Comic Genesis Forums

lesotheron wrote: However, unlike you, I can accept the FACT that some people consider life to be sacred, and that they have the right to feel that way.

Only if they can validate it. If they can't I don't have to give them or their notions any level of respect. Especially if they try to use that aesthetic to tell other people how to run their lives.

I'd also ask you kindly to stop lumping me together with "pro-birth", "pro-life", "parasites" or anyone else that you seem to despise for daring to disagree with you. I am a singular person, voicing opinions that are MINE.

If you could actually support YOUR opinion with something other than personal aesthetic, then I wouldn't lump you in with the other parasites.

I AM PRO-CHOICE!!!

And that makes your arguments less invalid, how?

So those arguments (and others that you've made) have absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I've said.

So your quotes were just figments of my imagination which you've conveniently ignored for the sake of your own bullshit?

You have the right to go out and destroy any FUNGUS that belongs to yourself or anyone who allows you to destroy it. But since you did not have any part in the creation of any other fungus, you have no right to destroy anyone else's fungus. It is up to them to decide whether or not it should be destroyed. Is that fair enough for you?

But as long as it feeds off my body and can not exist by itself

A fetus is NOT a parasite.

dictionary.com wrote: 1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

par·a·site (pr-st)
n.

1. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2. In conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal fetus.

reference.com wrote:parasite, plant or animal that at some stage of its existence obtains its nourishment from another living organism called the host. Parasites may or may not harm the host, but they never benefit it.

askoxford.com wrote:parasite

• noun 1 an organism which lives in or on another organism and benefits at the other’s expense.

Miriam-Webster Online wrote:2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Yes, a fetus is, by the strictest biological definition, a parasite. Your personal aesthetics will never change that, no matter how many bold or capital letters you use.

A parasite is a parasite and will always be a parasite. A fetus is only a parasite if both of its parents were parasites and it can never be anything but a parasite. A HUMAN fetus is a HUMAN. A DOG fetus is a DOG. Are humans and dogs considered parasites (well, they are to some, but that's a different argument entirely)?

And by your definition, a sparkplug is an engine. They still don't buy strollers for miscarriages, so I guess a fetus isn't a baby after all.

For someone who keeps claiming they're pro-choice, you keep arguing like a bible-humper.

The only difference is the stage of development. During a specific period of its development, ANY mammal must rely on it's mother for protection and nourishment.

And animals who don't want their children either abandon them or eat them after they are born? Are you suggesting we should eat our young like other mammals?

By your reasoning, why aren't we allowed to abort children who are under the age of say two years old? They're no longer inside the womb, but they lack the ability to sustain their own life. They require another person to feed them and protect them and could still be considered to have parasitic tendencies. Hell, let's take it even farther because I'm a ranting idiot.

Because a fetus' existence relies directly on a specific human being - its carrier. If the carrier dies before the fetus is brought to term, the fetus dies - along with any other parasites in the carrier's body. Once the fetus is born, it can be cared for by anyone outside.

Your argument might hold some weight if the umbilical cord was never cut before the age of 18. I'm only assuming yours wasn't.

Does a fetus have any rights if it is not VIABLE? There are no facts that can determine this, it is ONLY opinion.

Yes there are facts that can determine this. You've only ignored them because they contradict your personal aesthetics.

First Fact: A fetus is not a self-sustaining human. At no point at its current time line could it ever breathe or eat or make a conscious decision on its own. It, like any other parasite, must feed directly off the sustenance of its carrier.

When does "life" start?

Second Fact: As sperm and eggs, prior to conception - with no more of a soul or any other amount of self-sustaining ability as a fetus. Your personal aesthetics will never change that. Its not interpretation, its fact. It just happens to be fact that, again, contradicts your personal aesthetic, so like before, you choose to ignore it.

I also don't agree with your definition of potential vs. inevitability. You seem to feel that you're right because you believe that there's only a chance that a fetus will develop enough for you to consider it worthy of being recognized. You also seem to feel that I am wrong because I believe that EVERY fetus becomes a healthy, happy full grown productive adult if left alone. On both counts, you are seriously mistaken. A fetus growing into a VIABLE (by your opinion) life, is the NORM.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Third Fact: 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs never make it to the uterus to go through the birthing process.

Fourth Fact: Any living human sperm can merge with an egg and make an entirely different fetus. Ergo, when one sperm fertilizes one egg, there are millions of VIABLE fetuses being destroyed.

You seem to be under the delusion that just because an organism can live, that it should be allowed to thrive to its conclusion unfettered. Well fortunately, we don't allow that kind of garbage to go on. We can kill cancer cells before they mature and kill us and we can do the same to fetuses - because they are parasites.

Honor wrote:It should be noted that the vast majority of "human beings" conceived are auto-aborted without the host (or the "father") ever even knowing she was infected.

Well, from a "divine intent" standpoint, ALL human beings conceived are terminated at some point. Or as Leon said it in Blade Runner; "Everybody's gotta die sometime."

So - just for sake of argument. . . when (during that lifetime) does it become immoral (I didn't say 'illegal') to terminate that life? - or we'll say - 'life process' - and why is it immoral at that point in time, when it wasn't immoral one moment prior?

If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes...

I've seen things... ...you people wouldn't believe.

Attack ships on fire, off the shoulder of Orion.

I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near Tannhauser Gate.

All those moments... will be lost, in time... like tears... in rain.

Time to die.

fnyunj wrote:So - just for sake of argument. . . when (during that lifetime) does it become immoral (I didn't say 'illegal') to terminate that life? - or we'll say - 'life process' - and why is it immoral at that point in time, when it wasn't immoral one moment prior?

I don't think it's ever absolutely immoral to terminate a life... Because "morality" is an imaginary construct that requires an agreed subscription to underlying imaginary concepts.

I think it can be unethical to do so, though. While the definition of "ethical" is often simplified to simply reference back to "morality" in many dictionaries, I feel there's an important distinction to be made.

At any rate...

I think it is chiefly unethical for a sentient being to end another being's life under one or more of a great many partially overlapping circumstances...

Perhaps the most simple way to state it would be that it may be unethical to end another life for no needful or genuine purpose.

Trophy hunting falls under this category, in my opinion... While hunting for needed food does not.

I also find it unethical to terminate another sentient or near-sentient life for non-compelling reasons of personal gain... In other words, while I can imagine a situation that might require one person to kill another for food or survival, I can't justify such action simply as a means to avoid more difficult gainful employment.


More to the point of the question you asked... I think it's mostly unethical to kill another human being, without compelling cause, who is at least mostly sentient and self-aware.

This elevates the age at which I find it truly unethical (or "wrong") to kill a human being, for their own sake, to an age most human beings could simply never accept... Sometime around the age where they begin to interact with the other beings and the world around them in some way we might not reasonably expect from a dog or cat or monkey...

The most convenient channel marker I've heard for this is when they first learn to lie. As bizarre a requirement as this may sound, it marks a time when they first become self-aware... Aware that they are discreet individuals... Aware that others don't automatically know everything they themselves know.

Now, it can certainly be unethical for external reasons to kill them before that time... It would be unethical to kill someone's five month old baby for the same reasons it would be unethical to kill their dog. While the creature in question is not fully sentient or human, it is semi-sentient, and presumably very important to it's owner or "human parent/companion." ...Therefore, to kill it without cause would be to wrongly deprive that person of the child or pet/companion's company and potential.

Let the flames begin.

hydrajak wrote:The law is essentially written as if men and the bad guys and women are saints.

hydrajak wrote:I will meet my daughter's dates on the back porch cleaning a gun. Since my back porch overlooks my pasture (6 acres) I can hide a lot of dead bodies. I'm sure the boy will treat my precious angel with respect.

You know, the attitude expressed in that second quote isn't really helping to fix the problem addressed by the first quote.

lynch wrote:I always find it interesting how people always bring up the idea that the Man needs to have some choice about things that will affect him. Maybe it's just me, but I figured that I had my chance when I decided where and when I was going to ejaculate.

I don't know about that. We humans keep getting better at separating sex from reproduction. Sex has become something that we can do purely for the sake of the act, and we don't have to really worry about reproduction - we just have to worry about controlling it. Saying that men can't have sex unless they're willing to raise a child undoes the effects of these advances.

lynch wrote:I always find it interesting how people always bring up the idea that the Man needs to have some choice about things that will affect him. Maybe it's just me, but I figured that I had my chance when I decided where and when I was going to ejaculate.

Whoah... I totally missed that one.

So... You're saying you're ok with the idea that every time you have vaginal sex, it's essentially a half-million dollar game of chance?

hydrajak wrote:As fas as I am concerned.... humans have souls.

As far as I am concerned, you are an idiot. The concept of a soul has no rational or scientific justification.

At some point after conception, but before delivery, the dividing cell is imbued with a soul and becomes a human. When? I have no idea.

Please. If you're going to invent souls for humans to have, at least have the decency to pick an arbitary point in time when a human acquires it.

I am therefore opposed to an abortion in anything but the 1st month (you know... that whole dividing cell time). I however do not think it is right to inflict my believe on other people.

Well, when you read about Jews being killed in millions in Nazi death camps, I guess you just thought to yourself "it wouldn't have been right to inflict my belief on the Nazis and stop them from mass murder."

Your morals are astoundingly shallow. 'A fetus is a person, with a "soul," but we shouldn't make a big deal out of killing it.'

The gripping hand is, I am ALWAYS going oppose something heinous like partial birth abortion.

What's any more heinous about the scientific procedure of dilation and extraction than any other form of abortion?

I don't see so anyone who is against murder can be for that.

What? Are you just unable to stomach the concept of the actual procedure? People can support that kind of abortion the same way they support any other: a fetus =/= a person

And by bringing up "anyone who is against murder," you are implying that supporting abortion, or at least this procedure, is the same or even close to supporting murder.

Are you against murder? If you are, how do you get off trying to inflict your belief on me, hm?

I'm trying to say that if you think a fetus is a person, then you are piece of shit for not trying to stop wholesale murder.

The OTHER gripping hand is that the anti-abortion crowd uses partial birth abortions as a wedge to get started down the path of banning all abortions 1 small step at a time.

That's pretty accurate. Wedge stratagies are pretty common among people not familiar with science.

LeftTentacleGreen wrote:*LeftTentacleGreen's arguments and unnessesary personal attacks, Round 2*

I'm going to respond against my better judgment.

1) Why should anyone have to validate their feelings to you or anyone else? I show respect for your opinions, even though you haven't validated them to my satisfaction. I disagree with them, but I don't try to tell you that you don't have the right to them. And aren't you currently using your aesthetic to tell other people how to run their lives? You're saying that they don't have the right to their opinion unless they can validate it. You are denying them the oportunity to form thoughts that contradict yours or someone elses unless they can prove that they have the right to do so. So here's a definition of a word for you:

Merriam-Webster wrote:hypocrite
One entry found for hypocrite.
Main Entry: hyp•o•crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

2) I'll ignore the rest of your opinions and attacks and focus solely on the facts that you have presented (since you feel that they make your opinions right and mine wrong).

"First Fact: A fetus is not a self-sustaining human. At no point at its current time line could it ever breathe or eat or make a conscious decision on its own. It, like any other parasite, must feed directly off the sustenance of its carrier." Your first fact is incorrect. To prove it, I offer these definitions:

American Heritage Dictionary wrote:Fetus: 2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

The American Heritage Science Dictionary wrote:fetus (fē'təs) Pronunciation Key
The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:Main Entry: fe•tus
Pronunciation: 'fE-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

As you can see, by definition, a fetus is the stage from 8 weeks to birth. It is medical fact that at a certain point (which could vary from fetus to fetus since there isn't any "magic" number that seems to be universally agreed upon) the fetus is able to breathe and eat and survive outside of the mother's womb. This is why there is no such thing as a legal late-term abortion when there isn't an immediate medical need.

You argue that a fetus is not a child because it requires the mother to exist, like a parasite. Yet, at another stage of development, the fetus is viable to live outside the mother's womb. The fetus matures during that time, but there is no magical transformation where it suddenly becomes protected under the law. It is opinion that determines the law, not fact. Fact states when a fetus is considered viable to live outside the womb. Opinion determines whether or not the fetus has rights before or after it becomes viable.

"Second Fact: As sperm and eggs, prior to conception - with no more of a soul or any other amount of self-sustaining ability as a fetus." You posted this in response to the question I posed, "When does "life" start?".

This is not a fact, this is an opinion. Dr. Fritz Baumgartner has this to say on the subject: "There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed. Period. No debate." As a fully-licensed medical doctor who has years of training and experience with the biology behind this question, I'd be more inclined to take his word for it over yours. But even then, it is his opinion on the matter. He presents it as fact in the same way you do, but it still opinion.

For facts, I'll present this piece of evidence that was presented during the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services of Missouri: "In the Webster case, adjudicated in October, 1988, an amici curiae brief of 167 distinguished scientists and physicians, including 11 Nobel Laureates, wrote in their summary of argument: "There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth"". That is fact. If 167 scientists and physicians can't agree on when life begins, then the matter of when life begins must be a matter of opinion. If this is not the case, then there would be enough evidence to prove it one way or another.

"Third Fact: 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs never make it to the uterus to go through the birthing process." This is not fact because as was stated previously in this thread (and not by me), it is impossible to prove. Since a fertilized egg that does not implant is washed out during a menstrual cycle and is unable to be distinguished from a menstrual cycle that does not possess a fertilized egg, nobody can track how many fertilized eggs an average woman (or any woman for that matter) passes in this way. Since it is impossible to track how many fertilized eggs are passed in this way and adding in the fact that there is no concrete number of fertilized eggs that a woman will carry total in her life, how is it a fact that 80% of a woman's total fertilized eggs never make it to the uterus to go through the birthing process? This number is estimated. Estimation is a guess and no matter how educated a guess is, a guess is not fact. If you had said that 80% of a woman's unfertilized eggs are passed without fertilization, I would believe you. A woman passes at least one egg every menstrual cycle for the part of her life that extends from her first cycle to menopause. It is easy to believe that 80% of her eggs would never be fertilized, even though that would be impossible to prove as well. There is no way to determine how many total eggs the woman started with, nor can you guarantee how many eggs are passed in any given cycle. But even though that "fact" can't be proven (which makes it not a fact at all), it's still more believable than the "fact" you presented.

"Fourth Fact: Any living human sperm can merge with an egg and make an entirely different fetus. Ergo, when one sperm fertilizes one egg, there are millions of VIABLE fetuses being destroyed." I can't believe you even called this a fact. A fetus does not exist unless an egg and a sperm combine (we can argue about whether or not this constitutes life, but the fact is, unless the sperm and egg join, neither the sperm nor the egg are capable of becoming a fetus). When one sperm and one egg combine, one embryo is created. The embryo matures until it is referred to as a fetus and when the fetus reaches a certain stage of development, it is then considered "viable". There are no fetuses, viable or otherwise, being destroyed because there are no fetuses except the one that will result if the blastocyst implants and the embryo is allowed to mature.

So, now that I've addressed the issue of your "facts", I'll once again ask you kindly to stop attacking me. If you would like to discuss this like a rational, intelligent adult, I'd be happy to. If not, you're doing nothing more than helping me agree with you that some people don't deserve the right to have an opinion. Although, I'm sure we'll still disagree on which people don't deserve opinions if it comes to that.

Lesotheron wrote: 1) Why should anyone have to validate their feelings to you or anyone else? I show respect for your opinions, even though you haven't validated them to my satisfaction. I disagree with them, but I don't try to tell you that you don't have the right to them. And aren't you currently using your aesthetic to tell other people how to run their lives? You're saying that they don't have the right to their opinion unless they can validate it. You are denying them the oportunity to form thoughts that contradict yours or someone elses unless they can prove that they have the right to do so. So here's a definition of a word for you:
Merriam-Webster wrote:
hypocrite
One entry found for hypocrite.
Main Entry: hyp•o•crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

I kind of have to agree with this statement in general (though it is not directed at anyone in particular,) but it seems that sometime during the past few months we've forgotten how to play nice

Strong beliefs and opinions are wonderful things, they make us unique, like delicate snowflakes. Now, let's not be asshole snowflakes. no-body likes an ass-holey snowflake.
If you're all not careful I'm going to start a thread about what exactly constitutes a discussion and frank exchange of ideas. I'll even include a poll and everything

and now, postings of the double.

lesotheron wrote: For facts, I'll present this piece of evidence that was presented during the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services of Missouri: "In the Webster case, adjudicated in October, 1988, an amici curiae brief of 167 distinguished scientists and physicians, including 11 Nobel Laureates, wrote in their summary of argument: "There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth"". That is fact. If 167 scientists and physicians can't agree on when life begins, then the matter of when life begins must be a matter of opinion. If this is not the case, then there would be enough evidence to prove it one way or another.

Just because 167 scientists in 1988 believed that there was no scientific consensus, doesn't mean there never will be.

The actual definition of "life" is still being argued, and that's because at a certain molecular level its hard to distinguish between organic molecules and biological organisms.

I don't have an overall point here, I just wanted to shed some light.

"Third Fact: 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs never make it to the uterus to go through the birthing process." This is not fact because as was stated previously in this thread (and not by me), it is impossible to prove.

It was I who stated it, but now that I think about it, you could figure out some results by doing experiments that collected every discharge from a sample of women, and figuring out how many of those were embryos. That said, I'd like to see the research behind this 80% figure.

Since a fertilized egg that does not implant is washed out during a menstrual cycle and is unable to be distinguished from a menstrual cycle that does not possess a fertilized egg, nobody can track how many fertilized eggs an average woman (or any woman for that matter) passes in this way. Since it is impossible to track how many fertilized eggs are passed in this way and adding in the fact that there is no concrete number of fertilized eggs that a woman will carry total in her life, how is it a fact that 80% of a woman's total fertilized eggs never make it to the uterus to go through the birthing process? This number is estimated.

Look dude: it is possible to produce a pretty good figure on this subject. If we can find the cause of death for nearly every person who dies, then we could certainly find out this information.

Estimation is a guess and no matter how educated a guess is, a guess is not fact.

Approximating an estimate to a guess is not really fair. While it is true that some dictionaries would give a definition for guessing as "the act of making an estimate," there are other definitions which say guessing is "making a judgement without sufficient information." Estimation has a slightly different denotation, being that estimation is a "judgement based on approximating numbers based on given information"

In other words, an estimate is based on some information, and a guess is specifically not based on any information. So stop dragging down the power of estimation by trying to group it together with a clearly weaker word.

Estimation is an incredibly useful to science; it is required every day, even in a laboratory setting.

If I said "FEMA estimates that 60,000 people lost their homes in hurricane Katrina" that means the agency collected a limited amount of data on home destruction and then extrapolated through mathematical and statistical processes to determine a general figure.

Saying something is "just an estimation" is like calling something "just a theory." Some people make an ass-wild guess and call it an estimation to strengthen what they've said. In science, and estimation is far more powerful than a guess.

If you had said that 80% of a woman's unfertilized eggs are passed without fertilization, I would believe you. A woman passes at least one egg every menstrual cycle for the part of her life that extends from her first cycle to menopause. It is easy to believe that 80% of her eggs would never be fertilized, even though that would be impossible to prove as well.

That is idiodic. I am not trying to flame you or make a personal attack. It has nothing to do with you personally; I would tell anybody claiming that information is unobtainable an idiot.

It's pretty simple math: (age of woman - age of first menstration) * 12 - (9 * number of children) - number of months spent on certain medications

That is a pretty good "guess" of how many unfertilized eggs a woman passes. FUCK!!!!

Second of all, regarding implantation, there are plenty of figures on how often women have miscarriages; what we are talking about is women having a miscarriage before the embryo has developed enough for a woman to tell. If I had to make an educated GUESS I would say that the number lost before implantation must be greater than the number of miscarriages.

There is no way to determine how many total eggs the woman started with, nor can you guarantee how many eggs are passed in any given cycle. But even though that "fact" can't be proven (which makes it not a fact at all), it's still more believable than the "fact" you presented.

After writing all of that stuff earlier, it just dawned on me that it doesn't matter how many fertilized eggs a woman naturally aborts. The fact is, it happens. That was the reason anybody even brought it up in the first place: the body naturally aborts embryos and fetuses. Fact. FACT FACT FACT FACT.

"Fourth Fact: Any living human sperm can merge with an egg and make an entirely different fetus. Ergo, when one sperm fertilizes one egg, there are millions of VIABLE fetuses being destroyed." I can't believe you even called this a fact. A fetus does not exist unless an egg and a sperm combine (we can argue about whether or not this constitutes life, but the fact is, unless the sperm and egg join, neither the sperm nor the egg are capable of becoming a fetus). When one sperm and one egg combine, one embryo is created. The embryo matures until it is referred to as a fetus and when the fetus reaches a certain stage of development, it is then considered "viable". There are no fetuses, viable or otherwise, being destroyed because there are no fetuses except the one that will result if the blastocyst implants and the embryo is allowed to mature.

So, now that I've addressed the issue of your "facts", I'll once again ask you kindly to stop attacking me. If you would like to discuss this like a rational, intelligent adult, I'd be happy to. If not, you're doing nothing more than helping me agree with you that some people don't deserve the right to have an opinion. Although, I'm sure we'll still disagree on which people don't deserve opinions if it comes to that.

You know what? I'll stop attacking your position when you stop making up shit about what people are attacking you about. Nobody is saying you "don't deserve the right to an opinion." You just made that up. Show me the quote where somebody said you dont' deserve the right to an opinion. All anybody is saying is that your opinion is based on incorrect information and flawed logic. We are not discussing freedom of speech.

Dude.....dude.....*ugh*

If you can't take these attacks on your position, then don't post in damn thread. You knew, before posting anything, that your opinions would be hung out to dry. You sound like a football player complaining that the opposing team tried to stop him from scoring.

I now procede to make a personal attack: you are a whiny bitch.

LMAO I love it when they dig out the dictionaries to attack each other by definitions!

It's important, ok?

don't you think you're losing some credibility when all of you start sprouting off figures that you can't back up, then call each other names while insisting that everyone else's figures are wrong?

and a lot of the time, the problem seems to be simple misinterpretation...

Quote:

If you had said that 80% of a woman's unfertilized eggs are passed without fertilization, I would believe you. A woman passes at least one egg every menstrual cycle for the part of her life that extends from her first cycle to menopause. It is easy to believe that 80% of her eggs would never be fertilized, even though that would be impossible to prove as well.


That is idiodic. I am not trying to flame you or make a personal attack. It has nothing to do with you personally; I would tell anybody claiming that information is unobtainable an idiot.

It's pretty simple math: (age of woman - age of first menstration) * 12 - (9 * number of children) - number of months spent on certain medications

That is a pretty good "guess" of how many unfertilized eggs a woman passes. FUCK!!!!

from my perspective, he's saying that if you can't prove the original figure of how many fertilized eggs are aborted, then you also can't prove how many unfertilized eggs are passed. Your math suggests that no fertilized eggs would be aborted at all, which seems to defeat the purpose of the argument, to me at least. (I'm not going to bother bringing up any other variables to your formula because you did call it a 'guess')

Honor wrote:

lesotheron wrote: That's a great summary of the usual pro-choice belief system. As I said, I'm pro-choice, but I don't agree with all of those beliefs. These are my beliefs on the matter:

Thank you, no. I reject the premise of your statement... The standard assertion of those who seek to base policy on "belief" is to classify the opposing view as "belief" as well, thus placing it on equal factual footing.

A position which is supported by the overwhelming majority of the best scientific evidence available is not a "belief system".

lesotheron wrote:1. A fetus IS a child. A fetus is a child at its first stage of development...

No... A fetus is a blastocyst at it's first stage of development.

lesotheron wrote:(you can argue about sperm and eggs all you want, but if they don't come together, neither one is capable of making a child on their own). You stating that it has a parasitic relationship with the mother PROVES that it is a separate entity unto itself.

By this logic, a malignant neoplasm is a "separate entity unto itself".

lesotheron wrote:Even the law disagrees with you on this point. If someone kills a pregnant woman, are they charged with ONE or TWO murders? According to your beliefs, they should only be charged with one. But the law recognizes that the fetus is separate, yet dependant on the mother, so the killer is charged with TWO murders.

Legally speaking, in the jurisdictions where this is true, this is nothing more than the first step in one of several attempted end-runs by the right around Roe v. Wade... On another front, they are financing research pushing back further and further the age at which the premature fetus can survive outside the body.

Their near total disregard for actual, living babies gives the lie to their positions, of course... They're not interested in saving babies, they're interested in removing any "relief" from the god-ordained "consequences" of committing the sin of fornication.

That having been said, the legal argument for the double murder standard need not be that you are actually taking two lives... But rather that, since the woman cannot be asked directly, it's most reasonable we assume she intended to carry the pregnancy to term... Thus you have killed a person and a potential person. Robbing someone of future potential has a well established history of being convictable.

Okay, I'm finally able to devote the time and energy to properly respond to this.

1) Unless you are willing to show the "overwhelming majority of the best scientific evidence available" so that I can see it and form opinions based on it, your opinions on the matter are just beliefs the same as mine. Until I have the opportunity to learn what the evidence can teach me, the evidence does not exist. I can say I have sworn affidavits from every Supreme Court Judge and over 7,000 different scientists, biologists, physicians, embryologists and other assorted scientific minds that PROVE that my beliefs are scientifically, logically and legally accurate. There is no reason to believe that any of that is true unless I can provide verifiable proof that I do have those items in my possession and you would have to be able to review them to verify that they say what I claim.

2) We are both entirely correct on the point of the stages of development involving a blastocyst, fetus and child. I just worded my statement poorly so that it wasn't clear what the pronoun "its" was referring to. The first stage of development for a fetus is a blastocyst. The first stage of development for a child is a fetus (once again, this is my belief, since they are all steps in the development of a human being, there is documented evidence that can be used to argue that the blastocyst is actually the first stage of development for a child as well, but I have not been arguing the definition of life or the father's rights of humans in the embryonic stages of development).

3) Fitting things like a malignant neoplasm into the argument is tricky because there is no outside influence needed to create them. Tapeworms and fetuses (both of which I used in that example) are not naturally occurring in the body and require outside influence to have any way of getting into the body. (do you mind if I just refer to the malignant neoplasm as cancer, it's easier to type?) Cancer can occur without any outside influence. Therefore, while the cancer is parasitic it is not a separate entity because it occurs within the body without any outside influence. Also keep in mind that the tapeworm can be removed from the body and still survive provided it found another host (which it does have the means to do). Also consider that once a fetus reaches a certain point in its development, it can be removed from its mother and still survive.

4) I'd like to know how this is any kind of step in an end-run by anybody around Roe v. Wade. I'll have to go through some older case files, but unless I'm very much mistaken, this protection of the unborn existed long before Roe or Wade's parents were born.

5) Since we and other people all over the world are arguing this very point, I for one am glad that someone is spending money on research to determine when a child is viable. I don't know who "they" are, but you don't seem to be happy about the fact that this is happening. Whether or not you are happy is not the point, though. Can you logically or ethically say that this research should not happen? If so, why? The information that could be learned can only benefit everyone involved. Technology that could be created from research like this could save men who find themselves in my position a great deal of pain. Wouldn't that be great? Instead of fetuses being aborted, the woman still has the right to absolve herself of responsibility, and still is under no obligation to carry the child to term. Instead, the child can be removed from the mother and raised by the father if he wishes it. It's a perfect solution (and yes, I am aware that this "artificial womb" idea was already brought up earlier in the topic, but until now, I was not even aware that it was a dim possibility).

6) I'm not trying to imply that you're lumping me in with these people you don't approve of, but I don't see what this has to do with the discussion at hand. Their total disregard for actual, living babies is irrelevant. My beliefs are different from theirs. I am neither advocating nor endorsing the way "they" do things.

7) On this last note, don't let the pro-life activists hear you say that. People will blame you when they try to prosecute a woman for "robbing her child of its future potential". I say when and not if because if it hasn't happened already, someone will try it eventually.

MistressMaggie wrote:don't you think you're losing some credibility when all of you start sprouting off figures that you can't back up, then call each other names while insisting that everyone else's figures are wrong?

and a lot of the time, the problem seems to be simple misinterpretation...

Quote:

If you had said that 80% of a woman's unfertilized eggs are passed without fertilization, I would believe you. A woman passes at least one egg every menstrual cycle for the part of her life that extends from her first cycle to menopause. It is easy to believe that 80% of her eggs would never be fertilized, even though that would be impossible to prove as well.


That is idiodic. I am not trying to flame you or make a personal attack. It has nothing to do with you personally; I would tell anybody claiming that information is unobtainable an idiot.

It's pretty simple math: (age of woman - age of first menstration) * 12 - (9 * number of children) - number of months spent on certain medications

That is a pretty good "guess" of how many unfertilized eggs a woman passes. FUCK!!!!

from my perspective, he's saying that if you can't prove the original figure of how many fertilized eggs are aborted, then you also can't prove how many unfertilized eggs are passed. Your math suggests that no fertilized eggs would be aborted at all, which seems to defeat the purpose of the argument, to me at least. (I'm not going to bother bringing up any other variables to your formula because you did call it a 'guess')

I'm going to respond directly to swordsman3003's entire post before I sign off, but I wanted to address this particular point independently.

MistressMaggie: I was saying that if you can't prove the original figure then you can't prove the new figure either, but I was saying it from a completely different perspective.

My reasoning for saying it included 2 variables, one of which prevents a definate percentage from ever being able to be obtained, even if the other variable is ignored or given an innacurate value.

The formula that swordman3003 is pretty thorough, accounting for things like the months where no egg is released because of either pregnancy or certain medications. However, he did miss two other pieces of the necessary equation, both of which are important, but one of which is vital to determining the percentage figure that I stated.

The first, and less important one, is how many eggs are released during each cycle? It is a variable that is usually only 1 or 2, but the fact is, up to seven simultaneous egg releases can be proven (maybe more, but I don't have any information regarding any octuplets being carried or born, so I can't offer proof at this time).

The second, and most important, is how many total eggs are being carried? There are guesses, there are estimates (I will treat them separately even though an estimate can logically be defined as a type of guess) but I am not aware of anyone coming up with a definate number of eggs contained in even a single woman's ovaries, let alone how many any given woman may be carrying. I'd even settle for a highly accurate average. This is the more important of the two missing pieces because swordsman3003's formula can provide a detailed estimate of how many unfertilized eggs have passed, but without this number, there is no way to determine the percentage.

So, I will politely disagree with swordsman3003's assertion that not being able to prove a fact regarding a specific percentage when there are factors affecting that percentage that are unknown, is idiotic.

lynch wrote:I always find it interesting how people always bring up the idea that the Man needs to have some choice about things that will affect him. Maybe it's just me, but I figured that I had my chance when I decided where and when I was going to ejaculate.

I'm calling B.S.

What if the man was lied too and told by the woman that her birth control was current and active? You can then blame the man for not killing his sperm 1st, but lets face it, sex without a condom is more fun than sex with a condom*1 and it is pretty difficult to kill male sperm via a pill. So unless you are MANUALLY applying the spermicidal jelly or inserting a sponge EVERY time, you are vulnerable to getting screwed*2. I dunno about you but, "Hold on honey, I know you told me you are on the pill but I don't believe you because I didn't see you take it this morning so I need to spread some jelly around your cootch." is likely to cause you to NOT EJACULATE AT ALL. Thus defeating the purpose of getting laid, which is fact to ejaculate.*3

In a perfect world where everyone was honest and forthright your statement is valid. Call me when you find that place, I'd like to come hang out.

1) Honor's style of sex notwithstanding
2) Figuratively, literally you are getting screwed and thats a good thing(tm)
3) Honor's style of sex notwithstanding. (or maybe withstanding, I don't know, nor am I asking)

swordsman3003 wrote:

lesotheron wrote: For facts, I'll present this piece of evidence that was presented during the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services of Missouri: "In the Webster case, adjudicated in October, 1988, an amici curiae brief of 167 distinguished scientists and physicians, including 11 Nobel Laureates, wrote in their summary of argument: "There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth"". That is fact. If 167 scientists and physicians can't agree on when life begins, then the matter of when life begins must be a matter of opinion. If this is not the case, then there would be enough evidence to prove it one way or another.

Just because 167 scientists in 1988 believed that there was no scientific consensus, doesn't mean there never will be.

The actual definition of "life" is still being argued, and that's because at a certain molecular level its hard to distinguish between organic molecules and biological organisms.

I don't have an overall point here, I just wanted to shed some light.

"Third Fact: 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs never make it to the uterus to go through the birthing process." This is not fact because as was stated previously in this thread (and not by me), it is impossible to prove.

It was I who stated it, but now that I think about it, you could figure out some results by doing experiments that collected every discharge from a sample of women, and figuring out how many of those were embryos. That said, I'd like to see the research behind this 80% figure.

Since a fertilized egg that does not implant is washed out during a menstrual cycle and is unable to be distinguished from a menstrual cycle that does not possess a fertilized egg, nobody can track how many fertilized eggs an average woman (or any woman for that matter) passes in this way. Since it is impossible to track how many fertilized eggs are passed in this way and adding in the fact that there is no concrete number of fertilized eggs that a woman will carry total in her life, how is it a fact that 80% of a woman's total fertilized eggs never make it to the uterus to go through the birthing process? This number is estimated.

Look dude: it is possible to produce a pretty good figure on this subject. If we can find the cause of death for nearly every person who dies, then we could certainly find out this information.

Estimation is a guess and no matter how educated a guess is, a guess is not fact.

Approximating an estimate to a guess is not really fair. While it is true that some dictionaries would give a definition for guessing as "the act of making an estimate," there are other definitions which say guessing is "making a judgement without sufficient information." Estimation has a slightly different denotation, being that estimation is a "judgement based on approximating numbers based on given information"

In other words, an estimate is based on some information, and a guess is specifically not based on any information. So stop dragging down the power of estimation by trying to group it together with a clearly weaker word.

Estimation is an incredibly useful to science; it is required every day, even in a laboratory setting.

If I said "FEMA estimates that 60,000 people lost their homes in hurricane Katrina" that means the agency collected a limited amount of data on home destruction and then extrapolated through mathematical and statistical processes to determine a general figure.

Saying something is "just an estimation" is like calling something "just a theory." Some people make an ass-wild guess and call it an estimation to strengthen what they've said. In science, and estimation is far more powerful than a guess.

If you had said that 80% of a woman's unfertilized eggs are passed without fertilization, I would believe you. A woman passes at least one egg every menstrual cycle for the part of her life that extends from her first cycle to menopause. It is easy to believe that 80% of her eggs would never be fertilized, even though that would be impossible to prove as well.

That is idiodic. I am not trying to flame you or make a personal attack. It has nothing to do with you personally; I would tell anybody claiming that information is unobtainable an idiot.

It's pretty simple math: (age of woman - age of first menstration) * 12 - (9 * number of children) - number of months spent on certain medications

That is a pretty good "guess" of how many unfertilized eggs a woman passes. FUCK!!!!

Second of all, regarding implantation, there are plenty of figures on how often women have miscarriages; what we are talking about is women having a miscarriage before the embryo has developed enough for a woman to tell. If I had to make an educated GUESS I would say that the number lost before implantation must be greater than the number of miscarriages.

There is no way to determine how many total eggs the woman started with, nor can you guarantee how many eggs are passed in any given cycle. But even though that "fact" can't be proven (which makes it not a fact at all), it's still more believable than the "fact" you presented.

After writing all of that stuff earlier, it just dawned on me that it doesn't matter how many fertilized eggs a woman naturally aborts. The fact is, it happens. That was the reason anybody even brought it up in the first place: the body naturally aborts embryos and fetuses. Fact. FACT FACT FACT FACT.

"Fourth Fact: Any living human sperm can merge with an egg and make an entirely different fetus. Ergo, when one sperm fertilizes one egg, there are millions of VIABLE fetuses being destroyed." I can't believe you even called this a fact. A fetus does not exist unless an egg and a sperm combine (we can argue about whether or not this constitutes life, but the fact is, unless the sperm and egg join, neither the sperm nor the egg are capable of becoming a fetus). When one sperm and one egg combine, one embryo is created. The embryo matures until it is referred to as a fetus and when the fetus reaches a certain stage of development, it is then considered "viable". There are no fetuses, viable or otherwise, being destroyed because there are no fetuses except the one that will result if the blastocyst implants and the embryo is allowed to mature.

So, now that I've addressed the issue of your "facts", I'll once again ask you kindly to stop attacking me. If you would like to discuss this like a rational, intelligent adult, I'd be happy to. If not, you're doing nothing more than helping me agree with you that some people don't deserve the right to have an opinion. Although, I'm sure we'll still disagree on which people don't deserve opinions if it comes to that.

You know what? I'll stop attacking your position when you stop making up shit about what people are attacking you about. Nobody is saying you "don't deserve the right to an opinion." You just made that up. Show me the quote where somebody said you dont' deserve the right to an opinion. All anybody is saying is that your opinion is based on incorrect information and flawed logic. We are not discussing freedom of speech.

Dude.....dude.....*ugh*

If you can't take these attacks on your position, then don't post in damn thread. You knew, before posting anything, that your opinions would be hung out to dry. You sound like a football player complaining that the opposing team tried to stop him from scoring.

I now procede to make a personal attack: you are a whiny bitch.

1) I did not say that there will never be a concensus about when life begins. I merely said that anyone who makes a claim of when life begins as fact is only stating opinion and belief. At this time, there is NO factual definition of when life begins.

2) If such research exists, I would like to see it as well. Once again it was stated as fact without any evidence that it was fact.

3) Okay, I'll concede that I should have worded it differently. How about: It may be possible to figure this information out, but there is no evidence to support that this number is factual. Fact without proof isn't fact.

4) I'll sum up my entire argument of estimation vs guess like this: Roget's Thesaurus, the example you gave earlier and the English language itself allow for the use of estimate and guess to be used synonymously. It may not be fair, but it is accurate and therefore true.

5) The first part of this response is in my reply to MistressMaggie's post. I felt it would be better placed there because her response had an effect on my response.

If I were to make an educated guess, I would agree with you that the number of fertilized eggs that are passed without implantation would be higher than the number of miscariages the average woman can be said to experience. But as I previously stated, a guess, no matter how educated, is not fact.

6) I agree, it is a fact that the female body can dispose of both ferilized eggs and fetuses, without anyone's consent. But that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It does not strenghten your position in any way. Since nobody can determine the reason or reasons that this happens, it is once again open to opinion and belief. I can argue that the body does this because of a biological imperative that says it must. This would be completely different to the willful destruction of a fetus when there is no need. You cannot dispute this with fact, only opinion and belief. While you may not believe that all opinions and beliefs are equal, in the absence of fact, neither side can be disproven. One side may be more or less likely to be fact than the other, but it is a fact that neither side can be wrong. It is a fact because wrong and right are opposites. Since one side cannot be proven to be right, there is no way to say that either side is wrong.

7) You are both right and wrong when you say that nobody said "I don't deserve the right to an opinion." You are right because at the time I wrote it, nobody had said it. I should have written "It feels like I'm being told I don't deserve a right to an opinion." But you are also wrong because before you posted your response, LeftTentacleGreen did say that I don't deserve the right to an opinion if I cannot validate that opinion (which could have been said in response to my comment, the only one who knows that is LeftTentacleGreen).

As far as incorrect information and flawed logic, I'm still waiting for factual evidence that indicates my information as incorrect and my logic as flawed. I've only seen opinion and belief arguing against opinion and belief. The "facts" that were provided have been proven to not be facts at all.

It is not the attacks on my position that bother me, it is the attacks on my person. While I was trying to defend my position from people who are attacking it as wrong, without being able to give factual evidence as to why it is wrong, I was also having to defend myself from personal attacks that were unnecessary and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The only problems I have with you calling me a "whiny bitch" are that:
1) Once again, it is being stated as fact instead of opinion. If it is your opinion that I am a "whiny bitch", I have only one problem that is separate. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
2) There are certain words that I believe should not be used to refer to any idividual. These words have, in the past as well as today, been used to single out specific races, genders, nationalities, etc. in a deroggatory way. "Bitch" is one of these words. I would not try to force you to accept this as right or fact or even suggest that you are wrong to say it. I am merely making my opinion on the matter known and make an offer to you that I would gladly compromise and accept the fact that you feel that I'm a "whiny asshole", since asshole is non-specific. That is of course provided that asshole is part of the protected speach of this forum and isn't going to get either of us banned.

MistressMaggie wrote:don't you think you're losing some credibility when all of you start sprouting off figures that you can't back up, then call each other names while insisting that everyone else's figures are wrong?

and a lot of the time, the problem seems to be simple misinterpretation...

Quote:

If you had said that 80% of a woman's unfertilized eggs are passed without fertilization, I would believe you. A woman passes at least one egg every menstrual cycle for the part of her life that extends from her first cycle to menopause. It is easy to believe that 80% of her eggs would never be fertilized, even though that would be impossible to prove as well.


That is idiodic. I am not trying to flame you or make a personal attack. It has nothing to do with you personally; I would tell anybody claiming that information is unobtainable an idiot.

It's pretty simple math: (age of woman - age of first menstration) * 12 - (9 * number of children) - number of months spent on certain medications

That is a pretty good "guess" of how many unfertilized eggs a woman passes. FUCK!!!!

from my perspective, he's saying that if you can't prove the original figure of how many fertilized eggs are aborted, then you also can't prove how many unfertilized eggs are passed. Your math suggests that no fertilized eggs would be aborted at all, which seems to defeat the purpose of the argument, to me at least. (I'm not going to bother bringing up any other variables to your formula because you did call it a 'guess')

Yeah I don't believe that original figure either.

Yeah I need to add one more line "- number of miscarriages"

lesotheron wrote:1) Why should anyone have to validate their feelings to you or anyone else?

I'm just so sorry for not offering you any automatic respect for your opinionated bullshit. I'm so deeply upset that I made you actually try and substantiate your "opinions" with something other than gut feelings.

You argue that a fetus is not a child because it requires the mother to exist, like a parasite. Yet, at another stage of development, the fetus is viable to live outside the mother's womb. The fetus matures during that time, but there is no magical transformation where it suddenly becomes protected under the law.

So if they take the fetus out 8 weeks after conception, it should be fully developed and those remaining 7 months are just for show, right?

It is opinion that determines the law, not fact. Fact states when a fetus is considered viable to live outside the womb. Opinion determines whether or not the fetus has rights before or after it becomes viable.

It is opinion substantiated by fact that creates law. Your bullshit is just opinion substantiated by other opinions. And piss poor opinions at that.

Dr. Fritz Baumgartner has this to say on the subject: "There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed. Period. No debate." As a fully-licensed medical doctor who has years of training and experience with the biology behind this question, I'd be more inclined to take his word for it over yours. But even then, it is his opinion on the matter. He presents it as fact in the same way you do, but it still opinion.

Not that bright are you? Dr Fritz Baugartner is a specialist dealing with hyperhidrosis - aka excessive sweating. Hardly a person qualified to deal with the nuances of human life.

Especially when he also is a complete and total bible-thumper. Here's soemthing he wrote in the same article regarding the beginning of life.

Is Catholic teaching a sound guide?

It is precisely these issues that demonstrate the value of the Catholic Church in guiding Her flock definitively and responsibly in issues of faith and morals. And it is here also where the inestimable value of critical, rigorous thinking is evident, because it seeks the truth despite the outcome.

The Roman Catholic Church has already spoken definitively on every single one of these issues, in documents ranging from Humanae Vitae to Donum Vitae to more recent declarations of the Vatican. As a physician and layman, I am personally in awe of the supernatural ability of the Roman Catholic Church to speak with authority and answer these difficult questions to anyone willing to hear and obey. It eliminates confusion in a consistent and definitive way. If people know and obey the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, they will be amazingly well equipped to answer the vast majority of the moral issues of the day.

Yeah. Ok. you want to take this crackpot's word for your medical advice. go ahead. I'd rather have a real scientist on my side.

"There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth"". That is fact. If 167 scientists and physicians can't agree on when life begins, then the matter of when life begins must be a matter of opinion. If this is not the case, then there would be enough evidence to prove it one way or another.

No, that is an opinionated conclusion. As you've just shown through yoru own example of Dr Fritz, even professional opinion can be swayed by the social bullshit that is religion.

I can't believe you even called this a fact. A fetus does not exist unless an egg and a sperm combine (we can argue about whether or not this constitutes life, but the fact is, unless the sperm and egg join, neither the sperm nor the egg are capable of becoming a fetus). When one sperm and one egg combine, one embryo is created.

Can't you keep yourself from contradicting yourself in one single post? Still defaulting that life begins at conception for your own pathetic arguments, even though your own statement at the top said it was indeterminable when life begins. Pathetic.

One sperm, one egg and one embryo. How simplistic, and yet the male does not ejaculate one sperm. Any one of those millions of sperm carry with it any millions of different variations that could combine to create an entirely different child. And yet, only one makes it and the other variations die off.

A fetus does not exist unless an egg and a sperm combine

Looks like I'm not the only one mistaking and embryo for a fetus, you hypocrite.

So, now that I've addressed the issue of your "facts", I'll once again ask you kindly to stop attacking me. If you would like to discuss this like a rational, intelligent adult, I'd be happy to.

How would you know what a rational discussion is? You haven't rationalized a single thing yet. All you've done is put your fingers in your ears every time you don't hear what you like and hum the love boat theme.

Stop ranting like a crackpot, and I'll stop calling you a crackpot. But you've also said that you don't feel it necessary to substantiate your opinions to me so I'm not going to hold my breath.

If not, you're doing nothing more than helping me agree with you that some people don't deserve the right to have an opinion.

That's true. You obviously don't deserve an opinion seeing as how you can't substantiate a word of it.

This thread must be shut down. References to Nazi's and the Holocaust made their appearance about 6 posts upstream.



But what the heck.....



Honor,

I am puzzled that you claim that their can't be a moral based decision without an appeal to an "imaginary construct". (I infer you mean a religious based system)

I'll quote from the dictionary to prove that I can play annoying word games too.

Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>



Now, as I recall from sociology class some years back, in sociology we defined a difference between ethical and moral. One was what your tribe wanted you to do and I forget what the exact definition of ethical was.


However, I will quote my best friend, "You Christians have LESS reason to behave in a moral and ethical manner than an atheist. God will always forgive you. I only have one shot, its really important I get it right the 1st time."

Much of philosophy aims to delineate a moral and ethical framework without invoking the "magical sky genie". Good Lord, wasn't 99% of Plato and nearly 100% of Kant exactly that?