a pure biological fact.

Then supply the medical doctrine that supports this 'fact'

The guarantee is on permitting the life form to develop and to be delivered.

So what about the health of the mother?

 

[DM]

Ok, what right do you have to force your ideology upon Japanese women?

To force my ideology? You're obsessed.

This makes no sense. You need to do some investigation on your own; moreover, you should have added the following to your quote because by presenting the small tid-bit that you did you changed the meaning of the article to suit your argument which is a very disingenuous thing to do.

It makes perfect sense, I think you're the one who's being "disingenuous". The fact remains, this article also addresses women that would like to conceive a child but are forced not to due to funding.

I'll help you by including the follow on paragraphs from my source

I have already commented about it; you should concentrate on aid, not abortion. For the sake of transparency, these are my opinions, THEY ARE NOT "FORCED IDEOLOGIES".

 

[DM]

Then supply the medical doctrine that supports this 'fact'

Oh dear, now you want to dissent scientific facts.

So what about the health of the mother?

A healthy mother is a mother that stays at home. Again, reiteration; aid.

 

[faust9]

Oh dear, now you want to dissent with scientifical facts.

You used the term fact. I just want you to support the use of the word.

A healthy mother is a mother that stays at home. Again, reiteration; aid.

Utter rubbish! Barefoot, pregnat, and in the kitchen right? Now come the true colors.

 

[faust9]

To force my ideology? You're obsessed.

Glass houses.

It makes perfect sense, I think you're the one who's being "disingenuous". The fact remains, this article also addresses women that would like to conceive a child but are forced not to due to funding.

Utter nonesense! Support this claim please.

I have already commented about it; you should concentrate on aid, not abortion. For the sake of transparency, these are my opinions, THEY ARE NOT "FORCED IDEOLOGIES".

The aid is being cut because because the organization---not the actual clinics in many cases---supports abortion as a viable means of family planning.

 

[DM]

Utter rubbish! Barefoot, pregnat, and in the kitchen right? Now come the true colors.

Opposed to "high labor mortality rates"? I'm bemused by your recent statement. Just what exactly causes "high mortality rates"?

Your comments have been reduced to vagueness and incomprehension.

 

[DM]

The aid is being cut because because the organization---not the actual clinics in many cases---supports abortion as a viable means of family planning.

I imagine you're pretty content then. You support abortion!

 

[faust9]

Opposed to "high labor mortality rates"? I'm bemused by your recent statement. Just what exactly causes "high mortality rates"?

Your comments have been reduced to vagueness and incomprehension.

What the hell are you talking about? How is high labor mortality rates vague? Poor women are much more likely to die during child birth than developed nations. Your response here shows you are out of touch with reality---kind of like the a mother is safe at home comment. Here, I did a little leg work for you to find some readily available statistics:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_1999_May_31/ai_54888648
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Aug/23-564085.html
http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=26928
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/matmrtlt.html
http://www.childinfo.org/eddb/mat_mortal/

 

[faust9]

I imagine you're pretty content then. You support abortion!

For the health of the mother yes. Read the thread--I made mention of this already.

 

[vanesch]

Involuntary euthanasia and religion. You may ignore the latter, religion, since I'm becoming aware that you are not a religious person.

I AM a religious person, I worship the Great Bangaloo! , but that shouldn't matter when discussing what is to be legal and not FOR OTHER PEOPLE. The separation of religion and state has exactly this as its foundation: religion cannot be used to argument any legal rule. You are FREE to your religious opinion, but you are NOT FREE to impose it upon others. So all reasoning leading to a law should be free of religious arguments, but solely based upon scientific and logical arguments. It is exactly this lack of separation which is the total disaster of theocracies.

You argued that "spitting" is the same as a zygote. Has it crossed your mind that spitting is twofold?

A) People choose to spit in dependence of bad habits.

B) To extract or get rid of impurities.

The difference is clear. The creation of a zygote is the result of cells between two parties being formed into one life form.

Yes, but there is no law against spitting (or bleeding, or poking my nose, or scratching my buttocks... or any other behaviour that can result in separating living cells from my body, hence denying them the right to live). You want to instore a law against removing a SINGLE CELL (a zygote).

Of course a zygote is a life form. So are the other cells in your body, and so are bacteria and mushrooms. The only fundamental thing that separates these cells from each other are the DNA content in the latter cases. In the former case THERE ISN'T EVEN THIS DIFFERENCE.
So I come back, once again, to my question: WHAT EXACTLY is it that makes a zygote more "rightfull" than a T-cell in your blood, or a chimp's zygote, or the bacteria that you are killing by millions when you are taking antibiotics to get rid of an infection ?

 

[DM]

What the hell are you talking about?

Likewise. Example:

How is high labor mortality rates vague? Poor women are much more likely to die during child birth than developed nations.

Why are poor women in third world countries more susceptible to death during child birth? The reason is clear; intensive LABOUR!

Your response here shows you are out of touch with reality---kind of like the a mother is safe at home comment.

Actually when I made the "mother is safe at home" comment, I did use "aid" in support of it. That meant personnel such as midwives attending the conceived women.

 

[DM]

For the health of the mother yes. Read the thread--I made mention of this already.

So why do you critise Bush's policy. Again vagueness.

 

[vanesch]

Actually when I made the "mother is safe at home" comment, I did use "aid" in support of it. That meant personnel such as midwives attending the conceived women.

We're concentrating on the wrong argument here. It is not because you're in deep misery and have a health risk that you should be granted the "right to abortion". It should be simply a right to every woman (at least during the first part of the term), simply because THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT THAT GOES AGAINST IT. The only argument to DENY THE RIGHT (no matter whether it is because of misery or just for personal convenience) to remove a small cluster of cells from your body is purely religious and as such, totally vain when accepting the separation of state and religion.
I still want to see a non-religious, scientific argument that tells us that there is "human suffering" when you remove a zygote. It cannot be done. In the same way as nobody makes a fuzz about the cells you kill when you spit or scratch your back, one shouldn't make a fuzz when a woman decides to get those cells removed.

 

[DM]

I AM a religious person, I worship the Great Bangaloo! , but that shouldn't matter when discussing what is to be legal and not FOR OTHER PEOPLE. The separation of religion and state has exactly this as its foundation: religion cannot be used to argument any legal rule. You are FREE to your religious opinion, but you are NOT FREE to impose it upon others. So all reasoning leading to a law should be free of religious arguments, but solely based upon scientific and logical arguments. It is exactly this lack of separation which is the total disaster of theocracies.

I'm not preaching Vanesch.

Sometimes in Christianity, discussing what is to be legal or not does matter to us. But that does not mean we're trying to impose our religious perceptions on others. Sometimes we base our beliefs with our religion, a quintessence of this is abortion.

The only fundamental thing that separates these cells from each other are the DNA content in the latter cases. In the former case THERE ISN'T EVEN THIS DIFFERENCE.

That's where I just disagree.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The bible on when the fetus becomes viable.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7 KJV)

 

[vanesch]

That's where I just disagree.

And that's where I want to hear an argument...

 

[DM]

And that's where I want to hear an argument...

I believe I have argued that point.

 

[vanesch]

The bible on when the fetus becomes viable.

That would be much more liberal than even most liberal legislations: BREATHING would mean that it becomes a human being then. So birth would be that moment.

But again, what is written in an old book should not affect the daily life of people if they didn't choose to adhere to it.

I can perfectly accept that people (including doctors !) do not want to participate in actions that are, according to their beliefs, in contradiction to the values those beliefs impose. For instance, I can perfectly well accept that a certain doctor would refuse to practice an abortion. However, it goes also the other way: one should not use the legal machinery to IMPOSE these values (derived from religious beliefs) upon people. They are free to subscribe - or not - to those values.

 

[DM]

But again, what is written in an old book should not affect the daily life of people if they didn't choose to adhere to it.

But they choose to adhere. Hence religion and beliefs.