American Suckage

[Swordsman3003]

I have a point to make now:

Do you think that, even if we consider a fetus a person, that a woman's rights to control her own body become trumped by the fetus's right as a parasite?

Also, if you think that an inert sphereical hunk of biomatter can be considered a human, than how can you justify the wholesale torture, killing, and mistreatment of animals, especially chimpanzees? They to me, are remarkably more human that any fetus.

[Honor]

From the pro-life side, it looks as if the pro-choice side could be aptly named "murder-tolerant". I personally don't use that term because I know that it would anger lots of people, without really adding anything to my argument.

See...? There's a difference. I think, in your position, I'd refrain from using the term "murder tolerant" not because it might anger people, but rather because it's ridiculous in premise and demonstrably untrue.

"Human being" is a term that enjoys the status of being pretty clearly defined, legally and scientifically. The legal definition is incorrect, due to a political need to bow to the ignorance and emotion of a large cross section of the lay public... But the definition is there, no less. The definition that is used philosophically and theologically is very fuzzy to say the least, but in this culture, neither philosophers nor theocrats are charged with the responsibility of making laws... And they're especially not charged with the responsibility of forcing their views on others.

In short... It shouldn't impact on my personal freedoms that you are confused abuot what is and isn't human. But we're discussing the terms "anti-choice" and "pro-choice" and "pro-life".

You pointed out:

I, personally, don't think that "pro-choice" is a perfect term, either. I see lots of choices. There's the decision to have sex, the decision to use contraception (while some pro-lifers don't think contraception is okay, many do), the decision as to the forms and effectiveness of the contraception used. (Let's leave pregnancy by rape a rare case and a separate issue for the moment - unless someone can cite a source that a significant percentage of abortions are the result of rapes). If you don't want to have a baby, there's lots of ways not to.

And you're attempting to use that as a means of invalidating the descriptive "pro-choice"? That, to me, seems a bit like saying "But oranges are orange." as an argument against calling them oranges.

I don't know of any pro-choice person who doesn't feel that women should have all of those choices at their disposal... We're... uh... What's that phrase? Oh yeah. We're pro choice. We're in favor of having more choices. Yeah, I think condoms and diaphragms and spermicidal jelly and abortions should be freely available to everyone.

And yes... Abstinance, too. But that's pretty stupid as a "Plan A" since sex drive is the second strongest natural instinct the human animal has. Saying we shouldn't have abortion because people can choose abstinence is like saying we shouldn't have dentists because people don't have to eat sugar.

All the same arguments I made initially still stand un-altered. Nobody is "anti-life", so calling one side "pro-life" is stupid at best and intentionally dishonest at worst... And calling one side "pro-life" because they don't understand life or sentience is farcical. The subject under debate is whether a woman should have the choice of terminating a pregnancy... So the two sides of the debate are, logically, pro- and anti-choice.

Moving beyond that, though... (bold face so people skimming the first part will know I've shifted gears)

don't know when human life begins. Almost everyone agrees that an adult is human. Children probably are, though I find it hard to believe sometimes. Social consensus (which is what we're dealing with here, because it's a matter of terminology) suggests that babies are. It doesn't follow that birth is the dividing line, so it's probably somewhere before that.

Legally, birth is not the dividing line... But I don't agree that "It doesn't follow that birth is the dividing line..." The legal definition we labor under right now is nothing but an artifact of a medically and scientifically ignorant collection of nine men, trying to stay in step with the mystical, medically and scientifically ignorant views of the nation at large. Birth makes as much sense as the line they've drawn in the sand... The real and logical answers - a given stage of development reached at an individually unique age, if at all - is simply too harsh a reality for most human beings to deal with at this primitive point in our evolution.

Let's suppose, for the sake of easy argument, that y'all are right. Without a shred of scientific or logical sense to it, let's suppose that it's a real live fully sentient, whaddya think about that human being the moment spooge hits the egg. Why should my rights be diminished in favor of those of this other person?

If I'm walking down the road and see a person - a real, live, already born person - drowning in a river, I am under no obligation to risk my own life, health, or even personal comfort, to jump in and try to save them. In fact, in some instances, I can be charged if I do... Don't leap into the flooding canal to try to save that person, leave it to the rescue professionals. Why should I be forced by law to give up my time, my money, my health, and possibly my life in order to serve the needs of a potential human being... Someone who's not even a person yet?

And don't even try to suggest that it's my own fault for having sex. This is not the stone age, which was, incidently the last time we -think- human women didn't have some means of aborting an unwanted pregnancy. The idea that pregnancy is and should be a just, natural, and inescapable punishment placed upon women for having sex is oppressive, vile, and barbaric. Not to mention just plain backward. Unwanted pregnancy is not nearly so much of a punishment for the mother as it is for the child.

It's not that pro-lifers are more in favor of babies... They just feel there ought to be a whole lot more miserable, maladjusted, sick, sad, unwanted babies.

[Lowky]

Personally I like the libertarian party's stance on abortion.

If the government can say you can't have one, then they have the right to say you must have one.

It should not be governments decision to make.

[Honor]

Personally I like the libertarian party's stance on abortion.

If the government can say you can't have one, then they have the right to say you must have one.

Gah... And against all odds, we have yet another instance in which the libertarian platform gives every impression of having been drafted by retarded howler monkeys. The second condition does not logically follow the first at all.

It should not be governments decision to make.

True that. True that. One hundred per cent.

[Swordsman3003]

That logic does not follow through. It sounds like the retarded jingo shit that relgious nuts spout.

[Toawa]

Actually, I'd buy the "pro-life" side's rhetoric a whole lot more if they actually showed more concern about the babies after they're born.

That reminds me of a page I found ~4 years ago.. I wish I could find it again.

It advanced the (conspiracy) theory that the groups who say "adoption instead of abortion" operate in such a way to increase their own numbers, thuswise:

1. Find vulnerable pregnant woman.

2. Convince them to give up the baby for adoption insead of aborting it.

3. Coincidentally, the group happens to run an adoption agency.

4. Prospective adoptive parents have to sign an agreement to bring up the adopted child in the faith, whatever it happens to be.

They also cited a disconnect in the way white women and black women are treated by the groups; white women are given adoption literature, black women are given parenting classes. (The implication being that they want to swell the numbers in their religion by adopting kids into it... but not if they're black.)

Personally I like the libertarian party's stance on abortion.

If the government can say you can't have one, then they have the right to say you must have one.

Gah... And against all odds, we have yet another instance in which the libertarian platform gives every impression of having been drafted by retarded howler monkeys. The second condition does not logically follow the first at all.

One day, I'll learn to stop doing this...

While it is true that "If the government can say you can't have one" does not, by itself, lead to "They have the right to say you must have one.", there is more at work here.

Quite simply, the government says quite a lot of things. And, assuming they haven't figured out magic(k) before the rest of us, their sayings have just as much effect as our saying things. The difference is, we don't have our own police force or military. The government has both. They can say, "You can't have an abortion," and make things very hard on you if you do anyway. So, should something happen to cause them to go to "You must have an abortion," they have the manpower to make damn sure it happens.

I say that one basis of Libertarianism is the fear of government interference. "They meddle...," to paraphrase River in Serenity. The bigger they are, the more they can meddle. True, there are many cases where the meddling is preferable to non-interference; but the fear is that the people running the government won't see where the line is.

The response to this, in the Libertarian platform, is "Eliminate the government arm capable of meddling, and you eliminate the abuses that occur." The problem, of course, is if you eliminate the big meddler, there's nothing to stop the little meddlers.

"Perception is (damn near) everything." - Me.
People are more upset at the meddling that they percieve as interfering with them and seek to eliminate it. I've felt the same way, particularly recently with 2257, Insex closing, etc.

And let me end this with one final point; a pre-emptive strike, if you will: Honor, I'm not trying to convert you to Libertarianism. I'm just trying to explain why they are saying what they are saying, in the hopes that we can have less vitriol and more calm discussion. Moreover, just because I may be seen to defend them, does not make me culpable for them, any moreso than a defense attourney may be held culpable for the people they defend. In our society, we have a weird sense of defense... We say people have a right to a vigorous defense in a criminal trial, yet if they are guilty (or we percieve them to be guilty), particularly of the more socially-"hot-button" issues, IE drunk driving, child molestation, etc., we complain about defense attourneys when they defend them to aquittal.

[SpasticSage]

My apologies to all who are discussing this intelligently - I need to hit a few points very briefly and run. Sleep is a necessary thing, especially after taking a sick day for actually being ill.

I agree that the current social structures are not set up to properly care for the women experiencing unwanted pregnancies. Nor do (or would) they reliably and consistently care for the resultant children is such a way for them to become successful, well adjusted, happy people. Another reason why I think it would be inappropriate for the US to ban abortion today. I won't pretend to defend pro-lifers who don't care at all about born children.

I don't think that children should be just a women's problem. I think that the father should be held just as fiscally responsible. I don't see this as punishment, I see it as responsibility - for both genders.

About titles: "anti-choice" is a name our opponents made up that make us sound like we're against people having any choices at all. (not counting wingnuts,) This isn't true. From my point of view, the term is all about propaganda. "Pro-life" is also about propaganda - I'll admit that. So is "Pro-choice". So are "Democrat" and "Republican", but we don't mind using these in conversation. For the most part I haven't seen people here refusing to use the term "Democrat" or "Republican" in favor of a more insulting term. (Perhaps string of insults ending in "Republican" - but you're still calling them "Republicans" - You at least give them THAT much respect in debates). My point is if you want to discuss the issues, then discuss the issues and cut the wordplay. This leaves us with (in my mind) two choices. Either we can all just call each other what we like to be called; or, if that violates our sensibilities so much, at least find a term that doesn't try to label one side or the other as an opressor or murder when that is not their intent. I REALLY don't care all that much about calling you pro-choice, I don't feel the need to find a new name for you other than what your side has made up. If you still need to find a name for those against abortions, how about "anti-abortion"?

Honor, you say that I'm so confused about what is and isn't human. Perhaps so - I freely admit this. Perhaps I'd rather err on the side of saving lives, if they are lives, at the cost non-lives (I personally don't advocate that a mother should be forced to save the life of a fetus at the cost of her own). I suggest that most if not all of the pro-choice people are equally confused, and not admitting it. I haven't seen anyone here propose a really good definition of when something becomes human. "a given stage of development" ... thats.... not really specific at all. Which stage? Which criteria? There are so many to choose from. One must be careful that this definition of what is and isn't okay to kill is not determined out of convenience.

Great... there goes sleep.

[Ranx]

The real and logical answers - a given stage of development reached at an individually unique age, if at all - is simply too harsh a reality for most human beings to deal with at this primitive point in our evolution.

This is interesting. Could you elaborate?

Are we talking about demonstrable mental capabilities? Accumulated experiences? Ethical development? Physical development of the brain?

Do you think that human rights should be restricted to those who meet this definition?

Are you familiar with Peter Singer, and if so, do you agree with his general conclusions?

[Honor]

Argh. Damn you all and your interesting arguments. And damn the schedule I must now pee on to answer them.

The real and logical answers - a given stage of development reached at an individually unique age, if at all - is simply too harsh a reality for most human beings to deal with at this primitive point in our evolution.

This is interesting. Could you elaborate?

Are we talking about demonstrable mental capabilities? Accumulated experiences? Ethical development? Physical development of the brain?

Do you think that human rights should be restricted to those who meet this definition?

Are you familiar with Peter Singer, and if so, do you agree with his general conclusions?

I was not familiar with Singer. I looked him up in wikipedia, though, and some of what I read there is dead on with my own views:

In his view the central argument against abortion is It is wrong to kill an innocent human being; a human fetus is an innocent human being; therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus. He challenges the first premise, on the grounds that its reference to human beings is ambiguous as between human beings in the zoological sense and persons as rational and self-conscious. There is no sanctity of human life that confers moral protection on human beings in the zoological sense.

As well as: He also rejects a backup argument against abortion that appeals to potential: It is wrong to kill a potential human being; a human fetus is a potential human being; therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus. The second premise is stronger, but its first premise is weaker, for he denies that a potential X has the same value or moral rights as an X.

As well as one of the best arguments against the "it's a person from the moment of conception" position I've ever heard: Against those who stress the continuity of our existence from conception to adulthood, he poses the example of an embryo in a dish on a laboratory bench, which he calls Mary. Now if it divides into two identical embryos, there is no way to answer the question whether Mary dies, or continues to exist, or is replaced by Jane and Susan. These are absurd questions, he thinks, and their absurdity casts doubt on the view that the embryo is a human being in the morally significant sense.

(boldface emphasis added in all cases)

I agree with Dershowitz in the concept that, since there is no evidence of any kind of a supernatural creator, much less the "god given rights" invoked by the founders of the US and several parties since, there must be a secular foundation for "human rights" and that that foundation is built upon our collective experience with various "human wrongs" and a wish to prevent future occurances of them. Unfortunately, this logic is intuitively seductive and can easily be taken to erronious extremes... I'd not like to be killed and eaten, thus it must be wrong to kill and eat things. or I'm glad I wasn't aborted as a fetus, thus it must be wrong to abort fetuses.

To answer both yourself and Spastic Sage on the subject of my own views on when a human being (zoological sense) becomes or ceases to be a Human Being (ethical sense), it would be when they gain or lose sentience, but specifically in terms of an actual abstract sense of self.

I've seen studies that lead me to a general sense of age on this, and I apologize, but I haven't time to look them up right now.

It seems a terrible mile marker, but one good dividing line for human children might be when they first learn to lie. Children first learn to lie when they first realize that they are seperate entities... That their mothers don't automatically know everything they themselves know. This is, in my opinion, an excellent channel marker as to the true beginnings of cogito, ergo sum. Any creature prior to or past that point of capability could very accurately be descirbed as a potential human being... And thus outside the parameters established in the spirit of a condemnation of homicide.

I just don't think it's probable, or even a good idea that we remove the stigma of criminality of holding to that theory in legal actuality. I see no harm, and a great deal of probable benefit, in affording one or two year old potential humans some extra protection... But I still maintain it's wrong to afford those extra protections when the potential human is still a parasite in it's host being, because doing so affords protections at an actual, measurable cost to the host.

About titles: "anti-choice" is a name our opponents made up that make us sound like we're against people having any choices at all. (not counting wingnuts,) This isn't true.

I'm sorry about your sleep cycle... I feel ya, man, I do.

I think this is the best argument you've offered against the lable "anti-choice". Personally, I feel anti any choice earns them the title, but I can see your point... Enough to agree that "anti-abortion" would be more accurate. I still intend to use "anti-choice" elsewhere, for purely political reasons as well as the reason of feeling all choices are appropriate, but I won't use the term to describe you. I disagree that "pro-choice" is anything but completely appropriate, though.

I fully and completely respect your right to err on the side of caution, but maintain that forcing others to do so it tyranny. You might also choose to err on the side of caution in terms of not skydiving or eating fatty foods, and it would be just as wrong to force others to follow those guidelines.

(Time to remind the feminists why they hate me, too) I also disagree with the position much of America, notably California, has taken on paternity. If women are to have the right to refuse maternity (and I believe theymust, without qualification) then men must have the same right to refuse paternity. As it stands, a woman can choose to abort without the consent of the man who impregnated her, but should she choose to keep the child, the man is legally obligated without an opportunity to decline. This is simply and obviously wrong.

At this point in human development and technology, I feel it is appropriate to assume all sex is recreational in nature (which includes sex for the purposes of pure emotional love and companionship) unless it's expressly agreed to be otherwise in advance. In such a situation, I would suggest a paranting agreement that is similar in function to a prenuptual agreement or any other contract. Otherwise, the legal obligations of the "father" should be limited to half the cost of a safe abortion, unless he agrees to a more active role.

Parenting is only a blessing and a responsibility if that responsibility is actively chosen. At the point it is mandated, and forced upon someone who does not consider themselves fit, willing, or able to shoulder it, it becomes a punishment for having had sex and getting "caught". Worse, the one most punished is, as I said before, the child.

Honor, I'm not trying to convert you to Libertarianism.

I didn't think you were. I apreciate what you're doing and I'm gald you're here to do it. I also apologise if I come off as vitriolic... I don't think I do. Although the howler monkeys comment was a bit... robust in it's use of humor as criticism.

I think Libertarians come in more than one flavor... The paranoid, the selfish, and the unrealistic.

Yes, government meddles. It's their job to meddle. If they weren't there to meddle in people's urges to kill one another, I'd almost certainly be dead by now... As would several other people, by my own hand. Government meddling has also brought about the end of slavery... Both the formal kind, and the more sneaky industrial revolution sweatshop kind. Government meddling has given us the interstate highway system, flood control and cheaper electricity, coast-to-coast rail service, police protection, fire protection, welfare, medicare, food safety standards, child labor laws, and one of my personal favorites, a near end to women being treated as chattel... To name but a few.

There are and will always be things that simply won't get done, or will only get done very badly, if society in the form of government doesn't step up and do them.

The idea that "I don't want to pay taxes for flood control in the mississippi river valley, because I don't live there." or similar libertarian arguments are both selfish and undereducated. Every American benefits from, for example, the Tennesee Valley Authority, and it was just that all should share in it's initial cost.

The idea that private society should do something like care for the poor and disabled, as an excuse to prevent government from doing it is selfish and unrealistic. Doing away with medicare, for example, isn't going to magically change human nature and cause everyone to step up to the charity plate... It's just going to save them a tiny bit of taxes and cost them a large chunk of GNP and aggregate standard of living.

The idea that government should be prevented from abuses by means of stripping it of all meaningful capability... That we should stop them from doing any good because they might do some bad, is paranoid. It's equivalent to the idea that children should be kept from doing wrong by wrapping them in straight jackets and locking them in padded cells. The correct and beneficial way to prevent government from abuses is by means of oversight, and active, informed participation by the citizenship. How much of the abuses that government is guilty of would have been prevented if the average American were as interested in what congress is doing as they are in what their favorite football or basketball or baseball team, or cosmopolitan magazine, or the characters in the young and the restless or contestants on Survivor are doing? You don't lock up and handcuff your children because you can't be bothered to watch and guide them.

I'm opposed to libertarianism because it's economically, technologically, intellectually, and ethically unsound... Like most all other hyper-conservative political ideologies. It favors throwing away a mountain of benefit for a tiny, short term personal advantage, and it fails to see even the most obvious disasterous effects of it's favored policies.

If you could magically grant this country a libertarian government, we'd be a barbaric, backward, corporate free state third world hell within two generations... Complete with industrial slave labor, old west style violence, massive poverty, miniscule life expectancy, meager standard of living, and a huge mortality rate. There's just no logical, realistic way around it.

[Sweet or Sour]

I told myself that I would not post in this thread, that it would be foolish of me as a forum newcomer, and by now it is obvious that my better judgement and myself aren't on the best of terms sometimes. So since I?m actively doing that which I told myself I would not do, might as well make it count.

First, the terms 'pro-X' and 'anti-X' as they pertain to the discussion at hand, are all fallacious if the arguments presented in this very thread are even slightly accurate. For example, to say that somebody is pro-choice, it is obvious that they are not pro all choice, just this specific choice, as it can be safely assumed that there is something that they would appreciate the intervention of a higher power with [be this higher power of a religious nature, or a human idea construct, like government]. So they are not pro-choice, they are pro-choice-to-have-an-abortion, if that. More accurately in most cases its pro-choice-to-have-an-abortion-given-X-and-Y-are-true. X and Y could be a trimester restriction, perhaps a method of execution, that perhaps the mother must be sober at the time of making this particular decision, whatever. And likewise holds true for the terms pro-life [or anti-choice, for that matter, as they are obviously pro other choices, just not this one]. 'Pro-Life'ers are obviously not pro-life in all situations, that is, if they have ever swatted a fly or consumed anything, at all. Perhaps its pro-sentient-life, or much more likely, pro-human-life, or pro-'innocent'-human-life, innocent being of course that they have yet to do something that would warrant killing. With that, you get into problems with what constitutes human, as has already been discussed, or more accurately, what constitutes potential human, and how small a building block are you willing to consider. Thanks to modern medical science, a child can be conceived with no sperm whatsoever, thus it can be argued that the egg is sufficient, alone, as potentially human. On the same note, modern medicine has made bringing a child to term successfully magnitudes less complicated than it once was, with drastically lower mortality rates, and simply not taking advantage of medical advance, or even living a life style in such a way as to make successful pregnancy near-impossible [drug abuse of various kinds, intentional low body fat], could certainly constitute inviting a miscarriage through neglect, and what difference is there from that and intentionally aborting. Along with that making it legal/illegal will not influence largely the ratio of pregnancy to successful child rearing, instead just making abortions/abandonment something that is done privately, which may very well be sufficient a reason to make it illegal in the eyes of some. These terms are just to color code each side for those who are not included, they are intentionally biased. That is their purpose.

Realistically, most of the arguments that are tossed about concerning this particular subject done have a leg to stand on, and it comes right down to if you think a mother should be able to dictate what occurs inside her body, regardless whatever of whatever it is, within her ability to make such a decision. It?s a moral question, simple in nature, and all the ?life begins and conception? and ?just a bundle of cells? and so forth, are garbage arguments meant to sway the opinions of those who otherwise simply don?t care enough to have actual conviction about the subject, or to rationalize an otherwise unsupported argument within a persons own view. The minds of those who do care about this, will not change, and no amount of talk will make it change. The subject is simply too heated to sway the opinion of anyone who actually cares enough to forge their own opinion.

Secondly, on the subject of government, and a personal belief that it is a naturally occurring thing within human social structure. Destroying or crippling government will simply create different government that will take its place. As soon as someone decides that they have the will, and ability to push their views on others, you have government in however a primitive states that it may be. Government is simply what it tends to be called when it gets of a certain size and influence. Government, in one form or another, will always exist in any social structure that tends toward a hierarchical design, as does ours, almost universally. Even in the days of the American frontier, as was referenced earlier, had tiny microcosms of government in each little city or town, as the centralized force that is seen today simply didn?t have the capacity to reach as far as it does now. It was there, it just wasn?t the centralized, lumbering behemoth that it is today. Perhaps though the size is beneficial. Even as they enforce seemingly idiotic rules and spend our money on things that a given individual tax payer finds meaningless [and often on things that really are meaningless], the government we have now provides the girth to take on the projects that the lone-tax-payer simply can?t fund him/herself, like an arguably stable electrical grid, or interstate highways, or water to inland areas. Does a tax payer from Wisconsin care that California, a natural desert, has millions of gallons of water pumped to it? Probably not. But the system that made it possible was paid for in part by that tax payers money. It is also the government that, due to its overwhelming size, allows us all to openly have discussions like this, or like the abortion discussion, without fear of retaliation from small groups who would rather seize power.

And just something interesting to add to the importance of human life, since it has been floating about. Everything we have in this society costs human life. Statisticians can give you estimates on the number of people who die per sky scraper built, per mile of highway laid, per ton of any sort of food that is provided to you. It is a price that we?ve agreed to pay, as a society, for what we have. Life does have a price?

This is exactly why I prefer math. If your work is valid and correct, it defends itself, and no amount of idiotic slime can make it any less what it is. And what it is, and what it should be, are always the same.
[rather tired, please forgive grammatical or spelling errors]

[Ranx]

I just don't think it's probable, or even a good idea that we remove the stigma of criminality of holding to that theory in legal actuality. I see no harm, and a great deal of probable benefit, in affording one or two year old potential humans some extra protection... But I still maintain it's wrong to afford those extra protections when the potential human is still a parasite in it's host being, because doing so affords protections at an actual, measurable cost to the host.

I admire the consistency of your position, it's well thought out - a rarity!

What actual, measurable costs are you referring to here, and how are they distinct from the financial, time, psychological etc. costs involved in post-natal care?

Tangentially, given that the majority of the population does not in fact subscribe to your moral framework, to what lengths would you be willing to go to support your morality against their objections? That is, constitutional amendments or supreme court ruling in favour of a universal right to abortion. I've always felt that, whatever my personal feelings on abortion, it should not be the responsibility of the judiciary to decide morality - but I'm not American and so don't have that perspective on Roe vs. Wade.

The minds of those who do care about this, will not change, and no amount of talk will make it change. The subject is simply too heated to sway the opinion of anyone who actually cares enough to forge their own opinion.

This is patently untrue. I consider this a very important debate, but my opinion has fluctuated repeatedly in response to well-reasoned arguments from both sides.

[Swordsman3003]

Thanks to modern medical science, a child can be conceived with no sperm whatsoever

Source!?!?!?!?

Secondly, I like your ideas Honor, everything you say is well thought out. I'm such a sissy; you make so much sense that I almost want to cry. I finally have heard something that made some goddman sense!

[Happypeepeehead]

The ovum itself is capable of being stimulated to grow on its own. However, if it were to do so, it would essentially be a genetic clone of the mother.

[Swordsman3003]

I got the source, and it says that the missing half of DNA can be taken from other cells besides sperm.

I didn't know you could stimulate an ovum, but wouldnt it have 1/2 the dna?

[Honor]

I got the source, and it says that the missing half of DNA can be taken from other cells besides sperm.

I didn't know you could stimulate an ovum, but wouldnt it have 1/2 the dna?

No. As HPH said, it would just recombine with itself, creating a clone (or identical twin) of the mother. It's called parthenogenisis when it happens naturally.

(Sorry... Ranx & others... Very busy just now, I'll answer more later) peace & happiness.

[SpasticSage]

A confession: I got on this board and saw the huge blocks that Honor and S&S wrote, and was just imagining how I was going to get ripped into.

After reading the blocks, I'm feelin' pretty good.

Honor: I don't think I have any more points of contention with you.

About Peter Singer: I agree that zoology (almost put 3 'o's in that word) does not teach us ethics or morals. As far as modern embryo technology goes, I'm not against human cloning. Experiments in human cloning, however, might get a bit grizley for my views. My personal solution (as irresponsible as it makes me for a citizen with an opinion) is not to think about that too much.

As for titles, it's fine with me if you use "anti-choice" when you're not trying to have a discussion of the real issues. Or even if you are, and you're trying to keep people like me honest. Or, alternatively, I don't have to know about it.

While you're opinion on paternity is opposite mine, I think it makes perfect sense under the premise that abortion is okay.

[quote=Honor]Parenting is only a blessing and a responsibility if that responsibility is actively chosen. At the point it is mandated, and forced upon someone who does not consider themselves fit, willing, or able to shoulder it, it becomes a punishment for having had sex and getting "caught". Worse, the one most punished is, as I said before, the child.
[/quote]

I agree with this. This is why most of my other views run left. I think there should be various kinds of assistance for this problem. Firstly, really good contraception education (get rid of this abstinence only crap. It doesn't work), and incentive to put it to use. Second, improvements to the adoption system is an admittedly incomplete answer. Third, many other solutions and kinds of assistance that I'm not smart enough to think of (yeah, I'm being unrealistic here - "Save us Mr. Social Reformer!!!").


I think I'm getting to the point where I don't have a lot else that's new to say about this. I feel like I'm at the point of "agree to disagree", while feeling like it's been a good discussion. Thanks to all.[/quote]

[Toawa]

The idea that government should be prevented from abuses by means of stripping it of all meaningful capability... That we should stop them from doing any good because they might do some bad, is paranoid. It's equivalent to the idea that children should be kept from doing wrong by wrapping them in straight jackets and locking them in padded cells. The correct and beneficial way to prevent government from abuses is by means of oversight, and active, informed participation by the citizenship. How much of the abuses that government is guilty of would have been prevented if the average American were as interested in what congress is doing as they are in what their favorite football or basketball or baseball team, or cosmopolitan magazine, or the characters in the young and the restless or contestants on Survivor are doing? You don't lock up and handcuff your children because you can't be bothered to watch and guide them.

Yes... Indeed, on a rational level, I agree with many of your arguments. But as I've already said in my previous posts, I do tend toward such paranoia. It can sometimes be challenging to be rational when there's a little (figurative; I'm paranoid but I'm not schitzophrenic) voice in the back of your head, always saying, "This is it! This is the top of the slippery slope!" Desparate times may call for desparate measures, and one's perception of desparate times can be... unprecise.

It is certainly not a new phenomenon; I see it all the time being played out in the so called "culture wars." (Watch Fox News for more than 10 minutes, and you'll see it too.)

Take this whole "Holiday Tree" debacle. The "Christians" see the "Atheists" as trying to kill Christmas by wiping it out of our collective consciousness, (as if it were possible for maybe, at most 10% of the US population to kill a holiday celebrated by ~80% of the population) with the ultimate goal of destroying "Christianity" and setting up a godless "Secular Humanist" regime. The "Atheists" see the "Christians" as trying to set up a Christian theocracy and impose biblical law on the country. (I quote "Atheists" and "Christians" because the groups I refer too are, for the most part, the vocal ones with their own TV shows and lawsuits. I realize (or at least hope) that the majority of both groups realize the whole situation is nuts, but they aren't the ones on TV.)

So I hereby claim the defense of being human. Come back to me once I've patterned into a computer and we'll see how things work out then.

[Lowky]

(Time to remind the feminists why they hate me, too) I also disagree with the position much of America, notably California, has taken on paternity. If women are to have the right to refuse maternity (and I believe theymust, without qualification) then men must have the same right to refuse paternity. As it stands, a woman can choose to abort without the consent of the man who impregnated her, but should she choose to keep the child, the man is legally obligated without an opportunity to decline. This is simply and obviously wrong.

I agree somewhat, but personally my view is it takes two to tango, and at the very least the potential father, at least needs to be consulted prior to an abortion being performed. Yes with today's technology/medical knowhow, it's still ultimately the woman's choice. In an Ideal (and admittedly unrealistic) world, If the potential mother doesn't want the child but the potential father does, there should be a way to transplant the fetus to a surrogate.

The idea that "I don't want to pay taxes for flood control in the mississippi river valley, because I don't live there." or similar libertarian arguments are both selfish and undereducated. Every American benefits from, for example, the Tennesee Valley Authority, and it was just that all should share in it's initial cost.

I have no problem paying for flood control, I have a problem with the government handing out money to people who build on a flood plain after their home has been lost to a flood more than once. First time fine chalk it up to a poor decision or whatever, but if you take the money to rebuild in the same flood plain and lose your home to a flood a second time, that's just stupidity and you don't deserve to receive any more money.

The idea that government should be prevented from abuses by means of stripping it of all meaningful capability... That we should stop them from doing any good because they might do some bad, is paranoid. It's equivalent to the idea that children should be kept from doing wrong by wrapping them in straight jackets and locking them in padded cells. The correct and beneficial way to prevent government from abuses is by means of oversight, and active, informed participation by the citizenship. How much of the abuses that government is guilty of would have been prevented if the average American were as interested in what congress is doing as they are in what their favorite football or basketball or baseball team, or cosmopolitan magazine, or the characters in the young and the restless or contestants on Survivor are doing? You don't lock up and handcuff your children because you can't be bothered to watch and guide them.

And at the same time, this is what people are doing now adays. Seat belt laws, helmet laws, labels on record albums, wanting/allowing the government to censor what we can and cannot see on Television, in Video Games, etc. And Yes I know i have been guilty of the apathy that has allowed the government to assume this role, but I am trying to change this behavior. I try to stay more informed on issues. 1984 has come and gone, Government is no longer Big Brother so much as our Mother.

I'm opposed to libertarianism because it's economically, technologically, intellectually, and ethically unsound... Like most all other hyper-conservative political ideologies. It favors throwing away a mountain of benefit for a tiny, short term personal advantage, and it fails to see even the most obvious disasterous effects of it's favored policies.

If you could magically grant this country a libertarian government, we'd be a barbaric, backward, corporate free state third world hell within two generations... Complete with industrial slave labor, old west style violence, massive poverty, miniscule life expectancy, meager standard of living, and a huge mortality rate. There's just no logical, realistic way around it.

I agree somewhat and have been moving away from the libertarian viewpoint as I get older and more mature. I still agree with some of their philosophies/political stances. I have realized that to follow libertarianism to it's wanted conclusion, would very much lead to the kind of Corporate run country that we seem to be moving towards anyways here in the U.S.
I do however think that all drugs should be legalized.
The only drug I have ever used would be alcohol, so no i am not some stoned out legalize it freak. We seem to fail to see that prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work with alcohol and it doesn't work with drugs. I say legalize them all, tax them use the tax revenue for education/rehabilitation programs. We could then have standardized drugs allowing for less OD's, people would not need guns to get high, most of the rebellion aspect would be removed as it's no longer illegal to use it, so less would even start using drugs. I also unfortunately realize this is not a widely popular view, and the only drug that a large portion of the country would say to legalize is cannibis, and unfortunately it's a weed, so is the hardest for government to regulate, and therefore the least likely from a government stand point to want to legalize. Feel free to point out the errors in my logic, as that is the only way for people to learn that their view is/may be flawed.

[Ghastly]

With drugs legalizing them would help in that it would keep people away from the truly evil ones. Crack for example is a fucking plight upon society. A friend of mine who is an attourney has told me horror stories about what crack does to a person. He's said that crack has taken perfectly normal people and turned them into monsters who will commit acts in broad daylight that even the most hardened sociopaths he's dealt with would shy away from under cover of darkness. It delivers a mediocre high at best (about the intesity and duration of a headrush) but it is absurdly addictive and completely fucks with your mental wiring. Living in the middle of Hamilton's "Crack Alley" I've seen first hand what crack will do to a neighbourhood and the people in it. It's one of the most fucking evil drugs out there and almost everyone I've known who has gotten into crack got into it the same way. They went to buy weed, the dealer didn't have any, the dealer gave them crack instead to try. Bam. Instant crack head.

Hit the streets with poisoned crack that'll kill each and every crackhead within an hour. Painlessly and swiftly put them all out of their misery. Legalize dope, let people buy and use it in controlled environments. I seriously doubt anyone would chose to use crack if weed was cheaply and readily available.

Crack, pimps, and drug dealers. Three things I fucking hate with a passion.

Personally, I think a lot of these problems could be cleared up if society would get over its hangup about suicide. If we had suicide centres like the ones in the movie Solient Green (although I don't want to eat the people afterwards) we'd probably wouldn't have as many fuckups chosing crack to medicate their blues away. My thinking on suicide has always been if you're reached the age where you are responsible for your own decisions and you really think life is so terrible that it's not worth living then it should be perfectly acceptable for you to say "stop this ride I wanna get off". Set up places that will painlessly and safely (as in make sure you're dead and not a vegitable) ease you along your way off this planet.

If you think human life is a sacred blessing then great, don't commit suicide, raise your children to hold your same views. That doesn't give you the right though to impose those beliefs upon someone else. If you think only your god has the right to determine who lives and who dies that's great, you still don't have the right to impose your god upon others.

Personally I could buy this whole "every human life is a sacred blessing" thing a lot easier if there wern't already 6 billion of us on the planet. If some of us don't want to be here anymore and they're old enough to be responsible for themselves then let them leave.

To be honest I'm not too far off from Drunk and Bitter Jesus in my opinion on suicide.

Now as for the issue of abortion. I seriously could not give two shits less about wether or not a woman gets an abortion. There's no danger in running out of babies anytime soon. There will always be plenty of us breading that homosexuality and abortion will never be a threat to the continuation of the human species. Like I said, there's over 6 freaking billion of us on this planet. There's no need for anyone who doesn't want to be a parent to have to be a parent. There's no need for anyone who doesn't want to give birth to have to give birth.

Personally, I think in many cases abortion is the height of irresponsibility but I just don't care if people want to be irresponsible that way. Like I said, there's no desperate pressing need for more babies. Maybe if we were down to the last 1000 breeding humans on the planet I'd have a change of heart but at 6+billion we're a hell of a long ways away from that situation.

If you really don't like abortions then here's a good way to cut down on them. First, get rid of this abstinance only sex education. That's like giving toddlers a loaded gun and saying "don't touch this", you just know it's going to end baddly. Get rid of the social taboos about birth control, especially women and birth control. It should be just as acceptable for a woman to carry condoms in her purse as it is for a guy to carry one in his wallet (and they'll probably keep safer in the purse too). Let women know that taking that kind of responsibility over their body does not in any way make them a slut. Make sure your schools teach kids about birth control and if they don't then make sure YOU DO!

Teenagers want to have sex. They're a hopped up on horemones and every nerve in their bodies is screaming with intense biological urgency. Telling them to save it for marrage or they'll make baby Jesus cry isn't going to cut it. They're still going to want to have sex and if the opportunity arises they're going to have sex. In the absence of real information they'll do what human beings have been doing for thousands and thousands of years. They'll pull stuff out of their ass.

They'll accept myths as fact such as:

You can't get pregnant from anal sex.
You can't get pregnant from non penetrative humping (eg. thigh fucking).
You can't get pregnant if it's your first time.
You can't get pregnant if you do it standing up.
You can't get pregnant if you douche with Coca-cola afterwards.
You can't get pregnant if the guy pulls out before he cums.
You can't get pregnant if it's the third tuesday of the month and the moon is in the east.

That's when you end up with pregnant teens. Now if the parents are all hellfire and brimstone about the evils of premarital sex and contraceptives what is a child supposed to think their reaction is going to be to finding out they're pregnant? I don't think they'll be expecting hugs and puppies in clown hats. So you can see why they'd be pretty intent on running off for a secret abortion and if information about abortion isn't available fear and despiration will lead them to rely upon the age old tradition of information pulled out of asses. Worse than that, if the abortion itself isn't legally available they're going to go to some drunken quack in a back alley with a panel van and really fuck their life up, possibly terminally.

The best way to cut down on abortions is education. The worst way would be anti-abortion legislation.

[Indigo Violent]

Personally, I think a lot of these problems could be cleared up if society would get over its hangup about suicide.

I'm for euthanasia if really, genuinely, you have nothing to look forward to except suffering followed by a painful death. This is in the event of a non-treatable illness, not just because you think life sucks. Most people who are suicidal, however, are not in the right state of mind to judge that. Almost by definition, suicidal impulses are a sign of mental illness.