Abortion

[12th Doctor]

Quit putting words in my mouth. I said I hate their lifestyle. And yes, if they continue with their lifestyle they will be condemned by God. And I never said they were like pedophiles. I think Brambilla said that.

I don't think that using the word hate in this context is proper if you wish to convey the fact that you find there life-style sinful or wrong.  Christ didn't hate anything or anyone.  Hate is a very powerful word.  i would use it far more sparingly than you have and certainly not tin this context.

Just adding, if you believe that it is a sinful life stle then that is your opinion.  But to say that Christ hated anything is a gross misinterpretation of what he stood for.

[Gustaf]

Quit putting words in my mouth. I said I hate their lifestyle. And yes, if they continue with their lifestyle they will be condemned by God. And I never said they were like pedophiles. I think Brambilla said that.

I don't think that using the word hate in this context is proper if you wish to convey the fact that you find there life-style sinful or wrong.  Christ didn't hate anything or anyone.  Hate is a very powerful word.  i would use it far more sparingly than you have and certainly not tin this context.

Just adding, if you believe that it is a sinful life stle then that is your opinion.  But to say that Christ hated anything is a gross misinterpretation of what he stood for.

Exactly.

[nclib]

One interesting thing about the abortion debate is that although there are some "godless pro-lifers", the vast majority of atheists and agnostics support abortion rights. My question to the pro-lifers is this--if abortion is so unambiguously murder, why would someone have to be religious in order to hold that belief?

Abortion opponents (in America) usually fall into two categories:

1) Conservative Evangelical Protestants who have poor records on women's rights and human rights.

2) Members of the Catholic church.

A friend of mine told me about the origin of Catholic opposition to abortion--and I looked it up and it's true. That the Catholic church supported abortion (in some cases) until Napoleon made a deal with the Pope.

Here it is:

http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/interviews/steinem.htm

<<[T]he Catholic Church's historic position: it allowed abortion up to the mid 1800's and even regulated it; a female fetus could be aborted for a greater number of weeks than could a male fetus. (It was wrongly thought that a male fetus "quickened" earlier, thus sex could be determined.) This was changed at the demand of Napolean III who wanted to increase the French population which had been decimated by war. He struck a bargain with Pope Pius IX--who wanted Napolean to support the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Thus, Catholic opposition to abortion doesn't seem to have been based on ensoulment or when life began, but a need to increase population. (Even The Bible makes clear that a man who strikes a women and causes her to lose her pregnancy has not committed murder. Thus a fetus is not a person.)>>

[Brambila]

nclib, that website is completely biased and a total lie. Abortion did occur in the early church (<500 AD) but only because we didn't know what the fetus was. Now we know.

[Beet]

There are two parts to your first point. I feel it is better to answer the second part of your first point, and then answer the first part of your first point. So, firstly, I understand your premis, but there's a flaw. It is unarguable that the fetus is a life- a life does not need a mind. Jellyfish are alive, and they don't have minds. What is the criteria for life? If you open up any biology book, it will usually have the following four requirements: Metabolism, Reproduction (or potential of, since newborns cannot reproduce), Stimulation, and Growth. The fetus metabolises, the fetus stimulates, and the fetus grows, and has the potential to reproduce. Therefore, the fetus is a life. The second question is, "is the fetus a human?" The answer is yes because of it's DNA and biogenesis. Firstly, let's look at it's DNA. Every organism has it's own distinct form of DNA, and every species has it's own type of DNA. The type of DNA the fetus has is not different from a newborns- they have the same DNA, the homo saepien DNA. If that was true, the fetus would mutate at birth. Of course, this is not true.

Well I agree that an embryo is a living being biologically speaking. But so is a person in a permanent coma (brain dead). What I'm asking is whether it's a human being morally speaking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What happened in the past is important because the value of first consciousness transcends the time when it occurs. A fetus is not human, so its potential consciousness does not give it the same rights as the person in a coma. Before first consciousness, an organism with a human taxonomy is there, but what does that mean? There has never been a human psyche, and our bodies are just things; we are people. What makes "ourselves" more whole than "our bodies" before consciousness? Nothing that I can see. Once the distinction has been made by first consciousness, a human exists. And for a human being, potential consciousness is a sufficient condition for human rights. In other words, once a moral agent is born, its rights transcend the conditions of that birth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, under your scenario the mind is still directing the breathing and heartbeat. Though not traditionally considered part of consciousness, because you do not seem to be aware of your it, it might actually be considered an act of will (especially with breathing). After all you are not always aware of your emotions either. I suppose it is an act of will if, by stopping the breathing or the heart beating, some pain or discomfort is caused. Only a neurologist would know the answer to this. On the other hand, if by doing these things, no pain is caused, then I feel that, while a miracle of natural engineering, the body by itself is not a human life. Unless you can think of some other way to distinguish your scenario from a body without a mind.

If there was no mental function at all, and never had been (and this was verifiable), I think it is justified to destroy a body, even if it denies the possibility of future mental functions from taking hold in that body. While at one instinctive level this seems wrong, it is only because this scenario (not your scenario) has probably never happened to anyone in real life. In looking at a human form, human physique, and human features, and especially knowing that it has the potential to be conscious, we automatically associate it with a sleeping newborn. But in this case, it is different from a regular newborn in that is is not sleeping but has no mental function whatsoever, and has never had any; so that all it has ever been is a body.

Why is the body not life? Consider that in surgery, all of the lungs, heart, and every part of the body can be replaced without the loss of life as long as the potential for the resumption of a previously existing will remains.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, when I said moral value I should have just said subjective value. The point is, the ability to prefer one thing from another.

[??????????]

Quit putting words in my mouth. I said I hate their lifestyle. And yes, if they continue with their lifestyle they will be condemned by God. And I never said they were like pedophiles. I think Brambilla said that.

I don't think that using the word hate in this context is proper if you wish to convey the fact that you find there life-style sinful or wrong.  Christ didn't hate anything or anyone.  Hate is a very powerful word.  i would use it far more sparingly than you have and certainly not tin this context.

Just adding, if you believe that it is a sinful life stle then that is your opinion.  But to say that Christ hated anything is a gross misinterpretation of what he stood for.

Ok, strong dislike if you want it that way. Either way Jesus strongly disliked sin, but you can strongly dislike the sin and love the sinner. To say Jesus was all peace all the time would be flawed. Remember the money changers at the temple? And BTW God does say he HATES sin. He sees it as flawing his creation, which is true.

[??????????]

Typical liberal arguments :

Conservative : I think abortion is murder

Liberal response : You're anti-woman!!!

Conservative : Homosexuality disgusts me

Liberal response : You're a bigot that hates women, blacks and every other minority alive!

Conservative : I'm from the south and have no shame in saying that.

Liberal Response:  I bet you are you racist pig! I bet you wear sheets to don't you?


As you see most liberals on this board use these arguments, (ct guy), instead of trying to have a thoughtful debate they go right for the throat. Most mainstream Republicans are fed up with being cordial to Democrats and getting stabbed in the back in return.

You are far from a mainstream republican.  Htmldon would be an example of a mainstream republican.  You would be an example of a zealous christian fanatic that no-one does nor should take seriously... your 146 IQ notwithstanding...  ahaha, yeah right.

CTguy, many many mainstream Christians feel the way I do, believe me I know, they just dont speak about it out loud in public.

[??????????]

Quit putting words in my mouth. I said I hate their lifestyle. And yes, if they continue with their lifestyle they will be condemned by God. And I never said they were like pedophiles. I think Brambilla said that.

OK, sorry then, you're easy to mix up. But apart from that nothing was wrong with my post, now was there? And it in no way changes my argument. And you don't put words in people's mouth with your constant attacks on 'liberals' and 'Democrats'? Like the 'liberal argument' post?

I'm sorry but thats the first thing CTGuy did was charged at me with a personal attack and insult. Not even tried to discuss the issue with me. Now if he did that and got a little upset and spouted off, well thats cool I understand that it gets a little heated. But the first thing he wants to do is go off on a tirade about how ignorant southerners are, blah blah blah. Don't crucify me for shooting back. I shouldn't do it, but their is a time to stand up for ones self.

[??????????]

I doubt it will be.  Look how organized the religious fanatics are.

To you if you have any belief in any sort of God or organized religion you are immediately a "religious fanatic". Give it a rest.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well then we get into morality. Now how do we define morality? Natural law... do animals have abortions? No. do the major religions believe in abortion? No. I mean, I can say that morally speaking an infant isn't a human being. Does that mean anything?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You bring up an important premis to the abortion debate; personhood. Is the fetus a person? Most people define a person as something to do with the mind, but that's not entirely true. Being a person means having a personality; personal features. The fetus does have personal features! It's existence is personal; it's DNA is personal; it's past and future is personal. It is a person- there's no doubt about it. Having consciousness isn't the only defining part of personhood.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I've stated already, this infant is in a deep state on unconsciousness- the infant can't feel anything. The fetus cannot think. The mind does not exist. The only thing working are brainwaves. The mind does not control the organs- that's a misconception. The mind controlls what we think; percieve; will; do. So this infant only has brainwaves, no mind. That's his level of unconsciousness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, you're using the same argument. But as I've already said, there's a difference between the brian and mind- two different entities. The brain controlls the mind, but the mind is not the defining factor of humanity. Look at the mind less as the brain, and more like a seperate organ that makes up the human, and the brain controls is (as it controls all other organs). The brain controls the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, mind, et cetera. If one organ ceases to exist, that doesn't mean the person is dead.  Many people can live for a few moments without a heart, liver, kidney, and for years without a mind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I know this. The mind is definately a defining part of humanity when it comes to existence. However, the mind has not yet come to existence for the early fetus, so it's not defining anything, and without it is definately not the only defining part of life. Once again, having brainwaves doesn't mean you have a mind, and many people live with only brainwaves and revive their consciousness, and in my case the infant is born with only brainwaves, and then become conscious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fetuses can prefer one thing over another, but this has to do with being able to reason. We can't reason when we're unconscious. DOes that make us not human when we're unconscious?

[CTguy]

On one hand you people say, not all people think like this and then on the other you say a lot of people do and are just afraid to say it.  

I agree with the latter.  Many republicans think this way and the way those nut jobs in Rhea county that want to ban gay people do and are just too afraid to show what biggots they are...

On a side note...  since you guys want to ban gay marriage because gays are "sinners."

I have a proposal for you.  Lets ban all marriage for people who have had sex before they got married because that is a sin too.  This way only 5% of the population can get married...  I wouldn't be able to get married already... that way you people can have marriage all to yourself.  And my tax dollars can go to pay for your social security benefits.  I tell you, if nothing else at least Bush is cutting my taxes because I am tired of sending my money to Washington so it can pay for the social programs in the South and for people who don't want an education and who don't want to work a real job.  Not that I'm going to vote for the moron.

[??????????]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many Southerners want an education. Oh, and BTW most of that money is funding social programs in the south that benefit minorities, the same minorities which you claim to be a big supporter of. But I do agree with you that I can't stand my hard earned tax money going to fun someone who doesn't want a job and only wants to collect a check.

[CTguy]

It doesn't just go to minorities.  Anyways when did I claim I wanted to do anything for minorities.  I don't support affirmative action or special programs.  I support equal rights for all... not special rights.  When I am taxed upwards of 50% of my salary that I work hard for, yes you like to laugh and make jokes that I went to Yale but it annoys me to no end that I made my money not by affirmative action or having rich parents and now my money goes to pay for people who are lazy.  

But to claim it is just minorities in the south getting it or mostly minorities getting it isn't accurate.  A lot of poor rural whites are getting entitlement money that they don't deserve.  If they aren't paying into the system they shouldn't be getting money.  Alabama shouldn't be getting twice what they put in when CT is getting less than half.

[Gustaf]

Quit putting words in my mouth. I said I hate their lifestyle. And yes, if they continue with their lifestyle they will be condemned by God. And I never said they were like pedophiles. I think Brambilla said that.

OK, sorry then, you're easy to mix up. But apart from that nothing was wrong with my post, now was there? And it in no way changes my argument. And you don't put words in people's mouth with your constant attacks on 'liberals' and 'Democrats'? Like the 'liberal argument' post?

I'm sorry but thats the first thing CTGuy did was charged at me with a personal attack and insult. Not even tried to discuss the issue with me. Now if he did that and got a little upset and spouted off, well thats cool I understand that it gets a little heated. But the first thing he wants to do is go off on a tirade about how ignorant southerners are, blah blah blah. Don't crucify me for shooting back. I shouldn't do it, but their is a time to stand up for ones self.

I'm not 'crucifying' you, I'm just demanding that people hold themselves to the same standard that they hold others to. That's all. And if you have an issue with CTGuy, take it to him, don't lump all other liberals in with him.

[??????????]

[quote}
It doesn't just go to minorities.  Anyways when did I claim I wanted to do anything for minorities.  I don't support affirmative action or special programs.  I support equal rights for all... not special rights.  When I am taxed upwards of 50% of my salary that I work hard for, yes you like to laugh and make jokes that I went to Yale but it annoys me to no end that I made my money not by affirmative action or having rich parents and now my money goes to pay for people who are lazy.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with you 100%. Give a man a fish he eats for a day, give a man a fish and he eats for a lifetime. I respect that you went to Yale, its just that so many that went there are not down to earth. I went to private/catholic school for 12 years got a 1100 on my SAT but couldn't afford college. Fifty percent of my salary doesn't go to taxes, but a fair amount does and it aggravates me to no end that someone who is perfectly capable of working, isn't.

[12th Doctor]

One interesting thing about the abortion debate is that although there are some "godless pro-lifers", the vast majority of atheists and agnostics support abortion rights. My question to the pro-lifers is this--if abortion is so unambiguously murder, why would someone have to be religious in order to hold that belief?

Abortion opponents (in America) usually fall into two categories:

1) Conservative Evangelical Protestants who have poor records on women's rights and human rights.

2) Members of the Catholic church.

A friend of mine told me about the origin of Catholic opposition to abortion--and I looked it up and it's true. That the Catholic church supported abortion (in some cases) until Napoleon made a deal with the Pope.

Here it is:

http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/interviews/steinem.htm

<<[T]he Catholic Church's historic position: it allowed abortion up to the mid 1800's and even regulated it; a female fetus could be aborted for a greater number of weeks than could a male fetus. (It was wrongly thought that a male fetus "quickened" earlier, thus sex could be determined.) This was changed at the demand of Napolean III who wanted to increase the French population which had been decimated by war. He struck a bargain with Pope Pius IX--who wanted Napolean to support the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Thus, Catholic opposition to abortion doesn't seem to have been based on ensoulment or when life began, but a need to increase population. (Even The Bible makes clear that a man who strikes a women and causes her to lose her pregnancy has not committed murder. Thus a fetus is not a person.)>>

This is a load of bullsh**t.  It was ancient Chirstian, i.e. Catholics, that ended the practice of abortion in late Rome.  Also, how is it that women were permited to abort females earlier than males when they had no possible way of determining the sex of the child.  This is just mindless feminist propaganda.

[12th Doctor]

Quit putting words in my mouth. I said I hate their lifestyle. And yes, if they continue with their lifestyle they will be condemned by God. And I never said they were like pedophiles. I think Brambilla said that.

I don't think that using the word hate in this context is proper if you wish to convey the fact that you find there life-style sinful or wrong.  Christ didn't hate anything or anyone.  Hate is a very powerful word.  i would use it far more sparingly than you have and certainly not tin this context.

Just adding, if you believe that it is a sinful life stle then that is your opinion.  But to say that Christ hated anything is a gross misinterpretation of what he stood for.

Ok, strong dislike if you want it that way. Either way Jesus strongly disliked sin, but you can strongly dislike the sin and love the sinner. To say Jesus was all peace all the time would be flawed. Remember the money changers at the temple? And BTW God does say he HATES sin. He sees it as flawing his creation, which is true.

I do remember the money changers in the temple.  That is a great argueement for the use of phisical force if nessesary but not for HATE.  I aggree that you can be against the sin and still love the person commiting that (that's obvious to anyone who isn't a moral relativist).  I just didn't think that the word HATE was appropriate, because that shows something much more deep seated.

[JohnFKennedy]

ctguy, if it is not rude to ask, how much do you earn in a year? because it must be quite a lot if you pay 50% in tax.

[CTguy]

OK so over 50% was an exaggeration, but when you count that I pay NYC, NY, CT and local taxes it seems like that.  I make over 50K a year though.  Which is damn good for 1 year out of grad school.

And it seems like I am getting screwed on both ends.  I have two senators that do nothing for me in terms of taxes...  and they are not liberal enough on social issues.  Then they wonder why so many democrats are pissed off with the party.

[JohnFKennedy]

ok, I was just wondering, because I don't know much about US taxing but my dad earns like £66k before tax and has just under £60k after tax I think which is about 6.6% so I was thinking you must earn a hell of a lot for 50% tax.

[CTguy]

And my only point about Yale was that affirmative action has been an utter failure for several reasons.

Most of the minorities there had parents that are extremely well off (doctors, lawyers, businessmen)...  most went to rich prep schools and did not need affirmative action.  There are very few minorities that come from the ghetto.  

Secondly, most of the minorities there are lily white, almost as white as me and I am pretty damn white.  In other words, you will get people who are 1/16 black or 1/8 mexican claiming to be a minority so they can jump to the front of the scholarship line.  Yeah maybe there are some minorities who rightfully benefited from affirmative action but most did not.  That is why affirmative action is a complete failure.  If anything affirmative action should be based upon parents income.

Either race is or is not a factor and both sides are hypocrites...  You cannot argue for racial profiling and against affirmative action.  Nor can you argue for affirmative action and against racial profiling.  It is the same principle, that race is a substantial factor in societal affairs.

[12th Doctor]

And my only point about Yale was that affirmative action has been an utter failure for several reasons.

Most of the minorities there had parents that are extremely well off (doctors, lawyers, businessmen)...  most went to rich prep schools and did not need affirmative action.  There are very few minorities that come from the ghetto.  

Secondly, most of the minorities there are lily white, almost as white as me and I am pretty damn white.  In other words, you will get people who are 1/16 black or 1/8 mexican claiming to be a minority so they can jump to the front of the scholarship line.  Yeah maybe there are some minorities who rightfully benefited from affirmative action but most did not.  That is why affirmative action is a complete failure.  If anything affirmative action should be based upon parents income.

Either race is or is not a factor and both sides are hypocrites...  You cannot argue for racial profiling and against affirmative action.  Nor can you argue for affirmative action and against racial profiling.  It is the same principle, that race is a substantial factor in societal affairs.

I aggree with you in part.  Affimative Action based on race is not the way to go.  If we based it on income needs than I would have no problem with that.

Where i dissagree- It depends on what you mean by 'racial profiling'.  If you mean when dealing with the police (ie pullovers, drug busts, etc.) then I aggree, but if you say that police are specifically targeting blacks in some areas because there are more arrests in those areas, then I dissagree.  Although I would like to catch more white colar criminals, the fact remains that blue colar criminals are easier to catch.  that's not the cops' faults.

When it comes to fighting terror, that is very different from race based affimative action becaue they fall in the realm of two different categories.  We aren't talking about social and domestic policy anymore, we are talking about defense and nation/homeland security and the fact is that there are some people that are more likely to commit terror acts than others, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't check everyone.

[Gustaf]

ok, I was just wondering, because I don't know much about US taxing but my dad earns like £66k before tax and has just under £60k after tax I think which is about 6.6% so I was thinking you must earn a hell of a lot for 50% tax.

Normal income earners in Sweden pay jsut above 50% in income tax.

[JohnFKennedy]

wow, that is just incredible, what is the average wage then?

[Gustaf]

wow, that is just incredible, what is the average wage then?

Hm, not sure, around 15 000-20 000 SEK a month I think...after tax that is...I THINK...never followed that much.  Basically, there's an 'employer fee',  meaning all emplyers pay about 32% of the wage to the state. Of the 68% left all oncome earners pay local taxes which are around 30%. Of those with higher incomes there's an additional 20% of state tax. Add to that a food tax of 25% and a a gasoline tax of 200-300% and you get pretty high taxes...